{"response":{"docs":[{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_779","title":"Report: Preliminary evaluation report on Year-Round Education","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":["2006-01-13"],"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--20th century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Educational statistics","School improvement programs"],"dcterms_title":["Report: Preliminary evaluation report on Year-Round Education"],"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/779"],"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\nNotice of filing with United States District Court\nCase 4\n82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3998 Filed 01/13/2006 Page 1 of 2 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION RECEIVED /^/i. /7 OFFICE OF DESEGREGAHOfl 55OSTOR1HG LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1,ET AL DEFENDANTS NOTICE OF FILING LRSD hereby gives notice of the filing of the preliminary evaluation report on Year-Round Education in accordance with the Courts Order of December 17,2005. Respectfully submitted, LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK 400 West Capitol Avenue, #2000 Little Rock, AR 72201 501Z376-2011 ZsZ Christopher HellerCase 4\n82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3998 Filed 01/13/2006 Page 2 of 2 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that on January 13, 2006,1 have electronically filed the foregoing Notice with the Clerk of the Court using the CMZECF system, which shall send notification of such filing to the following: mark.hagemeier@ag.state.ar.us siones@mwsgw.com siones@jli.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 ZsZ Christopher Heller 2Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3998 Filed 01/13/2006 Page 1 of 45 RECEIVED OmCEOF DESEGREGATION MONITORING The Extended Yey or Year Round Education Program In the Little Rock Arkansas Schools. An Assessment of Educational Effectiveness With a Focus on African American Student Achievement Draft Report for Comments Only January 13,2006 RHCE/veq James S. Catterall Professor UCLA Graduate School of Education \u0026amp; Information Studies Los Angeles, CA 90095-1521 Please direct comments to the author at: jame$c@gseis.ucla.eduCase 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3998 Filed 01/13/2006 Page 2 of 45 Section II. Executive Summary This section will be completed after receiving feedback on this draft report. following are tentative summary findings presently contained in Sections III through VI. Conclusion III.l. The Extended Year schools outperformed the Comparison with respect to percentages of students proficient in literacy and mathematics. year time span leading up to spring 2005, an advantage measured in m scores over the base year as well ! schools over a five the same time period. percentage changes as in absolute percentage proficient point gains over Conclusion III.2. Based on analyses of test score residuals, Extended Year schools ,, owit iraiuudis, cxienoeo Year schools verv modestly outp^ormed comparison schools on the 2005 Grade 4 Benchmark literacy tS and simificanf V _________\n_______r . ________ . inviavy icsi and significantly outperformed comparison schools on the 2005 Grade 4 Benchmark mathematics test. This result means that EY schools generally performed higher than would be expected from past performance and student demoi'phics and tK^n schools generally fell short of predicted scores, particularly fo mathematics Ski And 90(5^\nshow significantly more progress between discinlfoa^ r f Comparison schools in five important indicators: student mobility, in l^th^h suspensions, and African American student proficiency both rra hematics and literacy. Two mdicators of attendance i :.uwcd no magnitude of these changes sc^ols and their consistent outpacing of changes in Comparison schools i  rates showed no for EY indication of positive developments in Extended Year schools. is a significant Conclusion V.l. Two different analyses point XTd'^n'^ emes^^si\n^o R V ? comparisons of the percentages of students proficient on the 2005 Benchmark tests ^mt to this conclusion. And our analysis of correlations between Intersession attendance and academic indicators to small performance advantages for comes to the same conclusion. Academic ___C ___ , , --------IV Uiv doijic WIlUlU: perform^e may be boosted by Intersession attendance\nalternatively or in some........... may reflea \u0026gt;1 whidt slrtdems choose to attend Intersessions and which students do not. attending Intersessions can be made. Under either circumstance, a sound argument for Page II. ICase 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3998 Filed 01/13/2006 Page 3 of 45 Conclusion VI.l. The parent, student, and teacher  1... . HC pareni, siuoent, and teacher surveys accumulated over three vears p ovide an derail appraisal of comparative achievement conditions in EY versus regular advantages or on condftions that might contribute to academic advantages, about 60-65 , , '^^lages, about 60-65 percent of parents and students r^rt higher achievement in EY schools. Teachers report better conditions for le^mg, but fewer, only about 35 percent, report actual academic achievement differences fevormg EY schools when asked this question directly. These survey results ^e wholly consistent with our data based achievement assessments presented in sections III, IV, and V. The general characterization gained in these analyses was that there \"................. are small but statistically significant differences in literacy and ^thematics achievement fevoring EY students. This applies both for 2005 Benchmark tests and also as we tracked performance trends over the past five years. What the parents, students, and teachers reported supports this result. Page H.2Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3998 Filed 01/13/2006 Page 4 of 45 Section III. Educational Effectiveness of EY Schools - Basic Test Scores Question: What do Arkansas standards test measures suggest about the effectiveness of EY scwolsZ Methods: The Benchmark tests. For this question, we focus on the annual Grade 4 Benchmark tests in literacy and mathematics as our main indicator of elementary school effectiveness. Our interest in this Grade 4 test stems from two factors - first its qualities as a standards-based test and second its consistent use in prior years allowing estimates of achievement change over time. The Benchmark tests are based on academic performance standards developed by the state of Arkansas. Unlike standardized * wj Miv oimc VI zYiR.dii:\u0026gt;db. uniiKe standaraizeu norm- referen^ tests, such as the ITBS or SAT9 which rank student performance according to national percentlies, the Benchmark tests are scored to rate student performance against a set of state-level proficiency standards and thus to provide objective measures of student learning. a year to year for , , Arkansas Benchmark test classifies students as advanced, proficient, basic or b^w basic in both literacy and mathematics according to criteria established for each perfom^ce level. If standards are consistent from year to year, as they are designed to be, the Benchmark fest can detect changes in levels of achievement from Iroth individual students and for school grade levels and entire schools. K c puwci ui these standards-based tests to appraise student and school effectiveness that places them at the center of state school accountability programs nationwide. Its the power of State and national goals for learners are expressed formally as the percentage of C rvrTnrrrunf nt ___a 1_____i . s   . _____ _ . . students performing at the proficient level or higher. The Federal No Child Left Behind Act requires states to set annual performance targets that imply growth of student proficiency rates over time - with a goal of 100 percent of students performing at the proficient level by 2014. We----- - , . . , , - . *^56 the percentage of students performing at the proficient or higher level as the key criterion in our assessment of test scores. Our comparative frameworks. Assessing school performance is customarily assisted by comparisons. One comparison frame is current performance versus past performance - i.e. has the school improved over time? Another comparison is how well a^hool is doing m comparison to other schools. Appraising either absolute perfom^ce levels or performance trends across schools demands identifying like- situated schools as a basis for comparison. This is because schools do not operate from ^^1 .starting points - nor do they necessarily work with equally prepared children Schools across a state r----*  serve differing economic, racial, and cultural populations. Schools . - -----pvpuiaijuiji^. ov servmg more formally educated and higher income families tend to show relatively higher student achievement populations. measures across the board than schools serving poor Page III. 1Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3998 Filed 01/13/2006 Page 5 of 45 A task for our evaluation team was to select an appropriate group of schools to (xmpare with the five Extended Year schools of central interest to this study. Because of the overriding importance of the education of Afincan American children driving this evaluation, we used the percentage of African American student attendance as the principal criterion for comparison group construction. The five EY schools are higihghted in Table III.l on the following page. Table III. 1 arrays schools according to Atncan Amencan school attendance and also indicates a measure of student family economic disadvantage - the percent of students qualifying for fi-ee and reduced price lunches. For comparison (or control) schools, we selected a group of schools that suitably bracketed the five EY schools on the basis of Afiican American attendance. These are alw shown in Table III. 1. The average AA attendance for the EY schools is 87.8 percent. The average AA attendance for the control schools is 84.9 percent.' The percentages of are economically disadvantaged students are 87.8 (EY) and 90.0 (control) respectively. Among demo^aphic predictors of student achievement, SES or student family nicoriizontono J 1_________..1. _ disadvantage is considered by far the most important, apart from non- or limited English spring status. (This latter factor is important in some states and urban areas that have fogh populations of immigrant families, especially Hispanics. This is not a systematic factor in the Little Rock schools.) The analyses. In this Section III analyses. we assess school performance with two separate K \\ analysis presents the percentages of students scoring proficient or better in literacy and mathematics respectively. Contrasts are drawn among an early two vpar TV\u0026gt;nz^H _X___ . _______ -___   1 ' ---------------------- CUJ vol 1 y IWV year period (2001 and 2002), a later two year period (2003 and 2004), and finally for the most recent year, the 2005 proficiency test scores.^ These statistics are reported for EY schools, all control schools, and all LRSD elementary schools combined. B. The second analysis reports an assessment of2005 school performance - EY event is described , , _ , ' * ------------- MVi IVlIJiailVC  CI  ^c^^nmodates a change in standards implemented by LSRD for the 2005 Benchmark tests. This standards adjustment and the resulting procedures outlined as the analysis is presented. These percentages are the simple averages of the school-level percentages listed. Taking school population is about 90.2 percent African American Control ^noois are aoout os percent African Amencan. Fot this and a subsequent set of analyses, we aggregated indicators from 01 and 02, and of performance (in other words, measures not suoject t VII Ul UjC Udld. again from 03 measures not subject to the s going Page in.2Case 4\n82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3998 Filed 01/13/2006 Page 6 of 45 TABLE III.l Little Rock School School District Extended Year (EY) and Comparison Schools, Selected Characteristics SCHOOL EY Percent AA Percent Disadv. c c c c Rightsell Franklin Watson Mitchell Stephens Woodruff Wilson Geyer Sprs. Bale Baseline iMablevale *** *** c Western His. c Wakefield c Brady c Meadowclf. I Cloverdale *** Romine Washington 100.0% 96.0% 96.0% 96.0% 95.0% 91.0% 89.0% 88.0% 82.0% 81.0% 80.0% 79.0% 78.0% 78.0% 78.0% 77.0% 76.0% 76.0% 87.0% 95.0% 94.0% 93.0% 92.0% 87.0% 94.0% 80.0% 89.0% 88.0% 88.0% I 74.0% 92.0% 82.0% 85.0% 90.0% I 77.0% 81.0% c c c c c [indicates Extended Year Schools c Indicates Comparison or Control Schools Percent AA Percent Disadv,  Percent African American Enrollment Percent Qualified Free and Red. Price LunchCase 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3998 Filed 01/13/2006 Page 7 of 45 TABLE m.2 PERCENT OF AFRICAN AMERICAN STUDENTS PROFICIENT BY SUBJECT, GROUP, AND SELECTED TIME PERIODS ALL EY SCHOOLS 2000-2002 2002-2004 2005 LITERACY MATH PCT. PROF. PCT. PROF. 15.7% 12.8% 40.0% 35.5% 21.5% 22.1% ALL COMPARISON SCHOOLS LITERACY MATH PCT. PROF. PCT. PROF. 23.0% 15.6% 46.0% 31.6% 26.3% 23.8% All ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS LITERACY MATH PCT. PROF. PCT. PROF. 37.5% 30.4% 59.5% 47.0% 39.5% 35.5%Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3998 Filed 01/13/2006 Page 8 of 45 A. How have EY vs. Comparison Schools performed over time? Table 111.2 (immediately following Table III.l) displays student proficiency statistics for EY and Control schools over five testing years. As described in footnote 2, the early data represent school years 2000 and 2001 combined, the later data combine school years 2003 and 2004, and the final statistics are for the latest foil school year 2004-2005.  Three patterns stand out in this table. One is that the proficiency percentages on the Grade 4 Benchmark tests are considerably higher for the schools overall than for either the EY or Comparison schools. This is expected, since the EY schools, and thus the comparison schools, were chosen because they represented schools with very high levels of economic disadvantage and high African American attendance. The second pattern is that schools in all three groups moved in a generally lockstep fashion over time. There were sizeable increases in student proficiency between the earliest biennium and the second - more than doubling for the EY and Comparison schools with about 50 percent gains statewide. This of course heralded good news for many Little Rock schools over this four-year period. The third pattern is a significant downturn of proficiency rates in the 2005 school year for all three groups. There is an imposed reason for this downturn, the resetting of fest performance standards, which precipitates our second score analysis just below. Extended Year vs. Comparison School performance. As far as appraising the fortunes of EY versus Comparison schools. Table III.2 shows comparable results for the two groups of schools over time, with an edge favoring the Extended Year schools. This edge comes in the larger advances between the 2000-02 biennium and 2005 for the EY schools. EY literacy scores are 37 percent higher in 2005 than 2002. EY math sccrcc arc 73 percent higher over the same time period. The comparable indices for the Comparison schools are 14 percent growth in literacy and 53 percent in mathematics. scores are Interpretive note: differences are smaller than they seem. It is important to place these score changes in perspective. For example, the 37 percent increase in literacy scores for EY schools reported above does not signify a 37 percent increase in overall student performance. It represents movement from 15.7 percent of students proficient in the early biennium to 21.5 percent of students proficient in 2005. This is an absolute gain of 5.8 percentage points. The comparison school gain is 3.6 percentage points over the same time period. Conclusion III.l. The Extended Year schools outperformed the Comparison schools with respect to percentages of students proficient in literacy and mathematics over a five year time span leading up to spring 2005, an advantage measured in percentage changes in scores over the base year as well as in absolute percentage proficient point gains over the same time period. Page IU.3Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3998 Filed 01/13/2006 Page 9 of 45 B. Comparing EY versus Control school performance given the 2005 change in the Arkansas Benchmark test score standards. Standards shift. The scores in Table III.2 derived finm a playing field that was the same for both EY and Comparison schools. So head to head comparisons between the two groups of schools are meaningful and were discussed above. However, the dramatic downturn of scores for 2005 for all schools, including the EY and comparison schools, was in part, and probably in large part, due to the fact that the Arkansas Department of Education revised the scoring standards for the 2005 Benchmark tests. Periodic standards resetting is common to state standards testing systems. Arkansas made their standards of performance stricter for the 2005 test The result of this standards shift was that, for example, some ample range of 2005 student test scores that would have warranted proficient ratings in 2004 and earlier test years was now classified as basic. Similar downshifts occurred across the spectrum Therefore it is difficult to interpret the absolute levels of the 2005 scores in the context of the earlier scores. Without some sort of a translation guide that we have not seen, we cannot determine that a given student scoring in, say, the basic range might in fact be performing at the same level as the prior year - a year in which the student was classified as proficient. In short, we dont fully know what to make of the lower percentages of students rated as proficient on the Benchmark tests in 2005 other than to say that the game changed and the tougher standards took their toll. Appraising test scores when standards change. All state testing systems face needs to change standards from time to time  typically on the order of every five or six years. The meaning of proficient and other levels of performance needs occasional review in the context of state educational, economic, and cultural circumstances. Federal education policy directives or climate can also propel standards reviews and adjustments. One way that state systems have managed to maintain continuity between testing years where scores shift dramatically because of standards changes is to create a predictive model for the new scores. This model uses underlying numerical scores available for all Benchmark tests  statistics called a scale scores for each student which can be averaged for each school. Scale scores are typically used to derive student proficiency level statistics and are designed to provide comparability of tests from year to year. The model incorporates factors that would reasonably predict average school scale scores from year to year. The most important factors predicting school test scores are the schools test scores from prior years. In addition, controlling for student family economic status renders predictions across schools more fair. A common linear regression procedure then links the predictive factors and scores across all schools mathematically. What results is an equation that uses a school's previous average student Page UI,4Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3998 Filed 01/13/2006 Page 10 of 45 test scale score in a subject such as literacy along with its economic status to predict its current average scale score in the same subject. A simple model or equation for predicting test scores can be created from the information described. Then when actual data for each school are placed into the equation, a predicted test score is generated for each school. In our case, if we know a schools 2003 average literacy score, its 2004 average literacy score, and its economic disadvantage index, a unique 2005 score can be predicted. The equations we derived for literacy and math score prediction are shown at the bottom of Table III.B. 1 and Table 11I.B.2. respectively on the following two pages. States wanting to create sound indicators of whether or not schools are making annual progress build such models and derive predicted school scores. Then each schools actual score is compared to its predicted score. To the extent that a schools actual score exceeds its predicted score, the school is considered to have made progress through the current year. Schools whose actual test scores fall short of their predicted scores are considered to have fallen back and to not have made progress. The individual school statistic describing the difference between its predicted and its actual score is formally called a residual. Positive residual numbers indicate progress. Negative residual numbers indicate slippage - i.e. the actual scores fell short of predicted scores. Larger numbers or more negative numbers indicate larger degrees of progress or slippage respectively. Table IIl.B.l on the following page shows the results of our residual analyses of school level 2005 Benchmark literacy tests scores. Here is what is involved in the presentation: All LRSD elementary schools are listed. The literacy residual score is listed for each school. Pulaski for example scored 2.35 points lower than its predicted score. Dodd scored 11.44 points higher than its predicted score. Deviations from predicted scores of more than about 3.4 points (or about two standard errors) would be considered statistically significant and meaningful. A residual score is listed for each school - the five EY schools, the 12 EY comparison schools, and the other schools. How do EY schools fare in Uteracy? Three of the Extended Year schools have positive literacy score residuals, two of which are statistically significant. The basic meaning of this is that for at least two of these schools, these schools did better than average based on their performance in the two prior years (and controlling for SES). One EY school shows a significant negative residual. The average literacy residual score for EY schools is a positive 2.8. How do Control Schools fare in literacy? Four of the twelve comparison schools show small positive literacy score residuals - none considered statistically significant. Among the remaining eight schools, six have significant negative literacy score residuals. The average residual for the EY comparison schools is negative, -3.72. Page III.5Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3998 Filed 01/13/2006 Page 11 of 45 Table III.B.l Literacy Benchmark Residual Scores, Model School PULASKI WILUAMS TERRY BOOKER FULBRIGT OTTER McDERMT CARVER DODD ROCKFLER WAKFIELD WASHING MABEL BASELINE WESTERN KING FAIRPARK FRANKLIN ROMINE WOODRUFF RIHTSELL GEYER BALE MITCHELL CLOVER MEADOW CHICOT WILSON BRADY STEPHENS WATSON Pred.Lit.Score = Literacy Resid -2.35 -5.88 -4.31 -1.98 2.04 6.01 7.9 -5.86 11.44 -5.62 Control Residuals EY Residuals -4.22 9.48 1.17 2.53 Averages -5.12 2.53 -4.19 -6.6 -8.53 -5.18 -15.32 0.46 -1.18 2.92 0.23 -4.69 -3.7225 2.07 15.31 4.27 -7.2 -0.41 2.808 100.1 + (-24.1)SES04 + (.185)UT03 + (.385)UT04 R-Square Mean Scale Score St.Dev. SEM Minimum Maximum SES4 = % free and reduced price lunch LIT03 = 2003 sch. Lit. scale score LIT04 = 2003 school math scale score 0.66 198.28 9.54 1.71 198.29 218.66Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3998 Filed 01/13/2006 Page 12 of 45 Table III.B.2 Hathematics Benchmark Residual Scores, Model School PULASKI WILLIAMS TERRY BOOKER FULBRIGT OTTER McDERMT CARVER DODD ROCKFLER WAKFIELD WASHING MABEL BASELINE WESTERN KING FAIRPARK FRANKLIN ROMINE WOODRUFF RIHTSELL GEYER BALE MITCHELL CLOVER MEADOW CHICOT WILSON BRADY STEPHENS WATSON Math Resid 2.3 -24.46 31.88 -25.37 -8.18 4.03 40.6 8.16 33.2 -3.02 -21.04 2.12 4.27 21.37 Averages Control Residuals -31.22 -10.7 -32.64 -31.3 -41 2.13 -25.96 34.54 9.27 15.38 -20.6 9.1 -10.3 EY Residuals 44.09 48.8 23.27 -37.07 -20.14 11.8 Regression: Predicted 2005 Ma Sd.Score = 59.1-(11.85*SES)+.293*MathSS03+.492MathSS04 R-Square Mean Maximum Minimum St. Dev Std.Error 0.47 197.6 276.2 126.9 37.64 6.76 SES4 = % free and reduced price lunch MA03 = 2003 school math scale score MA04 = 2004 school math scale scoreCase 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3998 Filed 01/13/2006 Page 13 of 45 Without sifting this information with too fine a comb, the data suggest that the Extended Year schools modestly outperformed their conqjarison schools on the 2005 Grade 4 Benchmark literacy tests when test performance in 2003 and 2004 as well as economic status are taken into account. How do EY schools fare in mathematics? Table III.B.2 presents the results of our residual analyses of Benchmark mathematics test scores. A glaring difference between these data and the literacy residual scores is that the numbers are much larger - large positive and large negative numbers show up frequently. The reason for this is that there is a much wider range of scores in mathematics than in literacy, with larger variation throughout the distribution. (The minimum and maximum predicted scale scores, along with standard deviations, are shown at the bottom of each table.) In plain terms, math performance varies much more widely across Little Rock elementary schools than does literacy performance. As shown in the mathematics residual table, three of the EY schools have positive mathematics score residuals, all of which are statistically significant. The basic meaning of this is that these three schools did better than average based on their performance in the two prior years (and controlling for SES). Two EY schools show significant negative residuals. The average mathematics residual score for EY schools is a positive 11.8. How do Control Schools fare in mathematics? Five of the twelve comparison schools show positive mathematics score residuals - all considered statistically significant. All of the remaining seven control schools have significant negative literacy score residuals. The average residual for the EY comparison schools is negative, -10.3. These data suggest that the Extended Year schools significantly outperformed their comparison schools on the 2005 Grade 4 Benchmark literacy tests when test performance in 2003 and 2004 as well as economic status are taken into account. General caveat. It is important to remember that outperforming in the residual analyses does not necessarily mean that schools attained higher 2005 Benchmark test scores than others. It that means that schools did better than predicted based on past performance and student family economic status. Conclusion 111.2 Based on analyses of test score residuals, Extended Year schools very modestly outperformed comparison schools on the 2005 Grade 4 Benchmark literacy test and significantly outperformed comparison schools on the 2005 Grade 4 Benchmark mathematics test. This result means that EY schools generally performed higher than would be expected from past performance and student demographics and that comparison schools generally fell short of predicted scores. Page III.6Case 4\n82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3998 Filed 01/13/2006 Page 14 of 45 Note - the Benchmark Test score trends for African American students between 2000 and 2004 are explored in Section IV. Page 111.7Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3998 Filed 01/13/2006 Page 15 of 45 Section IV. Effectiveness of Extended Year versus Comparison Schools LRSD Portfolio of Data In the fall of2005, the Little Rock School District published a draft report titled Portfolio of Data for the Little Rock School District. This is a rich document that presents statistics related to most of the issues conunonly tracked for schools. The report contains detailed displays of data each school, for each grade level, and for each of five school years, 2001 to 2005. Topics range across issues of attendance, student behavior, student mobility, and student achievement. For many topics, separate tables are presented for African American students. This last feature was attractive to our team, given our mission and the subjects of the litigation. This Portfolio of Data is a valuable resource for anyone wanting to do analyses of individual schools or groups of schools as well as wanting to conduct comparative analyses - across years or across schools. As we read the document, we identified seven mini-studies that the data would support. Each afforded opportunities to compare Exterrded Year schools with our Comparison schools - and to set these against data for all district elementary schools combined. We chose to explore all topics in the Portfolio of Data that would cormnonly be regarded as indicators of the performance or effectiveness of an elementary school. This was the resulting inventory: a. b. c. d. Student mobility. Student attendance. African American student attendance. Student disciplinary referrals. e. Short-term student suspensions. f. African American student performance on Benchmark math tests. g. African American student performance on Benchmark literacy tests. Approach to the analyses. We used the same methods to pursue all seven analyses as follows: We assessed students in grades 3,4, and 5 together. This selection reflected our interest in assessing students who potentially had enrolled for multiple years in the same school in order to benefit from whatever the school had to offer. And combining the grade levels supports indicators of whole school performance. We sought indications of performance-change over the past five years, from the earliest year to the latest year that data were reported. The EY school programs were launched during this time period and their effects stood to show up as changes in the Portfolios indicators, early to present. Page rV. 1Case 4\n82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3998 Filed 01/13/2006 Page16of45 Our assessment of progress or change in each of the seven areas was based on average performance in the two most recent years (2003-04 and 2004-05) with the average performance in the first two years reported (2000-01 and 2001-02). This involved averaging the scores for each two year time period. When looking for trends in multi-year school data, change based on two year starting and ending points is less influenced by fluctuations in the statistics from one year to the next, which can mask patterns of change. We report growth as percentage changes in indicators for each of the seven areas. This choice reflects out interest in comparing these areas of performance in a common metric. Table IV. 1 on the following page shows the results of all seven analyses, and for each of the three groups of schools - all EY schools, Comparison schools, and all district elementary schools. Results. Positive advantages, i.e. higher percentage growth in measures, show for Extended Year schools than for control schools in all seven areas. In two areas, all student attendance and African American student attendance, the reported changes for all three groups are negligible and differences between school groups even smaller. In each of the five remaining areas, EY schools show quite favorably when contrasted with Comparison schools. We discuss each, starting from the leftmost column of Table IV. 1. Student mobility. EY schools showed a decline in student mobility of about 19 percent over the five years. This means that their students tended to stay longer in the same school as the years progressed. Comparison school student mobility remained unchanged over the five years, and the mobility of students across all elementary schools combined decreased by about 11 percent. Student disciplinary referrals. As shown in the fourth column of Table IV. 1, student disciplinary referrals in Extended Year schools declined by about 14 percent between 2000 and 2005. In contrast, student disciplinary referrals increased by 85 percent in Comparison schools and by 44 percent in all schools combined. Sborf-term suspensions. Change patterns in student suspensions paralleled change patterns in disciplinary referrals for the three groups of schools. Extended Year schools experienced a nearly 25 percent decline in short-term suspensions, while suspensions grew in Comparison schools by two-thirds and in all schools by about 34 percent between 2000 and 2005. African American student math proficiency. The percentage of Extended Year school African American students rated as proficient on the Grade 4 Benchmark mathematics test rose considerably in Extended Year schools Page IV.2Tble rv.l Percentage Change In Selected Indicators from 2001 to 2005, Extended Year Schools, Hatched Cempariaon Schools, and All Elementary Schools Student Mobility Average Student Attendance Days African American Student Attendance Student Disciplinary Referrals Short-term Suspensions Share of African American Students Proficient, Benchmark Math Tests Share of African American Students Proficient, Benchmark Literacy Tests EY Schools Comparison Schs. Atl Elem Schools Notes: Growth (o decline) in percentage terms 49.10% 0.13% -11.36% Sig.Diff. 1.63% 1.96% 13.86% I -24.38% I 178.43% I 154.76% EY Schools 1.59% 1.31% 84.98% 66.67% 102.46% 98.02% Comparison Schs. 2.26% 2.01% 43.54% 34.14% 54.61% No Significant differences Significant differences 58.67% All Elem Schools (Significant difference refers to Extended Year Schools vs. Comparison Schools.) 1. Data Source: LSRD: Portfolio of Data for the Little Rock School District, 2005 2. Benchmark Test proficiency comparisons are 2000-2001 and 2001-2002 (averaged to establish a a baseline) versus 2002-2003 and 2003-2004 (averaged to establish outcome years). 3. The remaining five comparisons compare 2004 and 2005 data to 2000 and 2001 data. 4. Combining two early and two late years respectively for pre- and post- measures provides more stable estimates than single school years, for which values tend to fluctuate due to random influences. O 0) cn CD 4^ do N3 a O O 00 a\u0026gt; 5 O o o c 3 CD  Ca3 CO CD 00 Q ex O O O CD T 0) (Q CD O cnCase 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3998 Filed 01/13/2006 Page 18 of 45 between 2000 and 2004' - by 178 percent. The percentages of African American students scoring at proficient levels in Comparison schools and in all schools also increase - but by lower margins: 102 percent and 55 percent respectively. African American student literacy proficiency. The percentage of Extended Year school African American students rated as proficient on the Grade 4 Benchmark literacy test also rose considerably between 2000 and 2004 - by 155 percent. The percentages of African American students scoring at proficient levels in Comparison schools and in all schools also grew - again by less than the growth attained for the EY schools: 98 percent and 59 percent respectively. Summing up The statistics presented in Table IV. 1 comparing patterns of change across seven performance indicators uniformly favor Extended Year schools over Comparison schools, in five areas substantially so. While it may ultimately prove difficult to link each of these indicators to conditions brought to the schools by virtue of participation in the Extended Year program, the uniformity of the trends reported suggests that some thing or things in common have been productively at work in the Extended Year schools. Conclusion IV.l. Extended year schools show significantly more progress between 2000 and 2005 than Comparison schools in five important indicators: student mobility, disciplinary referrals, short-term suspensions, and African American student proficiency in both mathematics and literacy. Two indicators of attendance rates showed no meaningful change for either group of schools. The magnitude of these changes for EY schools and their consistent outpacing of changes in Comparison schools is a significant indication of positive developments in Extended Year schools. The Portfolio of Data presents Benchmark test proficiency statistics for only four schools years - up through 2003-2004. The changes rqxtrted here are for the time span 2000 through 2004. We noted earlier that Benchmark proficiency scores declined systematically between 2004 and 2005, and declined for all schools because of standards resetting. This change for 2005 is not accommodated in this analysis. Page rv.3Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3998 Filed 01/13/2006 Page 19 of 45 Section V. Assessing Extended Year School Intersessions A core component of the Extended Year school is the Intersession (IS). These are one or two week special study units that serve to extend the school year by as much as four weeks  into late June each year. The intersession programs vary a great deal  mainly offering special interest topics. They are not designed as academic remediation opportunities. Many regular school teachers take the opportunity to diversify their teaching and to earn extra compensation for conducting Intersession classes. About sixty percent of enrolled students in the Extended Year schools as of spring 2005 had participated in between 1 and 3 Intersessions. As shown in Table V.2 below, about 65 percent of all students in the Extended Year schools and 59 percent of African American students were IS participants. Because the number of non African American students in EY schools amounts account for only about 10 percent of students, these different participation rates imply that the approximately 60 non-African American students participate in Intersessions at very high rates. In this section of our report, we display two ways of assessing the academic importance of intersession attaidance. We must begin with the caution that because the Intersessions themselves are generally not devoted specific to mathematics or literacy skills, we would not expect strong influences on test scores due to the nature of Intersession instruction. Yet all Intersessions involve the use of the English language in a variety of ways. And they most probably incorporate language that is more aligned with school reading, writing, and spoken word than with out-of-school language. Moreover, Intersessions cause students to remain in school and school-like environments of the school year that what students experiences in regular calendar schools. over more Intersessions also keep children in something of an in-school frame of mind for longer school year than what children experience in non Extended Year schools. a Our inquiry results are consistent with an Intersession program with the qualities described above. As we soon present. Intersession attendance within EY schools is associated with small but meaningful academic advantages. Intersessions and proficiency scores  basic comparisons. Table V.l on the following page presents an overview of Intersession participation and the differences in student performance between Intersession attendees (lAs) and non-attendees (NAs). The following are the most important perspectives shown on these issues: Of the 589 grade 3, 4, and 5 EY school students, 342 had attended one or more Intersesskms and 244 had not. The student SES (economic disadvantage) percentages differ by only one point for the two groups. Page V. ICase 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3998 Filed 01/13/2006 Page 20 of 45 Table V.l All EY Schools, Intercession Participants vs. Non-participants, by selected groups and performance outcomes, Grades 3, 4, and 5\nN=589 LR District All 5 Extended year (EY) schools: Attended Intercession Did Not Attend I.S. N students (Grades 3-5) 5630 342 244 Percent Econ. Disadvantaged 64.0% 82.0% 83.0% % Proficient Literacy 39.5% 26.0% 19.7% % Proficient Math 35.5% 25.1% 22.2% Race/Ethnic Distr: African American White Hispanic Asian, Pacific Is 68.5% 22.3% 4.1% 5.0% 92.7% 4.1% 2.0% 1.2% 88.0% 4.0% 4.4% 3.6% N of students N of sessions 244 90 121 132 0 0 1 2 3 4 pageCase 4:82-cv-00866-\\/VRW-JTR Document 3998 Filed 01/13/2006 Page 21 of 45 Proficiency scores, using for our purposes the percentage of students scoring at the proficient level in the 2005 Benchmark tests, are higher for lAs than for NAs. In literacy, the advantage for IS attendees is 26 percent proficient versus just under 20 percent proficient for non-attendees. The difference in mathematics is smaller - about 25 percent proficient versus 22 percent. While these differences and distinctions are small, they are consistent with some sort of language effect of Intersession attendance involved with language in various ways but not generally involved with mathematics instruction or math-related experiences. Table V.l also shows the racial/ethnic breakdown of both the lA and NA groups - the attending group was nearly 93 percent Afiican American, while the non-attending group was a smaller 88 percent Afiican American. Also shown in Table V.l are the number of Intersessions taken by children in the attendee group - 132 had taken 3 sessions, 121 had taken 2 sessions, and 90 attendees had taken 1 Intersession among the 2005 students in EY schools. Table V.2 shows contrasts between Intersession attendees and NAs in finer detail than Table V.l, while also showing statistics specifically for African American students as well some baseline comparisons statistics for all LRSD students. In general, similar academic performance advantages for Intersession attendees show for both Afi-ican American and for all students. This makes sense given that about 90 percent of the EY school students are African American. Raw test scores (number of items correct on the 2005 literacy and math Benchmark tests) are shown along with test scale scores and the patterns in these scores parallel those reported for student proficiency. The message in the test comparisons, no matter which scores are used, is the small performance advantage shown for Intersession attendees over non-attendees. While the difference is very small and statistically insignificant, the advantages accruing to Intersession attendance appear to be a little smaller for Afiican American students than for all students combined. After the next analysis which gets at the same questions in a different way, we comment further on the small differences between lAs and NAs shown in Table V.2 data. Correlations of Intersession attendance with achievement indicators. Another way to explore the implications of Intersession attendance is a straightforward look at correlations between attendance (versus non-attendance) on the one hand and available performance indicators on the other hand. This analysis asks the question, does Intersession attendance associate with (or correlate with) higher individual literacy math scores? For this analysis we assigned a 1 to each student who had attended one or or nrore Intersessions and a 0 to non-attendees. We then incorporated more differentiated scales of literacy and mathematics than just proficiency versus non-proficiency. We used literacy and mathematics performance levels scaled 1 through 4 to capture the below basic to advanced range in student performance. We also explored literacy and math test raw scores (numbers of items correct) as alternative indicators of performance. Since the basic Page V.2Tble V.2 Student performance In EY schools by participation In Intercessions\nAll students and All African American Students, Grades 3, 4, and 5. 2005 For nf^renco! All Little Rock Student^^n^ 3-5 All students In Extended Year Schools (NarSSS): Attended Intercession Did Not Attend l.S. N S664 343 249 Percent attending or not: 64.5% 35.5% Percent econ DIsadv. 65.8 82.0% 80.3% % Proficient Literacy 59.5 26.0% 19.7% % Proficient Math 55. S 25.1% 22.2% Average Raw score, 2005 Literacy (sd) 56.5 18.1 50.7 19.2 45.8 20 Average Raw score, 2005 Math (sd) 56 16.6 33 17.7 29.7 17.2 Grade 4 Ave scale score Literacy (sd) 205 52.6 189.1 38.4 188.3 0.28 Grade 4 Ave seels score Math (sd) 207.8 95.5 190.8 108 183.9 108.6 (sd) Indicates standard deviation All African American Students In Extended Year Schools (N=539) Attended Intercession Did Not Attend l.S. 318 219 59.2% 40.8% 84.3% 81.3% 24.6% 23.3% 50 18.1 30.7 16.1 189.7 33.1 180.2 100.3 19.1% 21.0% 45.5 19.8 29.2 16.7 187.8 27.6 179.24. 108.2 page O 0) (Ji (D 4:^ do NO 6 O O 00 05 O) -1 O O O c 3 CD  W LD LD 00 CD Q. O w o o 05 T3 0) co to N) l\\5 O UICase 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3998 Filed 01/13/2006 Page 23 of 45 concerns surrounding academic achievement are focused on standards and the requirements of No Child Left Behind, the performance level indicators should be considered more important than the raw score indicators. Table V.3 on the following page displays a standard correlation matrix showing relationships among five different variables, including literacy and mathematics performance indicators as well as Intersession attendance. The boxes contain data describing correlations between the scores in each row (labeled on the left side of the matrix), and the scores displayed respectively across the tops of the columns. (The top number in each cell shows the correlation coefficient (Pearsons r), the center number is a standard indicator of statistical significance - any number less than .050 implies a significant correlation, and the bottom number is the number of students involved in the analysis. Note: the asterisks attaching to the correlation coefficients also conform to standard statistical reporting. Correlation coefficients with one asterisk are significant at the 95 percent confidence level. Two asterisks indicate a 99 percent confidence level. Ninety-five percent and higher confidence levels signify that the correlations show real positive relationships between the two scores as opposed to chance or spurious associations.) Correlations show as the number 1 in a diagonal row of boxes result when an indicator is correlated with itself- perfect correlation. As another example of reading from this matrix, literacy performance levels correlate very highly with literacy raw scores\nthe correlation coefficient is .895 and this correlation is significant at the 99 percent confidence level. The main display of interest in the Table V.3 matrix is the bottom row. Reading across, this shows correlations between Intersession attendance and four respective performance indicators: literacy performance level, literacy raw scores, math performance levels and math raw scores. All of these performance indicators derive from the 2005 Benchmark standards tests. Intersession attendance would have occurred largely in spring 2004 and spring 2003. A few sessions would go back as far as spring 2002 for these students. What is shown is fairly straightforward. Intersession attendance correlates positively and significantly with both literacy indicators, and with the mathematics test raw scores. The correlation between Intersession attendance and mathematics performance level warrants about a 0.91 confidence level  approaching statistical significance. While there are positive correlations between Intersession attendance and the literacy and mathematics performance indicators, the correlations are small - all are in the 0.10 range. These small correlations are entirely consistent with the contrasts in proficiency levels between Intersession attendees and non-attendees reported in the previous analysis and shown in Table V.l. Page V.3Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3998 Filed 01/13/2006 Page 24 of 45 TABLE V.3 INTERSESSION CORRELATIONS WITH PERFORMANCE ALL GRADE 3,4 and 5 EY STUDENTS, 2005 QmbtioDs UnTLEV LTHflEV I^arson Cone btion Sig. (2-ta)kd) K LTTRAW .895* MAPBtfLV .686* MATHRAW .733* intersessicxt yes no .101* UTMW Pearson Cone btion Sig. (2-tailed} N f^arson Corre btion Sig. (2-taibd) N MATHRAW Pearson Cone btion Sig. P-uiled) N 589 .895* .000 589 ,686* .000 589 .733* .000 589 .000 .000 .000 .032 589 595 .679* .000 589 .756* .000 595 589 589 454 .679* .756* .124* .000 589 589 .932* .000 589 .000 595 .932* .000 589 595 .008 460 .080 .089 454 .093* .046 460 inlerscssion yes no T^arson Corre btion Sig. (2-taibd) N .101* .124* .032 .008 .080 .089 j093* .046 454 460 454 460 460 NWPHUTV 1 I I 1 1 \"* Cbrretaiion is signiTcant al the 0.01 level (2- tailed), *. Oxrelation is signiBcant al the 0.05 levd (2- (aikd). LITPFLEV LITRAW MAPERFLV MATHRAW Literacy performance level Literacy raw Score (N items correct) Mathematics performance level Mathematics raw score (N items correct) Intersession Yes/NO Contrasts students who have taken one or more EY intersessions with those who have not participated.Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3998 Filed 01/13/2006 Page 25 of 45 Interpretative note. The performance advantages shown in Table V. 1 and Table V.2 are statistically significant, but the differences are small. The differences are real, but there is no certain way of answering an important underlying question. This is whether the differences result from intersession attendance, or whether they simply reflect differences between students who choose to attend Intersessions and those who do not. In typical appraisals of this sort of quandary, the larger are the differences the greater is the importance of the question. So this is not a crucial question facing this evaluation. There is some reason to not be too concerned about the genesis of performance differences shown in this section for Intersession attendees. Under either circumstance, we would be inclined to recommend that students attend Intersessions. As one possibility, the experience would provide a boost to achievement. As another possibility, students who choose to attend Intersessions give themselves an opportunity to associate and work with students who, on average, are doing somewhat better in school. This alternative possibility might also bring advantages to Intersession attendees. Conclusion V.l. Two different analyses point to small performance advantages for students who attend Extended Year school Intersessions in comparison to students who do not attend. Direct comparisons of the percentages of students proficient on the 2005 Benchmark tests point to this conclusion. And our analysis of correlations between Intersession attendance and academic indicators comes to the same conclusion. Academic performance may be boosted by Intersession attendance\nalternatively or in some combined way, the observed differences may reflect just which students choose to attend Intersessions and which students do not. Under either circumstance, a sound argument for attending Intersessions can be made. Page V.4Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3998 Filed 01/13/2006 Page 26 of 45 Section VI. Surveys of Parents, Students, and Teachers Specialized Parent Interviews This section reports the results of three years of surveys of Extended Year school parents, students, and teachers. We also conducted a set of in-depth telephone interviews with EY school parents who had parent experience in both EY and regular calendar schools. Some of the children of interviewed parents had transferred schools, some parents had students in both types of schools, and some parents had experienced the conversion of their school from a regular calendar to Extended Year. In all of these instances, parents were in a position to point out differences between the two sorts of school experiences. Survey methods. LRSD research and evaluation staff began surveys of EY school parents, students, and teachers in 2002-2003. The questions in these surveys focused on academic achievement issues as well as on qualities of the EY experience. For this evaluation, we replicated verbatim the multiple-choice questions past year surveys. This provided continuity and opportunities to assess changes in responses over time. The multiple choice questions from these surveys can be seen in Tables VLl.C, VI.2.G, and 17.3.0 below where we present consolidated tallies of three years of parent, student, and teacher surveys respectively. Each of these tables shows all of the survey  questions along with distributions of responses. We also invited parents, students, and teachers to respond in writing to open questions related to differences between EY school and regular calendar school experiences. These open-response questions focused on achievement issues and offered opportunities for respondents to suggest ways to improve EY schools. These open questions were composed with consultation from the LRSD PRE staff who in turn consulted with individual EY school personnel as these questions were written. These questions were concerned mainly with differences between Extended Year schools and traditional calendar schools. The surveys were finalized in late summer of 2005. The surveys were administered to students in grades 3,4, and 5 by LRSD PRE staff who coordinated administration efforts in the five EY schools. Schools sent parent surveys home and collected completed surveys. And EY school teachers completed our surveys directly. For the three-year period, we amassed 525 individual parent surveys, 636 student surveys, and 157 teacher surveys. The teacher survey response rate was close to 100 percent. Parent and student survey returns rates were about 30 percent overall. Page VI. 1Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3998 Filed 01/13/2006 Page 27 of 45 Presenting interview data for this draft report. The following 26 pages display a great many statistics and much information generated from our parent student and teacher surveys. We also append to this report 30 pages of survey data showing results for EY schools individually. Here is a guide to what is included, in order: From Parent Surveys Table VI.l.F Table VI.2.F.2 Table VI. l.G Parent written response table Parent comparisons of schools Consolidated parent survey data for eight multiple choice questions 1 page 2 pages 3 pages From Student Surveys Table VI.2.F Table VI.2.G Student written response table. Consolidated student survey data for 11 multiple choice questions 1 page 3 pages From Teacher Surveys Table VI.3.F Table V1.3.G Teacher written response table Consolidated teacher survey data for 12 multiple choice questions 1 page 3 pages From Parent Interviews Detailed displays of quotes and response distributions for 8 questions 12 pages Appendix: Individual school results from parent, student and teacher surveys 30 pages Our final report will go further in its analyses of our survey and interview results than we do in the coming pages. For this Draft Report, we focus on the core issue of student achievement and the differences that the Extended Year calendar may bring to students. We draw on observations and assessments from each table. All contrasts reported are between Extended Year and regular calendar year schools. Page VI.2Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3998 Filed 01/13/2006 Page 28 of 45 Working notes on survey and interview tables From Parent Surveys Table VI.l.F Parent written response table 1 pages About two-thirds of parents report that EY schools are better when it comes to student academic success. The largest cluster of reasons for this is that shorter breaks cause students to forget less and that staying in school longer helps keep student minds fresh. Parent suggestions for improvement of the EY program are spread across several ideas, although more than half claim there is no need for improvement. Suggestions include more educational opportunities (e.g. as opposed to recreational or hobby-focused Intersessions), more tutoring, better parent information, and better childcare to boost after school and intersession opportunities. Table VI.2.F.2 Parent survey quotes 2 pages This table contains the raw quotes that support the analysis of parent survey comments presented in the previous table. Table VI.l.F Table VI.LG Consolidated parent survey data 3 pages This table displays distributions of parent answers to multiple-choice questions on the parent survey. Tlu-ee years of parent survey data are consolidated for this presentation. The most important observations regarding student achievement from this table include: Just over half of all parents cite higher achievement in EY schools and over 60 percent would prefer that their children continue in EY schools. A large majority of parents believe that children are more interested in school when in EY schools. Half of the parents favor the expansion of the EY model to other schools. From Student Surveys Table VI.2.F Student written response table. 1 page The student quotes reveal mixed feelings on the part of students about whether or not students do better academically in EY schools. Positive answers center on having Page V1.3Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3998 Filed 01/13/2006 Page 29 of 45 more time in school and having a greater variety of school experiences. Negative answers are spread out, but concentrate somewhat on the fact that some EY students have siblings in regular schools and that the clash of calendars can be disruptive. Table VI.2.G Consolidated student survey data 3 pages Students report more interest in school in EY schools (84 percent) and that the EY school teachers are more patient and helpful (89 percent). These two questions gained more consensus than other questions across all surveys. Most (79 percent) feel that they have more time to secure extra help when its needed. About 56 percent of students claim that they leant more in the EY structure than in regular schools. Students do not favor shorter vacation periods, however. From Teacher Surveys Table VI.3. F Teacher written response table i page As with parents and student, teachers offered comments indicating that students achieve at higher levels in EY schools than in regular calendar schools. The teachers who feel this way report three main reasons: students forget less with shorter TTXivr ivvi uno waj icpvii uucc iiidiii rcdbunb. siuaeiiis lorget summers, the whole schedule produces less stress and less burnout that regular calendars, and it is easier for students to catch up in EY schools if they get behind. Among teachers feeling that EY schools do not present academic advantages, many report that there is essentially no difference between the two types of calendars when it comes to academic achievement\nothers cite attendance problems at Intersessions in the EY schools as holding back what could be higher student performance. Teacher suggestions for improving EY schools include adding professional development opportunities for EY school teachers, extending all schools to the EY model to bring benefits to all and to make school calendars consistent for all children. A prominent suggestion for improvement was adjusting the calendar to have a shorter break in February and a longer break before Intersessions in May. Table VI.3.G Consolidated teacher survey data 3 pages Teachers are less positive than parents or students about the relative academic benefits of Extended Year schooling. Just over one-third of teachers feel that EY schools boost academic achievement. They tend to agree that EY schools bring a wider variety of educational experiences to their students and two thirds believe that students benefit from the Intersessions. A majority believes that EY schools offer more academic continuity. Page VI.4Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3998 Filed 01/13/2006 Page 30 of 45 About half of teachers find EY schools less stressful A large majority of teachers report that they benefit from opportunities to earn stipends for optional Intersession employment. Rounding up the surveys There are many questions worth exploring in the survey data we collected. The constituents involved, especially parents and teachers, will probably take interest in the results. Discussions of the surveys may lead to further insights and suggestions for Extended year schools and we will seek feedback before submitting the final report. But we venture one survey-based conclusion at this point regarding our most important subject, student achievement. Conclusion VI.l. The parent, student, and teacher surveys accumulated over three years provide an overall appraisal of comparative achievement conditions in EY versus regular calendar schools. The result is that when reporting academic advantages or on conditions that might contribute to academic advantages, about 60-65 percent of parents and students report higher achievement in EY schools. Teachers report better conditions for learning, but fewer, only about 35 percent, report actual academic achievement differences favoring EY schools when asked this question directly. These survey results are wholly consistent with our data based achievement assessments presented in sections III, IV, and V. The general characterization gained in these analyses was that there are small but statistically significant differences in literacy and mathematics achievement favoring EY students. This applies both for 2005 Benchmark tests and also as we tracked performance trends over the past five years. What the parents, students, and teachers reported supports this result. Parent Interviews Detailed displays of quotes and responses. 12 pages The final entry in Section VI of this report is our report of our parent interviews. The responses to parent interviews will be set against insights reported by parents. students, and teachers from surveys for the final report. The parent interviews, having been conducted in fall of 2005 also serve a contemporary check on conditions in EY schools from the parents perspectives. Page VI.5Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3998 Filed 01/13/2006 Page 31 of 45 Appendix School level survey data 30 pages Detailed reports of all survey data by school are shown in the appendix to this report. These data were the building blocks for the consolidated interview data we have focused on for this draft report. These individual school charts may inspire feedback from constituents at specific schools as we proceed to our final report. Page VI .6TABLE VI.l.F Parent Discussion Questions 2005 l.Do you think Year Round Education is better than regular school for helping students succeed? Why do you feel this way? Yes, Because: Keeps students' minds fresh/they forget less during breaks More time for educatlon/less distractions Keeps them focused on school They learn more My student likes it Gives students who are behind more time to catch up Student gets more vacation time #thls answer 26 21 21 17 3 7 6 total who answered 138 138 138 138 138 138 138 %this answer 19% 15% 15% 12% 2% 5% 4% No, Because: Student is left out from summer activltes and family vacations Student gets burned out Kids in the family are on different schedules Childcare problems for working parent 14 66 11 138 138 138 138 10% 4% 4% 8% 2. How can we improve Year Round Education Schools? More educational activities and field trips More tutoring Childcare for working parents during after school and intersessions More favorable teacher/student ratio Keep parents more informed Good as Is/No Improvements needed 14 17 15 3 12 26 87 87 87 87 87 87 16% 20% 17% 3% 14% 30% page O fl) cn (fl 4s. do ho cS \u0026lt; o o 00 (35 (35 -I 73 O o n c3 CD  CO co co 00 31 ((D2 . O wM O O 05 QT)3 (tQo CO ho O UI Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR TABLE VI.1.F.2 Document 3998 Filed 01/13/2006 Page 33 of 45 Question 1: Do you think Year Round Education is better than regular school for helping students succeed? Why do you feel this way?  Because it provides a continuous learning environment and a safe place to be.  I feel that Year Round Education has kept my childrens minds active and they retain more of what they learn.  Educators spend more time teaching rather than re-teaching skills that have been displaced due to long gaps within the summer.  I feel that the short breaks within the school year give the parents, teachers, and --------------  J UX ^14 LOy kVUVllVi aj IKJ students much needed time away from school activities, such as homework, etc., and when school resumes everyone comes back replenished.  I dont like YRE because the program takes away summer vacation from the children and their family.  I think they have more time to know the concept of study in the YRE school.  Its not the length of time at school, its the quality and caring of the teachers and assistants.  The staff are more attentive with students. Intersessions give students the opportunity to do extra educational activities during school hours.  I think the year round school molds kids into loving school and I think it will help a lot of children in the long run because I think the longer you work at something the more things you can accomplish.  Year round schools interfere with our family vacations in the summer. We cannot plan our family activities now as we did before because we knew the months the kids were out of school.  Students should have their summer available to stay away from regular academic studies for fun and refreshment. My kids are fed up with the year round program and are starting to dislike school.  The YRE school has not been beneficial to my child due to the fact that she was never included in the intersessions. She is not performing to the best of her abilities and could have used the extra help. I am very disappointed in the YRE. We were never notified of the intersession in time to sign up.  Its good because the student doesnt have a long period between breaks. This allows the student to remember previous information.  My daughter aint learning nothing anyway. Her teacher is just giving her grades to pass her to the next grade. My daughter is a first grader and she cant read she dont know small words like was, come, is, words like that.  There is no difference. The students spend the same amount of time in school, just different time spans.Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR TABLE VI.1.F.2 Document 3998 Filed 01/13/2006 Page34of45 Question 2: How Can we improve Year Round Education Schools?  Making their summer vacation a little longer and start their summer with regular school.  By making intersession available for every child who wishes to attend.  I think they need to have tutors. Like hire students from high school. They help the little ones and they can have some cash.  Have more meetings and have the parents come in and see what the parents are doing in class.  Make conferences with the teachers and parents.  Keep the parents excited about the program and let them know how important it is that parents are visible so our children can develop in a more positive academic manner.  I think they need more teachers and less students in the classrooms because some students struggle more than others and need more attention. They need to have teachers who just work with struggling students, so it wont effect the students who are where they need to be.  Teachers need more time with kids and really teach them what they know. Ive come across a lot of teachers who are not happy doing what they do and its just sad because I get scared that it will make school a bad experience for my daughter.  I think they should stop being so mean and let the children talk at lunch and on the playground.  Revamp the curriculum to coincide with testing.  Make sure VOUr Student.s are wnrHno nn thpir your students working on their educational level. Some students are more advanced than others. They need to be taught on that level any other will stifle what they are learning and they become bored.Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3998 Filed 01/13/2006 Page 35 of 45 TABLE VI.l.G CONSOLIDATED PARENT COMPARISONS, EY VS. REGULAR SCHOOL SCHED. My children show a greater interest in their educational program. Number N= Percent Agree Disagree No Opinion total 395 55 75 525 525 525 525 75% 10% 14% 100% My children like having a number of short vacation periods. Number Percent Agree Disagree No Opinion total 306 153 64 523 523 523 523 59% 29% 12% 100% A wider variety of educational programs has been provided for my children. Number N= Percent Agree Disagree No Opinion total 313 115 102 530 530 530 530 59% 22% 19% 100% N = My children have achieved at a higher level than in their previous 9-month school. Number N= Percent Agree Disagree No Opinion total 282 120 130 532 532 532 532 0 53% 23% 24% #DIV/0! Our personal family life activities such as church, scouts, clubs, etc, have not been affected. Number N= Percent Agree Disagree No Opinion total 405 75 43 523 523 523 523 77% 14% 8% 100% My children have attended one or more intersessions this year. Number N = Percent Agree Disagree No Opinion total 383 92 65 540 540 540 540 71% 17% 12% 100%Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3998 Filed 01/13/2006 Page 36 of 45 CONSOLIDATED PARENT COMPARISONS, EY VS. REGULAR SCHOOL SCHED CONT'D This program should be expanded to other schools in this district on an optional basis. Number N= Percent Agree Disagree No Opinion total 278 118 145 541 541 541 541 51% 22% 27% 100% I want my children to continue in this program. Number N= Agree Disagree No Opinion total Percent 337 111 89 537 537 537 537 63% 21% 17% 100% Gender Male Female Total Ethnicity Black White Other Total 100 430 530 0 0 429 29 53 511 Number of children in a YRE school 8 16 24 235 183 97 21 536 Number of children enrolled in regular schools before they were enrolled in a YRE school. 0 1 2 3 4+ total 147 168 124 37 23 499Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3998 Filed 01/13/2006 Page 37 of 45 CONSOLIDATED PARENT COMPARISONS, EY VS. REGULAR SCHOOL SCHED CONT'D Children attending school on a regular May-August calendar Elementary Middle school senior high 124 81 58 Grade level of children K 1 2 3 4 5 Total 15 148 153 119 120 143 698Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR TABLE VI. I F Document 3998 Filed 01/13/2006 Page 38 of 45 YRE Schools: Collected Student Quotes Question 1: Do you think Year Round Education is better than regular school for helping students 0110000/19 f _ _ I __ .O  succeed? Why do you feel this way?  Year round school help us learn for a long time because we go longer.  My year round school is better because we got a computer lab.  Yes. 1feel this way because 1 like being out of school.  No. I think that because when I cousin is out I be still going to school.  No. J feel very good at the regular school and I study more every day there.  Yes. It helps your education and we gel caught up more on fourth grade work.  1 say yes because you can learn more. Also you can get ~c~c .Nsc  Yes. Because you are starling to talk in English and get friends you will know better.  No. the reason why is because we 're always out and we 're hardly learning.  Yes. 1 think il does because you can learn more things about school and learn to do different more education. Also get better at things. kinds of work.  Yes. Why I pick yes because J like doing work.  No. I feel this way because all the other schools are out and we are still in.  I like all yearround because you be out for a month. And plus you get to spend time with your family you get to stay up and night until you feel sleepy.  Yes. I feel this wav because vnu stnv tn feel way you stay in school you learn  No. Mv brother is out of school whUo 7 rtrtt itt My yvhile J am in school. more.  No. My other school was more advanced and if we have short period vacations I forget stuff and lose discipline.  Yes. Because we can go for recess one in the morning in second recess you can gel pizza and candy.  Kes. Because you gel a lot of education in your life. Question 2: How can we improve Year Round Education?  lEe need new teachers to help us learn new stuff.  We could improve with a new playground.  We have to improve by building a new school.  They should have a new playground and new restrooms.  New playground. Urgent. Go on more field trips. And new restroom.  They can let us stay in until June I because then 1 can get out with my  I think they are fine and the year round schools can stay like they are.  ney need to improve because my friends they are telling me school information that I have not cousins. heard about they are smarter than me.  By gelling teachers to help us understand our work.  They got to make new playground.  JVe can improve them by letting someone help you.  I will make a list: Nice teachers some are mean. Kill these bugs, put a new lock on the school lit is looking like a dump.  More intercessions.  You can start by telling everyone in this school about it and start having calendars about year rnunfl U/n on., _1____  . round. We can even send a letter home about it.  It will make it belter if they change it like regular schools.  By not having short vacations and having belter classrooms, better technology, and better lunches.  By letting us play, be out of uniform, and do fun things.  Gel a bigger TV. pageCase 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3998 Filed 01/13/2006 Page 39 of 45 TABLE VI.2.G STUDENT SURVEYS CONSOLIDATED I have been more interested in my education this year. Number Agree Disagree No Opinion total 524 50 62 636 N= 636 636 636 0 Percent 84% 3% 13% 100% I like having a shorter number of vacation periods. Number Agree Disagree No Opinion total 243 346 53 642 N= 642 642 642 0 Percent 39% 49% 11% 100% I think I have learned more on the extended year calendar than I did on the regular 9-month calendar. Number Agree Disagree No Opinion total 370 150 108 628 N= 628 628 628 0 Percent 56% 10% 34% 100% The Year Round Education program should be offered to all Little Rock School District Students. Number Agree Disagree No Opinion total 329 242 76 647 N= 647 647 647 0 Percent 50% 38% 12% 100% My teachers have been more patient and helpful. Number Agree Disagree No Opinion total 525 59 60 644 N= 644 644 644 0 Percent 89% 4% 7% 100%Case 4\n82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3998 Filed 01/13/2006 Page 40 of 45 STUDENT SURVEYS CONSOLIDATED CONT'D I have had more time to learn and time to get extra help when I've needed it. Number Agree Disagree No Opinion total 493 85 75 653 N= 653 653 653 0 Percent 79% 10% 11% 100% I look forward to coming to school. Number Agree Disagree No Opinion total 474 99 78 651 N= 651 651 651 0 Percent 84% 8% 8% 100% I have liked the intersessions. Number Agree Disagree No Opinion total 408 124 119 651 N= 651 651 651 0 Percent 71% 13% 16% 100% My parents like the extended-year program. Number Agree Disagree No Opinion total 368 138 140 646 N= 646 646 646 0 Percent 60% 15% 26% 100% I want my school to continue with this program. Percent Agree Disagree No Opinion total 286 275 73 634 634 634 634 0 53% 24% 24% 100%Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3998 Filed 01/13/2006 Page 41 of 45 STUDENT SURVEYS CONSOLIDATED CONTD Intersession has helped me be a better student. Percent Agree Disagree No Opinion total 357 100 120 577 577 577 577 0 62% 20% 18% 100% Gender Male Female Total 291 353 644 Ethnicity Black White Other Total 562 20 54 636 Grade Level 3rd 4th 5th Total 236 234 232 504 Last grade spent in regular school Never K 1 2 3 4 5 Total 8 7 6 10 9 4 3 47TABLE VI.B.F Teacher discussion questions. 2005 l.Do you think Year Round Education is better than regular school for helping students succeed? Why do you feel this way? Yes, Because\nN total Percent Less time reteaching/kids don't forget as much over break More extracurricular activites and enrichment Easier for kids who are behind to catch up Less stressful/less burnout for kids and teachers Like the extra time In school Kids need structure during the summer this answer: responses: this answer\n22 49 12 21 50 50 50 50 50 50 44% 8% 18% 24% 4% 2% No, Because: Both are the same--schedule does not matter Students' attendance Is low at YREs/Students leave in the summer Childcare is difficult for parents during breaks Too many breaks create MORE need to re-teach More burnout for teachers and students 11 11 377 39 39 39 39 39 28% 28% 8% 18% 18% 2. How can we improve Year Round Education Schools? Better schedule/Shorter February break longer May break Open Intercession to all students Schedule Trainings and In-Service days for YRE teachers Teachers need more Input on the curriculum and calendar Extend YRE to all schools/make all schools the same Change testing dates 15 5 17 9 12 5 63 63 63 63 63 63 24% 8% 27% 14% 19% 8% page O fl) Ch CD 4^ do cS O O 00 o \u0026lt;L O O CD c3 (D Z3 W CD CD 00 CD CL O W CD CD CT) T3 Q\u0026gt; CQ CD -Cx O cn Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3998 Filed 01/13/2006 Page 43 of 45 TABLE VI.3.G Teacher Surveys Consolidated My students show a greater interest in their educational program. Number Agree Disagree No Opinion total N= 66 45 50 161 161 161 161 Percent 41% 28% 31% 100% My students like having a number of short vacation periods. Number N= Agree Disagree No Opinion total 104 19 29 152 152 152 152 Percent 68% 13% 19% 100% A wider variety of educational programs has been provided for my students. Number Agree Disagree No Opinion total N = 99 37 20 156 156 156 156 Percent 63% 24% 13% 100% My students have achieved at a higher level than they would have in their previous 9-month school calendar. Number Agree Disagree No Opinion total N= 56 52 52 160 160 160 160 Percent 35% 33% 33% 100% Parents are more involved in their childrens' education on the Year Round Education schedule. Number Agree Disagree No Opinion total N= 24 87 47 158 158 158 158 Percent 15% 55% 30% 100%Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3998 Filed 01/13/2006 Page 44 of 45 TABLE VI.3.G Teacher Surveys Consolidated CONT'D This program should be expanded to other scohols in this district on an optional basis. Number Agree Disagree No Opinion total N= 82 50 25 157 157 157 157 Percent 52% 32% 16% 100% I want my school to continue with this program. Number Agree Disagree No Opinion total N = 77 54 26 157 157 157 157 Percent 49% 34% 17% 100% My students benefit from their intersession(s). Agree Disagree No Opinion total Number 102 21 33 156 156 156 156 Percent 65% 13% . 21% 100% N = The Year Round Education schedule provides continuity in academic instruction and more time on task. Number Agree Disagree No Opinion total N = 87 39 32 158 158 158 158 Percent 55% 25% 20% 100% The extended-year education schedule has been better for my attitude and stress reduction. Number N= Agree Disagree No Opinion total 85 55 19 159 159 159 159 Percent 53% 35% 12% 100%Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3998 Filed 01/13/2006 Page 45 of 45 TABLE VI.3.G Teacher Surveys Consolidated CONT'D The absence of a long summer break reduces the need to reteach skills and rules. Number Agree Disagree No Opinion total N = 69 57 27 153 153 153 153 Percent 45% 37% 18% 100% Teachers benefit from the opportunity to earn stipends during optional intersession employment. Agree Disagree No Opinion total Number 129 16 14 159 N= 159 159 159 Percent 81% 10% 9% 100% Male Female Total 15 132 147 Ethnicity Black White Other Total 67 72 2 141Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3998 Filed 01/13/2006 Page 1 of 36 received F/ s DESEGBEgSStoIIITORIIIG Little Rock, Arkansas Family Interviews Year-round - vs - 9-month SchoolsCase 4\n82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3998 Filed 01/13/2006 Page 2 of 36 LnTLE ROCK INTERVIEWS, 2005 YEAR-ROUND -VS- 9-MONTH SCHOOtS Question 1: What was the reason your child(ren) changed from 9-month to EY calendar? Description Percestage of Responses The school changed horn 9-month to EY. 69% My child transferred horn a 9-month school to an EY school. 25% Multiple children. Both reasons apply. 6% Free Responses: \"We were already in the area.\" (18 responses) \"We moved into the district.\" (4 responses) \"I don't know why the school changed. 1 guess they were just trying something new.\" They've been going for so long, I don't even remember when things changed or why.\" The school changed and we were not happy about it at all. \"I don't really know why the school changed.\" Cloverdale is a much better school than where they were going. The one we were at was pretty awful.\" \"I had one school that one his home school, but my other one was here, so I got him transferred because it's easier for me for dropping them off.\" \"I'm in the neighborhood. I just adopted them, and Plasco Heights didn't have enough room for them.\" They were having problems at Forest Park, and I decided to put them in a black school. There was a larger black student population at Woodruff.\" \"It was in the neighborhood, and I liked the school\" \"We moved closer to this school, so I moved my younger son here, but I still have another child at our old school. /?4SOWS FOR CHANCme TO YEAR-ROUHD SCHOOL DCase 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3998 Filed 01/13/2006 Page 3 of 36 LITTLE ROCK INTERVIEWS, 2005 YEAR-ROUND -VS- 9-MONTH SCHOOLS Question 2: What are the main differences you see between EY and 9-month schools? Desoipfion Percentage o( Responses Schedule difference, neither plus nor minus 58.9% Childcare a problem with EY 11.1% Don't know or no difference 16.87% No difference 5.6% Better learning with EY\nEY better 30.9% Less learning loss in EY 8.3% Intersession noted as difference 8.3% Free Responses: Schedule difference, neither plus nor minus \"They go longer than the tegular school and the summer is much shorter. \"Well, actually the only difference I've noticed is that they seem to be out more than everyone else.\" \"They have more vacations. That's about it' \"The difference is that it seemed like they were out a little more often.\" What I noticed is that they are out more than the public school is.\" \"Naturally they go a little longer and they start earlier.\" \"I actually liked it a lol It seems like the kids are in school a lot longer. I know it just seems that way, but I liked it\" \"Well, obviously they don't have the long summer break.\" Childcare a problem with EY \"The only differences I noticed were that they dont get as long a vacation during the summer, and it's also tough to find a babysitter for the days when they are out The days that she was out was difficult\" (free responses continued on next page) DIFFERENCES BETWEEN EY AND 9-MONTH SCHOOLS 2Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3998 Filed 01/13/2006 Page 4 of 36 UTTLE ROCK INTERVIEWS, 2005 YEAR-ROUND -VS- 9-MONTH SCHOOLS \"What are the main differences,\" continued from previous page. Childcare a problem with EY \"They have less time out, and they have an extra week called Intercession where they do special things. The only thing that is really different is that if you have a middle school kid, it really throws off the balance in the family when they are out for two weeks and you don't have anybody to watch them.\" \"The year round school is so different I don't like it Period. It's important to have their summer open so that you can take family trips Also, the year round school is really hard for working parents. With the 9-month calendar it is easier to restnjcture the family schedule. \"It makes it very difficult for us to do family vacations do trips or plan anything together because our oldest was in high school and they weren't on a year-round calendar.\" \"Academically, I'm a big fan of that school anyway. At the time I wasn't crazy about it because I was working and it was hard to find childcare. Don't know or no difference \"I really can't say.\" \"I dont really know.\" \"All the work seems to be about the same. Maybe a little more of it since they are in school more. I don't really know.\" No difference \"No. I didnt notice anything.\" \"Well, it seems to be doing the same thing. He does his homework\nhe studies. I havent noticed any differences.\" Better learning with EY\nEY better \"The kids learned more. My sixth grader is in the seventh grade now and they are on a regular calendar, and it's the first time he's ever gotten an F in his whole life. He was always on the honor roll before. \"Yes. It seems like they get farther ahead. He seems like he has really learned a lot. \"I love that school My kids loved it I wish they could still go there. I just liked everything about it They learned better, the Resource classes were good, and they really liked the Inter-sessions They whole school was really, really good. l really liked Stephens They were more attentive to the students They learned more. \"It seems, well, it's a little a little different This school has a little more strict rules, which is good. And they go year-round.\" \"In the year-round school I think they were learning more.\" \"The teachers seemed to be more concerned about them there.\" \"It was easier for them to catch up on everything.\" \"I really like it and I think they do, too. They seem like they learn better.\" \"Well, I really think it's good. My kids are really doing better now than before. The teachers really seem to help them a lot more. Less learning loss in EY \"I've seen some good things and some bad things. I don't think the year-round school is such a bad thing. There are some good things to it. I've noticed they don't seem to forget as much because they aren't out for as long a time.\" \"They seem like they remember a little bit more I think.\" Intersession noted as difference \"The only really different is the Intersession part and being in school a little bit longer\" \"They've got all the inter-sessions and all that I like the school and I think they do, too.\" DIFFERENCES BETWEEN EY AND 9-MONTH SC HOCHS 3Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3998 Filed 01/13/2006 Page 5 of 36 LIULE ROCK INTERVIEWS, 2005 YEAR-ROUND -VS- 9-MONTH SCHOOtS Question 3: Lets focus particularly on how different schools help kids learn. What do you see as the main differences in student learning in EY vs. 9-month schools? Description Percentage of Responses Do not see a difference 13.9% EY generally better/more learning 80.6% Less learning loss 30.6% Intersession 2.8% Free Responses: bo not see a difference \"No. I don't really think there is a difference.\" \"I dont really know if there is a difference, f mean, he afways seems to do okay.\" \"My kids are extremely smart, so its hard to tell if there's a difference. They always made the honor roll and they still do. \"No, there is no difference in the way that my kids learn. The school work is the same, and they are getting it done.\" \"I didn't see no great improvement in my kids grades being in a year-round school versus a regular school.\" EY generally better/more learning \"Wefl, actually its the school that they are attending. I had better results over at Mabelville Elementary, and its a year-round. But actually, with the year round, of my kids is in gifted and talented, and I think they are educated a little more in the year round.\" \"Actually, she got more into her studies in the year round than I feel like she would have done in the 9-month.\" \"Yes, I think they are constantly learning, so it keeps all the infotmabon fresh.\" \"Yes. They are more advanced.\" \"Actually, I think it is difficult because its year-round, but I do think its a good idea.\" \"I really dont have a good answer. I have a pretty sharp son. I dont know if its because hes smart or if its because of the school.\" \"It seems like they do more work, but 1 dont really know. Maybe it just seems that way since they are in school more.\" \"My son did learn well when he was there, but hes at Washington now and he's doing okay there, too.\" (free responses continued on next page) STUDENT LEARNING DIFFERENCES 4Case 4\n82-cv-00866-WR\\/V-JTR Document 3998 Filed 01/13/2006 Page 6 of 36 LirriE ROCK INTERVIEWS, 2005 YEAR-ROUND -VS- 9-MONTH SCHOOLS \"Student learning differences,\" continued from previous page. EY generally better/more learning T think they leam a little bit more. \"Well. 1 think it helps the kids that they ate there mote. I think they get a lot mote advanced. That has been the case with Cameron. 'I think they are doing just the same. I do think there are more programs for the kids. Like the Resource program and that \"Everything about it \"1 think they are better at getting down on the kids if they don't do their work. \"In the regular school, they got more off days then days in school. In the all-around school they were just teaching them more. Yes I just personally think it has a lot to do with the teachers. I think they are mote motivated to help that child. \"They have more time to do the work because they are going all the time. \"The teachers are really good. I mean if they don't do their work, the teachers get after them. I think that makes a big difference. Less learning loss \"I guess they learned more because they went year-round. They weren't out for a long summer break when they might lose or forget what they had learned.\" \"They seem to remember more.\" \"They don't have a chance to forget as much, I think.\" \"They just seem to remember more. Not having that long summer break, I think, makes it much better.\" \"I don't think there's really much difference. They don't forget as much, 1 guess.\" \"It seems like they know more, the remember more having the shorter breaks. \"It helps them not forget as much. Instead of having that long summer break, they don't have as much of a chance to forget as much.\" \"Well, I think it teaches them a little more. What I mean by that is that they still have the learning going on, and they don't loose it as quick.\" \"I think the main difference is just that they are in school more. They don't have a chance to forget as much and they leam more.\" Intersession \"I think its the Inter-sessions that are good. \"1 guess when they are doing the Intersession. That's different\" \"The Intersession program helps them pick up where they left off. It helps them catch up and not forget things. My three did really well with it STUDENT LEARNING DIFFERENCES 5Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3998 Filed 01/13/2006 Page 7 of 36 LITTLE ROCK INTERVIEWS, 2005 YEAR-ROUND -VS- 9-MONrH SCHOOLS Question 4: Are there things about the EY calendar that help kids learn better? Desoipiion Percentage of Responses Kids are in school more. 7% Shorter breaks/vacations. 14% Kids forget less academic content. 29% Shorter gaps in teaching. 3% Kids remember better how to behave in school. 3% Inter-sessions help kids learn more. 12% Teachers 12% No difference noted 20% Free Responses: \"I really don't see a difference. If you had said a magnet school. I might have been able to elaborate a little more. They don't forget as much.\" I can't say, but they should explain the take home lessons more to the students so that we can help more  but that may be on her. Let's not lay the blame on the school. We'll split it\" \"No, academically, my kids are smart enough that they will achieve. There is nothing about the year-round school that is better. I don't like it' That's a tough question. What can I say? All 1 know is that he is a good boy and has good grades so far.\" They are just in more, so they don't forget as much and they have more time to learn new information.\" \"I do think that only being out for five weeks in the summer helps them get back into the swing of things faster. The kids learn a lot more for the next grade. \"I know when I was in elementary school I would come back to school half way clueless after the summer. \"I don't think so. I don't think they really do anything differently. Il's the longer time that makes the difference. \"Summer is not so long, so he seems to remember things better.\" (free responses continued on next page) O' SCHOOL LEARNING EFFECTIVENCSS 6Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3998 Filed 01/13/2006 Page 8 of 36 LITTLE ROCK INTERVIEWS, 2005 YEAR-ROUND -VS- 9-MONTH SCHOOLS \"Student learning differences,\" continued from previous page. \"She doesn't seem to forget as much \" \"He doesn't seem to forget as much. He seems to have a short attention span sometimes, so I think it tends to help kids like him.\" \"They seem like they remember better. The intersession program. We really liked that \"I don't know why. It seems like the teachers pay a little bit more attention to them. \"The inter-sessions are good. They are learning all the time, so they just don't have chance to forget \"The shorter breaks are better. 1 like the fact that there are more short breaks rather than one long break. Special programs like the inter-sessions and resource classes are really good. Well, the kids are in school more, and I think that helps. The shorter breaks. 1 liked the inter-sessions.\" \"The teachers, I guess. They just stay on the kids more. \"The shorter break, I think, makes the biggest difference for my kids. \"The teachers just have more time to leach them more. \"The teachers are really good. \"They are in school more, it seems. 1 think its actually about the same number of days, but it seems like they are in more. I like it much better.\" \"They just remember more.\" \"I think the teachers are much better here. They listen, and they really work with the kids. \"They don't forget everything over summer. It's easier on them, in my opinion. fy SCHOOL LEARNING EFFECTIVENESS 8Case 4\n82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3998 Filed 01/13/2006 Page 9 of 36 LrmE ROCK INTERVIEWS, 2005 YEAR-ROUND -VS- 9-MONTH SCHOOLS Question 5: In comparing EY to 9-month schools, do you think that children feel differently about school or about themselves in one type versus another? Description Percentage of Responses Yes, a lot 25% Yes, a little. 12% No. 63% Free Responses (note\nonly parents who answered yes are recorded.): \"I think she enjoyed going, but when the other kids were ouE she hated going, and it shorted our vacation time, too.\" \"They don't like it when other families get to go on vacations in the summer and we cannot. We don't like it at all. Penod. The only difference that I noticed is that they were upset because they had to stay longer - everyone else being on break and them being in school.\" \"From my house, in a one mile radius, I can hit three elementary schools with a stone. On my street atone, there are kids that go to all three. So for my boys, it's a real problem when they are on break because no one else is. They are all atone. That sucks.\" \"He likes to be out when the other children are out\" \"When they switched over, the girls were in a lower grade and they enjoyed this more because there are bigger breaks spread out over the year.\" \"At first it bothered her when she had friends that were on summer vacation and she wasn't. But now, I think she likes have more breaks during the year.\" \"This is his last year, and now rt seems to bother him that other kids are out and he isn't But he likes school.\" \"My second grader does not even like school any more, and that is not good at all. She did really well in year-round school, and now she is in a regular calendar and she rsn't doing well at all.\" \"They complain a little about yexr know, that other kids are out and they aren't.\" \"They do complain. 'Why do we have to go so longZ They don't like that too much.\" \"My oldest loves school, and when they are out of school she doesn't really like it She's an A student she is\" \"I'll tell you, they didn't particularly like it but rt worked well for me.\" \"My baby has been in it the whole time, ever since they started, so he doesn't know anything different' \"He does complain when my other is out lor summer, but I think he really, in general, Irkes it a lot\" STUDENT FEELINGS ABOUT EY VERSUS 9-MONTH SCHOOL 8Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3998 Filed 01/13/2006 Page10of36 LITTLE ROCK INTERVIEWS, 2005 YEAR-ROUND -VS- 9-MONTH SCHOOIS Question 6 (note: only asked of parents who answered yes\" to question 5.): Does your child/children talk about the fact that they are in an EY school? If yes, what kinds of things do they say? Free Responses\n\"No, not that I can say.\" \"They complain about it all the time! \"No. Hes a quiet kid.\" \"Yes A couple of my kids in the past year got to go to some of the things they have during Intersections and they really liked that\" \"He didn't like it because he had to sit inside grandma's house all day. In the end, I think they ought to put all elementary schools in or take them all out.\" Yes. \"Why am I still in school and they are out.\" \"Alt the time. They didnt like the year-round school at first but they are adjusting.' \"Not really. I guess it's just fine.\" \"I think they like it They seemed to like school more when they were at Mabelville.\" Yes. They wanted to stay. They asked why they couldn't stay.\" When there are other kids out in the summer, they complain about that\" \"You know, I have eight kids, and most of them go to regular schools, so my two that are in year-round, you know, they complain when the others ate out But like now, they are out for two weeks and the others are jealous.\" \"No, not that I can say.\" They complain about it all the timer \"No. He's a quiet kid.\" \"Yes A couple of my kids in the past year got to go to some of the things they have during Intersections, and they really liked that\" \"He didn't like it because he had to sit inside grandmas house all day. In the end, I think they ought to put all elementary schools in or take them all out\" 'Yes. \"Why am I still in school and they are ouL\" \"All the time. They didnt like the year-round school at first, but they are adjusting.\" \"Not really. I guess its just fine.\" \"I think they like it They seemed to like school more when they were at Mabelville.\" \"Yes. They wanted to stay. They asked why they couldnt stay.\" \"When there are other kids out in the summer, they complain about that\" \"You know, I have eight kids, and most of them go to regular schools, so my two that are in year-round, you know, they complain when the others are out But like now, they are out for two weeks and the others are jealous.\" STUDENT FEEUNQS ABOUT EY VERSUS 9-MONTH SCHOOL 9Case 4\n82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3998 Filed 01/13/2006 Page 11 of 36 UTTIE ROCK INTERVIEWS, 2005 YEAR-ROUND -VS- S-MONIH SCHOOLS Question 7: Does your child/children receive any specialized education services (gifted programs, ESL classes, remedial classes)? DesaipiiM Pertartage of Responses Gifted and talented 16.2% Music 2.7% Resource classes 2.7% No. 78.4% STUDENT EEEUNCS ABOUT EY VERSUS 9-MONTU SCHOOL 10Case 4\n82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3998 Filed 01/13/2006 Page 12 of 36 LITTLE ROCK INTERVIEWS, 2005 YEAR-ROUND -VS- 9-MON1H SCHOOLS Question 8: Does your family utilize before or afterschool childcare programs? Description Percentage of Responses Yes. 10.8% No. 892% STUDENT FEELINGS ABOUT EY VERSUS 9-MONTH SCHOOL nCase 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3998 Filed 01/13/2006 Page 13 of 36 Section VIL Conclusions and Implications This section is not included in the draft evaluation report. Section II of this draft contains an outline of preliminary conclusions from the analyses shown in sections III through VI. These conclusions as revised will be elaborated in Section II of the final report and discussed in Section VII of the final report.Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3998 Filed 01/13/2006 Page 14 of 36 APPENDICESCase 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3998 Filed 01/13/2006 Page15of36 TABLE VI. 1.A Cloverdale Parent Survey Results My children show a greater interest In their educational program. Number N= Percent Agree Disagree No Opinion total 95 23 30 148 148 148 148 64% 16% 20% 100% My children like having a number of short vacation periods. Number IFF Percent Agree Disagree No Opinion total 81 49 18 148 148 148 148 55% 33% 12% 100% A wider variety of educational programs has been provided for my children. Number N= Percent Agree Disagree No Opinion total 63 50 38 151 151 151 151 42% 33% 25% 100% My children have achieved at a higher level than In their previous 9-month school. Number N= Percent Agree Disagree No Opinion total 58 53 41 152 152 152 152 38% 35% 27% 100% Our personal family life activities such as church, scouts, clubs, etc, have not been affected. Number N= Percent Agree Disagree No Opinion total 105 30 11 146 146 146 146 72% 21% 8% 100% My children have attended one or more intersessions this year. Number N= Percent Agree Disagree No Opinion total 87 40 28 155 155 155 155 56% 26% 18% 100% This program should be expanded to other schools in this district on an optional basis. Number N= Percent Agree Disagree No Opinion total 69 45 42 156 156 156 156 44% 29% 27% 100% I want my children to continue In this program. Number N= Percent Agree Disagree No Opinion total 80 44 30 154 154 154 154 52% 29% 19% 100%Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3998 Filed 01/13/2006 Page 16 of 36 Gender Male Female Total Ethnicity Black White Other Total Number of children In a YRE school 1 2 3 4+ total 32 119 151 113 5 25 143 70 50 24 6 150 Number of children enrolled in regular schools before they were enrolled in a YRE school. 0 1 2 3 4+ total 29 52 39 11 8 139 Children attending school on a regular May-August calendar Elementary Middle schoo senior high 40 21 18 Gracie level of children K 1 2 3 4 5 Total 35 51 35 28 36 13 198Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3998 Filed 01/13/2006 Page 17 of 36 TABLE VI.2.A Cloverdale Student Survey Results I have been more interested in my education this year. Number N= Percent Agree Disagree No Opinion total 85 8 2 95 95 95 95 89% 8% 2% 100% I like having a shorter number of vacation periods. Number N= Percent Agree Disagree No Opinion total 47 48 4 99 99 99 99 47% 48% 4% 100% I think I have learned more on the extended year calendar than I did on the regular 9-month calendar. Number N= Percent Agree Disagree No Opinion total 55 22 21 98 98 98 98 56% 22% 21% 100% The Year Round Education program should be offered to all Little Rock School District Students. Number N= Percent Agree Disagree No Opinion total 55 33 9 97 97 97 97 57% 34% 9% 100% My teachers have been more patient and helpful. Number N= Percent Agree Disagree No Opinion total 83 11 4 98 98 98 98 85% 11% 4% 100% I have had more time to learn and time to get extra help when I've needed it. Number N= Percent Agree Disagree No Opinion total 84 5 10 99 99 99 99 85% 5% 10% 100% I look forward to coming to school. Number N= Percent Agree Disagree No Opinion total 82 10 7 99 99 99 99 83% 10% 7% 100% I have liked the intersessions. Number N= Percent Agree Disagree No Opinion total 66 18 15 99 99 99 99 67% 18% 15% 100%Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3998 Filed 01/13/2006 Page 18 of 36 My parents like the extended-year program. Number N= Percent Agree Disagree No Opinion total 51 33 16 100 too too 100 51% 33% 16% 100% I want my school to continue with this program. Number N= Percent Agree Disagree No Opinion total 41 47 9 97 97 97 97 42% 48% 9% 100% Intersession has helped me be a better student. Number N= Percent Agree______ Disagree No Opinion total 65 12 11 88 86 88 88 74% 14% 13% 100% Gender Male Female Total Ethnicity Black White Other Total Grade Level 3rd 4 th Sth Total 46 49 95 72 4 20 96 27 31 27 85 Last grade spent in regular school Never K 1 2 3 4 5 Total 17 2 20 27 17 8 5 96Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3998 Filed 01/13/2006 Page 19 of 36 TABLE VI.2.B Mabelvale Student Survey Results I have been more interested in my educalion this year. Number N= Percent Agree Disagree No Opinion total 25 4 5 34 34 34 34 74% 12% 15% 100% I like having a shorter number of vacation periods. Number N= Percent Agree Disagree No Opinion total 17 13 3 33 33 33 33 52% 39% 9% 100% I think I have learned more on the extended year calendar than I did on the regular 9-month calendar. Number N= Percent Agree Disagree No Opinion total 25 9 1 35 35 35 35 71% 26% 3% 100% The Year Round Education program should be offered to all Little Rock School District Students. Number N= Percent Agree Disagree No Opinion total 19 11 5 35 35 35 35 54% 31% 14% 100% My teachers have been more patient and helpful. Number N= Percent Agree Disagree No Opinion total 28 3 4 35 35 35 35 80% 9% 11% 100% I have had more time to learn and time to get extra help vrhen I've needed it. Number N= Percent Agree Disagree No Opinion total 27 5 2 34 34 34 34 79% 15% 6% 100% I look forward to coming to school. Number N= Percent Agree Disagree No Opinion total 23 9 2 34 34 34 34 68% 26% 6% 100% I have liked the intersessions. Number N= Percent Agree Disagree No Opinion total 18 12 3 33 33 33 33 55% 36% 9% 100%Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3998 Filed 01/13/2006 Page 20 of 36 My parents like the extended-year program. Number N= Percent Agree Disagree No Opinion total 23 3 7 33 33 33 33 70% 9% 21% 100% I want my school to continue with this program. Number N= Percent Agree Disagree No Opinion total 22 11 1 34 34 34 34 65% 32% 3% 100% Intersession has helped me be a better student. Number N= Percent Agree______ Disagree No Opinion total 23 6 2 31 31 31 31 74% 19% 6% 100% Gender Male Female Total Ethnicity Black While Other Total Grade Level 3rd 4th_________ 5lh_________ Total 12 23 35 26 4 4 34 15 20 0 35 Last grade spent In regular school Never K 1 2 3 4 5 Total 11 4 1 10 6 1 0 33Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3998 Filed 01/13/2006 Page 21 of 36 TABLE VI.2.B Mabelvale Student Survey Results I have been more Interested in my education this year. Number N= Percent Agree Disagree No Opinion total 25 4 5 34 34| 34 34 74% 12% 15% 100% I like having a shorter number of vacation periods. Number N= Percent Agree Disagree No Opinion total 17 13 3 33 33 33 33 52% 39% 9% 100% I think I have learned more on the extended year calendar than I did on the regular 9-month calendar. Number N= Percent Agree Disagree No Opinion total 25 9 1 35 35 35 35 71% 26% 3% 100% The Year Round Education program should be offered to ail Little Rock School District Students. Number N= Percent Agree Disagree No Opinion total 19 11 5 35 35 35 35 54% 31% 14% 100% My teachers have been more patient and helpful. Number N= Percent Agree Disagree No Opinion total 28 3 4 35 35 35 35 80% 9% 11% 100% I have had more time to learn and time to get extra help when Ive needed h. Number N= Percent Agree Disagree No Opinion total 27 5 2 34 34 34 34 79% 15% 6% 100% I look forward to coming to school. Number N= Percent Agree Disagree No Opinion total 23 9 2 34 34 34 34 68% 26% 6% 100% I have liked the intersessions. Number N= Percent Agree______ Disagree No Opinion total 18 12 3 33 33 33 33 55% 36% 9% 100%Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3998 Filed 01/13/2006 Page 22 of 36 I want my school to continue with this program. Number N= Percent Agree Disagree No Opinion total 22 11 1 34 34 34 34 65% 32% 3% 100% Intersession has helped me be a better student. Number N= Percent Agree______ Disagree No Opinion total 23 6 2 31 31 31 31 74% 19% 6% 100% Gender Male Female Total Ethnicity Black White Other Total Grade Level 3rd 4th_________ 5th_________ Total 12 23 35 26 4 4 34 15 20 0 35 Last grade spent In regular school Never K 1 2 11 4 1 10Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3998 Filed 01/13/2006 Page 23 of 36 TABLE VI.2.D Stephens Student Survey Results I have been more interested in my education this year. Number N= Percent Agree Disagree No Opinion total 127 11 13 151 151 151 151 84% 7% 9% 100% i like having a shorter number of vacation periods. Number N= Agree Disagree No Opinion total 55 84 12 151 151 151 151 Percent 36% 56% 8% 100% I think I have learned more on the extended year calendar than I did on the regular 9.month calendar. Number N= Percent Agree Disagree No Opinion total 81 36 22 139 139 139 139 58% 26% 16% 100% The Year Round Education program should be offered to all Little Rock School District Students. Number N= Percent Agree Disagree No Opinion total 79 58 12 149 149 149 149 53% 39% 8% 100% My teachers have been more patient and helpful. Number N= Percent Agree Disagree No Opinion total 125 11 14 150 150 150 150 83% 7% 9% 100% I have had more time to learn and time to get extra help when I've needed It. Number N= Percent Agree Disagree No Opinion total 107 22 23 152 152 152 152 70% 147o 15% 100% I look forward to coming to school. Number N= Percent Agree Disagree No Opinion total 113 19 21 153 153 153 153 74% 12% 14% 100% I have liked the Intersessions. Number N= Percent Agree Disagree No Opinion total 91 27 35 153 153 153 153 59% 18% 23% 100%Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3998 Filed 01 /13/2006 Page 24 of 36 My parents like the extended-year program. Number N= Percent Agree Disagree No Opinion total 81 31 36 148 148 148 148 55% 21% 24% 100% I want my school to continue with this program. Number N= Agree Disagree No Opinion total 59 67 17 143 143 143 143 Percent 41% 47% 12% 100% Intersession has helped me be a better student. Number N= Percent Agree Disagree No Opinion total 68 18 40 126 126 126 126 54% 14% 32% 100% Gender Male Female Total Ethnicity Black White Other Total Grade Level 3rd 4th Sth Total 68 81 149 132 1 12 145 61 52 32 145 Last grade spent in regular school Never K 1 2 3 4 5 Total 29 35 13 29 26 10 6 148Case 4\n82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3998 Filed 01/13/2006 Page 25 of 36 TABLE VI.2.E Woodruff Student Survey Results I have been more interested in my education this year. Number N= Percent Agree Disagree No Opinion total 42 5 8 55 55 55 55 76% 9% 15% 100% I like having a shorter number of vacation periods. Number N= Percent Agree Disagree No Opinion total 14 37 6 57 57 57 57 25% 65% 11% 100% I think I have learned more on the extended year calendar than I did on the regular 9-month calendar. Number N= Percent Agree Disagree No Opinion total 34 16 10 60 60 60 60 57% 27% 17% 100% The Year Round Education program should be offered to all Little Rock School District Students. Number N= Percent Agree Disagree No Opinion total 24 24 13 61 61 61 61 39% 39% 21% 100% My teachers have been more patient and helpful. Number N= Percent Agree Disagree No Opinion total 43 9 8 60 60 60 60 72% 15% 13% 100% I have had more time to learn and time to get extra help when I've needed It. Number N= Percent Agree Disagree No Opinion total 46 10 4 60 60 60 60 77% 17% 7% 100% I look forward to coming to school. Number N= Percent Agree Disagree No Opinion total 34 14 10 58 58 58 58 59% 24% 17% 100% I have liked the intersessions. Number N= Percent Agree Disagree No Opinion total 40 10 9 59 59 59 59 68% 17% 15% 100%Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3998 Filed 01/13/2006 Page 26 of 36 My parents like the extended-year program. Number N= Percent Agree Disagree No Opinion total 36 14 11 61 61 61 61 59% 23% 18% 100% I want my school to continue with this program. Number N= Percent Agree Disagree No Opinion total 26 29 7 62 62 62 62 42% 47% 11% 100% Intersession has helped me be a better student. Number N= Percent Agree Disagree No Opinion total 36 14 7 57 57 57 57 63% 25% 12% 100% Gender Male Female Total Ethnicity Black White Other Total Grade Level 3rd 4th Sth Total 27 33 60 56 3 1 60 17 20 21 58 Last grade spent In regular school Never K 1 2 3 4 5 Total 11 23 6 8 6 5 1 60Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3998 Filed 01/13/2006 Page 27 of 36 TABLE VI.S.A Cloverdale Teacher Survey Results My students show a greater Interest In their educational program. Number N= Percent Agree Disagree No Opinion total 6 1 4 11 11 11 11 55% 9% 36% 100% My students like having a number of short vacation periods. Number N= Agree Disagree No Opinion total 11 0 0 11 11 11 11 Percent 100% 0% 0% 100% A wider variety of educational programs has been provided for my students. Number N= Percent Agree Disagree No Opinion total 9 0 2 11 11 11 11 82% 0% 18% 100% My students have achieved at a higher level than they would have In their previous 9-monlh school calendar. Number N= Percent Agree Disagree No Opinion total 6 1 4 11 11 11 11 55% 9% 36% 100% Parents are more Involved In their childrens' education on the Year Round Education schedule. Number N= Percent Agree Disagree No Opinion total 3 3 5 11 11 11 11 27% 27% 45% 100% This program should be expanded to other scohols In this district on an optional basis. Number N= Percent Agree Disagree No Opinion total 1 4 11 11 11 11 55% 9% 36% 100% 6 I want my school to continue with this program. Number N= Percent Agree Disagree No Opinion total 6 2 3 11 11 11 11 55% 18% 27% 100% My students benefit from their Intersesslon(s). Number N= Percent Agree______ Disagree No Opinion total 8 0 2 10 10 10 10 80% 0% 20% 100%Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3998 Filed 01/13/2006 Page 28 of 36 The Year Round Education schedule provides continuity in academic instruction and more time on task. Number N= Percent Agree Disagree No Opinion total 9 1 1 11 11 11 11 82% 9% 9% 100% The extended-year education schedule has been better for my attitude and stress reduction. Number N= Percent Agree Disagree No Opinion total 6 4 1 11 11 11 11 55% 36% 9% 100% The absence of a long summer break reduces the need to reteach skills and rules. Number N= Percent Agree Disagree No Opinion total 8 1 2 11 11 11 11 73% 9% 18% 100% Teachers benefit from the opportunity to earn stipends during optional intersession employment. Number N= Percent Agree Disagree No Opinion total 10 0 1 11 11 11 11 91% 0% 9% 100% Male Female Total 3 8 11 Ethnicity Black White Other Total 6 6 0 12Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3998 Filed 01/13/2006 Page 29 of 36 TABLE VI.3.B Mabelvale Teacher Survey Results My students show a greater interest In their educational program. Number N= Percent Agree Disagree No Opinion total 10 6 8 24 24 24 24 42% 25% 33% 100% My students like having a number of short vacation periods. Number N= Percent Agree Disagree No Opinion total 18 1 5 24 24 24 24 75% 4% 21% 100% A wider variety of educational programs has been provided for my students. Number N= Percent Agree Disagree No Opinion total 11 7 6 24 24 24 24 46% 29% 25% 100% My students have achieved at a higher level than they would have in their previous 9-month school calendar. Number N= Percent Agree Disagree No Opinion total 13 4 8 25 25 25 25 52% 16% 32% 100% Parents are more involved in their childrens' education on the Year Round Education schedule. Number N= Percent Agree Disagree No Opinion total 4 9 10 23 23 23 23 17% 39% 43% 100% This program should be expanded to other scohols in this district on an optional basis. Number N= Percent Agree Disagree No Opinion total 14 7 3 24 24 24 24 58% 29% 13% 100% I want my school to continue with this program. Number N= Percent Agree Disagree No Opinion total 13 5 4 22 22 22 22 59% 23% 18% 100% My students benefit from their intersesslon(s). Number N= Percent Agree Disagree No Opinion total 14 4 6 24 24 24 24 58% 17% 25% 100%Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3998 Filed 01 /13/2006 Page 30 of 36 The Year Round Education schedule provides continuity in academic instruction and more time on task. Number N= Percent Agree Disagree No Opinion total 13 3 7 23 23 23 23 57% 13% 30% 100% The extended-year education schedule has been better for my attitude and stress reduction. Number N= Percent Agree Disagree No Opinion total 11 8 3 22 22 22 22 50% 36% 14% 100% The absence of a long summer break reduces the need to reteach skills and rules. Number N= Percent Agree Disagree No Opinion total 15 7 1 23 23 23 23 65% 30% 4% 100% Teachers benefit from the opportunity to earn stipends during optional intersession employment. Number N= Percent Agree Disagree No Opinion total 17 2 4 23 23 23 23 74% 9% 17% 100% Male Female Total 2 20 22 Ethnicity Black White Other Total 3 16 0 19Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3998 Filed 01/13/2006 Page 31 of 36 TABLE VI.3.C Mitchell Teacher Survey Results My students show a greater Interest in their educational program. Number N= Percent Agree Disagree No Opinion total 3 8 6 17 17 17 17 18% 47% 35% 100% My students like having a number of short vacation periods. Number N= Percent Agree Disagree No Opinion total 5 3 6 14 14 14 14 36% 21% 43% 100% A wider variety of educational programs has been provided for my students. Number N= Percent Agree Disagree No Opinion total 10 5 1 16 16 16 16 63% 31% 6% 100% My students have achieved at a higher level than they would have in their previous 9-month school calendar. Number N= Percent Agree Disagree No Opinion total 1 10 6 17 17 17 17 6% 59% 35% 100% Parents are more involved in their childrens' education on the Year Round Education schedule. Number N= Percent Agree Disagree No Opinion total 0 12 5 17 17 17 17 0% 71% 29% 100% This program should be expanded to other scohols In this district on an optional basis. Number N= Percent Agree Disagree No Opinion total 5 10 2 17 17 17 17 29% 59% 12% 100% I want my school to continue with this program. Number N= Percent Agree Disagree No Opinion total 3 11 2 16 16 16 16 19% 69% 13% 100% My students benefit from their Intersession(s). Number N= Percent Agree Disagree No Opinion total 12 2 3 17 17 17 17 71% 12% 18% 100%Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3998 Filed 01/13/2006 Page 32 of 36 The Year Round Education schedule provides continuity In academic instruction and more time on task. Number N= Percent Agree Disagree No Opinion total 5 7 5 17 17 17 17 29% 41% 29% 100% The extended-year education schedule has been better for my attitude and stress reduction. Number N= Percent Agree Disagree No Opinion total 8 8 1 17 17 17 17 47% 47% 6% 100% The absence of a long summer break reduces the need to reteach skills and rules. Number N= Percent Agree Disagree No Opinion total 3 10 3 16 16 16 16 19% 63% 19% 100% Teachers benefit from the opportunity to earn stipends during optional intersession employment. Number N= Percent Agree Disagree No Opinion total 14 3 0 17 17 17 17 82% 18% 0% 100% Male Female Total 1 15 16 Ethnicity Black While Other Total 11 4 0 15Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3998 Filed 01/13/2006 Page 33 of 36 TABLE VI.S.D Stephens Teacher Survey Results My students show a greater interest In their educational program. Number N= Agree Disagree No Opinion total 16 13 6 35 35 35 35 Percent 46% 37% 17% 100% My students like having a number of short vacation periods. Number N= Percent Agree Disagree No Opinion total 22 8 4 34 34 34 34 65% 24% 12% 100% A wider variety of educational programs has been provided for my students. Number N= Agree Disagree No Opinion total 16 12 6 34 34 34 34 Percent 47% 35% 18% 100% My students have achieved at a higher level than they would have in their previous 9-month school calendar. Number N= Percent Agree Disagree No Opinion total 11 16 8 35 35 35 35 31% 46% 23% 100% Parents are more Involved In their childrens' education on the Year Round Education schedule. Number N= Percent Agree Disagree No Opinion total 2 26 7 35 35 35 35 6% 74% 20% 100% This program should be expanded to other scohols In this district on an optional basis. Number N= Percent Agree Disagree No Opinion total 14 13 8 35 35 35 35 40% 37% 23% 100% I want my school to continue with this program. Number N= Agree Disagree No Opinion total 16 15 4 35 35 35 35 Percent 46% 43% 11% 100% My students benefit from their Intersesslonfs). Number N= Percent Agree Disagree No Opinion total 16 11 7 34 34 34 34 47% 32% 21% 100%Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3998 Filed 01/13/2006 Page 34 of 36 The Year Round Education schedule provides continuity In academic instruction and more time on task. Number N= Percent Agree Disagree No Opinion total 16 14 5 35 35 35 35 46% 40% 14% 100% The extended-year education schedule has been better for my attitude and stress reduction. Number N= Percent Agree Disagree No Opinion total 22 11 2 35 35 35 35 63% 31% 6% 100% The absence of a long summer break reduces the need to reteach skills and rules. Number N= Percent Agree Disagree No Opinion total 12 16 6 34 34 34 34 35% 47% 18% 100% Teachers benefit from the opportunity to earn stipends during optional intersession employment. Number N= Agree Disagree No Opinion total 24 8 4 36 36 36 36 Percent 67% 22% 11% 100% Male Female Total 1 32 33 Ethnicity Black White Other Total 14 18 0 32Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3998 Filed 01/13/2006 Page 35 of 36 TABLE VI.3.E Woodruff Teacher Survey Results My students show a greater interest In their educational program. Number N= Percent Agree Disagree No Opinion total 11 4 8 23 23 23 23 48% 17% 35% 100% My students like having a number of short vacation periods. Number N= Percent Agree Disagree No Opinion total 16 2 4 22 22 22 22 73% 9% 18% 100% A wider variety of educational programs has been provided for my students. Number N= Percent Agree Disagree No Opinion total 17 4 1 22 22 22 22 77% 18% 5% 100% My students have achieved at a higher level than they would have In their previous 9-month school calendar. Number N= Percent Agree Disagree No Opinion total 9 5 8 22 22 22 22 41% 23% 36% 100% Parents are more Involved In their childrens' education on the Year Round Education schedule. Number N= Percent Agree Disagree No Opinion total 6 11 5 22 22 22 22 27% 50% 23% 100% This program should be expanded to other scohols In this district on an optional basis. Number N= Percent Agree Disagree No Opinion total 16 4 1 21 21 21 21 76% 19% 5% 100% I want my school to continue with this program. Number N= Percent Agree Disagree No Opinion total 15 4 4 23 23 23 23 65% 17% 17% 100% My students benefit from their intersesslon(s). Number N= Percent Agree Disagree No Opinion total 16 1 5 22 22 22 22 73% 5% 23% 100%Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3998 Filed 01/13/2006 Page 36 of 36 The Year Round Education schedule provide* continuity In academic Instruction and more time on task. Number N= Percent Agree Disagree No Opinion total 15 3 4 22 22 22 22 68% 14% 18% 100% The extended-year education schedule has been better for my attitude and stress reduction. Number N= Percent Agree Disagree No Opinion total 12 6 5 23 23 23 23 52% 26% 22% 100% The absence of a long summer break reduces the need to reteach skills and rules. Number N= Percent Agree Disagree No Opinion total 10 6 5 21 21 21 21 48% 29% 24% 100% Teachers benefit from the opportunity to earn stipends during optional intersession employment. Number N= Percent Agree Disagree No Opinion total 20 0 2 22 22 22 22 91% 0% 9% 100% Male Female Total 2 17 19 Ethnicity Black White Other Total 8 9 1 18\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":"geh_vacl_48","title":"Pearlie Dove interview","collection_id":"geh_vacl","collection_title":"Voices Across The Color Line Oral History Collection, 2005-2006","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, Georgia, Atlanta Metropolitan Area, 33.8498, 84.4383","United States, Georgia, Cherokee County, Holly Springs, 34.17399, -84.50132","United States, New York, New York County, New York, 40.7142691, -74.0059729"],"dcterms_creator":["Dove, Pearlie, 1921-2015","Merritt, Carole"],"dc_date":["2006-01-12"],"dcterms_description":["In this interview, Dr. Pearlie Dove discusses her decision to choose education as a field of study. She recalls her involvement for the struggle for equalization of pay for black teachers in Atlanta in the 1940s, and explains her participation in efforts to improve the conditions of Atlanta’s black schools. Dove describes her assessment of public education in Atlanta in terms of segregation, desegregation, re-segregation, and the quality of education for African American students. She ends the interview by discussing the 1973 Atlanta Compromise and how she became involved in the Carter Center’s Atlanta Project.","Pearlie Dove was in born at Grady Hospital in Atlanta, Georgia in 1921. She grew up near Ellis Street in the Washington Park district on the west side of Atlanta. Her father was a restaurateur and her mother worked as a bookkeeper at Atlanta Life Insurance Company. Ms. Dove graduated from Clark University in 1941 with a degree in education and a doctorate from the University of Colorado."],"dc_format":["video/mp4"],"dcterms_identifier":["VIS 180.009.001"],"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Kenan Research Center, Atlanta History Center, 130 West Paces Ferry RD, Atlanta, GA 30305"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["MSS 990, Voices Across the Color Line oral history transcriptions, Kenan Research Center, Atlanta History Center"],"dcterms_subject":["African Americans--History","Civil rights","Racism","Race discrimination","Race relations--Georgia--Atlanta","Education--Georgia--Atlanta","Religion","Big Bethel African Methodist Episcopal Church (Atlanta, Ga.)","Atlanta University Center (Ga.)","Morris Brown College","Atlanta Life Insurance Company (Atlanta, Ga.)","Booker T. Washington High School (Atlanta, Ga.)","Grady Memorial Hospital (Atlanta, Ga.)","Emory University","Clark University (Atlanta, Ga.)","University of Colorado, Boulder","Young Women's Christian Association (Atlanta, Ga.)","Ebenezer Baptist Church (Atlanta, Ga.)","National Association for the Advancement of Colored People","Grady High School","Brown High School"],"dcterms_title":["Pearlie Dove interview"],"dcterms_type":["MovingImage"],"dcterms_provenance":["Atlanta History Center"],"edm_is_shown_by":["https://www.youtube.com/embed/XI9wLRjL2cg"],"edm_is_shown_at":["http://album.atlantahistorycenter.com/cdm/ref/collection/VACL/id/48"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["This material is protected by copyright law. (Title 17, U.S Code) Permission for use must be cleared through The Kenan Research Center at the Atlanta History Center. Licensing agreement may be required."],"dcterms_medium":null,"dcterms_extent":["55:54 minutes"],"dlg_subject_personal":["Dove, Pearlie","King, Cornelius","Martin, E. M.","King, Lonnie C., 1936-"],"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"geh_vacl_63","title":"Nan Pendergrast interview","collection_id":"geh_vacl","collection_title":"Voices Across The Color Line Oral History Collection, 2005-2006","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, Georgia, Atlanta Metropolitan Area, 33.8498, 84.4383"],"dcterms_creator":["Pendergrast, Nan, 1920-","Merritt, Carole"],"dc_date":["2006-01-10"],"dcterms_description":["In this interview, Nan Pendergrast describes her involvement with the organization, Georgia Council on Human Relations, and their efforts to integrate public facilities in Atlanta, Georgia. She was also one of the founding members of Help Our Public Education (HOPE), and she became involved with the NAACP and the League of Women Voters. Pendergrast ends the interview by discussing her connection with the Vassar College Alumni Council.","Nan Pendergrast was born and raised in Atlanta, Georgia. She attended Vassar College in New York, returned to Atlanta after graduation, and became involved in several civic organizations."],"dc_format":["video/mp4"],"dcterms_identifier":["VIS 180.022.001"],"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Kenan Research Center, Atlanta History Center, 130 West Paces Ferry RD, Atlanta, GA 30305"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["MSS 990, Voices Across the Color Line oral history transcriptions, Kenan Research Center, Atlanta History Center"],"dcterms_subject":["African Americans--History","Civil rights","Racism","School integration--Georgia--Atlanta","Help Our Public Education (Atlanta, Ga.)","National Association for the Advancement of Colored People","Vassar College","League of Women Voters of Georgia","Coca-Cola Company"],"dcterms_title":["Nan Pendergrast interview"],"dcterms_type":["MovingImage"],"dcterms_provenance":["Atlanta History Center"],"edm_is_shown_by":["https://www.youtube.com/embed/e3vbJlCucyo"],"edm_is_shown_at":["http://album.atlantahistorycenter.com/cdm/ref/collection/VACL/id/63"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["This material is protected by copyright law. (Title 17, U.S Code) Permission for use must be cleared through The Kenan Research Center at the Atlanta History Center. Licensing agreement may be required."],"dcterms_medium":null,"dcterms_extent":["1:01:17 hours"],"dlg_subject_personal":["Pendergrast, Nan, 1920-","Young, Whitney M.","Goodwin, George","Paschall, Eliza","Freedman, Maxine","McGill, Ralph, 1898-1969","Bright, George","Sibley, John","Martin, Jim","Jones, Harrison","White, Walter, 1893-1955"],"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"geh_vacl_47","title":"Lydia Douglas interview","collection_id":"geh_vacl","collection_title":"Voices Across The Color Line Oral History Collection, 2005-2006","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, Georgia, Atlanta Metropolitan Area, 33.8498, 84.4383"],"dcterms_creator":["Douglas, Lydia","Merritt, Carole"],"dc_date":["2006-01-05"],"dcterms_description":["In the interview, Ms. Lydia T. Douglas discusses her involvement with the Atlanta Student Movement and subsequent arrest at a sit-in at the Magnolia Room at Rich's Department Store in downtown Atlanta, Georgia. She recalls her family and childhood experiences while living in a segregated neighborhood in Atlanta. She also describes her involvement as a member of the Committee on the Appeal for Human Rights; remembers attending a segregated public library in downtown Atlanta; and expresses her concerns about the psychological effects of desegregation on the younger generation in the black community.","Ms. Douglas grew up in Atlanta, Georgia and attended Booker T. Washington High School. Her father owned and ran a restaurant in Buttermilk area of Atlanta called Tucker Butler Cafe and her mother was a graduate registered nurse. She received her undergraduate degree from Clark Atlanta University and her master's in Religious Education from ITC."],"dc_format":["video/mp4"],"dcterms_identifier":["VIS 180.006.001"],"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Kenan Research Center, Atlanta History Center, 130 West Paces Ferry RD, Atlanta, GA 30305"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["MSS 990, Voices Across the Color Line oral history transcriptions, Kenan Research Center, Atlanta History Center"],"dcterms_subject":["African Americans--History","Civil rights","Racism","Law enforcement--Georgia--Atlanta","Race discrimination","Race relations","Clark University (Atlanta, Ga.)","Bobby Jones Golf Course (Atlanta, Ga.)","Grady Memorial Hospital (Atlanta, Ga.)","Kessler's (Retail store)","Rich's (Retail store)","Magnolia Room (Atlanta, Ga.)"],"dcterms_title":["Lydia Douglas interview"],"dcterms_type":["MovingImage"],"dcterms_provenance":["Atlanta History Center"],"edm_is_shown_by":["https://www.youtube.com/embed/__GUkKL2ebc"],"edm_is_shown_at":["http://album.atlantahistorycenter.com/cdm/ref/collection/VACL/id/47"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["This material is protected by copyright law. (Title 17, U.S Code) Permission for use must be cleared through The Kenan Research Center at the Atlanta History Center. Licensing agreement may be required."],"dcterms_medium":null,"dcterms_extent":["1:00:13 hours"],"dlg_subject_personal":["Douglas, Lydia","King, Lonnie C., 1936-","Brown, Benjamin","Pope, Rosalyn","Allen, Ivan, 1911-2003","King, Martin Luther, Jr., 1929-1968"],"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"geh_vacl_45","title":"Muriel Lokey interview","collection_id":"geh_vacl","collection_title":"Voices Across The Color Line Oral History Collection, 2005-2006","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, Georgia, Atlanta Metropolitan Area, 33.8498, 84.4383","United States, Washington, Pierce County, Tacoma, 47.25288, -122.44429"],"dcterms_creator":["Lokey, Muriel, 1922-2012","Merritt, Carole"],"dc_date":["2006-01-04"],"dcterms_description":["In this interview, Muriel Lokey, one of the founders of Help Our Public Education (H.O.P.E), discusses her role in the movement and her belief that the desegregation of schools should not be a catalyst for closing the schools. She begins her interview by recalling her family and educational background; how she met her husband; growing up in Tacoma, Washington; and how she moved to Atlanta and adjusted to the South. Lokey also discusses other humanitarian causes and organizations she has supported.","Muriel Lokey was born in Tacoma, Washington, and graduated from Wellesley College in 1943. She met her husband, Hamilton Lokey, during World War II when he was enlisted in the Navy, and later the couple moved to Atlanta. Lokey fought against the oppression and discrimination of people of color and became the director of the Poverty Rights Office."],"dc_format":["video/mp4"],"dcterms_identifier":["VIS 180.019.001"],"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Kenan Research Center, Atlanta History Center, 130 West Paces Ferry RD, Atlanta, GA 30305"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["MSS 990, Voices Across the Color Line oral history transcriptions, Kenan Research Center, Atlanta History Center"],"dcterms_subject":["African Americans--History","Civil rights","Racism","Education","Politics \u0026 government--Georgia--Atlanta","Religion","Morris Brown College","National Association for the Advancement of Colored People","Help Our Public Education (Atlanta, Ga.)","University of Georgia"],"dcterms_title":["Muriel Lokey interview"],"dcterms_type":["MovingImage"],"dcterms_provenance":["Atlanta History Center"],"edm_is_shown_by":["https://www.youtube.com/embed/UT6-xhHC678"],"edm_is_shown_at":["http://album.atlantahistorycenter.com/cdm/ref/collection/VACL/id/45"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["This material is protected by copyright law. (Title 17, U.S Code) Permission for use must be cleared through The Kenan Research Center at the Atlanta History Center. Licensing agreement may be required."],"dcterms_medium":null,"dcterms_extent":["41:46 hours"],"dlg_subject_personal":["Lokey, Muriel","Polly, Francis","Hollowell, Donald L., 1917-2004"],"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"afscme_sanitationstrike_1968-afscme-memphis-sanitation-workers-strike-chronology","title":"1968 AFSCME Memphis Sanitation Workers' Strike Chronology","collection_id":"afscme_sanitationstrike","collection_title":"Dr. King and the 1968 AFSCME Memphis Sanitation Strike","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, Tennessee, Shelby County, Memphis, 35.14953, -90.04898"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["2006"],"dcterms_description":["Chronology of the 1968 Memphis Sanitation Workers' strike."],"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":["Sanitation Workers Strike, Memphis, Tenn., 1968","Sanitation workers--Tennessee--Memphis","Strikes and lockouts--Sanitation--Tennessee--Memphis","Strikes and lockouts--Refuse collectors--Tennessee--Memphis","Labor unions--Tennessee--Memphis","Civil rights movements--Tennessee--Memphis","Memphis (Tenn.)--Race relations","Race discrimination--Tennessee--Memphis","Memphis (Tenn.)--Officials and employees","African Americans--Civil rights--Tennessee--Memphis","AFSCME","African American labor union members--Tennessee--Memphis"],"dcterms_title":["1968 AFSCME Memphis Sanitation Workers' Strike Chronology"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["AFSCME (American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees)"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["https://www.afscme.org/about/history/mlk/1968-afscme-memphis-sanitation-workers-strike-chronology"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["instructional materials","chronologies"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"afscme_sanitationstrike","title":"AFSCME and Dr. King","collection_id":null,"collection_title":null,"dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, Tennessee, Shelby County, Memphis, 35.14953, -90.04898"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["2006"],"dcterms_description":["Web site with information about the 1968 sanitation workers strike in Memphis, Tennessee, and the role played by Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. The site contains photographs, video, and articles about the strike and King's work while he was in Memphis. Materials on the site were created by or gathered by the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees union.","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":["Sanitation Workers Strike, Memphis, Tenn., 1968","Sanitation workers--Tennessee--Memphis","Strikes and lockouts--Tennessee--Memphis","Strikes and lockouts--Sanitation--Tennessee--Memphis","Strikes and lockouts--Refuse collectors--Tennessee--Memphis","Labor unions--Tennessee--Memphis","Civil rights movements--Tennessee--Memphis","Memphis (Tenn.)--Race relations","Race relations","Race discrimination--Tennessee--Memphis","Memphis (Tenn.)--Officials and employees","African Americans--Civil rights--Tennessee--Memphis","AFSCME","African Americans--Tennessee--Memphis","Speeches, addresses, etc.","African American labor union members--Tennessee--Memphis"],"dcterms_title":["AFSCME and Dr. King"],"dcterms_type":["MovingImage","StillImage","Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["AFSCME (American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees)"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["https://www.afscme.org/about/history/mlk/"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["black-and-white photographs","articles","web sites"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":["King, Martin Luther, Jr., 1929-1968","King, Martin Luther, Jr., 1929-1968--Assassination"],"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_905","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":["2006/2007"],"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/905"],"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.\nNORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT OFF/OCfF DESEGREGMAOTNIOITNO RING ANALYSIS OF DISCIPLINARY ACTIONS District Level FRANCICAL J. JACKSON Director of Student Affairs Ref: DIS032 Date: 4/02/08 rime : 11 : 5 5 : 3 5 Analysis of Disciplinary Actions DISTRICT LEVEL From AUGUST Through JUNE 2 0 0 5 - 0 6 -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # STU -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 09 S.A.C. 1843 50.3% 1189 32.5% 471 12.9% 158 4.3% 3661 722 515 257 107 1601 10 HOME SUSP. 1166 58.5% 565 28.3% 208 10.4% 54 2.7% 1993 566 288 134 37 1025 11 A s A C 40 58.0% 15 21.7% 9 13. 0% 5 7.2% 69 20 8 5 3 36 12 E. I.C. 84 60.9% 38 27.5% 13 9.4% 3 2.2% 138 60 26 11 3 100 17 EXPULSION 4 30.8% 2 15.4% 5 38.5% 2 15.4% 13 4 2 5 2 13 2 0 0 6 - 0 7 -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU # STU -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 89 S.A.C. 10 HOME SUSP 11 A s A C 12 E. I.C. 17 EXPULSION 1974 53.2% 1121 30.2% 441 11. 9% 173 4.7% 702 485 237 102 719 65.5% 281 25.6% 71 6.5% 26 2.4% 367 164 52 11 330 66.8% 110 22.3% 38 7.7% 16 3.2% 184 80 27 14 227 69.2% 67 20.4% 27 8.2% 7 2.1% 138 44 14 7 3 33.3% 0 .0% 3 33.3% 3 33.3% 3 0 3 3 COMPARISON -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----# REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # STU # STU # STU # STU 3709 1526 1097 594 4 94 305 328 203 9 9 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- )9 S.A.C. 131 7.1 % 68- 5.7-% 30- 6. 4-% 15 9.5 % 48 20- 30- 20- 5- 75- 10 HOME SUSP. 447- 38.3-% 284- 50.3-% 137- 65.9-% 28- 51. 9-% 896- 199- 124- 82- 26- 431- 11 A s A C 290 725. 0 % 95 633.3 % 29 322.2 % 11 220.0 % 425 164 72 22 11 269 12 E. I.C. 143 170.2 % 29 76.3 % 14 107.7 % 4 133.3 % 190 78 18 3 4 103 17 EXPULSION 1- 25.0-% 2- 100.0-% 2- 40.0-% 1 50.0 % 4- 1- 2- 2- 1 4- North Little Rock Public Schools Analysis of Discipline Actions ~School Year 2006-2007 ~ District Level ~Elementary ~Middle Schools ~High Schools ~9 Year Comparison Ref: DIS032 Date: 4/02/08 Time : 11 : 5 5 : 3 5 Analysis of Disciplinary Actions MIDDLE SCHOOLS From AUGUST Through JUNE 2 0 0 5 - 0 6 -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU -----NSF----- # REF PCT/TOT # STU -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 09 S.A.C. 1138 50.4% 747 33.1% 286 12.7% 87 3.9% 2258 414 298 143 55 910 10 HOME SUSP. 568 55.0% 315 30.5% 119 11. 5% 31 3.0% 1033 221 134 70 22 447 11 A s A C 40 58.0% 15 21.7% 9 13. 0% 5 7.2% 69 20 8 5 3 36 12 E. I.C. 0 O!l,  0 0 O!l,  0 0 .0% 0 O!l,  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 EXPULSION 1 50.0% 0 O!l,  0 0 O!l,  0 1 50.0% 2 1 0 0 1 2 2 0 0 6 - 0 7 -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NSF----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU # STU ---============================================================================= 09 S.A.C. 1171 54.0% 696 32.1% 215 9.9% 88 4.1% 2170 381 262 114 45 802 10 HOME SUSP 231 63.5% 94 25.8% 17 4.7% 22 6.0% 364 102 50 14 7 173 11 A s A C 238 71. 5% 75 22.5% 15 4.5% 5 1.5% 333 110 54 11 4 179 12 E. I.C. 0 O!l,  0 0 .0% 0 O!l,  0 0 O!l,  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 EXPULSION 1 50.0% 0 O!l,  0 1 50.0% 0 O!l,  0 2 1 0 1 0 2 COMPARISON -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NSF----- # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # STU # STU # STU # STU =------============================================-===-======================== 09 S.A.C. 33 2.9 % 51- 6.8-% 71- 24.8-% 1 1.1 % 88- 33- 36- 29- 10- 108- 10 HOME SUSP. 337- 59.3-% 221- 70.2-% 102- 85.7-% 9- 29.0-% 669- 119- 84- 56- 15- 274- 11 A s A C 198 495.0 % 60 400.0 % 6 66.7 % 0 . 0 % 264 90 46 6 1 143 12 E. I.C. 0 .0 % 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 EXPULSION 0 .0 % 0 . 0 % 1 100.0 % 1- 100.0-% 0 0 0 1 1- 0 Ref: DIS032 Date : 4 / 0 2 / 0 8 Time : 11 : 5 5 : 3 5 Analysis of Disciplinary Actions HIGH SCHOOLS From AUGUST Through JUNE 2 0 0 5 - 0 6 -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # STU -------------------------------======================-==-======================= 09 S.A.C. 705 50.2% 442 31. 5% 185 13. 2% 71 5.1% 1403 308 217 114 52 691 10 HOME SUSP. 394 59.2% 192 28.9% 59 8.9% 20 3.0% 665 202 111 42 12 367 11 A s A C 0 0 g.  0 0 Og.  0 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E. I.C. 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 0 g.  0 0 Og.  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 EXPULSION 3 27.3% 2 18.2% 5 45.5% 1 9.1% 11 3 2 5 1 11 2 0 0 6 - 0 7 --------------------------------------------------------------------=-========== -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU # STU ------------------------------=----------====----===---=--==---================= 09 S.A.C. 803 52.2% 425 27.6% 226 14.7% 85 5.5% 1539 321 223 123 57 724 10 HOME SUSP 221 58.6% 130 34.5% 23 6.1% 3 .8% 377 102 66 18 3 189 11 A s A C 91 56.9% 35 21. 9% 23 14.4% 11 6.9% 160 73 26 16 10 125 12 E. I.C. 0 .0% 0 0 g.  0 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 EXPULSION 2 28.6% 0 0 g.  0 2 28.6% 3 42.9% 7 2 0 2 3 7 COMPARISON -----------------------=-========----------------=-----=-===-=================== -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----# REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # STU # STU # STU # STU -----=========================================================================== )9 S.A.C. 98 13.9 % 17- 3.8-% 41 22.2 % 14 19.7 % 136 13 6 9 5 33 LO HOME SUSP. 173- 43.9-% 62- 32.3-% 36- 61.0-% 17- 85.0-% 288- 100- 45- 24- 9- 178- Ll A s A C 91 9100.0 % 35 3500.0 % 23 2300.0 % 11 1100.0 % 160 73 26 16 10 125 L2 E. I.C. 0 .0 % 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 L7 EXPULSION 1- 33.3-% 2- 100.0-% 3- 60.0-% 2 200.0 % 4- 1- 2- 3- 2 4- Ref: DIS032 Date: 4/02/08 Time : 11 : 5 5 : 3 5 09 S.A.C. 10 HOME SUSP. 11 A s A C 12 E. I.C. 17 EXPULSION Analysis of Disciplinary Actions ELEMENTARY K-5 From AUGUST Through JUNE 2 0 0 5 - 0 6 -----BM-----# REF PCT/TOT # STU 0 O!l-  0 0 204 69.2% 143 0 O!l-  0 0 84 60.9% 60 0 .0% 0 -----BF-----# REF PCT /TOT # STU 0 O!l-  0 0 58 19.7% 43 0 O!l-  0 0 38 27.5% 26 0 O!l-  0 0 -----NBM----# REF PCT/TOT # STU 0 O!l-  0 0 30 10.2% 22 0 O!l-  0 0 13 9.4% 11 0 O!l-  0 0 -----NBF----# REF PCT/TOT # STU 0 O!l-  0 0 3 1.0% 3 0 O!l-  0 0 3 2.2% 3 0 O!l-  0 0 0 0 295 211 0 0 138 100 0 0 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 0 0 6 - 0 7 -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU # STU -----------=---==-======-======================================================= 09 S.A.C. 0 .0% 0 O!l-  0 0 .0% 0 O!l-  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 HOME SUSP 266 75.1% 57 16.1% 30 8.5% 1 .3% 354 162 48 19 1 230 11 A s A C 1 100.0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 O!l-  0 1 1 0 0 0 1 12 E. I.C. 227 69.2% 67 20.4% 27 8.2% 7 2.1% 328 138 44 14 7 203 17 EXPULSION 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 ---------===-=================================================================== COMPARISON -----------=----================================================================ -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # STU # STU # STU # STU ------------------=-===-==========-============================================= )9 S.A.C. 0 .0 % 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 .0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 lO HOME SUSP. 62 30.4 % 1- 1.7-% 0 .0 % 2- 66.7-% 59 19 5 3- 2- 19 ll A s A C 1 100.0 % 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 1 1 0 0 0 1 12 E. I.C. 143 170. 2 % 29 76.3 % 14 107.7 % 4 133. 3 % 190 78 18 3 4 103 L7 EXPULSION 0 .0 % 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ref: Date: Time: DIS032S 4/02/08 11:55:36 School: 032 Analysis of Disciplinary Actions by School From AUGUST Through JUNE LAKEWOOD ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 2 0 0 5 - 0 6 -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # STU -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 09 S.A.C. 0 .0% 0 0 !l-  0 0 O!l-  0 0 O!l-  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 HOME SUSP. 5 62.5% 2 25.0% 1 12.5% 0 O!l-  0 8 5 2 1 0 8 11 A s A C 0 O!l-  0 0 .0% 0 O!l-  0 0 O!l-  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E. I.C. 1 100.0% 0 .0% 0 O!l-  0 0 O!l-  0 1 1 0 0 0 1 17 EXPULSION 0 O!l-  0 0 O!l-  0 0 O!l-  0 0 .0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 6 - 0 7 -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT /TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU # STU -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 09 S.A.C. 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 O!l-  0 0 O!l-  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 HOME SUSP. 3 60.0% 2 40.0% 0 .0% 0 O!l-  0 5 3 2 0 0 5 11 A s A C 0 O!l-  0 0 .0% 0 O!l-  0 0 O!l-  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E. I.C 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 EXPULSION 0 O!l-  0 0 .0% 0 O!l-  0 0 O!l-  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 COMPARISON -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # STU # STU # STU # STU ============================================-==--------=-----=---=-============= 09 S.A.C. 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 0 \"6 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 HOME SUSP. 2- 40.0-% 0 . 0 % 1- 100.0-% 0 . 0 % 3- 2- 0 1- 0 3- 11 A s A C 0 .0 % 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 .0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E. I.C. 1- . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 1- 1- 0 0 0 1- 17 EXPULSION 0 .0 % 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ref: DIS032S Date : 4 / 0 2 / 0 8 Time : 11 : S S : 3 6 School: 033 Analysis of Disciplinary Actions by School From AUGUST Through JUNE BOONE PARK ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 2 0 0 S - 0 6 -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # STU -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 09 S.A.C. 0 0 !l-  0 0 .0% 0 O!l-  0 0 O!l-  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 HOME SUSP. 11 78.6% 3 21. 4% 0 O!l-  0 0 O!l-  0 14 8 3 0 0 11 11 A s A C 0 O!l-  0 0 O!l-  0 0 O!l-  0 0 O!l-  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E. I.C. 33 68.8% 13 27.1% 0 4.2% 0 .0% 48 17 10 2 0 29 17 EXPULSION 0 O!l-  0 0 O!l-  0 0 O!l-  0 0 .0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 6 - 0 7 -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU # STU -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 09 S.A.C. 0 .0% 0 O!l-  0 0 O!l-  0 0 .0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 HOME SUSP. 8 80.0% 2 20.0% 0 O!l-  0 0 .0% 10 7 2 0 0 9 11 A s A C 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 O!l-  0 0 .0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E. I.C 43 81.1% 9 17.0% 1 1. 9% 0 O!l-  0 53 27 8 1 0 36 17 EXPULSION 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 COMPARISON -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # STU # STU # STU # STU -----==================================-====-----------==-----------=-========== 09 S.A.C. 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 .0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 HOME SUSP. 3- 27.3-% 1- 33.3-% 0 .0 % 0 . 0 % 4- 1- 1- 0 0 2- 11 A s A C 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E. I.C. 10 . 0 % 4- . 0 % 1- . 0 % 0 . 0 % s 0 0 1- 0 7 17 EXPULSION 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ref: DIS032S 4/02/08 11:55:36 031 Date: Time: School: 09 S.A.C. 10 HOME SUSP. 11 A s A C 12 E. I.C. 17 EXPULSION Analysis of Disciplinary Actions by School From AUGUST Through JUNE AMBOY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 2 0 0 5 - 0 6 -----BM-----# REF PCT/TOT # STU 0 09-  0 0 7 77. 8% 4 0 0 9-  0 0 1 100.0% 1 0 09-  0 0 -----BF------ # REF PCT/TOT # STU 0 09-  0 0 1 11.1% 1 0 0 9-  0 0 0 09-  0 0 0 09-  0 0 2 0 0 6 - 0 7 -----BM------ -----BF------ # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU -----NBM----# REF PCT/TOT # STU 0 09-  0 0 1 11.1% 1 0 09-  0 0 0 09-  0 0 0 0 9-  0 0 -----NBM----- # REF PCT/TOT # STU -----NBF----# REF PCT/TOT # STU 0 09-  0 0 0 09-  0 0 0 0 9-  0 0 0 0 9-  0 0 0 09-  0 0 -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # STU 0 0 9 6 0 0 1 1 0 0 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 09 S.A.C. 0 .0% 0 0 9-  0 0 0 9-  0 0 09-  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 HOME SUSP. 5 55.6% 3 33.3% 1 11.1% 0 09-  0 9 4 2 1 0 7 11 A s A C 0 09-  0 0 .0% 0 0 9-  0 0 0 9-  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E. I.C 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 0 9-  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 EXPULSION 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 COMPARISON -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # STU # STU # STU # STU -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 09 S.A.C. 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 HOME SUSP. 2- 28.6-% 2 200.0 % 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 0 1 0 0 1 11 A s A C 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E.I.C. 1- . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 .0 % 1- 1- 0 0 0 1- 17 EXPULSION 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ref: DIS032S Date: 4/02/08 Time : 11 : 5 5 : 3 6 School: 037 Analysis of Disciplinary Actions by School From AUGUST Through JUNE LYNCH DRIVE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 2 0 0 5 - 0 6 -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # STU -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 09 S.A.C. 0 O!l-  0 0 O!l-  0 0 .0% 0 O!l-  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 HOME SUSP. 21 91. 3% 1 4.3% 1 4.3% 0 O!l-  0 23 15 1 1 0 17 11 A s A C 0 O!l-  0 0 O!l-  0 0 O!l-  0 0 O!l-  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E. I.C. 5 83.3% 1 16.7% 0 O!l-  0 0 O!l-  0 6 4 1 0 0 5 17 EXPULSION 0 .0% 0 O!l-  0 0 O!l-  0 0 .0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 6 - 0 7 -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU # STU -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 09 S.A.C. 0 O!l-  0 0 O!l-  0 0 .0% 0 O!l-  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 HOME SUSP. 47 90.4% 2 3.8% 3 5.8% 0 O!l-  0 52 26 2 1 0 29 11 A s A C 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 O!l-  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E. I.C 105 69.1% 31 20.4% 13 8.6% 3 2.0% 152 63 15 6 3 87 17 EXPULSION 0 O!l-  0 0 O!l-  0 0 .0% 0 O!l-  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 COMPARISON -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # STU # STU # STU # STU -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 09 S.A.C. 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 .0 % 0 . 0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 HOME SUSP. 26 123.8 % 1 100.0 % 2 200.0 % 0 . 0 % 29 11 1 0 0 12 11 A s A C 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E. I.C. 100 . 0 % 30 . 0 % 13 .0 % 3 . 0 % 146 20 30 13 3 82 17 EXPULSION 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ref: Date: Time: DIS032S 4/02/08 11:55:36 School: 040 Analysis of Disciplinary Actions by School From AUGUST Through JUNE MEADOW PARK ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 2 0 0 5 - 0 6 -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU -----NSF----- # REF PCT/TOT # STU -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 09 S.A.C. 0 Og.  0 0 Og.  0 0 Og.  0 0 Og.  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 HOME SUSP. 34 66.7% 16 31. 4% 1 2.0% 0 .0% 51 19 12 1 0 32 11 A s A C 0 Og.  0 0 .0% 0 Og.  0 0 Og.  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E. I.C. 0 Og.  0 0 .0% 0 Og.  0 0 Og.  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 EXPULSION 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 Og.  0 0 Og.  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 6 - 0 7 -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NSF----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU # STU ------======---==---========-=======================-=========================== 09 S.A.C. 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 Og.  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 HOME SUSP. 52 72. 2% 19 26.4% 1 1. 4% 0 .0% 72 30 16 1 0 47 11 A s A C 0 Og.  0 0 .0% 0 Og.  0 0 .0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E. I.C 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 Og.  0 0 Og.  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 EXPULSION 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 Og.  0 0 0 g.  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 COMPARISON -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NSF----- # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # STU # STU # STU # STU ----============================================================================ 09 S.A.C. 0 . 0 % 0 .0 % 0 . 0 % 0 .0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 HOME SUSP. 18 52.9 % 3 18.8 % 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 21 11 4 0 0 15 11 A s A C 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E. I.C. 0 . 0 % 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 EXPULSION 0 . 0 % 0 .0 % 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ref: DIS032S Date: 4/02/08 Time: 11:55:36 School: 035 Analysis of Disciplinary Actions by School From AUGUST Through JUNE SEVENTH STREET ELEMENTARY SCHOOL ==============------------========-----=-==------------------------------------- 2 0 0 5 - 0 6 ==============------------========--------====---------------------------------- -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU # STU ======================================================-----------------=-==----- 09 S.A.C. 0 Og_  0 0 09-  0 0 Og_  0 0 0 g_  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 HOME SUSP. 40 75.5% 11 20.8% 2 3.8% 0 0 g_  0 53 29 9 1 0 39 11 A s A C 0 0 9-  0 0 Og_  0 0 0 g_  0 0 0 g_  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E.I.C. 0 Og_  0 0 Og_  0 0 0 9-  0 0 Og_  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 EXPULSION 0 Og_  0 0 0 g_  0 0 Og_  0 0 0 g_  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 0 0 6 - 0 7 -=================================----------------------------------------=----- -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU # STU --===========-=---=-==============---------------------------------------------- 09 S.A.C. 0 09-  0 0 Og_  0 0 Og_  0 0 0 g_  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 HOME SUSP. 25 96. 2% 1 3.8% 0 0 g_  0 0 0 g_  0 26 15 1 0 0 16 11 A s A C 0 09-  0 0 Og_  0 0 09-  0 0 09-  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E.I.C 0 Og_  0 0 Og_  0 0 Og_  0 0 09-  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 EXPULSION 0 09-  0 0 Og_  0 0 0 g_  0 0 .0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- COMPARISON -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # STU # STU # STU # STU --=======---======================-----=----==--=--=------------------====---=== 09 S.A.C. 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 .0 % 0 . 0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 HOME SUSP. 15- 37.5-% 10- 90.9-% 2- 100.0-% 0 . 0 % 27- 14- 8- 1- 0 23- 11 A s A C 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 0 . 0 % 0 .0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E. I.C. 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 EXPULSION 0 . 0 % 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ref: Date: Time: DIS032S 4/02/08 11:55:36 School: 042 Analysis of Disciplinary Actions by School From AUGUST Through JUNE CRESTWOOD ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 2 0 0 5 - 0 6 -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # STU -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 09 S.A.C. 0 0 g.  0 0 0 g.  0 0 0 g.  0 0 Og.  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 HOME SUSP. 6 35.3% 7 41. 2% 2 11. 8% 2 11. 8% 17 5 3 2 2 12 11 A s A C 0 Og.  0 0 Og.  0 0 0 g.  0 0 Og.  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E. I.C. 1 100.0% 0 Og.  0 0 0 g.  0 0 Og.  0 1 1 0 0 0 1 17 EXPULSION 0 Og.  0 0 0 g.  0 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 6 - 0 7 -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU # STU -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 09 S.A.C. 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 Og.  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 HOME SUSP. 10 71. 4% 1 7.1% 2 14.3% 1 7.1% 14 6 1 2 1 10 11 A s A C 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 Og.  0 0 Og.  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E. I.C 0 .0% 0 Og.  0 0 Og.  0 0 Og.  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 EXPULSION 0 .0% 0 Og.  0 0 0 g.  0 0 Og.  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 COMPARISON -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # STU # STU # STU # STU -=============================================================================== 09 S.A.C. 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 HOME SUSP. 4 66.7 % 6- 85.7-% 0 . 0 % 1- 50.0-% 3- 1 2- 0 1- 2- 11 A s A C 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E. I.C. 1- . 0 % 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 0 . 0 % 1- 1- 0 0 0 1- 17 EXPULSION 0 .0 % 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ref: DIS032S Date: 4/02/08 rime : 11 : 5 5 : 3 6 School: 043 Analysis of Disciplinary Actions by School From AUGUST Through JUNE PARK HILL ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 2 0 0 5 - 0 6 -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # STU -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 09 S.A.C. 0 051-  0 0 051-  0 0 0 51-  0 0 051-  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 HOME SUSP. 15 60.0% 1 4.0% 9 36.0% 0 051-  0 25 10 1 6 0 17 11 A s A C 0 051-  0 0 051-  0 0 051-  0 0 0 51-  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E. I.C. 1 16.7% 1 16.7% 0 66.7% 0 051-  0 6 1 1 3 0 5 17 EXPULSION 0 051-  0 0 051-  0 0 .0% 0 051-  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 6 - 0 7 -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU # STU -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 09 S.A.C. 0 051-  0 0 .0% 0 051-  0 0 051-  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 HOME SUSP. 6 75.0% 2 25.0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 8 6 1 0 0 7 11 A s A C 0 051-  0 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 051-  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E. I.C 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 051-  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 EXPULSION 0 .0% 0 051-  0 0 051-  0 0 .0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 COMPARISON -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # STU # STU # STU # STU -------========================================================================= J9 S.A.C. 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 HOME SUSP. 9- 60.0-% 1 100.0 % 9- 100.0-% 0 . 0 % 17- 4- 0 6- 0 10- 11 A s A C 0 . 0 % 0 .0 % 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E. I.C. 1- . 0 % 1- . 0 % 4- . 0 % 0 . 0 % 6- 1- 1- 4- 0 5- 17 EXPULSION 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 .0 % 0 . 0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ref: DIS032S Date: 4 /02 /08 Time : 11 : 5 5 : 3 6 School: 041 Analysis of Disciplinary Actions by School From AUGUST Through JUNE NORTH HEIGHTS ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 2 0 0 5 - 0 6 -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU -----NSF----- # REF PCT/TOT # STU -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 09 S.A.C. 0 O!l,  0 0 O!l,  0 0 O!l,  0 0 O!l,  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 HOME SUSP. 10 76.9% 1 7.7% 2 15.4% 0 O!l,  0 13 7 1 2 0 10 11 A s A C 0 O!l,  0 0 O!l,  0 0 O!l,  0 0 O!l,  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E. I.C. 6 50.0% 2 16.7% 0 25.0% 0 8.3% 12 5 2 3 1 11 17 EXPULSION 0 O!l,  0 0 O!l,  0 0 O!l,  0 0 O!l,  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 6 - 0 7 -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NSF----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU # STU -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 09 S.A.C. 0 .0% 0 O!l,  0 0 .0% 0 O!l,  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 HOME SUSP. 12 75.0% 3 18.8% 1 6.3% 0 O!l,  0 16 8 3 1 0 12 11 A s A C 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 O!l,  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E. I.C 45 70.3% 15 23. 4% 3 4.7% 1 1. 6% 64 26 11 3 1 41 17 EXPULSION 0 O!l,  0 0 .0% 0 O!l,  0 0 .0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 COMPARISON -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NSF----- # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # STU # STU # STU # STU ---============================================================================= 09 S.A.C. 0 . 0 % 0 .0 % 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 HOME SUSP. 2 20.0 % 2 200.0 % 1- 50.0-% 0 . 0 % 3 1 2 1- 0 2 11 A s A C 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E. I.C. 39 . 0 % 13 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 52 7 7 0 0 30 17 EXPULSION 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ref: DIS032S Date: 4 /02/08 Time : 11 : 5 5 : 3 6 School: 045 Analysis of Disciplinary Actions by School From AUGUST Through JUNE BELWOOD ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 2 0 0 5 - 0 6 -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # STU -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 09 S.A.C. 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 O!.l-  0 0 O!.l-  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 HOME SUSP. 9 100.0% 0 .0% 0 O!.l-  0 0 O!.l-  0 9 8 0 0 0 8 11 A s A C 0 O!.l-  0 0 O!.l-  0 0 O!.l-  0 0 O!.l-  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E. I.C. 0 O!.l-  0 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 O!.l-  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 EXPULSION 0 O!.l-  0 0 O!.l-  0 0 O!.l-  0 0 .0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 6 - 0 7 -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU # STU -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 09 S.A.C. 0 O!.l-  0 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 O!.l-  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 HOME SUSP. 7 87.5% 0 .0% 1 12.5% 0 O!.l-  0 8 5 0 1 0 6 11 A s A C 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 O!.l-  0 0 O!.l-  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E. I.C 0 .0% 0 O!.l-  0 0 .0% 0 O!.l-  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 EXPULSION 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 O!.l-  0 0 O!.l-  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 COMPARISON -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # STU # STU # STU # STU ---==================================--===---=--=----------------=============== 09 S.A.C. 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 .0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 HOME SUSP. 2- 22.2-% 0 . 0 % 1 100.0 % 0 . 0 % 1- 3- 0 1 0 2- 11 A s A C 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 .0 % 0 . 0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E. I.C. 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 .0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 EXPULSION 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ref: DIS032S Date: 4 /02/08 rime: 11: 55: 36 School: 04 6 Analysis of Disciplinary Actions by School From AUGUST Through JUNE GLENVIEW ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 2 0 0 5 - 0 6 -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # STU -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 09 S.A.C. 0 O!.l,  0 0 O!.l,  0 0 O!.l,  0 0 O!.l,  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 HOME SUSP. 15 62.5% 4 16.7% 5 20.8% 0 O!.l,  0 24 13 4 4 0 21 11 A s A C 0 O!.l,  0 0 O!.l,  0 0 O!.l,  0 0 O!.l,  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E. I. C. 0 O!.l,  0 0 O!.l,  0 0 O!.l,  0 0 O!.l,  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 EXPULSION 0 O!.l,  0 0 O!.l,  0 0 O!.l,  0 0 O!.l,  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 6 - 0 7 -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU # STU ------========================================================================== 09 S.A.C. 0 O!.l,  0 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 O!.l,  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 HOME SUSP. 56 72.7% 8 10.4% 13 16.9% 0 O!.l,  0 77 30 7 9 0 46 11 A s A C 0 O!.l,  0 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 O!.l,  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E. I.C 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 . 0% 0 .0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 EXPULSION 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 O!.l,  0 0 O!.l,  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ------========-================================================================= COMPARISON -----=========================================================================== -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # STU # STU # STU # STU ------========================================================================== 09 S.A.C. 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 .0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 HOME SUSP. 41 273.3 % 4 100.0 % 8 160.0 % 0 . 0 % 53 17 3 5 0 25 11 A s A C 0 . 0 % 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E.I.C. 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 .0 % 0 . 0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 EXPULSION 0 . 0 % 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ref: DIS032S Date: 4/02/08 rime : 11 : 5 5 : 3 6 School: 04 4 J9 S.A.C. 10 HOME SUSP. 11 A s A C 12 E.I.C. 17 EXPULSION Analysis of Disciplinary Actions by School From AUGUST Through JUNE PIKE VIEW ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 2 0 0 5 - 0 6 -----BM-----# REF PCT/TOT # STU 0 Og,  0 0 23 63.9% 16 0 0 !le  0 0 33 55.9% 27 0 Og,  0 0 -----BF-----# REF PCT/TOT # STU 0 0 !le  0 0 11 30.6% 6 0 Og,  0 0 21 35.6% 12 0 0 !le  0 0 -----NBM----# REF PCT/TOT # STU 0 Og,  0 0 2 5.6% 1 0 0 !le  0 0 0 5.1% 2 0 Og,  0 0 -----NBF----# REF PCT/TOT # STU 0 Og,  0 0 0 Og,  0 0 0 Og,  0 0 0 3.4% 2 0 Og,  0 0 0 0 36 23 0 0 59 43 0 0 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 0 0 6 - 0 7 -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU # STU -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- )9 S.A.C. 0 0 !le  0 0 .0% 0 0 !le  0 0 0 !le  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 HOME SUSP. 23 74.2% 5 16.1% 3 9.7% 0 0 !le  0 31 17 5 1 0 23 11 A s A C 0 .0% 0 Og,  0 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E. I.C 34 58.6% 12 20.7% 9 15.5% 3 5.2% 58 23 10 3 3 39 17 EXPULSION 0 Og,  0 0 0 !le  0 0 Og,  0 0 0 !le  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 COMPARISON -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT(+/-) # F-EF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # STU # STU # STU # STU ---============================================================================= )9 S.A.C. 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 HOME SUSP. 0 . 0 % 6- 54.5-% 1 50.0 % 0 .0 % 5- 1 1- 0 0 0 L1 A s A C 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E. I.C. 1 . 0 % 9- . 0 % 6 .0 % 1 . 0 % 1- 0 0 6 1 4- 17 EXPULSION 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~ef: DIS032S )ate: 4 /02/08 rime : 11 : 5 5 : 3 6 3chool: 024 Analysis of Disciplinary Actions by School From AUGUST Through JUNE RIDGEROAD MIDDLE CHARTER SCHOOL 2 0 0 5 - 0 6 -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # STU -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- )9 S.A.C. 457 46.5% 414 42.2% 81 8.2% 30 3.1% 982 150 150 38 18 356 10 HOME SUSP. 242 53.2% 158 34.7% 45 9.9% 10 2.2% 455 89 66 24 7 186 11 A s A C 1 50.0% 1 50.0% 0 0 Se  0 0 0 Se  0 2 1 1 0 0 2 12 E. I.C. 0 0 Se  0 0 .0% 0 Ole  0 0 Ole  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 EXPULSION 1 100.0% 0 .0% 0 0 Se  0 0 0 Se  0 1 1 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 6 - 0 7 -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU # STU -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- )9 S.A.C. 401 50.4% 294 37.0% 65 8.2% 35 4.4% 795 122 111 33 17 283 10 HOME SUSP. 105 59.0% 49 27.5% 14 7.9% 10 5.6% 178 50 29 12 5 96 11 A s A C 31 62.0% 18 36.0% 1 2.0% 0 .0% 50 18 12 1 0 31 12 E. I.C 0 0 Se  0 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 0 Se  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 EXPULSION 1 50.0% 0 .0% 1 50.0% 0 0 Se  0 2 1 0 1 0 2 COMPARISON -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # STU # STU # STU # STU ---============================================================================= )9 S.A.C. 56- 12.3-% 120- 29.0-% 16- 19.8-% 5 16.7 % 187- 28- 39- 5- 1- 73- 10 HOME SUSP. 137- 56.6-% 109- 69.0-% 31- 68.9-% 0 .0 % 277- 39- 37- 12- 2- 90- 11 A s A C 30 3000.0 % 17 1700.0 % 1 100.0 % 0 . 0 % 48 17 11 1 0 29 12 E. I.C. 0 . 0 % 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 0 . 0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 EXPULSION 0 .0 % 0 . 0 % 1 100.0 % 0 . 0 % 1 0 0 1 0 1 Ref: DIS032S Date: 4 /02 /08 rime : 11 : 5 5 : 3 6 School: 025 Analysis of Disciplinary Actions by School From AUGUST Through JUNE LAKEWOOD MIDDLE SCHOOL 2 0 0 5 - 0 6 -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # STU -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 09 S.A.C. 146 42.3% 66 19.1% 109 31. 6% 24 7.0% 345 69 31 63 18 181 10 HOME SUSP. 68 47.6% 17 11. 9% 48 33.6% 10 7.0% 143 30 11 32 10 83 11 A s A C 0 0 g,  0 0 Og,  0 0 .0% 0 Og,  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E. I.C. 0 0 g,  0 0 0 g,  0 0 Og,  0 1 Og,  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 EXPULSION 0 0 g,  0 0 Og,  0 0 Og,  0 1 100.0% 1 0 0 0 1 1 2 0 0 6 - 0 7 -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU # STU -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 09 S.A.C. 343 51. 8% 156 23. 6% 116 17.5% 47 7.1% 662 93 49 56 23 221 10 HOME SUSP. 3 42.9% 3 42.9% 0 .0% 1 14.3% 7 3 3 0 1 7 11 A s A C 92 70.2% 26 19.8% 10 7.6% 3 2.3% 131 27 17 7 3 54 12 E.I.C 0 0 g,  0 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 . 0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 EXPULSION 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 COMPARISON -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # STU # STU # STU # STU ---=====================================-=====-----------------------------===== 09 S.A.C. 197 134.9 % 90 136. 4 % 7 6.4 % 23 95.8 % 317 24 18 7- 5 40 10 HOME SUSP. 65- 95.6-% 14- 82.4-% 48- 100.0-% 9- 90.0-% 136- 27- 8- 32- 9- 76- 11 A s A C 92 9200.0 % 26 2600.0 % 10 1000.0 % 3 300.0 % 131 27 17 7 3 54 12 E. I.C. 0 .0 % 0 . 0 % 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 EXPULSION 0 .0 % 0 . 0 % 0 .0 % 1- 100.0-% 1- 0 0 0 1- 1- Ref: DIS032S Date: 4/02/08 rime: 11:55:36 School: 048 Analysis of Disciplinary Actions by School From AUGUST Through JUNE INDIAN HILLS ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 2 0 0 5 - 0 6 -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # STU -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 09 S.A.C. 0 0~  0 0 0~  0 0 .0% 0 0~  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 HOME SUSP. 8 61. 5% 0 0~  0 4 30.8% 1 7.7% 13 6 0 2 1 9 11 A s A C 0 0~  0 0 0~  0 0 0~  0 0 0~  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E. I.C. 3 75.0% 0 0~  0 0 25.0% 0 0~  0 4 3 0 1 0 4 17 EXPULSION 0 0~  0 0 0~  0 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 6 - 0 7 -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU # STU -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 09 S.A.C. 0 .0% 0 0~  0 0 .0% 0 0~  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 HOME SUSP. 13 46.4% 9 32.1% 6 21. 4% 0 .0% 28 9 6 5 0 20 11 A s A C 0 .0% 0 0~  0 0 .0% 0 0~  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E. I.C 0 .0% 0 0~  0 1 100.0% 0 0~  0 1 0 0 1 0 1 17 EXPULSION 0 .0% 0 0~  0 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 COMPARISON -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT(+/-) # ~EF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # STU # STU # STU # STU -============================================================-----============== 09 S.A.C. 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 HOME SUSP. 5 62.5 % 9 900.0 % 2 50.0 % 1- 100.0-% 15 3 6 3 1- 11 11 A s A C 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 .0 % 0 . 0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E. I.C. 3- .0 % 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 3- 1- 0 0 0 3- 17 EXPULSION 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ref: Date: Time: DIS032S 4/02/08 11:55:36 School: 030 Analysis of Disciplinary Actions by School From AUGUST Through JUNE POPLAR STREET MIDDLE SCHOOL 2 0 0 5 - 0 6 -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT /TOT # STU # STU # STU -----NSF----- # REF PCT/TOT # STU -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 09 S.A.C. 310 55.5% 170 30.4% 59 10.6% 20 3.6% 559 136 79 32 13 260 10 HOME SUSP. 109 57.1% 68 35.6% 9 4.7% 5 2.6% 191 52 28 7 2 89 11 A s A C 0 Og_  0 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E. I.C. 0 0 g_  0 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 Og_  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 EXPULSION 0 .0% 0 Og_  0 0 Og_  0 0 Og_  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 6 - 0 7 -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NSF----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU # STU ===============================================================~================ 09 S.A.C. 262 60.8% 138 32.0% 26 6.0% 5 1. 2% 431 118 71 22 4 215 10 HOME SUSP. 1 50.0% 1 50.0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 2 1 1 0 0 2 11 A s A C 72 80.9% 15 16.9% 2 2.2% 0 . 0% 89 36 11 1 0 48 12 E. I.C 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 . 0% 0 Og_  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 EXPULSION 0 Og_  0 0 0 g_  0 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 COMPARISON -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NSF----- # REF PCT(+/-) # ~EF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # STU # STU # STU # STU ---============================================================================= 09 S.A.C. 48- 15.5-% 32- 18.8-% 33- 55.9-% 15- 75.0-% 128- 18- 8- 10- 9- 4 5- 10 HOME SUSP. 108- 99.1-% 67- 98.5-% 9- 100.0-% 5- 100.0-% 189- 51- 27- 7- 2- 87- 11 A s A C 72 7200.0 % 15 1500.0 % 2 200.0 % 0 .0 % 89 36 11 1 0 48 12 E. I.C. 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 .0 % 0 . 0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 EXPULSION 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ref: DIS032S Date: 4 /02/08 Time : 11 : 5 5 : 3 5 School: 012 Analysis of Disciplinary Actions by School From AUGUST Through JUNE NORTH LITTLE ROCK HIGH SCHOOL - 11/12 2 0 0 5 - 0 6 -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # STU -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 09 S.A.C. 234 49.2% 118 24.8% 91 19.1% 33 6.9% 476 126 81 59 23 289 10 HOME SUSP. 67 60.4% 26 23.4% 15 13. 5% 3 2.7% 111 53 25 14 3 95 11 A s A C 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 0 9c  0 0 0 9c  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E. I.C. 0 0 9c  0 0 0 9c  0 1 0 9,  0 0 09,  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 EXPULSION 1 25.0% 2 50.0% 1 25.0% 0 0 9c  0 4 1 2 1 0 4 2 0 0 6 - 0 7 -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU # STU -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 09 S.A.C. 299 58.4% 125 24.4% 61 11. 9% 27 5.3% 512 141 79 36 21 277 10 HOME SUSP. 25 69.4% 7 19.4% 4 11. 1% 0 0 9c  0 36 23 7 4 0 34 11 A s A G 30 78.9% 1 2.6% 7 18.4% 0 .0% 38 26 1 5 0 32 12 E. I.C 0 .0% 0 0 9c  0 0 .0% 0 0 9c  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 EXPULSION 0 .0% 0 09,  0 1 100.0% 0 .0% 1 0 0 1 0 1 COMPARISON -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # STU # STU # STU # STU -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 09 S.A.C. 65 27.8 % 7 5.9 % 30- 33.0-% 6- 18.2-% 36 15 2- 23- 2- 12- 10 HOME SUSP. 42- 62.7-% 19- 73.1-% 11- 73.3-% 3- 100.0-% 75- 30- 18- 10- 3- 61- 11 A s A C 30 3000.0 % 1 100.0 % 7 700.0 % 0 .0 % 38 26 1 5 0 32 12 E. I.C. 0 . 0 % 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 0 . 0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 EXPULSION 1- 100.0-% 2- 100.0-% 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 3- 1- 2- 0 0 3- Ref: DIS032S Date: 4/02/08 Time: 11: 55: 36 School: 026 ROSE Analysis of Disciplinary Actions by School From AUGUST Through JUNE CITY MIDDLE SCHOOL 2 0 0 5 - 0 6 -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # STU -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 09 S.A.C. 225 60.5% 97 26.1% 37 9.9% 13 3.5% 372 68 42 11 6 127 10 HOME SUSP. 149 60.8% 71 29.0% 17 6.9% 8 3.3% 245 53 32 8 4 97 11 A s A C 39 58.2% 14 20.9% 9 13.4% 5 7.5% 67 19 7 5 3 34 12 E. I.C. 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 0 g_  0 0 Og_  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 EXPULSION 0 Og_  0 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 0 g_  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 6 - 0 7 -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU # STU --------------------------==-=================================================== 09 S.A.C. 165 58.3% 108 38.2% 8 2.8% 2 7 g.  0 283 58 37 4 2 101 10 HOME SUSP. 120 68.2% 42 23.9% 3 1. 7% 11 6.3% 176 48 19 3 1 71 11 A s A C 44 68.8% 16 25.0% 2 3.1% 2 3.1% 64 31 14 2 1 48 12 E. I.C 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 0 g_  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 EXPULSION 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 0 g_  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 COMPARISON -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # STU # STU # STU # STU -------===========================-============-====---========================= )9 S.A.C. 60- 26.7-% 11 11. 3 % 29- 78.4-% 11- 84.6-% 89- 10- 5- 7- 4- 26- 10 HOME SUSP. 29- 19.5-% 29- 40.8-% 14- 82.4-% 3 37.5 % 69- 5- 13- 5- 3- 26- 11 A s A C 5 12.8 % 2 14.3 % 7- 77. 8-% 3- 60.0-% 3- 12 7 3- 2- 14 12 E. I.C. 0 .0 % 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 EXPULSION 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 .0 % 0 . 0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ref: DIS032S Date: 4/02/08 rime: 11:55:35 School: 020 Analysis of Disciplinary Actions by School From AUGUST Through JUNE ARGENTA ACADEMY 2 0 0 5 - 0 6 -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # STU -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 09 S.A.C. 1 50.0% 0 .0% 1 50.0% 0 0 g.  0 2 1 0 1 0 2 10 HOME SUSP. 143 67.8% 48 22.7% 11 5.2% 9 4.3% 211 64 24 4 2 94 11 A s A C 0 0 g.  0 0 05!-  0 0 0 g.  0 0 0 g.  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E. I. C. 0 .0% 0 0 g.  0 0 0 5!-  0 0 0 g.  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 EXPULSION 0 0 g.  0 0 .0% 0 05!-  0 0 05!-  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 6 - 0 7 -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU # STU -------------------------------------=--===------------------------============= 09 S.A.C. 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 0 5!-  0 0 05!-  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 HOME SUSP. 175 62. 7% 94 33.7% 10 3.6% 0 .0% 279 64 36 5 0 105 11 A s A C 7 87.5% 1 12.5% 0 .0% 0 .0% 8 7 1 0 0 8 12 E. I.C 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 EXPULSION 0 .0% 0 0 g.  0 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 COMPARISON ---============================================================================= -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # STU # STU # STU # STU -----=========================================================================== 09 S.A.C. 1- 100.0-% 0 . 0 % 1- 100.0-% 0 . 0 % 2- 1- 0 1- 0 2- 10 HOME SUSP. 32 22.4 % 46 95.8 % 1- 9.1-% 9- 100.0-% 68 0 12 1 2- 11 11 A s A C 7 700.0 % 1 100.0 % 0 .0 % 0 . 0 % 8 7 1 0 0 8 12 E. I.C. 0 .0 % 0 . 0 % 0 .0 % 0 . 0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 EXPULSION 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 .0 % 0 . 0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 North Little Rock Public Schools Analysis of Disciplinary Actions District Level Action 09: SAC 2000 1800 1600 1400 1200 1000  05-06 800 ,__ _____ -------l  06-07 600 400 200 0 BM BF NBM NBF  05-06 1843 1189 471 158  06-07 1974 1121 441 173 Ref: Date: Time: DIS032S 4/02/08 11:55:35 School: 013 Analysis of Disciplinary Actions by School From AUGUST Through JUNE NORTH LITTLE ROCK HIGH SCHOOL - 09/10 2 0 0 5 - 0 6 -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # STU -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 09 S.A.C. 470 50.8% 324 35.0% 93 10.1% 38 4.1% 925 182 136 54 29 401 10 HOME SUSP. 184 53.8% 119 34.8% 33 9.6% 6 1.8% 342 97 67 25 6 195 11 A s A C 0 Og.  0 0 Og.  0 0 .0% 0 Og.  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E. I.C. 0 .0% 0 Og.  0 4 .0% 1 Og.  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 EXPULSION 2 28.6% 0 Og.  0 4 57.1% 1 14.3% 7 2 0 4 1 7 2 0 0 6 - 0 7 -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU # STU --------=======================================================-================ 09 S.A.C. 504 49.1% 300 29.2% 165 16.1% 57 5.6% 1026 180 144 87 35 44 6 10 HOME SUSP. 23 36.5% 28 44.4% 9 14.3% 3 4.8% 63 22 23 9 3 57 11 A s A C 54 47.4% 33 28.9% 16 14.0% 11 9.6% 114 40 24 11 10 85 12 E. I.C 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 Og.  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 EXPULSION 2 33.3% 0 .0% 1 16.7% 3 50.0% 6 2 0 1 3 6 COMPARISON -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT(+/-) # R.EF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # STU # STU # STU # STU ==--============================================================================ 09 S.A.C. 34 7.2 % 24- 7.4-% 72 77.4 % 19 50.0 % 101 2- 8 33 6 45 10 HOME SUSP. 161- 87.5-% 91- 76.5-% 24- 72.7-% 3- 50.0-% 279- 75- 44- 16- 3- 138- 11 A s A C 54 5400.0 % 33 3300.0 % 16 1600.0 % 11 1100.0 % 114 40 24 11 10 85 12 E. I.C. 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 EXPULSION 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 3- 75.0-% 2 200.0 % 1- 0 0 3- 2 1- 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 D 05-06  06-07 North Little Rock Public Schools Analysis of Disciplinary Actions District Level Action 11: AS AC 40 15 9 5 330 110 38 16  05-06  06-07 250 200 150 100 50 North Little Rock Public Schools Analysis of Disciplinary Actions District Level Action 12: E. I. C. K-5 0 ~'--BM BF NBM NBF  05-06 84 38 13 3  06-07 227 67 27 7  05-06  06-07 1200 1000 800 600 400 200 North Little Rock Public Schools Analysis of Disciplinary Actions District Level Action 10: Home Suspension BF NBM NBF  05-06 1166 565 208 54  06-07 719 281 71 26  05-06  06-07 North Little Rock Public Schools Analysis of Disciplinary Actions Elementary K-5 Action 09: SAC 1 _/ 0.9-\" 0.8 _/ o. 7 _/ 0.6 _,, 0.5_/ 0.4-\" 0.3-\" 0.2-\" 0.1 _,, 0 ~ - - - - BM BF NBM NBF D 05-06 0 0 0 0  06-07 0 0 0 0 - D 05-06  06-07 300 250 200 150 100 50 D 05-06  06-07 North Little Rock Public Schools Analysis of Disciplinary Actions Elementary K-5 Action 10: Home Suspension BM BF NBM NBF 204 58 30 3 266 57 30 1  05-06  06-07 5 4.5 4 3.5 3 2.5 2 1.5 1 0.5 0 D 05-06  06-07 North Little Rock Public Schools Analysis of Disciplinary Actions District Level Action 17: Expulsion BM BF NBM NBF 4 2 5 2 3 0 3 3  05-06  06-07 250 200 150 100 50 North Little Rock Public Schools Analysis of Disciplinary Actions Elementary K-5 Action 12: E. I. C. K-5 o ~'--- BM BF NBM NBF  05-06 84 38 13 3  06-07 227 67 27 7  05-06  06-07 North Little Rock Public Schools Analysis of Disciplinary Actions Elementary K-5 Action 17: Expulsion 1 _/ 0.9 _v 0.8 _v 0. 7-v 0.6 _v 0.5 _v 0.4-v 0.3 _v 0.2 _v 0.1- 0 BM BF NBM NBF  05-06 0 0 0 0  06-07 0 0 0 0  05-06  06-07 1 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0  05-06  06-07 North Little Rock Public Schools Analysis of Disciplinary Actions Elementary K-5 Action 11: AS AC BM BF NBM NBF 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0  05-06  06-07 600 500 400 300 200 100  05-06  06-07 North Little Rock Public Schools Analysis of Disciplinary Actions Middle Schools Action 10: Home Suspension BF NBM NBF 568 315 119 31 231 94 17 22  05-06  06-07 North Little Rock Public Schools Analysis of Disciplinary Actions Middle Schools 250 200 150 100 50 O-i--BM D 05-06 40  06-07 238 Action 11: AS AC BF NBM NBF 15 9 5 75 15 5  05-06  06-07 North Little Rock Public Schools Analysis of Disciplinary Actions Middle Schools Action 09: SAC 1200 1000 800 600 400 200 BM BF NBM NBF D 05-06 1138 747 286 87  06-07 1171 696 215 88  05-06  06-07 I 1 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0  05-06  06-07 North Little Rock Public Schools Analysis of Disciplinary Actions Middle Schools Action 17: Expulsion BM BF NBM NBF 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0  05-06  06-07 900 800 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0  05-06  06-07 North Little Rock Public Schools Analysis of Disciplinary Actions High Schools Action 09: SAC BM BF NBM NBF 705 442 185 71 803 425 226 85  05-06  06-07 North Little Rock Public Schools Analysis of Disciplinary Actions Middle Schools Action 12: E. I. C. K-5 1 _/ 0.9-v 0.8- 0.7- 0.6- o.s-  0.4-v 0.3 _v 0.2-v 0.1 _v 0 BM BF NBM NBF  05-06 0 0 0 0  06-07 0 0 0 0  05-06  06-07 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0  05-06  06-07 North Little Rock Public Schools Analysis of Disciplinary Actions High Schools Action 11: AS AC BM BF NBM NBF 0 0 0 0 91 35 23 11  05-06  06-07 North Little Rock Public Schools Analysis of Disciplinary Actions High Schools Action 12: E. I. C. K-5 1 _,, 0.9-V 0.8 _v 0. 7 _v 0.6-v o.s-v 0.4- 0.3- 0.2- 0.1 _/ 0 BM BF NBM NBF  05-06 0 0 0 0  06-07 0 0 0 0  05-06  06-07 400 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0  05-06  06-07 North Little Rock Public Schools Analysis of Disciplinary Actions High Schools Action 10: Home Suspension BM BF NBM NBF 394 192 59 20 221 130 23 3  05-06  06-07 North Little Rock Public Schools Analysis of Disciplinary Actions 10 Year Comparison Action 09: SAC 2000 1800 1600 1400 1200 1000 800 600 400 200 0 BM BF NBM NBF  97-98 1801 862 547 132  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  7-Jun 1974 1121 441 173  97-98  98-99  99-00  00-01 D 01-02  02-03 D 03-04  04-05 D 05-06  7-Jun North Little Rock Public Schools Analysis of Disciplinary Actions 10 Year Comparison Action 10: Home Suspension 1200--------------------, 1000--------\u0026lt;---------------\u0026lt; BOO--------\u0026lt;----------~ 600----11---------------~ 400- 200- o Jl. ....l.~..l.r.n.. ... I - - .ii. BM BF NBM NBF  97-98 511 125 104 13  98-99 566 141 125 22  99-00 406 113 102 18  00-01 385 92 64 7  01-02 692 234 92 21  02-03 522 193 63 13  03-04 469 157 66 18  04-05 753 325 111 43  05-06 1166 565 208 54 I  nR.n7 719 281 71 26  97-98  98-99  99-00  00-01  01-02  02-03  03-04  04-05  05-06  06-07 5 4.5 4 3.5 3 2.5 2 1.5 1 0.5 0 North Little Rock Public Schools Analysis of Disciplinary Actions High Schools Action 17: Expulsion BM BF NBM NBF D 05-06 3 2 5 1  06-07 2 0 2 3  05-06  06-07 North Little Rock Public Schools Analysis of Disciplinary Actions 10 Year Comparison Action 12: E. I. C. K-5 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 BM BF NBM NBF  97-98 0 0 0 0  98-99 211 106 27 6  99-00 246 63 75 16  00-01 162 55 40 21  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  06-07 227 67 27 7  97-98  98-99  99-00  00-01  01-02  02-03  03-04  04-05  05-06  06-07 North Little Rock Public Schools Analysis of Disciplinary Actions 10 Year Comparison Action 17: Expulsion 12 10 8 6 4- - 2- I j 0- I l I BM BF NBM NBF  97-98 6 5 0 0  98-99 7 2 1 1  99-00 3 0 2 0  00-01 3 0 5 3 D 01-02 1 0 2 1  02-03 2 0 2 0 D 03-04 2 0 2 0  04-05 11 0 9 1  05-06 4 2 5 2 Inn.: n7 ~ n \"l \"l  97-98  98-99  99-00  00-01 D 01-02  02-03 D 03-04 04-05  05-06 D 06-07 North Little Rock Public Schools Analysis of Disciplinary Actions 10 Year Comparison Action 11: AS AC 600 500- 400- -!l 200- 100- l 0- J tn~ BM BF NBM NBF  97-98 515 148 112 8  98-99 359 148 88 22  99-00 351 129 90 27  00-01 325 136 56 12  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  06-07 330 110 38 16  97-98  98-99  99-00  00-01 D 01-02  02-03  03-04  04-05  05-06  06-07 North Little Rock Public Schools ~Analysis of Discipline Actions ~School Year 2006-2007 ~ District Level ~Elementary ~Middle Schools ~High Schools ~9 Year Comparison R 1: Date: Time: DJ.9032 1/31/08 8:30:05 Annlynin cf niqriplinnry Ar~ions DISTRICT LEVEL From AUGUST Through MAY 2 0 0 5 - 0 6 -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # STU -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 09 S.A.C. 1843 50.3% 1189 32.5% 471 12.9% 158 4.3% 3661 722 515 257 107 1601 10 HOME SUSP. 1166 58.5% 565 28.3% 208 10.4% 54 2.7% 1993 566 288 134 37 1025 11 BOYS CLUB 40 58.0% 15 21.7% 9 13. 0% 5 7.2% 69 20 8 5 3 36 12 E. LC. 84 60.9% 38 27. 5% 13 9.4% 3 2.2% 138 60 26 11 3 100 17 EXPULSION 4 30.8% 2 15.4% 5 38.5% 2 15.4% 13 4 2 5 2 13 2 0 0 6 - 0 7 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU # STU ----==========================-------------------------========================= 09 S.A.C. 1974 53.2% 1121 30.2% 441 11. 9% 173 4.7% 3709 702 485 237 102 1526 10 HOME SUSP. 719 65.5% 281 25.6% 71 6.5% 26 2.4% 1097 367 164 52 11 594 11 BOYS CLUB 330 66.8% 110 22.3% 38 7. 7% 16 3.2% 494 184 80 27 14 305 12 E.I.C. 227 69.2% 67 20.4% 27 8.2% 7 2.1% 328 138 44 14 7 203 17 EXPULSION 3 33.3% 0 .0% 3 33.3% 3 33.3% 9 3 0 3 3 9 ==--============================================================================ COMPARISON ==--============================================================================ -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # STU # STU # STU # STU ==----========================-------------------------========================= 09 S.A.C. 131 7.1 % 68- 5.7-% 30- 6.4-% 15 9.5 % 48 20- 30- 20- 5- 75- 10 HOME SUSP. 447- 38.3-% 284- 50.3-% 137- 65.9-% 28- 51. 9-% 896- 199- 124- 82- 26- 431- 11 BOYS CLUB 290 725.0 % 95 633.3 % 29 322.2 % 11 220.0 % 425 164 72 22 11 269 12 E.I.C. 143 170.2 % 29 76.3 % 14 107.7 % 4 133. 3 % 190 78 18 3 4 103 17 EXPULSION 1- 25.0-% 2- 100.0-% 2- 40.0-% 1 50.0 % 4- 1- 2- 2- 1 4-\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_41","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":["2006-01"],"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/41"],"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\nLittle Rock School District, plaintiff vs. Pulaski County Special School District, defendant\nArkansas DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 4STATECAPITOLMALL  LITLEROCK,ARKANSAS 72201-1071  (501)6824475  http://arkedu.state.ar.us Dr. Kenneth James, Commissioner of Education January 31, 2006 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 2006 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. U.S. District Court No. 4:82-CV-866 WR W 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 2006 in the above-referenced case. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at your convenience. Sincerely, JtJ.,+i-- General Counsel Arkansas Department of Education SS:law cc: Mark Hagemeier STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION: Chair - Dr. Jeanna Westmoreland, Arkadelphia, Vice Chair - Diane Tatum, Pine Bluff Members: *Sherry Burrow, Jonesboro *Shelby Hillman, Carlisle* Dr. Calvin King, Marianna *Randy Lawson, Bentonville *MaryJane Rebick, Little Rock *Dr. Naccaman Williams, Springdale An Equal Opportunity Employer UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT REC!ZIVED EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DNISION FEB - 2 2006 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING 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 2006. Respectfully Submitted, J\n~ 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 31, 2006, I caused the foregoing document to be served by depositing a copy in the United States mail, postage prepaid, addressed to each of the following: Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 400 West Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 Mr. John W. Walker John Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Mr. Mark Burnette Mitchell, Blackstock, Barnes Wagoner, Ivers \u0026amp; Sneddon P. 0. Box 1510 Little Rock, AR 72203-1510 Office of Desegregation Monitoring One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones 425 West Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. M. Samuel Jones, III Mitchell, Williams, Selig, Gates \u0026amp; Woodyard 425 West Capitol, Suite 1800 Little Rock, AR 72201 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION REC::IVED FEB - 2 2006 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL OFFICE OF PLA1~GATI0N MONITORING 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, 2006 Basea on tne information available at Decemoer 31, 2005, the ADE calculate the State Foundation Funding for FY 05/06, subect to P-eriodic adust e ts B. Include all Magnet students in the resident District's average daily membership for calculation. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 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, 2006 asea on t e information available at Decemoer 31, 2005 ttie ADE ca culate for FY 05/06 sub\"ect to eriodic ad\"ustments C. Process and distribute State MFPA. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of January 31, 2006 On December 31, 2005, distributions of State Founaation Fundin for FY 05/06 were as follows LRSD - $29, 167,03 NLRSD-$15,188,225 PCSSD - $25,260 480 The allotments of State Foundation Funding calculated for FY 05/06 at December 31, 005, subject to eriodic adjustments, were as follows LRSD - $64, 167,47~ NLRSD - $33,414,099 PCSSD - $55,573,061 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 , 2006 Based on the information available, the ADE calculated at December 31, 2005 for FY 05/06, subject to Qeriodic adjustments. E. Desegregation Staff Attorney reports the Magnet Operational Charge to the Fiscal Services Office. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing, as ordered by the Court. 2 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) E. Desegregation Staff Attorney reports the Magnet Operational Charge to the Fiscal Services Office. (Continued) 2. Actual as of January 31, 2006 Basecl on ttie information available, ttie ADE calculatecl at Decemoer 31 200 for FY 05/06 subect to eriodic adustments 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, 2006 Based on the information available, the ADE calculated at December 31, 2005 for FY 05/06, subject to g_eriodic adjustments. G. Process and distribute state aid for Magnet Operational Charge. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of January 31 , 2006 Distributions for FY 05/06 at December 31, 2005, totaled $6,358,347. Allotment calculated for FY 05/06 was $14,011,194 subject to eriodic adjustments. H. Calculate the amount of M-to-M incentive money to which each school district is entitled. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of January 31 , 2006 Calculated for FY 04/05, 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, 2006 Distributions for f=Y 05/06 at Decemoer 31, 20 LRSD - $1,619,27 NLRSD-$1,612,748 PCSSD - $4 320 38 The allotments calculate for FY 05/06 at December 31, 2005, subj adjustments, were: LRSD - $4,048,176 NLRSD - $4,031,872 PCSSD - $10,800,964 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, 2006 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 , 2006 In March 2005, General Finance was notified to pay the second one-third payment for FY 04/05 to the Districts. In October 2005, General Finance was notified to pay the th ird one-third payment for FY 04/05 to the Districts. In October 2005, General Finance was notified to pay the first one-third payment for FY 05/06 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, 2006 In March 2005, General Finance made the second one-third payment to the Districts for their FY 04/05 transportation budget. The budget is now paid out in three equal installments. At March 2005, the following had been paid for FY 04/05: LRSD - $2,650,087.34 NLRSD - $550,666.66 PCSSD- $1,690,442.44 In November 2005, General Finance made the last one-third payment to the Districts for their FY 04/05 transportation budget. The budget is now paid out in three equal installments. At November 2004, the following had been paid for FY 04/05: LRSD - $4,143,106.00 NLRSD - $834,966.13 PCSSD - $2,884,201.56 In November 2005, General Finance made the first one-third payment to the Districts for their FY 05/06 transportation budget. The budget is now paid out in three equal installments. At November 2005, the following had been paid for FY 05/06: LRSD - $1,415,633.33 NLRSD - $284,716.52 PCSSD - $974,126.58 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, 2006 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, 2006 (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 July 1999, each district submitted an estimated budget for the 99/00 school year. 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. 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, 2006 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, 2006 (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 , 2006 (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. 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, 2006 Obligation fulfilled in FY 96/97. 8 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) P. Process and distribute additional payments in lieu of formula to LRSD as required by page 24 of the Settlement Agreement. 1. Projected Ending Date Payment due date and ending July 1, 1995. 2. Actual as of January 31, 2006 Obligation fulfilled in FY 95/96. Q. Process and distribute payments to PCSSD as required by Page 28 of the Settlement Agreement. R. 1. Projected Ending Date Payment due date and ending July 1, 1994. 2. Actual as of January 31, 2006 Final payment was distributed July 1994. Upon loan request by LRSD accompanied by a promissory note, the ADE makes loans to LRSD. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing through July 1, 1999. See Settlement Agreement page 24. 2. Actual as of January 31, 2006 The LRSD received $3,000,000 on September 10, 1998. As of this reporting date, the LRSD has received $20,000,000 in loan proceeds. S. Process and distribute payments in lieu of formula to PCSSD required by page 29 of the Settlement Agreement. 1. Projected Ending Date Payment due date and ending July 1, 1995. 2. Actual as of January 31, 2006 Obligation fulfilled in FY 95/96. 9 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) T. Process and distribute compensatory education payments to NLRSD as required by page 31 of the Settlement Agreement. 1. Projected Ending Date July 1 of each school year through June 30, 1996. 2. Actual as of January 31, 2006 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, 2006 Distribution in July 1997 for FY 97/98 was $75,000. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 97/98. Distribution in July 1998 for FY 98/99 was $75,000. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 98/99. Distribution in July 1999 for FY 99/00 was $92,500. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 99/00. Distribution in July 2000 for FY 00/01 was $92,500. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 00/01. Distribution in August 2001 for FY 01 /02 was $92,500. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 01/02. Distribution in July 2002 for FY 02/03 was $92,500. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 02/03. Distribution in July 2003 for FY 03/04 was $92,500. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 03/04. Distribution in July 2004 for FY 04/05 was $92,500. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 04/05. Distribution in July 2005 for FY 05/06 was $92,500. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 05/06. 10 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) V. Process and distribute payments for Office of Desegregation Monitoring. 1. Projected Ending Date Not applicable. 2. Actual as of January 31, 2006 Distribution in July 1997 for FY 97/98 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 97/98. Distribution in July 1998 for FY 98/99 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 98/99. Distribution in July 1999 for FY 99/00 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 99/00. Distribution in July 2000 for FY 00/01 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 00/01. Distribution in August 2001 for FY 01/02 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 01/02. Distribution in July 2002 for FY 02/03 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 02/03. Distribution in July 2003 for FY 03/04 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 03/04. Distribution in July 2004 for FY 04/05 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 04/05. Distribution in July 2005 for FY 05/06 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 05/06. 11 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. 1. Projected Ending Date January 15, 1995 2. Actual as of January 31, 2006 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. 12 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, 2006 (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. 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 , 2006 (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. 14 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of January 31, 2006 (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. 15 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, 2006 (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. 16 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, 2006 (Continued) On July 26, 2001, the ADE Implementation Phase Working group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Mr. Mark Hagemeier, Assistant Attorney General, and Mr. Scott Smith, ADE Staff Attorney, discussed the court case involving the LRSD seeking unitary status. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for October 11, 2001 in room 201-A at the ADE. On October 11, 2001, the ADE Implementation Phase Working group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Mr. Scott Smith, ADE Staff Attorney, discussed the ADE's intent to take a proactive role in Desegregation Monitoring. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for January 10, 2002 in room 201-A at the ADE. The Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting that was scheduled for January 10 was postponed. It has been rescheduled for February 14, 2002 in room 201-A at the ADE. On February 12, 2002, the ADE Implementation Phase Working group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Mr. Mark Hagemeier, Assistant Attorney General, discussed the court case involving the LRSD seeking unitary status. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for April 11, 2002 in room 201-A at the ADE. On April 11, 2002, the ADE Implementation Phase Working group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Mr. Mark Hagemeier, Assistant Attorney General, discussed the court case involving the LRSD seeking unitary status. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for July 11, 2002 in room 201-A at the ADE. 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, 2006 (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. 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, 2006 {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. 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, 2006 (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. Clearance 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. 20 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, 2006 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, 2006 To date, no action has been taken by the LRSD. 21 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, 2006 The information for this item is detailed under Section IV.E. of this report. B. Conduct a review within ADE of existing legislation and regulations that appear to impede desegregation. 1. Projected Ending Date November, 1994 2. Actual as of January 31, 2006 The information for this item is detailed under Section IV.E. of this report. C. Request of the other parties to the Settlement Agreement that they identify laws and regulations that appear to impede desegregation. 1. Projected Ending Date November, 1994 2. Actual as of January 31, 2006 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, 2006 The information for this item is detailed under Section IV.E. of this report. 22 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, 2006 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. 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. (Continued) 2. Actual as of January 31, 2006 (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. 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, 2006 (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. 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, 2006 (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. 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, 2006 {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. 27 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, 2006 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, 2006 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, 2006 Ongoing D. Through regularoversight 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 28 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, 2006 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. 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, 2006 (Continued) During the months of February 1996 through May 1996, the PMT report was the only item on the agenda regarding the status of the implementation of the Monitoring Plan. In June 1996, the State Board of Education was updated on the status of the bias review study. In July 1996, the Semiannual Monitoring Report was provided to the Court, the parties, ODM, the State Board of Education, and the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee. In August 1996, the State Board of Education and the ADE administrative team were provided with copies of the test validation study prepared by Dr. Paul Williams. During the months of September 1996 through December 1996, the PMT was the only item on the agenda regarding the status of the implementation of the Monitoring Plan. On January 13, 1997, a presentation was made to the State Board of Education regarding the February 1997 Semiannual Monitoring Report, and copies of the report and its executive summary were distributed to all Board members. The Project Management Tool and its executive summary were addressed at the February 10, 1997 State Board of Education meeting regarding the ADE's progress in fulfilling their obligations as set forth in the Implementation Plan. In March 1997, the State Board of Education was notified that historical information in the PMT had been summarized at the direction of the Assistant Attorney General in order to reduce the size and increase the clarity of the report. The Board was updated on the Pulaski County Desegregation Case and reviewed the Memorandum Opinion and Order issued by the Court on February 18, 1997 in response to the Districts' motion for summary judgment on the issue of state funding for teacher retirement matching contributions. During the months of April 1997 through June 1997, the PMT was the only item on the agenda regarding the status of the implementation of the Monitoring Plan. The State Board of Education received copies of the July 15, 1997 Semiannual Monitoring Report and executive summary at the July Board meeting. 30 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regularoversightofthe Implementation Phase's ProjectManagementTool, 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, 2006 (Continued) The Implementation Phase Working Group held its quarterly meeting on August 4, 1997 to discuss the progress made in attaining the goals set forth in the Implementation Plan and the critical areas for the current quarter. A special report regarding a historical review of the Pulaski County Settlement Agreement and the ADE's role and monitoring obligations were presented to the State Board of Education on September 8, 1997. Additionally, the July 15, 1997 Semiannual Monitoring Report was presented to the Board for their review. In October 1997, a special draft report regarding disparity in achievement was submitted to the State Board Chairman and the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee. In November 1997, the State Board of Education was provided copies of the monthly PMT and its executive summary. The Implementation Phase Working Group held its quarterly meeting on November 3, 1997 to discuss the progress made in attaining the goals set forth in the Implementation Plan and the critical areas for the current quarter. In December 1997, the State Board of Education was provided copies of the monthly PMT and its executive summary. In January 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and discussed ODM's report on the ADE's monitoring activities and instructed the Director to meet with the parties to discuss revisions to the ADE's monitoring plan and monitoring reports. In February 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and discussed the February 1998 Semiannual Monitoring Report. In March 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary and was provided an update regarding proposed revisions to the monitoring process. In April 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary. In May 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary. 31 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 , 2006 (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. 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, 2006 (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. 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, 2006 (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. 34 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regularoversight 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, 2006 (Continued) On May 8, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of April. On June 12, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of May. On July 10, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of June. On August 14, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of July. On September 11, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of August. On October 9, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of September. On November 13, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of October. On December 11, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of November. On January 8, 2001, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of December. On February 12, 2001, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of January. On March 12, 2001, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of February. On April 9, 2001 , the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of March. On May 14, 2001, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of April. On June 11, 2001, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of May. 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, 2006 (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. 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, 2006 (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. 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, 2006 (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. 38 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) 0. Through regularoversight 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 , 2006 (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 summa for the months of November and December. 39 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, 2006 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. 40 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, 2006 (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. 41 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, 2006 (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. 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, 2006 {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, 2006 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 43 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) C. Through the ERIC system, conduct a literature search for research evaluating compensatory education programs. (Continued) 2. Actual as of January 31, 2006 An updated ERIC Search was conducted on May 15, 1995 to locate research on evaluating compensatory education programs. The ADE received the updated ERIC disc that covered material through March 1995. An ERIC search was conducted in September 30, 1996 to identify current research dealing with the evaluation of compensatory education programs, and the articles were reviewed. An ERIC search was conducted in April 1997 to identify current research on compensatory education programs and sent to the Cycle 1 principals and the field service specialists for their use. An Eric search was conducted in October 1998 on the topic of Compensatory Education and related descriptors. The search included articles with publication dates from 1997 through July 1998. D. Identify and research technical resources available to ADE and the Districts through programs and organizations such as the Desegregation Assistance Center in San Antonio, Texas. 1. Projected Ending Date Summer 1994 2. Actual as of January 31 , 2006 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 , 2006 The information for this item is detailed under Section VI.F. of this report. 44 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, 2006 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. 45 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of January 31, 2006 (Continued) On March 6-9, 1997, three members of the ADE'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. 46 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of January 31 , 2006 (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. 47 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of January 31, 2006 (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 ACTAAP 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 ACT AAP 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. 48 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of January 31 , 2006 (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 ACTAAP 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. 49 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of January 31, 2006 (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 ACTAAP 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. 5 0 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of January 31, 2006 (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 School 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. 51 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of January 31, 2006 (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, Special 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 atthe 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. 52 VI. REMEDIATION {Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. {Continued) 2. Actual as of January 31, 2006 {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. 53 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of January 31 , 2006 (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 pa rtici pants. 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. 54 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of January 31 , 2006 (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 1 O 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. 55 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of January 31, 2006 (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. 56 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued} F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of January 31 , 2006 (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 implementation plan. The principal's role in the process was explained. The ADE conducted the Smart Step 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 9, 2002. Telecast topics included creating a standards-based classroom and a seven-step implementation plan. The principal's role in the process was explained. 57 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of January 31, 2006 (Continued) The Twenty-First Annual Curriculum and Instruction Conference, co-sponsored by the Arkansas Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development and the Arkansas Department of Education, will be held June 24-26, 2002, at the Arlington Hotel in Hot Springs, Arkansas. \"Ignite Your Enthusiasm for Learning\" is the theme for this year's conference, which will feature educational consultant, Dr. Debbie Silver, as well as other very knowledgeable presenters. Additionally, there will be small group sessions on Curriculum Alignment, North Central Accreditation, Section 504, Building Level Assessment, Administrator Standards, Data Disaggregation, and National Board. The Educational Accountability Unit of the ADE hosted a workshop entitled \"Strategies for Increasing Achievement on the ACT AAP Benchmark Examination\" on June 13-14, 2002 at the Agora Center in Conway. The workshop was presented for schools in which 100% of students scored below the proficient level on one or more parts of the most recent Benchmark Examination. The agenda included presentations on \"The Plan-Do-Check-Act Instructional Cycle\" by the nationally known speaker Pat Davenport. ADE personnel provided an explanation of the MPH point program. Presentations were made by Math and Literacy Specialists. Dr. Charity Smith, Assistant Directorfor Accountability, gave a presentation about ACTAAP. Break out sessions were held, in which school districts with high scores on the MPH point program offered strategies and insights into increas\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_807","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":["2006-01/2006-06"],"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 superintendents","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/807"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["documents (object genre)"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\nThe transcript for this item was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.\n' BOARD OF EDUCATION NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Thursday, January 19, 2006 5:00 P. M. MEETING AGENDA NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDENT I. II. III. IV. V. AGENDA REGULAR MEETING, BOARD OF EDUCATION Administration Building, 2700 Poplar Thursday, January 19, 2006-5:00 P.M. PUBLIC COMMENTS CALL TO ORDER, Marty Moore, President INVOCATION, Gregory Fudge, a Glenview Elementary Third Grader, son of Ms. Merlene Honorable FLAG SALUTE ROLL CALL OF MEMBERS Marty Moore, President Trent Cox, Vice President Rochelle Redus, Secretary John Riley, Parliamentarian Scott Teague, Disbursing Officer Teresa Burl, Member Dorothy Williams, Member RECOGNITION OF PEOPLE/EVENTS/PROGRAMS Special Recognition: 1. Mrs. Mable Mitchell, Retiring NLRSD Board of Education Member 2. Maria Touchstone, Who's Who in the Hispanic Community by El Latino newspaper Superintendent's Honor Roll: I. Ann McKaig, Poplar Street Middle Special Education Aide 2. Wilma White, Poplar Street Middle Special Education Aide VI. DISPOSITION OF MINUTES OF PRIOR MEETINGS A. Thursday, December 15, 2005 5 P.M. - Regular Meeting- Page A- 1 VII. ACTION ITEMS - UNFINISHED BUSINESS None VIII. ACTION ITEMS - NEW BUSINESS Page 2 - Board Agenda January 19, 2006 A. Consider Certified Personnel Policies Committee Report - M. Snider B. Consider Classified Personnel Policies Committee Report -G. Tucker C. Consider 2004 - 2005 Student Discipline Analysis Report - F. Jackson D. Consider Master Facility Plan Report-J. Massey (Open Public Hearing for Comments on Master Facility Plan) E. Consider Elementary North Central Association Membership - K. Lowe F. Consider Computer Leasing -G. Daniels-Page B - 1 G . Consider Motion for Consent Agenda - K. Kirspel 1. Consider monthly financial report - Page O - 1 2. Consider employment of personnel - Page P - 1 2. Consider bid items - Page R - 1 3. Consider building use request - Page S - 1 4. Consider payment of regular bills - Page T - 1 IX. CALENDAR OF EVENTS A. Regular Board Meeting-Thursday, February 16, 2006 at 5:00 P.M. X. INFORMATIONAL ITEMS A. District Financial Update- G. Daniels XI. PERSONNEL HEARING XII. SUPERINTENDENT'S PERFORMANCE REVIEW XIII. ADJOURNMENT NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Office of the Superintendent REGULAR MEETING, BOARD OF EDUCATION MINUTES December 15, 2005 The North Little Rock School District Board met in a regular session on Thursday, December 15, 2005 in the Board Room of the Administration Building of the North Little Rock School District, 2700 Poplar Street, North Little Rock, Arkansas. In public comments: A North Little Rock High School parent spoke to the Board about her daughter being removed from the basketball team. A Ridgeroad Middle Charter School teacher addressed the Board to encourage them to vote for the charter renewal at RRMCS. President Marty Moore called the meeting to order at 5:25 p.m. Noah Delashaw, a Pike View Elementary third grader, gave the invocation. The flag salute followed. ROLL CALL OF MEMBERS Present Marty Moore, President Trent Cox, Vice President Rochelle Redus, Secretary John Riley, Parliamentarian Scott Teague, Disbursing Officer Teresa Burl, Member Mable Mitchell, Member Absent None Others Present Mr. Ken Kirspel, Superintendent\nBobby Acklin, Assistant Superintendent for Desegregation\nGreg Daniels, Chief Financial and Information Services Officer\npress\nother staff members and Darlene Holmes, Superintendent's secretary were also present. Billy Duvall (audio) and NLRHS-TV (video) taped the meeting. A-1 RECOGNITION OF PEOPLE/EVENTS/PROGRAMS Shara Brazear, Communication Specialist, presented outgoing Board President Teresa Burl with a gavel and the Board thanked her for her great leadership for the past two years. Mrs. Brazear introduced Kathy Heller and Lynn Fortner, Lakewood Middle School teachers as new National Board Certified Teachers. John Riley presented them with a certificate\nthanked them for their hard work and continued dedication to the students of our district. Lisa Meyer, McCain Mall/Simon Properties manager, was introduced as a Partner in Education with the North Little Rock School District. DISPOSITION OF MINUTES OF PRIOR MEETING MOTION John Riley moved to accept the minutes of the November 17, 2005 Regular meeting as printed. Rochelle Redus seconded the motion. YEAS: NAYS: Burl, Cox, Mitchell, Moore, Redus, Riley and Teague None UNFINISHED BUSINESS . A.V. \"Buster\" Beardsley of Beardsley Finance presented the final documents to the Board to facilitate the special election on March 14, 2006 for debt restructuring for the North Little Rock School District. MOTION Trent Cox moved to adopt the attached resolution with the proposed 2007 - 2008 budget for the purpose of authorizing a special election on March 14, 2006 for debt restructuring. Scott Teague seconded the motion. YEAS: NAYS: MOTION Burl, Cox, Mitchell, Moore, Redus, Riley and Teague None Rochelle Redus moved to petition the Commissioner of Education and the County Board of Election Commissioners to call a special election on March 14, 2006. Scott Teague seconded the motion. YEAS: NAYS: Burl, Cox, Mitchell, Moore, Redus, Riley and Teague None NEW BUSINESS Classified Personnel Policies Committee Report Glenda Tucker presented the report. The committee requests two new policies be added to the classified personnel policies. The first policy is 3.6 - CL Professional Development which was revised from the certified policy 3.6 Professional Development. A-2 MOTION Teresa Burl moved to adopt 3.6- CL Professional Development as presented. Rochelle Redus seconded the motion. YEAS: NAYS: Burl, Cox, Mitchell, Moore, Redus, Riley and Teague None The second policy is CFC-CL Work Schedules In Case oflnclement Weather. Mrs. Tucker explained the wording needed to be changed for classified staff. MOTION Trent Cox moved to accept CFC- CL Work Schedules In Case oflnclement Weather as presented. Rochelle Redus seconded the motion. YEAS: NAYS: Burl, Cox, Mitchell, Moore, Redus, Riley and Teague None Ridgeroad Middle Charter School Renewal June Haynie, Administrative Director of Secondary Education, presented information concerning the charter renewal. Mrs. Haynie provided financial and discipline information, test data, surveys of parents, teachers and former students. The Board reviewed and discussed the information and made several inquiries of Mrs. Haynie and other administrators. Some inquired concerning possible modifications about bells being utilized and teachers having using their prep time for planning instead of meetings. MOTION Rochelle Redus moved to apply for renewal of the Ridgeroad Middle School's charter with modifications. John Riley seconded the motion. YEAS: NAYS: Burl, Mitchell, Redus, and Riley Cox, Moore, and Teague Mrs. Mitchell requested Mrs. Moore to suspend the meeting for an announcement. Mable Mitchell, Zone 1 Board member, announced after sixteen years she was retiring from the school board. She has enjoyed working with the Board and for the students and staffs of our district. All of the Board members thanked Mrs. Mitchell for her years of service to our district. Mrs. Mitchell exited the meeting at 7:05 p.m. Mrs. Moore called for a recess at 7:05 p.m. The Board reconvened in session at 7:35 p.m. A-3 Elementary Textbook Adoption Committee Recommendation Kaye Lowe, Administrative Director of Elementary Education, presented the committee's recommendation of Harcourt for mathematics beginning with the 2006 - 2007 school year. MOTION Teresa Burl moved to accept the committee's recommendation for Harcourt math textbooks in the elementary schools for the 2006 - 2007 school year. Trent Cox seconded the motion. YEAS: NAYS: Burl, Cox, Moore, Redus, Riley and Teague None (Mitchell - absent) ABC Infant Toddler Program Proposal Kaye Lowe, Administrative Director of Elementary Education, also proposed an infant toddler program at Argenta Academy to serve the parents that are students at Argenta Academy. Mrs. Lowe explained the program would be funded with excess ABC funds. MOTION Rochelle Redus moved to accept Administration's recommendation to implement an infant toddler program at Argenta Academy. Scott Teague seconded the motion. YEAS: NAYS: Burl, Cox, Moore, Redus, Riley and Teague None (Mitchell - absent) CONSENT AGENDA Mr. Kirspel requested the approval of the consent agenda as printed in the agenda. MOTION Teresa Burl. moved to accept the consent agenda as presented by Superintendent Kirspel. John Riley seconded the motion. YEAS: NAYS: Burl, Cox, Moore, Redus, Riley and Teague None (Mitchell - absent) INFORMATIONAL ITEMS Extra Curricular Duty Compensation Committee Report Danny Reed, Administrative Director for Personnel and Special Education, explained the committee had been diligently meeting and would have their extensive report ready for the Board in February. A-4 Transitional Academic Facilities Program and Master Facility Plan Jerry Massey, Plant Services Director, updated the Board on the progress of the plans to be submitted to the State in February. Mr. Massey will present his complete Master Facility Plan in January. STUDENT EXPULSIONS Bobby Acklin, Assistant Superintendent for Desegregation, recommended Jason Parks, a 10th grade East Campus student, expelled for the remainder of the 2005 - 2006 school year for violation of Board policy 4.24 Drugs and Alcohol. Neither the student nor his parent/guardian was present. MOTION Trent Cox moved to accept the Administration's recommendation to expel Jason Parks for the remainder of the 2005 - 2006 school year for violation of policy 4.24 Drugs and Alcohol. Rochelle Redus seconded the motion. YEAS: NAYS: Burl, Cox, Moore, Redus, Riley and Teague None (Mitchell - absent) Mr. Acklin recommended Ashley L. Layton, a 10th grade West Campus student, expelled for the remainder of the 2005 - 2006 school year for violation of policy 4.22 Weapons and Dangerous Instruments. Her parents requested a closed hearing. MOTION Teresa Burl moved to enter into a closed session for the student expulsion hearing. Rochelle Redus seconded the motion. YEAS: NAYS: Burl, Cox, Moore, Redus, Riley and Teague None (Mitchell - absent) The Board entered into a closed hearing at 8: I 5 p.m. The Board reconvened in open session at 9:25 p.m. MOTION Scott Teague moved to accept the Administration's recommendation to expel Ashley Layton for one full calendar year for violation of policy 4.22 Weapons and Dangerous Instruments. John Riley seconded the motion. YEAS: NAYS: Burl, Cox, Moore, Redus, Riley and Teague None (Mitchell - absent) Fran Jackson, Director of Student Affairs, recommended Kathryn Stone, a Lakewood Middle School seventh grade student, expelled for the remainder of the 2005 - 2006 school year for violation of Board policy 4.24 Drugs and Alcohol. Her parent requested a closed hearing. A-5 MOTION Trent Cox moved to enter into a closed session for the student expulsion hearing. John Riley seconded the motion. YEAS: NAYS: Burl, Cox, Moore, Redus, Riley and Teague None (Mitchell - absent) The Board entered into a closed hearing at 9:25 p.m. The Board reconvened in open session at I 0:40 p.m. MOTION Trent Cox moved to accept the Administration's recommendation to expel Kathryn Stone for the remainder of the 2005 - 2006 school year for violation of policy 4.24 Drugs and Alcohol. Rochelle Redus seconded the motion. YEAS: NAYS: Burl, Cox, Moore, Redus, Riley and Teague None (Mitchell - absent) PERSONNEL HEARING Mr. Reed explained the employee had requested the hearing delayed until the January meeting. ADJOURNMENT MOTION Rochelle Redus moved to adjourn the meeting. Scott Teague seconded the motion. YEAS: NAYS: Burl, Cox, Moore, Redus, Riley and Teague None (Mitchell - absent) President Moore declared the meeting adjourned at 10:45 p.m. Marty Moore, President Rochelle Redus, Secretary A-6 N (0)l ET IEI lLIITTlL~ JE(O)CJEC I PTIJIB3ClLCI IC CJ B(I0 )( 0)I L ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICES 2700 POPLAR STREET January 10, 2006 Memo to: From: Subject: Mr. Kenneth Kirspel, Superintendent Greg Daniels, CFO/Clo@ Recommendation for Leasing Computers The Technology Division recommends that the North Little Rock School District begin leasing computers instead of direct purchase. We have received proposals from Dell, NetGain (HP Compaq), and Jeny Rice representing ByteSpeed. We are recommending that we begin the process of leasing computers from Dell Corporation with the acquisition of 1,000 desktop computers and 50 laptops the first year beginning immediately. Year 2 would be a lease of 500 computers and 50 laptops. Year 3 would be a lease of 500 computers and 50 laptops. Year 4 would replace the first year's lease. The leasing program will be a vehicle to transport students and teachers into the 21st century technology. The computer is a valuable tool and not an end in itself. Decision Criteria  How many kids will be helped? Entire student population  Can we sustain it? Yes. Current purchase budgets will be transferred to lease options.  How much will it improve student achievement? A tool to utilize various software in the remediation of core subjects, advanced subjects, etc.  Haw far will it take (move) us toward our vision? A tool that will help us assist students in reaching their maximum potential. AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER P. 0. BOX 687, NORTH LITTLE ROCK, AR 72115/0687 50V771-8000 B - 1 I North Llttle Rock School District - al 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 I Severance Tax Revenue from State Sources Unrestricted State Equalization Aid Student Growth Funding Other Unrestricted Grants-in- Aid Restricted Regular Education Special Education Early Childhood M-to-M Non-Instr Pgms Misc State e State NUE OPERATIONS d Total Revenu TOTAL REVE Building Fun Capital Outla Food Service Federal Revenue y TOTAL FEDE TOTAL REVE s Unrestricted-PL 874 Title I-B-4 ROTC Satellite EciRes.earch Title-I Title V-A Innovative Pgm Homeless Assistance Carl Perkins - Vocational Title 11-0 Formula Grant Title VI -B Head Start Special Ed Preschool Medicaid Eisenhower Math/Science Title Ill - Eng Lang Acq Title IV-A Safe \u0026amp; Drug Free Comprehensive Sch Health Accountability RAL REVENUE NUE December 2005 2005-2006 Current Month Budget Actual Y-T-O Actual $13,735,000.00 $6,999,481.59 $12,078,615.58 $6,530,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 $1,410,000.00 $347,986.15 $791,399.09 $150,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 $181,000.00 $0.00 $111,983.42 $42,000.00 $21,958' .62 $44,841.87 $102,500.00 $3,166.07 $18,577.82 $360,000.00 $77,049.78 $305,483.82 $90,000.00 $6,872.25 $34,635.09 $819,990.00 $1,793.00 $52,884.32 $23,420,490.00 $7,458,307.46 $13,438,421.01 $13,000.001 $0.001 $4,693.831 $33,414,099.00 $3,037,645.00 $15,188,225.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $9,000.00 $0.00 $1,750.00 $499,745.00 $6,000.00 $477,085.74 $4,866,499.00 $279,251.00 $2,021,464.00 $2, 155,150.00 $0.00 $1,211,650.00 $4,825,000.00 $403,187.00 $1,897,464.52 $1,805,435.00 $125,327.45 $935,065.10 $136,000.00 $12,160.40 $17,882.33 $47,710,928.00 $3,863,570.85 $21,750,586.69 $71,144,418.00 $11,321,878.31 $35,193,701.53 $46,000.00 $93,583.05 $109,083.05 $1,523,253.00 $560,773.38 $824,521.98 $3,213,000.00 $372,620.46 $1,218,050.79 $2,500.00 $0.00 $0.00 $65,549.00 $0.00 $0.00 $120,000.00 $8,595.11 $38,843.53 $180,000.00 $0.00 $180,000.00 $3,175,702.00 $0.00 $0.00 $276,426.00 $0.00 $236,924.00 $180,000.00 $0.00 $183,000.00 $202,587.00 $4,500.00 $155,146.00 $58,407.00 $0.00 $0.00 $1 871,018.00 $980 648.00 $980,648.00 $705,491.00 $239,121.00 $239,121.00 $361,000.00 $44,944.30 $132,393.56 $610,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 $16,976.00 $0.00 $0.00 $73,706.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $4,000.00 $4,000.00 $65,000.00 $0.00 $12,334.83 $7,964,362.00 $1,281,808.41 $2,162,410.92 $83,891,033.00 $13,630,663.61 $39,507,768.27 0-1 % of Budqet Balance Balance $1,656,384.42 87.94% $6,530,000.00 0.00% $618,600.91 56.13% $150,000.00 0.00% $69,016.58 61.87% -$2,841.87 106.77% $83,922.18 18.12% $54,516.18 84.86% $55,364.91 38.48% $767,105.68 6.45% $9,982,068.99 57.38% $8,306.171 36.11%1 $18,225,874.00 45.45% $0.00 $7,250.00 19.44% $22,659.26 95.47% $2,845,035.00 41.54% $943,500.00 56.22% $2,927,535.48 39.33% $870,369.90 51.79% $118,117.67 13.15% $25,960,341.31 45.59% $35,950,716.47 49.47% -$63,083.05 237.14% $698,731.02 54.13% $1,994,949.21 37.91% $2,500.00 0.00% $65,549.00 0.00% $81,156.47 32.37% $0.00 100.00% $3,175,702.00 0.00% $39,502.00 85.71% -$3,000.00 101.67% $47,441.00 76.58% $58,407.00 0.00% $890,370.00 52.41% $466,370.00 33.89% $228,606.44 36.67% $610,000.00 0.00% $16,976.00 0.00% $73,706.00 0.00% -$4,000.00 $52,665.17 18.98% $5,801,951.08 27.15% $44,383,264.73 47.09% Expenditure Category CERTIFIED SALARIES CERTIFIED BENEFITS CLASSIFIED SALARIES CLASSIFIED BENEFITS TOTAL SALARIES \u0026amp; BENEFITS Purchased-Profrr ech Services Purchased Property Services Other Purchased Services Supplies and Materials Property Other Objects Other Uses of Funds Total Other Expenditures OPERATING FUND CAPITAL OUTLAY FUND BUILDING FUND FEDERAL FUND FOOD SERVICE FUND TOT AL EXPENDITURES North Little Rock School District December 2005 2005-2006 Current Month Budget Actual Y-T-D Actual $34,874,548.00 $4,359,784.15 $13,932,514.11 $10,107,052.41 $894,971.22 $2,910,445.82 $10,422,770.60 $1,163,456.48 $4,522,738.56 $3,857,441.17 $331,927.07 $1,355,642.85 $59,261,812.18 $6,750,138.92 $22,721,341.34 $977,902.19 $70,575.34 $363,549.05 $979,384.54 $79,678.13 $430,744.57 $2,537,508.99 $143,130.16 $663,102.86 $4,669,020.15 $270,807.69 $2,188,091.09 $274,292.00 $21,575.52 $108,372.50 $1,005,410.84 $14,814.00 $486,980.00 $700,207.00 $0.00 $0.00 $11,143,725.71 $600,580.84 $4,240,840.07 $70,405,537.89 $7,350,719.76 $26,962,181.41 $1,599,207.00 $81,025.68 $725, 166.27 $1,676,206.00 $0.00 $0.00 $9,635,909.95 $525,143.17 $2,035,212.79 $2,942,736.00 $360,311.40 $1,621,128.66 $86,259,596.84 $8,317,200.01 $31,343,689.13 0-2 %of Budget Budget Balance Balance $20,942,033.89 39.95% $7,196,606.59 28.80% $5,900,032.04 43.39% $2,501,798.32 35.14% $36,540,470.84 38.34% $614,353.14 37.18% $548,639.97 43.98% $1,874,406.13 26.13% $2,480,929.06 46.86% $165,919.50 39.51% $518,430.84 48.44% $700,207.00 0.00% $6,902,885.64 38.06% $43,443,356.48 38.30% $874,040.73 45.35% $1,676,206.00 0.00% . $7,600,697.16 21.12% $1,321,607.34 55.09% $54,915,907.71 36.34% North Little Rock School District FUNCTION  December 2005 2005-2006 Current Function Category Budget Month Actual Y-T-D Actual 11 XX Regular Programs-Elem/Sec $27,427,290.72 $3,139,121.58 $10,494,315.10 12XX Special Education $9,477,206.00 $1,010,559.34 $3,130,019.87 13XX Workforce Education $2,077,304.00 $164,883.33 $755,118.84 15XX Compensatory Education $3,857,957.00 $241,817.42 $763,905.05 19XX Other Instructional $3,200,050.51 $347,328.34 $1,118,567.74 21XX Support Services-Students $7,141,053.00 $650,326.87 $2,182,111.74 22XX Suport Services-Instruction $5,587,492.92 $509,562.02 $1,958,476.92 23XX Support Services-Administration $1,092,984.39 $94,911.22 $392,042.77 24XX Support Services-Sch Adm in $4,337,794.80 $487,723.61 $1,908,077.52 25XX Support Services-Business $673,014.00 $75,067.52 $333,207.75 26XX M \u0026amp; 0 Plant Services $6,521,692.50 $562,445.16 $3,252,294.66 27XX Pupil Transportation $4,141,782.00 $372,309.27 $1,728,456.37 28XX Support Services-Central $1,494,281.00 $162,284.97 $689,008.42 29XX Other Support Services $456,555.00 $49,291.86 $181,291.15 31 XX Food Services $3,615,511.00 $426,537.56 $1,876,891.00 33XX Community Service Operations $71,841.00 $1,067.22 $2,605.22 34XX Other Non-Instr Services $68,243.00 $14,592.09 $49,662.39 43XX Site Improvement Services $0.00 $5,295.00 $5,295.00 46XX Bldq Acq/Constr Services $45,500.00 $0.00 $0.00 47XX Building Improvements $1,676,206.00 $0.00 $0.00 51XX LEA Indebtedness $1,889,564.00 $2,500.00 $522,341.62 53XX Payment to other LEA $1,270,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 55XX Indirect CosUAdmin Charqes $136,274.00 -$424.37 $0.00 GRAND TOTAL $86,259,596.84 $8,317,200.01 $31,343,689.13 0-3 %of Budget Budget Balance Balance $16,932,975.62 38.26% $6,347,186.13 33.03% $1,322,185.16 36.35% $3,094,051.95 19.80% $2,081,482.77 34.95% $4,958,941.26 30.56% $3,629,016.00 35.05% $700,941.62 35.87% $2,429,717.28 43.99% $339,806.25 49.51% $3,269,397.84 49.87% $2,413,325.63 41.73% $805,272.58 46.11 % $275,263.85 39.71% $1,738,620.00 51.91% $69,235.78 3.63% $18,580.61 72.77% -$5,295.00 $45,500.00 0.00% $1,676,206.00 0.00% $1,367,222.38 27.64% $1,270,000.00 0.00% $136,274.00 0.00% $54,915,907.71 36.34% North Little Rock S~hool District SOURCE OF FUNDS - December 2005 2005-2006 . %of Current Budget Budget Source of Funds Category Budget Month Actual Y-T-D Actual Balance Balance 000 Non-categorical $67,849,075.08 $6,722,853.14 $26,114,644.23 $41,734,430.85 38.49% 020 Alternative-Local $7,047.00 $125.00 $580.65 $6,466.35 8.24% 045 Summer School $58,375.00 $0.00 $26,718.25 $31,656.75 45.77% 050 Camp Robinson Work Pgm $44,000.00 $1,581.33 $7,548.70 $36,451.30 17.16% 053 Grr Summer Quest $535.00 $0.00 $0.00 $535.00 0.00% 055 Soft Drink Sales $207,352.31 $10,883.63 $37,648.84 $169,703.47 18.16% 066 Teachers of Tomorrow $0.00 $375.00 $375.00 -$375.00 075 Arkansas Arts Council $0.00 $120.00 $240.00 -$240.00 083 Ark Heritage/Wildwood $640.00 $0.00 $640.00 $0.00 100.00% 090 Yale 21st Century $25,000.00 $1,863.92 $4,923.05 $20,076.95 19.69% 095 ADE Gates Grant $4,283.15 $0.00 $0.00 $4,283.15 0.00% 213 Intensive School Improvement $9,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 $9,000.00 0.00% 223 Prof Development Act 59 $521,961.22 $46,976.36 $211,293.97 $310,667.25 40.48% 225 Technology Grant $1,724.00 $0.00 $0.00 $1,724.00 0.00% 227 CPEP $71,710.00 $0.00 $18,581.89 $53,128.11 25.91% 245 Pathwise Mentoring $63,969.00 $26,874.43 $32,379.64 $31,589.36 50.62% 250 Act 591 Residential $73,000.00 $1,800.00 $12,250.00 $60,750.00 16.78% 260 Early Childhood Sp Ed $729,627.00 $86,606.72 $282,269.71 $447,357.29 38.69% 271 Gff Advance Placement $4,000.78 $0.00 $204.00 $3,796.78 5.10% 275 Alternative Learning Environment $1,290,745.00 $144,822.26 $448,435.61 $842,309.39 34.74% 276 Enqlish Lanq Learners $68,973.00 $8,439.63 $22,199.32 $46,773.68 32.19% 281 NSLA $2,710,070.00 $468,820.84 $1,052,516.54 $1,657,553.46 38.84%  340 Workforce Start-up $28,090.00 $0.00 $577.65 $27,512.35 2.06% 365 ABC Preschool $2,198,770.08 $215,626.26 $732,621.33 $1,466,148.75 33.32% 381 Smart Start Literacy $80,619.00 $8,051.83 $36,821.05 $43,797.95 45.67% 392 General Facility Funding $564,409.00 $46,212.84 $264,350.95 $300,058.05 46.84% 398 OHS Preschool Improvement $10,711.27 $23.65 $655.96 $10,055.31 6.12% 406 lmprv Lit Thru Libraries $0.00 $4,926.49 $23,068.17 -$23,068.17 430 ROTC $120,000.00 $13,342.76 $49,713.10 $70,286.90 41.43% 441 Title IV-8 21st Century $242,547.76 $30,203.86 $107,514.78 $135,032.98 44.33% 501 Title I-Reg Comp Ed $4,490,638.39 $144,961.91 $540,414.94 $3,950,223.45 12.03% 504 Title I Proqram Improvement $0.00 $0.00 $420.89 -$420.89 520 Title V-A Innovative Program $344,251.00 $0.00 $0.00 $344,251.00 0.00% 523 Title I Readinq First $234,444.00 $29,291.72 $80,064.37 $154,379.63 34.15% 530 Homeless-Stewart McKinney $19,209.00 $598.93 $8,297.45 $10,911.55 43.20% 535 Title V-8 Charter Schools $131,053.54 $54.35 $77,730.85 $53,322.69 59.31% 565 Teacher Quality Enhancement $0.00 $7,700.87 $23,610.85 -$23,610.85 570 Carl Perkins Vocational $196,114.00 $4,544.32 $122,715.56 $73,398.44 62.57% 595 Title 11-0 Ed Technoloqy $61,493.95 $0.00 $0.00 $61,493.95 0.00% 702 Title VI-B PL 94-142 $1,780,741.00 $144,985.18 $472,305.02 $1,308,435.98 26.52% 703 Title Vl-8 Head Start $89,910.00 $8,998.05 $30,484.82 $59,425.18 33.91% 710 Sp Ed Preschool Sec 619 $823,280.00 $75,092.58 $249,593.53 $573,686.47 30.32% 720 Title Vl-8 Sliver Grant $99,254.00 $0.00 ' $0.00 $99,254.00 0.00% 750 Medicaid $288,382.00 $7,396.09 $28,442.42 $259,939.58 9.86% 751 Medicaid Sp Ed Preschool $60,000.00 $4,714.06 $33,534.98 $26,465.02 55.89% 756 Title II-A Improve Teaching $534,343.31 $37,855.50 $147,046.48 $387,296.83 27.52% 761 Title Ill Enq Lang Acqui $11,662.00 $600.00 $1,107.98 $10,554.02 9.50% 781 Title IV-A Drug Ed $73,586.00 $5,773.82 $28,097.45 $45,488.55 38.18% 785 Comprehensive Sch Health $832.37 $832.37 -$832.37 796 Workforce Investment Act $35,000.00 $3,270.31 $10,216.78 $24,783.22 29.19% GRAND TOTAL $86,259,596.84 $8,317,200.01 $31,343,689.13 $54,915,907.71 36.34% 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 NLRSD Actual to Budget Comparison Operating Building Capital Outlay Funds 0-5 Federal Food Service !.!IB udget  Expenses NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PERSONNEL OFFICE Board Agenda - January 19, 2006 CERTIFIED PERSONNEL RESIGNATIONS \u0026amp; RETIREMENTS Thomas Giuisti Roseanne Sallis Patrick Kirwin Nicole Schafer Eletha White NAME: CERTIFIED PERSONNEL TRANSFERS AND CHANGES From Active Military Duty Return to Argenta Academy, Alternative Education From NLRHS West Campus, PENolleyballffrack To NLRHS West Campus, PENolleyball NEW CERTIFIED PERSONNEL Lakewood Middle School, English/Social Studies/Math Effective 1/2/05, Category I, Step 11, 190 days Seventh Street Elementary, First Grade Effective 1/3/06, Category I, Step 5, 190 days NLRHS West Campus, Spanish Effective 1/10/06, Category I, Step 18, 190 days NEW CERTIFIED PERSONNEL RECOMMENDATIONS Patrick Kirwin PROPOSED ASSIGNMENT: Lakewood Middle School, English/Social Studies/Math BA-Arkansas Tech University, Russellville, AR 5/91 Middle School English/Math/Oral Communications/Coaching Pribilof School District, St. Paul, AK 8/05 - 12/05 EDUCATION: CERTIFICATION: EXPERIENCE: RECOMMENDATION Little Rock School District, Little Rock, AR 10/96 - 5/05 Danville Public Schools, Danville, AR 8/93 - 5/95 Dr. Ginger Wallace, Principal June Haynie, Administrative Director of Secondary Education Danny Reed, Administrative Director of Personnel/Special Services P-1 NAME: North Little Rock School District Board Agenda- January 19, 2006 Nicole Schafer PROPOSED ASSIGNMENT: Seventh Street Elementary, First Grade EDUCATION: CERTIFICATION: EXPERIENCE: RECOMMENDATION NAME: BSE - University of Arkansas at Little Rock, AR 5/2000 Middle School Social Studies, Elementary Education K-6 North Little Rock School District, NLR, AR 8/00 - 6/9/04 Tulsa School District, Tulsa, OK 8/04-12/05 Pam Wilcox, Principal Kaye Lowe, Administrative Director of Elementary Education Danny Reed, Administrative Director of Personnel/Special Services Eletha Williams White PROPOSED ASSIGNMENT: NLRHS West Campus, Spanish EDUCATION: CERTIFICATION: EXPERIENCE: RECOMMENDATION BA - California Baptist College, Riverside, CA 8/67 Oklahoma License in Elementary Education, Spanish, English Literature, Newspaper, Yearbook, Business English, American Literature, Grammar \u0026amp; Comp, Speech \u0026amp; Drama and Middle School Social Studies Claremore High School, Claremore, OK 2/90 - 10/03 East End School District, Bigelow, AR 8/98 - 5/99 Beggs High School, Beggs, OK 8/88 - 5/89 Nowata Public Schools, Nowata, OK 8/86 - 5/88 Verdigris School District, Claremore, OK 8/83 - 5/86 - Gregg Thompson, Principal June Haynie, Administrative Director of Secondary Education Danny Reed, Administrative Director of Personnel/Special Services CLASSIFIED PERSONNEL TRANSFERS AND CHANGES Jeremy Rollins Walter Faux Bruce Strong, Sr. From NLRHS West Campus, Custodian To Plant Services, Substitute Custodian NEW CLASSIFIED PERSONNEL Transportation Department, Bus Driver Effective 1/5/06, Category 507, Step 46, 190 days Plant Services, Lead Custodian Effective 12/19/05, Category 601, Step 27,252 days P-2 :. NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT JANUARY 2006 BIDS FOR APPROVAL BID NUMBER : RFP BID NAME : Energy Services Company SOURCE OF FUNDING : LOCATION: JOHNSON'S CONTROLS, INC. SIEMENS BUILDING TECHNOLOGIES TRANE OF ARKANSAS ***** * ** *** **** ***** Did Not Meet Specifications Part of all or No Bid Quality Not Recommended Limited Coverage Recommended R-1 JAN. 5.2006 11:21AM /'10.194 P.2/2 ::\u0026lt;:r:::p:. .- Parksa ndR ecreatioDne partment 2700 WillowS treet Voice (501) 791~8538 January S. 2006 Mr. Barry Kine! parksandrec@northlittlerock,ar.gov North Little Rock School District 2700 Popular Street. North Little Rock. AR 72114 Dear Mr. Kincl, Fax (501) 791-8528 I would like to request the use of the NLRHS Football Field for the following dates from 4 p.m. to 11 p.m. July I. 2006 July 22. 2006 July 29, 2006 August 26, 2006 September 9, 2006 Thank you for your assistance with this matter. I hope to hear from you soon. I can be reached at (501) 791-BS43. Sincerely, Tina Worrell Recreation Superintendent Sl North Little Rock School of Dance 753-5039 Barry Kincl 2700 Poplar Street North Little Rock, Ar 72114 Mr. Kincl, I am writing this letter as a request to use the North Little Rock East Campus Auditorium for the dates of Saturday, June 10,2006 (approximately 10a.m.-6p.m.) and Sunday, June 11,2006 (approximately 3p.m.-8p.m.). This is my first choice. My second choice is for the dates of Wednesday, June 14,2006 (approximately 10a.m.-6p.m.) and Thursday, June 15,2006 (approximately 5p.m.- 10p.m.). Sincerely, Karen K. Bowren North Little Rock School of Dance S2 ACCOUNT NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT CHECK LISTING FOR DECEMBER, 2005 AMOUNT AW PELLER \u0026amp; ASSOCIATES INC A-PLUS TEACHING SUPPLIES A-PLUS TEACHING SUPPLIES A'TEST CONSULTANTS INC A'TEST CONSULTANTS INC AAEA AAMSCO ACCESS SCHOOLS ACE GLASS COMPANY, INC. ACE MART RESTAURANT SUPPLIES ACI PLASTICS ADAM ROBINSON ADMINISTRATIVE SYSTEMS INC ADT SECURITY SERVICES, INC. AEA AEA FEDERAL CREDIT UNION AEA FEDERAL CREDIT UNION AEA FEDERAL CREDIT UNION AEA FEDERAL CREDIT UNION AEA FEDERAL CREDIT UNION AFFORDABLE COMPUTER PRODUCTS AGS PUBLISHING AHA PROCESS INCORPOARTED AIMEE WRIGHT ALAN CROWNOVER ALEXANDRA PRITCHETT ALICIA YARBROUGH ALIGN ALIGN ALIGN ALIGN ALIGN ALIGN ALIGN ALIGN ALIGN ALIGN ALIGN ALIGN ALIGN ALIGN ALIGN ALIGN .11.LIGN ALIGN ALISHA HERRING ALISHA HERRING ALL AMERICAN INC. T- 1 .00 456.28 175.68 59.86 65.00 27.00 288.80 172. 00 1,987.50 294.--27 484.48 79.57 68.00 12,703.62 1,317.71 1,162.78 2,102.00 50.00 2,102.00 50.00 2,102.00 416.13 1,677.43 795.00 153.23 104.64 67.28 96.48 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .oo .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .oo .00 115. 05 91.92 1,182.27 CHK. NO. 0 52325 52232 52797 52202 52498 52283 52186 52596 52327 52114 52069 52660 52265 52641 52532 51863 52053 52277 52306 52543 52502 52579 52762 52192 52333 52352 52217 51855 V 52020 V 52030 V 52044 V 52057 V 52062 V 52236 V 52269 V 52281 V 52297 V 52307 V 52324 V 52528 V 52535 V 52547 V 52556 V 52571 V 52577 V 52214 52775 52065 ACCOUNT NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT CHECK LISTING FOR DECEMBER, 2005 AMOUNT ALL AMERICAN INC. ALL ELECTRIC SUPPLY, INC. ALLIED PRINTING AND SUPPLY CO. ALLIED PRINTING AND SUPPLY CO. ALLIED THERAPY \u0026amp; CONSULTING ALLIED THERAPY \u0026amp; CONSULTING ALLIED WASTE SERVICES #858 ALLTEL MOBILE ALPHASMART INC ALPS PUBLISHING AMANDA STUCKEY AMBOY ELEM ACTIVITY FUND AMBOY ELEM ACTIVITY FUND AMERICAN LIBRARY PREVIEW AMERICAN SPEECH-LANGUAGEAMERIPRISE FINANCIAL SERVICES AMERIPRISE FINANCIAL SERVICES AMERIPRISE FINANCIAL SERVICES AMERIPRISE FINANCIAL SERVICES AMERIPRISE FINANCIAL SERVICES AMY VOLLMAN AMY VOLLMAN ANDREA HAIN ANDREW CALAWAY ANDRIA SMITH ANDRIA SMITH ANGIE COLCLASURE ANGIE COLCLASURE ANGIE HUTSON ANGIE JOHNSON ANITA HOLLAND ANNAN. VAMMEN ANOINTED BY DESIGN AOS LASER SERVICE, INC. APPERSON PRINT MANAGEMENT APPLE COMPUTER INC APPLIED IND TECH ARA CONFERENCE ARCH FORD EDUCATION SERVICE ARCH FORD EDUCATION SERVICE ARCOM SYSTEMS ARKANSAS AIR FRAGRANCE COMPANY ARKANSAS ALTACARE ARKANSAS ART CENTER ARKANSAS BUSINESS PUBLISHING ARKANSAS CHORAL DIRECTORS ASSO ARKANSAS COUNCIL OF TEACHERS ARKANSAS COUNCIL ON ECONOMIC ARKANSAS LAMINATION PRODUCTS T- 2 95.00 109.14 70.85 3,080.12 870.00 297.00 3,941.78 990.50 792.30 41. 95 40.52 119.09 152.25 161. 50 3,345.00 12,120.00 375.00 12,160.00 375.00 12,160.00 132.25 67.55 26.60 52.00 71. 33 54.52 63.18 101.80 99.00 38.88 122.50 2.22 178.99 377.55 271.83 259.42 44.31 115. 00 3,699.77 302.16 2,565.00 259.20 49,392.00 280.00 1,700.00 255.00 55.00 20.00 103.55 CHK. NO. 52328 52802 52068 52334 52475 52727 52145 52339 52752 52100 52756 52480 52732 52662 52169 51862 52052 52276 52305 52542 52158 52709 52215 52389 52189 52746 52149 52447 52598 52623 52061 52493 52196 52580 52749 52375 52768 52515 52359 52610 52758 52478 52161 52683 52477 52443 52439 52715 52143 ACCOUNT NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT CHECK LISTING FOR DECEMBER, 2005 AMOUNT ARKANSAS LAMINATION PRODUCTS ARKANSAS READING ASSOCIATION ARKANSAS SCHOOL PSYCHOLOGY ARKANSAS TEACHER RETIREMENT ARKANSAS TEACHER RETIREMENT ARKANSAS TEACHER RETIREMENT ARKANSAS TEACHER RETIREMENT ARKANSAS TRAILER ASCO HARDWARE COMPANY, INC. ASHLEY HANAN ASHLEY HANAN ASHLEY-WOODSON \u0026amp; ASSOC. ASHLEY-WOODSON \u0026amp; ASSOC. ASHLEY-WOODSON \u0026amp; ASSOC. ASSOCIATION FOR SUPERVISION \u0026amp; ASSOCIATION FOR SUPERVISION \u0026amp; ATHLETIC DEPARTMENT ACTIVITY AUGMENTATIVE COMMUNICATION BACKGROUND INFORMATION SYSTEMS BANK OF THE OZARKS-FEDERAL BANK OF THE OZARKS-FEDERAL BANK OF THE OZARKS-FEDERAL BANK OF THE OZARKS-FEDERAL BANK OF THE OZARKS-FEDERAL BANK OF THE OZARKS-FEDERAL 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 BARNES AND NOBLE BARRY KINCL BASICS PLUS BASICS PLUS BECKERS SCHOOL SUPPLIES BECKY WITCHER BEDFORD CAMERA AND VIDEO BELWOOD ELEM ACTIVITY FUND BENCHMARK EDUCATION COMPANY BENCHMARK EDUCATION COMPANY BENTONVILLE PROMOTIONS BEVERLY KELSO BILL DUVALL BILL DUVALL BILL'S LOCK \u0026amp; SAFE BINSWANGER GLASS COMPANY BLUE BELL CREAMERIES, L.P. BLUE BELL CREAMERIES, L.P. T- 3 130.80 1,260.00 375.00 608,387.68 31,338.90 2,805.44 947.00 1,330.26 1,469.11 44.23 20.24 4,745.87 11,102.43 2,995.20 27. 95 63. 95 29,227.13 50.00 200.00 440,529.17 45,619.82 440,033.61 51,389.49 442,865.16 37,635.38 1,220,293.83 173,326.86 1,198,335.92 195,552.75 1,231,918.99 146,174.34 988.34 103 .13 5,528.36 4,502.02 99.17 253. 97 172.57 111.29 2,229.70 1,963.50 2,391.46 5.22 51.09 8.60 107.26 290.71 890.20 395.15 CHK. NO. 52693 52420 52581 52058 52059 52060 52534 52402 52064 52507 52777 52138 52427 52680 52071 52589 52296 52640 52330 51857 52046 52271 52299 52537 52574 51856 52045 52270 52298 52536 52573 52341 52331 52337 52588 52500 52699 52338 52179 52488 52741 52081 52248 52079 52344 52380 52078 52153 52704 ACCOUNT NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT CHECK LISTING FOR DECEMBER, 2005 AMOUNT BLUE HILL WRECKER SERVICE BOBBY ACKLIN BOILER INSPECTION DIVISION BOONE PARK ELEM ACTIVITY FUND BRANDY NESSELRODT BRANDY NESSELRODT BRENDA BUTLER BRENDA CREWS BROMLEY PARTS \u0026amp; SERVICE BROWN JANITOR SUPPLY BRYNN HARVISON BUDS N BOWS BUSTER 400 C.T.A. CABOT FLORISTS CABOT FLORISTS CABOT FLORISTS CALLOWAY HOUSE, INC. CAMBIUM LEARNING INC CAMPUS TEAM WEAR INC CAPITOL ADVERTISING CARLTON-BATES CO. CARLTON-BATES CO. CAROLYN GARRETT CARSON DELLOSA PUBLISHING CO CENTER POINT ENERGY ARKLA CENTER POINT ENERGY ARKLA CENTRAL ARKANSAS TRANSIT CENTRAL STATES BUS SALES, INC. CHAMBER THEATRE PRODUCTIONS CHARLES JONES CHERYL HALL CHILD CARE PROVIDERS FUND CI CI'S PIZZA CINTAS CINTAS CINTAS CINTAS CITY YEAR INC CLARK EXTERMINATING CO, INC. CLARK EXTERMINATING CO, INC. CLASSROOM DIRECT CLASSROOM DIRECT CLAUDIA GARRIGUS CLEAR MOUNTAIN CLEAR MOUNTAIN COBB AND SUSKIE LTD. COCA-COLA USA COCA-COLA/DR PEPPER BOTTLING T- 4 275.40 82.29 3,023.00 153.47 111.07 117. 08 84.08 40.00 18.90 153.16 56.00 104.29 460.00 9,116.25 39.91 94.18 224.29 196.19 248.30 55.40 260.33 194.40 428.22 1. 70 68. 68 99.76 18,813.25 550.00 1,652.74 116. 00 44.20 30.62 100.00 125.00 130. 36 42.68 130. 36 130.36 1,000.00 817.50 1,199.00 7,625.61 1,586.50 78.00 264.13 139.88 14,062.50 1,537.50 6,641.76 CHK. NO. 52345 52440 52595 52482 52220 52787 52495 52789 52347 52348 52388 52593 52127 52529 52083 52349 52601 52350 52612 52209 52665 52085 52602 52247 52468 52332 52585 52 697 52721 52132 52252 52162 52457 52 682 52035 52286 52312 52561 52616 52410 52663 52490 52748 52267 52176 52729 52570 52101 52156 ACCOUNT NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT CHECK LISTING FOR DECEMBER, 2005 AMOUNT COCA-COLA/DR PEPPER BOTTLING COMCAST CABLEVISION COMPLETE COMPUTING CONNIE FOX CONSECO LIFE INSURANCE CORKYS CORPORATE EXPRESS CORPORATE EXPRESS CORPORATE EXPRESS CRAB TREE PUBLISNING COMPANY CROW BURLINGAME CO CRYSTAL EVANS CRYSTAL EVANS CUMMINS MID SOUTH LLC CURRICULUM ASSOCIATES INC CWI, PLC DAMARIS PURTLE DANA CHADWICK DANA MCCOY DANA MCCOY DANIEL K MACGLOTHIN DANIEL K MACGLOTHIN DANIEL K MACGLOTHIN DAPHNE KNIGHTEN DAPHNE KNIGHTEN DARLENE ROBERTS DARRELL MCCOY DARYL FIMPLE DATAMAX OF ARKANSAS DAVID D. COOP DAVID D. COOP DAVID D. COOP DAVID D. COOP DAWNE CARROLL DAWNE CARROLL DAYLIGHT DONUTS DEANN ROACH DEBBIE DAVENPORT DEBBIE GREENE DEBBIE ROZZELL DELI PARTNER'S DELI PARTNER'S DELL MARKETING LP. DELTA DENTAL DEPT. OF FINANCE \u0026amp; ADMINISTRAT DESIGN IT INC DETCO INDUSTRIES DFA-SALES \u0026amp; USE TAX DIAMOND INTERNATIONAL TRUCKS T- 5 5,453.66 46.31 251.56 52.08 206.31 628.35 9,038.04 3,853.49 3,888.74 40.56 24. 72 43.60 2.94 70.95 1,798.20 2,152.50 74.43 302.56 120.04 94.69 20.00 20.00 20.00 14.12 5.15 35.00 40.00 155.74 '31,788.07 458.78 2,238.00 458.78 458.78 56 .12 54.25 22.50 39.37 43.10 51. 72 33.23 67.20 449.25 118. 7 6 55,454.72 252,242.31 739.08 2,448.00 3,335.00 736.28 CHK. NO. 52707 52336 52351 52241 52258 52096 52166 52463 52717 52702 52464 52171 52251 52476 52606 52385 52445 52091 52221 52788 52033 52310 52559 52472 52726 52658 52604 52651 52578 52031 52282 52308 52557 52183 52738 52740 52509 52514 52747 52424 52146 52441 52399 52257 52572 52666 52706 52804 52416 ACCOUNT NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT CHECK LISTING FOR DECEMBER, 2005 AMOUNT DIAMOND INTERNATIONAL TRUCKS DIRECT SCHOOL SUPPLY DONNA RIPPER DONNA STEWART DONNA STEWART DOREEN MICK DOROTHY FARRIS DREW CAMP DWIGHT JONES INC. E-RATE CONSULTING SERVICES EAST CAMPUS ACTIV~TY FUND EASTER SEALS OUTREACH PROGRAM ECOLAB, INC. EDS SUPPLY CO. EDUCATORS BOOK DEPOSITORY OF EDUCATORS BOOK DEPOSITORY OF ELAINE BLOCK ELECTRONIC VIDEO SYSTEMS ELIZABETH HART EMILY TAYLOR EMPLOYEE BENEFITS DIVISION ENERGY EDUCATION INC ENTERGY SYSTEMS ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGIES, IN F \u0026amp; E CHECK PROTECTOR COMPANY FAIRFIELD LANGUAGE FAMILY SUPPORT PAYMENT CENTER FAMILY SUPPORT PAYMENT CENTER FAMILY SUPPORT PAYMENT CENTER FARRELL-CALHOUN PAINT CO FARRELL-CALHOUN PAINT CO FCCLA FCCLA LOCKBOX OPERATION FERRELLGAS FISHER SCIENTIFIC COMPANY FLEET TIRE SERVICE OF NLR, INC FLINN SCIENTIFIC COMPANY FLOORCOVERINGS INTERNATIONAL FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF FOOTLIGHTS FRANKLIN COVEY FRANKLIN COVEY GALE STANLEY GARRETT BOOK COMPANY GENERAL BINDING CORPORATION GENERATION PRODUCTS COMPANY GEORGE TAYLOR T- 6 308.96 112. 32 13. 80 175.03 87.52 52.08 91. 85 112. 94 200.00 6,243.75 619.15 240.00 1,391.39 56.51 1,070.07 52,545.38 52.00 8,592.10 17.47 240.00 387,902.48 10,100.00 6.68  350.00 374.33 1,606.80 54.00 54.00 54.00 168.92 128.16 60.00 280.00 42.01 1,846.66 63.20 440.89 310.68 104.76 122.37 99.97 17. 20 30.14 14.94 35.28 365.03 59.22 598.41 11. 77 CHK. NO. 52669 52185 52266 52086 52603 52254 52191 52230 52094 52776 52731 52182 52092 52608 52093 52356 52244 52080 52107 52412 52264 52329 52317 52799 52423 52354 52027 52292 52554 52364 52614 52125 52222 52684 52613 52363 52335 52700 52040 52319 52568 52607 52373 52597 52237 52763 52362 52106 52369 ACCOUNT NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT CHECK LISTING FOR DECEMBER, 2005 AMOUNT GINGER WALLACE GLOBAL DOCUGRAPHIX GLOBAL DOCUGRAPHIX GLORIA SMITH GMS MEETING MANAGEMENT GOLDEN CORRAL GRAINGER GRAINGER GREAT AMERCIAN OPPORTUNITIES GREAT IDEAS FOR TEACHING GRETCHEN LAUIPPA GRETCHEN WILLOUGHBY GRUENYS GRS INC HAESE \u0026amp; HARRIS PUBLICATIONS HARCOURT ASSESSMENT HARCOURT EDU. MEASUREMENT HARCOURT EDU. MEASUREMENT HAROLD D STARK HAROLD GWATNEY CHEVROLET CO. HAROLD GWATNEY CHEVROLET CO. HAROLD GWATNEY CHEVROLET CO. HASLER INC HEALTH ED HELPING HAND CHILDRENS HIGGINS AUTO TRANSMISSION HIGHSMITH INC HOME DEPOT/GECF HONEYBAKED HAM COMPANY HONEYBAKED HAM COMPANY HOPE FOUNDATION HOUSING AUTHORITY OF NLR HSBC BUSINESS SOLUTIONS HSBC BUSINESS SOLUTIONS HOM'S HARDWARE \u0026amp; RENTAL HUM'S HARDWARE \u0026amp; RENTAL HUM'S HARDWARE \u0026amp; RENTAL ILLINOIS STATE DISBURSEMENT ILLINOIS STATE DISBURSEMENT ILLINOIS STATE DISBURSEMENT ILLINOIS THEATRICAL IN DYER NEED ENTERPRISES INDEPENDENT MUSIC SERVICE, INC INDEPENDENT MUSIC SERVICE, INC INDEPENDENT SERVICE FINANCE, INFORMATION DOCUMENTS, INC INFORMATION VAULTING SERVICES ING RETIREMENT PLANS ING RETIREMENT PLANS ING RETIREMENT PLANS T- 7 403.08 655.58 778.34 31. 43 740.00 1,129.50 596.78 1,463.49 1,917.18 76.95 600.00 10.00 19.78 2,036.59 286.49 414.20 473.06 97.50 25.00 25.00 25.00 588.60 149.00 2,832.50 1,500.00 85.80 986.83 539.06 399.61 854.07 1,200.00 117.59 405.85 11. 71 55.29 318.37 425.00 425.00 425.00 104.75 154.26 112.16 265.00 138.82 3,410.89 147.40 3,465.00 437.50 3,465.00 CHK. NO. 52470 52200 52760 52229 52394 52725 52436 52687 52370 52164 52503 52239 52617 52408 52455 52512 52784 52521 52043 52322 52569 52753 52656 52190 52150 52374 52696 52194 52195 52446 52342 52208 52770 52376 52621 52622 52028 52293 52555 52793 52582 52456 52711 52564 52340 52368 51861 52051 52275 ACCOUNT NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT CHECK LISTING FOR DECEMBER, 2005 AMOUNT 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 J \u0026amp; SPRINTING J \u0026amp; SPRINTING J A RIGGS TRACTOR COMPANY J W PEPPER AND SON J. L. HEIN SERVICE, INC. JACK T CARTER COMPANY JACK,LYON,\u0026amp; JONES, P.A. JACK,LYON,\u0026amp; JONES, P.A. JACK,LYON,\u0026amp; JONES, P.A. JACK,LYON,\u0026amp; JONES, P.A. JACQUELINE SUMLER JACQUELINE SUMLER JAMES BROS. JAMIE EUBANKS JAMIE EUBANKS JANET E. THOMAS P.T. JANET FOSTER JANET FOSTER JANN PHARO JASON GOLDEN JENNIE BOTTS JENNY OBANNON JERRY DOWDY JERRY MASSEY JERRY MASSEY JERRY MASSEY JILL MILLS JILL MILLS JO-ANN GOLDMAN, TRUSTEE JO-ANN GOLDMAN, TRUSTEE JO-ANN GOLDMAN, TRUSTEE JONATHAN MOORE JOYCE BRADLEY BABIN JOYCE BRADLEY BABIN JOYCE BRADLEY BABIN JOYCE BRADLEY BABIN JUNE HAYNIE JUST FOR KIDS THERAPY SERVICES JUST RIBBONS KANSAS PAYMENT CENTER T- 8 437.50 3,465.00 525.00 2,838.38 64,286.49 7,644.45 136.00 136.00 136. 00 654.68 334.00 157.38 355.00 1,315.00 902.87 162.69 501.12 145.78 2,329.50 54.52 43.86 39.24 1,190.00 1,907.50 1,184.17 271.20 161. 62 14.70 ll0.16 15.70 ll5.59 66.30 148.87 472.00 85.89 32.76 21. 84 258.46 281.37 281. 37 85.00 869.43 2,896.54 869.43 869.43 31.16 585.00 4 ll. 00 46.15 CHK. NO. 52304 52541 52639 52184 52487 52739 52026 52291 52553 52144 52694 52404 52407 52780 52626 52022 52099 52285 52377 52224 52794 52102 52207 52769 52438 52159 52712 52449 52409 52 636 52199 52518 52160 52459 52714 52097 52624 52036 52314 52563 52386 52039 52294 52318 52567 52628 52781 52461 52313 V Natara Johnson Calvin Key Jeffrey Martello Carol Mayerhoff Marsha G. Satterfield William Singleton Vilesia Tatum Tammy Young North Little Rock School District Board Agenda, February 16, 2006 NEW CLASSIFIED PERSONNEL CONTINUED Argenta Infant/Toddler Program, Teacher's Aide Effective 1/24/06, Category 236, Step 67, 185 days Crestwood Elementary, Lunch Aide Effective 1/18/06, Category 260, Step 21, 178 days Administration Annex, Computer Technician Effective 1/24/06, Category 252, Step 135, 252 days Amboy Elementary, Early AM Aide Effective 1/9/06, Category 266, Step 33, 178 days Lynch Drive Elementary, Pre-K Teacher's Aide Effective 1/30/06, Category 242, Step 54, 185 days Indian Hills Elementary, Special Education Aide Effective 12/1/05, Category 240, Step 54, 185 days Lynch Drive Elementary, Lunch Aide Effective 1/20/06, Category 260, Step 18, 178 days Argenta Infant/Toddler Program, Teacher's Aide Effective 2/7/06, Category 242, Step 50, 185 days -P-3 NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FEBRUARY BIDS FOR APPROVAL BID NUMBER: 06-02-042 BID NAME: Holding Cabinets (14) SOURCE OF FUNDING : Food Service Funds LOCATION : Food Service Department AIMCO PIONEER SUPREME FIXTURE BID NUMBER : 06-02-042B $29,112.70 $28,820.08 $30,222.06 BID NAME: Gas Convection Ovens (3) SOURCE OF FUNDING : Food Service Funds LOCATION : Food Service Department AIMCO PIONEER SUPREME FIXTURE * ** *** **** ***** Did Not Meet Specifications Part of all or No Bid Quality Not Recommended Limited Coverage Recommended $15,881.51 $19,822.80 $17,524.32 R- l- ***** ***** ~HILL ~ ISTCHURCH Friday, February 03, 2006 Mr. Barry Kincl: 20 I East \"C\" A venue  North Little Rock  Arkansas  72116 (501) 753-3413. Fax (501) 771-6718 aaronhulse@aristotle.net  www.parkhillbaptist.org Dr. S. CARY HEARD  PASTOR I am the Minister to Students at Park Hill Baptist Church here in North Little Rock and I have teamed up with many of the Youth Pastors from churches in our community to host REAL ENCOUNTER for all 7th - 12th grade students in the area. I am writing t.o you to request the use of the North Little Rock West Campus Gymnasium for this community wide Christian youth rally that will be held on Wednesday night, September 27, 2006. REAL ENCOUNTER is lead by a professional motor cross rider named Brad Bennett along with the help of a drama team and a band. This event will be free for all students in the North Little Rock and North Pulaski communities. The hosting churches are taking on the responsibility of funding. The event will be promoted through the churches as well as through character based school assemblies that will take place on Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday of that same week. We are targeting 15 middle and senior high schools in the North Pulaski area, including.all 5 of the schools in Nortlr Little Rock. So far we have confirmed with 8 of the 15. We see the potential for a lot of students attending this Christian youth rally and want to host it in a neutral, non-threatening location that has the capacity to hold a large crowd. Dan Russell and lhave visited.together.and.discussed.the.possibility ofus using the NLR West Campus Gymnasium.: lisf SIIg~tha.t:.l senclaleitetto you for approval of our event-aLWestCampUS-Gym. I loo~forward to visitin~witlhyouo-0boutREAL ENCOUNTER-I hae.included~some materialahout.REAL ENCOUNTER for you to have. I will contact.you.soon. Sincerely, D. Aaron Hulse:- .\\ARON HULSE  MINISTER TO STUDENT S-l - ACCOUNT NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT CHECK LISTING FOR JANUARY, 2006 AMOUNT A \u0026amp; A FIRE AND SAFETY COMPANY A-PLUS TEACHING SUPPLIES A-PLUS TEACHING SUPPLIES A'TEST CONSULTANTS INC A'TEST CONSULTANTS INC AAEA MEA MSBO ABILITATIONS ACADEMY SPORTS ACCESS SCHOOLS ACCURATE LABEL DESIGNS ADMINISTRATIVE SYSTEMS INC ADT SECURITY SERVICES, INC. AEA AEA FEDERAL CREDIT UNION AEA FEDERAL CREDIT UNION AEA FEDERAL CREDIT UNION AETNA LIFE \u0026amp; CASUALTY AIMEE WRIGHT ALAN CROWNOVER ALEXANDRA PRITCHETT ALIBRIS FOR LIBRARIES ALICIA YARBROUGH ALIGN ALIGN ALIGN ALIGN ALIGN ALIGN ALIGN ALIGN ALIGN ALIGN ALIGN ALIGN ALIGN ALIGN ALIGN ALIGN ALISHA HERRING ALL AMERICAN INC. ALL AMERICAN SPORTS CORP ALLIED PRINTING AND SUPPLY CO. ALLIED THERAPY \u0026amp; CONSULTING ALLIED WASTE SERVICES #858 ALLIED WASTE SERVICES #858 ALLISON CALLAHAN - T- 1 .00 731.39 433.28 1,486.15 86.50 192.50 318.80 290.00 115. 00 379.09 1,225.69 1,450.00 139.95 12,626.34 1,317.71 1,186.74 2,102.00 50.00 50.00 1,751.60 58.03 141.56 11. 70 157.00 16.93 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 117. 94 966. 67 285.56 92.65 750.00 3,905.83 3,941.78 57.37 CHK. NO. 0 53372 53192 53417 52914 53397 53086 53453 52981 52896 53471 53267 53048 52962 53204 53426 52972 53082 53251 52806 52909 52816 53272 53145 53061 52805 V 52940 V 52964 V 52976 V 52980 V 53073 V 53084 V 53098 V 53112 V 53197 V 53226 V 53241 V 53245 V 53253 V 53421 V 53452 V 53503 53113 53254 53115 53376 52876 53475 53504 ACCOUNT NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT CHECK LISTING FOR JANUARY, 2006 AMOUNT ALLTEL MOBILE ALLTEL MOBILE ALPHASMART INC AMANDA WARE AMERICAN ACCESS INC. AMERIPRISE FINANCIAL SERVICES AMERIPRISE FINANCIAL SERVICES AMERIPRISE FINANCIAL SERVICES AMY VOLLMAN ANDRIA SMITH ANGIE COLCLASURE ANGIE COLCLASURE ANITA CAMERON ANNAN. VAMMEN AOS LASER SERVICE, INC. APPERSON PRINT MANAGEMENT APPLAUSE LEARNING RESOURCES APPLAUSE LEARNING RESOURCES AR EDUCATIONAL TELEVISION ARCH FORD EDUCATION SERVICE ARCH FORD EDUCATION SERVICE ARKANSAS BAG \u0026amp; EQUIPMENJ CO ARKANSAS BUSINESS PUBLISHING ARKANSAS COUNCIL OF TEACHERS ARKANSAS COUNCIL ON ECONOMIC ARKANSAS DEMOCRAT GAZETTE ARKANSAS DEMOCRAT GAZETTE ARKANSAS DEPT OF HEALTH ARKANSAS DEPT. OF EDUCATION ARKANSAS DEPT. OF EDUCATION ARKANSAS DEPT. OF EDUCATION ARKANSAS LAMINATION PRODUCTS ARKANSAS READING ASSOCIATION ARKANSAS READING ASSOCIATION ARKANSAS SCHOOL BOARDS ASSOCIA ARKANSAS SCHOOL PLANT MANAGEME ARKANSAS SPECIAL OLYMPICS ARKANSAg STATK POLICE ARKANSAS STATE POLICE ARKANSAS STATE UNIVERSITY ARKANSAS TEACHER RETIREMENT ARKANSAS TEACHER-RETIREMENT~ ARKANSAS TEACHER RETIREMENT ARKANSAS TEACHER RETIREMENT ARKANSAS TE.CH. UNLVE.RSITY ARTHUR J. GALLAGHER \u0026amp; CO. ASCD ASCD ASCO HARDWAREC. OMPANY, INC. T- 2 77.88 627.45 20.61 8.38 4,395.00 11,260.00 375.00 375.00 109.24 98.83 61. 21 129.48 26. 43 59.35 377.55 170.93 89.75 87.78 8.00 661.48 76.70 150.50 1,315.00 490.00 80.00 285.70 168.20 30.00 31,182.14 10.00 100.00 444.72 1,225.00 220.00 1,464.00 400.00 100.00 408.00 340.00 400.00 917,592.02 47,383.00 3,950.00 931.12 1,000.00 38,814.88 189.00 69.00 1,170.66 CHK. NO. 52818 53116 53389 52882 53322 52971 53081 53250 53480 534 96 53033 53477 53455 52908 53256 53181 52851 53304 53114 52834 53001 52933 53377 53165 52894 52833 53124 53483 53199 53224 53391 53162 52866 53025 53200 53456 53479 53459 53460 53287 52977 52978 52979 53428 52836 53488 52891 53364 52807 ACCOUNT NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT CHECK LISTING FOR JANUARY, 2006 AMOUNT ASCO HARDWARE COMPANY, INC. ASHLEY-WOODSON \u0026amp; ASSOC. ASHLEY-WOODSON \u0026amp; ASSOC. ASPA B-SEW INN BABB BONDING INC BACKGROUND INFORMATION SYSTEMS BANK OF THE OZARKS-FEDERAL BANK OF THE OZARKS-FEDERAL BANK OF THE OZARKS-FEDERAL BANK OF THE OZARKS-PAYROLL BANK OF THE OZARKS-PAYROLL BANK OF THE OZARKS-PAYROLL BARBARA BROWN BARNES AND NOBLE BARNES AND NOBLE BARRY KINCL BASEBALL EXPRESS INC BASICS PLUS BASICS PLUS BAUXITE PUBLIC SCHOOLS BECKY WITCHER BEVERLY KELSO BILL DUVALL BILL WHITTEN BILL'S LOCK \u0026amp; SAFE BILL'S OFFICE FURNITURE BLUE HILL WRECKER SERVICE BLUE HILL WRECKER SERVICE BLUE HILL WRECKER SERVICE BOBBIE J RIGGINS BOBBIE J RIGGINS BOILER INSPECTION DIVISION BONANZA BOONE PARK ELEM ACTIVITY FUND SORENSON AND ASSOCIATES BOUND TO STAY BOUND BOOKS BOUND TO STAY BOUND BOOKS BOUND TO STAY BQUND BOOKS BRANDERS.COM BRENDA BUTLER BROCK MOORE BROMLEY PARTS \u0026amp; SERVICE BROWN JANITOR SUPPLY BUREAU OF EDUCATION \u0026amp; RESEARCH C \u0026amp; W TOOL REPAIR C.T.A. CABOT FLORISTS CALLOWAY HOUSE, INC. T- 3 14.17 4,240.16 3,659.50 150.00 196.04 50.00 200.00 435,215.82 40,027.14 49,632.50 1,153,484.46 149,436.40 190,119.62 3.35 1,122.76 1,426.30 5.00 208.01 489.72 164. 64 10.00 139.70 105.68 59.63 37.52 17.88 304.88 102.60 102.60 225.74 16.18 106.16 68.00 100.00 90.04 165.00 364.67 1,293.11 83.08 1,783.95 47.97 68.88 55.26 77.18 318.00 30.64 9,159.15 106.17 25.45 CHK. NO. 53454 53157 53474 53216 53299 53328 52986 52966 53075 53242 52965 53074 53246 52899 52819 53263 53257 53355 52989 53458 52922 53476 52946 52822 53069 53133 52983 52823 52991 53264 53041 53172 53118 53327 53044 53035 52824 52992 53119 53020 53051 53410 53265 53266 52875 53168 53422 52993 52995 ACCOUNT NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT CHECK LISTING FOR JANUARY, 2006 AMOUNT CALLOWAY HOUSE, INC. CCI OF ARKANSAS, INC. CCI OF ARKANSAS, INC. CDW GOVERNMENT, INC CENTER POINT ENERGY ARKLA CENTER POINT ENERGY ARKLA CENTERS FOR YOUTH AND FAMILIES CENTRAL STATES BUS SALES, INC. CHARLOTTE VIRDEN CHILDCRAFT EDUCATION CORP CHILDCRAFT EDUCATION CORP C,HRIST HEALTH PRIMARY CARE CHRISTINE HICKMAN CHRISTINE KEENE EDITING DESIGN CINTAS CINTAS CINTAS CLARK EXTERMINATING CO, INC. CLASSROOM DIRECT CLEAN SOLUTIONS CLEAR MOUNTAIN CLEAR MOUNTAIN CLEAR MOUNTAIN COCA-COLA USA COCA-COLA/DR PEPPER BOTTLING COMCAST CABLEVISION CONSECO LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATE EXPR\u0026amp;S.S. CORPORATE EXPRESS CORPORATE EXPRESS CORPORATE EXPRESS COSTUME CORNER COURTNEY PHAUP COUSINS VIDEO CRE,WS.\u0026amp;.--. ASSOCIATE,S ,- INC. CROCKETT BUSINESS MACHINES: CUSTOM PRINTING CWT~ P.L-C-- D H L EXeR\u0026amp;S.S INC DAMl\\RLS.. E.URT-LEDAMAR- LSP,.U. RTLE.. DAMARIS PURTLE DAN RUSSELL DAN RUSSELL. DANA CHADWICK DA.N\u0026amp; CHADJtl.LCK DAN~ CHADWICK DANK MCCOY DANIEL K MACGLOTHIN - T- 4 295.09 13,261.76 8,994.00 185.30 218.15 74,624.42 16,340.00 518.29 26. 42 114.99 358.73 117. 00 84.24 270.00 42.68 130.36 130.36 981.00 156.93 1,982.06 25.20 32.90 162.25 1,212.50 899.45 46.28 206.31 52,899.86 1,648.09- 444.33 2,542.55 259.42 1,006.23 900.90 l O 6 , 9 9 9 . 8 6- 129.00 279.04 '.::25:00 59. 89: - 713. 0-CT 123.62' 433.67 98.60 354.12 ~J9. 67 - 141.72 82.40 1Jl.3I 20.00 CHK. NO. 53121 53056 53400 53066 52987 53260 53283 53373 52952 52996 53270 53344 53068 53324 53088 53103 53231 53147 53049 53187 52901 53177 53379 53202 53169 52817 52956 52895 53040 53171 53366 5331-9 53059 53409 53055 5288L 53273' 53008 528A2- 5303Z 53n~r 5 3 3~5'.6- 53222 53223 528:fef 5299 9'- 5T2UT'_ 53505-  53101 ACCOUNT NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT CHECK LISTING FOR JANUARY, 2006 AMOUNT DANIEL K MACGLOTHIN DARLA EARLES DARLENE HOLMES DARLENE KELLEY DAVID D. COOP DAVID D. COOP DAVID D. COOP DAVIS ACOUSTICS DAWN SIMPSON DAWNE CARROLL DAYLIGHT DONUTS DEALERS TRUCK EQUIPMENT DEANN ROACH DEBBIE DAVENPORT DEBORAH COKER DELTA DENTAL DELTA EDUCATION DEMCO DENISE WADLEY DEPT. OF FINANCE \u0026amp; ADMINISTRAT DFA-SALES \u0026amp; USE TAX DIAMOND INTERNATIONAL TRUCKS DIANE CRITES DICK BLICK DINAH ALLEN DISTRICT VIII FBLA DOROTHY FARRIS DREW CAMP EAST CAMPUS ACTIVITY FUND EASTER SEALS ARKANSAS ECOLAB, INC. EDS SUPPLY CO. EDUCAITON OPPORTUNITY CENTER SDUCATIONAL RESOURCES EDUCATORS BOOK DEPOSITORY OF EDUCATORS BOOK DEPOSITORY OF EDUCATORS BOOK DEPOSITORY OF EDUCATORS BOOK DEPOSITORY OF EDUCATORS BOOK-DEP-.O~LTORYO F EDUCATORS PUBLISHiNG. SERVTCE\" ELTRUDIA ADAMS EMPLOYEE BENEFITS DIVISION ENERGY EDUCATION INC ENTERTAINMENT PUBLICATIONS FAIRY TALE FLORALS FAMILY SUPPORT PAYMENT CENTER FARRELL-CALHOUN PAINT CO FAYETTEVILLE SCHOOL DISTRICT FLAGH.QUSE. T- 5 20.00 91. 4 6 387.51 3. 72 2,238.00 458.78 458.78 1,470.00 219.64 45.51 13.50 3,888.48 16.93 21. 96 65.69 55,344.20 224.68 183.10 53.22 89,926.82 3,286.00 319.57 32.30 107.25 32. 4 9 222.00 91.61 80.54 263.06 120.00 1,337.43 131.32 14,400.00 158.65 1,745.34 5r124.77 14,915.60  316.85 468.73 22.00 233.68 388,810.88 10,LO.O.OO 125.00 45.78 :\u0026gt;4. 00 319.86 119. 00 436.24 CHK. NO. 53229 53469 53482 52944 53085 53099 53227 52877 52947 53492 53386 53205 52920 52925 53398 52955 52874 52829 53402 53423 53507 53334 52932 53416 52828 53331 53497 j2934 53219 5338Z 52831 53276 53186' 53282 52832 53000 53122 53277 53464 52884 52850 52961 53255 52915 53405 53094 5312 52898 52880 ACCOUNT NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT CHECK LISTING FOR JANUARY, 2006 AMOUNT FLEET TIRE SERVICE OF NLR, INC FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF FOLLETT LIBRARY RESOURCES FRANK FLETCHER DODGE FRANK WISE FRIENDSHIP HOUSE GALE GROUP GARETH STEVENS PUBLISHING GARY DAVIS GEORGE F CRAM GINGER WALLACE GLOBAL DOCUGRAPHIX GLOBAL DOCUGRAPHIX GLORIA SMITH GOLDEN WEST INDUSTRIAL SUPPLY GOLDEN WEST INDUSTRIAL SUPPLY GOODMAN DISTRIBUTION INC GRADY W JONES CO INC GRAINGER GREAT AMERCIAN OPPORTUNITIES GREG BURL HAND IN HAND DAY CARE HARCOURT EDU. MEASUREMENT HARDING UNIVERSITY HAROLD D STARK HARVEST FOODS #6045 HEADSETS.COM HEADSETS.COM HELPING HAND CHILDRENS HENDERSON STATE UNIVERSITY HENDRIX COLLEGE HIGHSMITH INC HOME DEPOT/GECF HOME DEPOT/GECF HOUSING AUTHORITY OF NLR HOM'S HARDWARE \u0026amp; RENTAL HOM'S HARDWARE \u0026amp; RENTAL I TECH A-V ILLINOIS STATE DISBURSEMENT INDEPENDENT SERVICE FINANCE, INDEPENDENT SERVICE FINANCE, INDIAN HILLS ELEM ACTIVITY INFORMATION VAULTING SERVICES ING RETIREMENT PLANS ING RETIREMENT PLANS ING RETIREMENT PLANS INTEGRATION SERVICES CORP INTEGRATION SERVICES CORP T- 6 1,664.87 86.05 86.05 2,758.81 170 .10 32.57 158.30 3,559.22 155.50 539.00 300.33 300.00 260.82 555.67 33. 46 338.09 895.70 43.58 2,390.09 279.61 2,443.48 52. 45 1,500.00 7,368.40 90.00 63.18 70.65 123.90 372. 90 2,240.00 100.00 750.00 130.80 47.60 9.23 1,200.00 3.71 46.63 3,039.42 425.00 193.93 422.14 151.55 147.40 3, 46'5. 00 462.50 462.50 12,997.71 192.42 CHK. NO. 52837 53110 53238 53003 53411 52916 53308 53335 53062 52890 53268 53487 53053 53284 52931 52821 53117 53290 53370 53351 53288 52948 52827 53063 53329 53067 53271 52988 53261 53050 53278 52926 53291 53031 53164 52820 53132 53292 53303 53095 53106 53234 53221 53004 52970 53080 53249 52906 53046 ACCOUNT NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT CHECK LISTING FOR JANUARY, 2006 AMOUNT INTEGRATION SERVICES CORP INTEGRATION SERVICES CORP INTEGRATION SERVICES CORP INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE JACK,LYON,\u0026amp; JONES, P.A. JACKSONVILLE HIGH SCHOOL JAMES BROS. JAMES HUMPHREY JAMES L. BURGE PHOTOGRAPHY, IN JAMES W. WOODARD, JR JAMIE EUBANKS JANET E. THOMAS P.T. JANET FOSTER JANIS MASTERS JANN PHARO JENNY OBANNON JERRY MASSEY JERRY MASSEY JILL MILLS JO-ANN GOLDMAN, TRUSTEE JO-ANN GOLDMAN, TRUSTEE JOHN HAYNIE JOHNNY APPLE SEED JONES SCHOOL SUPPLY CO INC JONI WALKER JOYCE BRADLEY BABIN JOYCE BRADLEY BABIN JOYCE BRADLEY BABIN JULIE DERDEN JUNE HAYNIE JUNE HAYNIE JUST FOR KIDS THERAPY SERVICES K \u0026amp; E OUTDOOR POWER EQUIPMENT KAIRI CLEMONS KANSAS PAYMENT CENTER KANSAS PAYMENT CENTER KAPLAN EARLY LEARNING CO KAPLAN EARLY LEARNING CO KAPLAN EARLY LEARNING CO KAREN COLEMAN KATHY VANCE CHAMBERS KATY GEARHART HUNT KAYE LOWE KAYE LOWE KEITH FAULKNER KEN THOMPSON KENNETH A. KIRSPEL KERR PAPER \u0026amp; SUPPLY CO. KESSLERS TEAM SPORTS T- 7 8,400.79 5,064.48 2,281.74 136. 00 350.00 97.00 60.79 237.33 19.34 79.99 980.00 857.50 188.68 652.50 19.34 58.42 122.85 818.30 42.51 281.37 281.37 101.92 95.40 242.55 144.70 2,896.54 869.43 601.76 5.00 365.00 122.12 210.00 110. 02 124.95 46.15 46.15 809.42 2,724.87 38 9. 4 8 1,040.00 107.02 67.24 27.69 43.20 92.38 65.00 500.00 1,539.29 1,995.75 CHK. NO. 53180 53384 53493 53093 52841 52845 53293 52918 53071 52929 53502 53163 53481 53038 52879 52911 52886 52887 534 67 53105 53233 53213 53321 53362 52815 53096 53109 53237 52945 53203 53294 53406 53415 53470 53104 53232 52844 53006 53134 53060 53484 53457 52826 52994 53239 53176 52930 53193 53155 ACCOUNT NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT CHECK LISTING FOR JANUARY, 2006 AMOUNT KESSLERS TEAM SPORTS KEVA RODGERS KEVIN MARTIN KIDS DIRECTORY LLC KIM REYNOLDS KONE INC KRISTEN MADDOX KRISTIE RATLIFF KROGER #639 KROGER COMPANY/INDIAN HILLS KROGER COMPANY/INDIAN HILLS KROGER COMPANY/INDIAN HILLS KROGER COMPANY/PERSHING KWIK-KOPY PRINTING LAKESHORE LEARNING MATERIALS LAKESHORE LEARNING MATERIALS LAKEWOOD MIDDLE ACTIVITY FUND LARA HUMPHRIES LAURA JENNINGS LCR-M CORPORATION LEDENA STEPHENS LEWIS AND LEE DISTRIBUTING LEWIS AND LEE DISTRIBUTING LIBRARY VIDEO COMPANY LIBRARY VIDEO COMPANY LIFE INS OF SOUTHWEST LIFE INS OF SOUTHWEST LIFE INS OF SOUTHWEST LINDA BENNETT LINDA WILLIS LINDSEY'S BARBECUE LISA WEST LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT LITTLE ROCK WINNELSON CO. LITTLE ROCK WINNELSON CO. LONGS ELECTRONICS LORI. ISNER LORMAN EDUCATION SERVICES LOWE'S LOWE'S LOWE'S LOWE'S LRP PUBLICATIONS DEPT. 170-F LUNCHBYTE SYSTEM INC LWM CONSULTING LYNDA SISCO LYNDA SISCO LYNN CHADWICK T- 8 1,073.76 19.50 44.86 275.00 111.31 2,450.14 36.66 18.02 282.34 102.80 19.54 17 .11 20.02 196.12 1,026.70 835.58 638.24 3.59 56.20 295.96 27.23 2,054.20 2,324.00 347.38 33.90 62 6. 32 1,719.35 3,081.87 2.92 78.24 143.85 35.29 562,340.38 54,000.00 18.42 140.67 439.70 500.00 578.00 258.60 105.73 35.35 324.98 192.00 175.00 1,560.00 120.00 120.00 114.23 CHK. NO. 53190 53499 52927 53390 53463 53167 53495 52910 53357 53007 53136 53296 53166 53295 53023 53332 53220 52919 52808 52889 52942 53052 53500 53138 53300 52967 53076 53243 52950 53297 52846 53129 53009 53137 53139 53306 53010 53298 53320 52936 53072 53196 53420 53170 53047 53144 52938 53120 V 53359 ACCOUNT NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT CHECK LISTING FOR JANUARY, 2006 AMOUNT LYNN FORTNER M J COMMUNICATIONS M J COMMUNICATIONS MAGAZINE SUBSCRIPTIONS MAGGIE BILLINGS MARCIVE, INC MARDEL CORPORATE OFFICE MARDEL CORPORATE OFFICE MARIA TOUCHSTONE MARJEAN ROWE MARSHA SATTERFIELD M~RSHA SATTERFIELD MARTHA FEWELL MARY HANKINS MARYRUTH BOOKS INC MASON ELECTRIC MATHEMATICS OLYMPIADS FOR MCALISTERS MCINTIRE ENTERPRISES INC MCM MEADOW PARK ELEM ACTIVITY FUND METRO BUILDERS \u0026amp; RESTORATION METRO FOODS MEYER LAMINATES MICHAELE WARRICK MICHELLE BONES MICHELLE TALLEY MID-SOUTH APPLIANCE PARTS CO. MIKKI EUBANK MINORITY TIMES MITCHS TIRE SERVICE MITCHS TIRE SERVICE MODERN RED SCHOOL HOUSE MUSIC IS ELEMENTARY N.L.R. WINTEMP SUPPLY N.L.R. WINTEMP SUPPLY NAEIR NAEIR NANCY C. GREEN NANCY STEWART NAPA AUTO PARTS NAPA AUTO PARTS NASCO NASCO NASCO NATALIE DARNELL NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC KIDS NATIONAL HOME CENTER NATIONAL PROFESSIONAL RESOURCE - T- 9 41. 34 440.99 52.32 269.95 200.00 31. 53 111. 83 100.00 212.08 86.35 92.04 94.07 7.25 10. 45 112. 20 201.65 45.99 115. 00 3,032.58 156.59 72. 69 311.80 2,246.75 278.85 118.10 32.00 10.00 19.49 48.75 995.00 340.00 110. 00 288.00 437.25 924.93 1,044.51 108.00 40.00 89.32 296.56 1,231.67 87.40 273.60 34.54 221.78 7.60 89.75 35.78 598.86 CHK. NO. 53466 52935 53194 53275 52937 53301 52814 53258 52907 53461 52893 53039 53141 52941 53014 52849 52888 53498 52839 52892 53179 52809 52885 53367 53089 52838 52943 53302 53198 53191 52912 53393 53143 52843 52852 53305 52872 53160 52897 53486 53128 53285 53013 53140 53307 53262 53012 53309 53371 ACCOUNT NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT CHECK LISTING FOR JANUARY, 2006 AMOUNT NATIONAL SCHOOL PRODUCTS NATIONAL WILD LIFE FEDERATION NLR WELDING SUPPLY NLR WELDING SUPPLY NLRSD TRANSPORTATION DEPT. NLRSD TRANSPORTATION DEPT. NLRSD WAREHOUSE NLRSD WAREHOUSE NLRSD-BACKGROUND CHECK NLRSD-SELF INSURANCE NO. LITTLE ROCK EDUCATORS CRED N.O. LITTLE ROCK WINNELSON CO. NO. LITTLE ROCK WINNELSON CO. NORTH HEIGHTS ELEM ACTIVITY NORTH LITTLE ROCK CHAMBER OF NORTH LITTLE ROCK HEALTH DEPT NORTH LITTLE ROCK POSTMASTER NORTH LITTLE ROCK POSTMASTER 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 TROPHY COMPA NORTH LITTLE ROCK UTILITIES NORTH LITTLE ROCK UTILITIES NORTH LITTLE ROCK UTILITIES NORTH LITTLE ROCK UTILITIES NOVELL INC OCSE OCSE OCSE OFFICE DEPOT OFFICE DEPOT OFFICE DEPOT ORIENTAL TRADING COMPANY, INC. PACHECO OUTDOOR EQUIPMENT PAM GLOVER PARK HILL FLORIST PATRICIA MCMURRAY PEARSON EDUCATION PEDIATRIC THERAPY SERVICES PERFECTION LEARNING CORF. PERMA-BOUND PERMA-BOUND PETSMART PFG LITTLE ROCK T-10 316.62 99.75 5.24 10.49 11,238.36 3,246.18 6,150.00 250.00 499.65 14,685.69 79,750.30 700.98 756.83 22.45 1,500.00 12.00 252.31 195.00 72.00 3,165.34 332.50 52 6. 4 4 329.26 4.69 4.04 191.84 30,545.67 376.91 574.22 54,519.29 2,495.00 2,375.59 2,087.02 2,144.69 g97.86 804.93 879.05 63.50 1,63-7.50 47.20 84.48 69.90 274.46 l,l47.50 70.59 129.00 3,084.91 151.57 2,162.34 CHK. NO. 53310 53011 53015 53311 52869 53350 52928 53413 53427 52959 53424 52853 53313 52904 53312 53494 53314 53388 52854 53016 53315 52963 53097 53111 53240 53316 52835 53002 53126 53281 53383 53087 53100 53228 52883 53037 53361 52870 53404 52951 53018 53184 53185 53407 53348 53131 53289 53378 52858 ACCOUNT NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT CHECK LISTING FOR JANUARY, 2006 AMOUNT PITNEY BOWES POPLAR STREET ACTIVITY FUND POPLAR STREET ACTIVITY FUND POPLAR STREET ACTIVITY FUND POSITIVE PROMOTIONS POSTMASTER, SHERWOOD POSTMASTER, SHERWOOD PRO BENEFITS GROUP/TPA PRO-ACT INC OBA PROMOTIONS PLUS PROVIDIAN NATIONAL BANK PROVIDIAN NATIONAL BANK PSYCHOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT PUBLIC EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SY PUBLIC EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SY PULASKI TECHNICAL COLLEGE PYRAMID SCHOOL PRODUCTS QUALITY PETROLEUM INC QUALITY WHOLESALE BUILDING RADIO SHACK RAYMOND SMITH RAYMOND SMITH REFRIGERATION \u0026amp; ELECTRIC REGIONAL ADJUSTMENT BUREAU INC REXEL DAVIES REXEL DAVIES RIVER CITY MATERIALS, INC. RIVER VALLEY HORTICULTURAL SABRYNA B WASHINGTON BREWER SAFETY - KLEEN, lNC. SAMANTHA CURRAN SAMMONS PRESTON ROLYAN SAMS CLUB DIRECT SAMS CLUB DIRECT SAMS CLUB DIRECT SANDERS SUPPLY SANDRA CAMPBELL S.z:\u0026gt;.P.ILEAD EATON SAX ARTS \u0026amp; CRAFTS SBC SBC GLOBAL SERVICES INC ..iBG-VAA SBG-VAA SBG-VAA SCANTRON CORPORATION SCHOLASTIC BOOK FAIRS SCHOLASTIC BOOK FAIRS SCHOLASTIC INC SCHOLASTIC INC. - T-11 113.75 690.06 737.67 1,200.00 493.90 76.00 39.00 1,175.21 21. 80 433.60 185.83 144.15 116. 60 1,937.52 2,112.34 20,780.00 5.97 1,303.66 2,054.65 217.89 126.28 659.80 198.20 62.61 121.63 14.10 385.27 277.88 241.50 325.51 41.65 90.63 99.26 50.00 101.32 29.03 102.80 3.92 187.01 89.60 124.91 i,123.00 25.00 25.00 163 .11 400.00 51. 59 664.60 257.58 CHK. NO. 53019 52903 53490 53491 53374 53036 53478 52975 53174 53042 53102 53230 52921 53078 53244 53214 53070 52840 52900 52860 52847 52848 53330 53092 53123 53279 52862 53207 .53208 53195 53462 53130 53021 53148 53209 52923 ::i350o 52949 53337 52990 53472 52973 53083 53252 53022 52861 53403 53024 53369 ACCOUNT NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT CHECK LISTING FOR JANUARY, 2006 AMOUNT SCHOOL SPECIALITY SCHOOL SPECIALITY SCIENCE KIT INC SOE SEARCH SOFT SOLUTIONS INC SECURITY BENEFIT GROUP SERVICE FINANCE CORPORATION SERVICE FINANCE CORPORATION SEW PERFECT SHANNON DUKE SHARA BRAZEAR SHARA BRAZEAR SHEILA BAKER SHERAH WARNOCK SHERWIN-WILLIAMS SHOWBOARD SHRED-IT SILOAM SPRINGS HIGH SCHOOL SKILLS USA/VICA SOCIAL STUDIES SCHOOL SERVICE SOUTHERN ICE EQUIPMENT SOUTHERN REGIONAL EDUCATION SOUTHERN REPROGRAPHICS, INC. SOUTHWEST SPORTING GOODS CO SPORTIME STAFF DEVELOPMENT FOR STANLEY HARDWARE CO. STANLEY HARDWARE CO. STAR BOLT \u0026amp; SCREW CO., INC. STERLING PAINT STERLING PAINT STERLING PAINT STEVE CANADY SUNBURST VISUAL MEDIA SUPERIOR SPRING CLUTCH \u0026amp; GEAR SUPERIOR SPRING CLUTCH \u0026amp; GEAR SUPREME FIXTURE CO. SUPREME FIXTURE CO. SUSAN HYDEN SUSAN MILLER SYSCO FOOD SERVICE OF ARKANSAS T \u0026amp; T EQUIPMENT CO. T-SHIRT SHOP TAMMY DEATHERAGE TANKERSLEY FOODSERVICE TASC TASC TASC TEACHER'S DISCOVERY T-12 1,251.08 1,462.42 59.07 1,710.00 15,600.00 675.00 176.25 176.25 1,000.00 5.00 92.60 123.18 23.90 2.95 1,038.44 38.97 55.00 70.00 12.50 26.00 299.27 14.00 52.68 64. 76 756.37 2,125.00 64.34 483.20 75.85 101. 28 621.69 2,849.12 116.57 19.95 412.41 455.64 90.84 5,307.43 131.86 32.88 11,399.26 4 381.50 365.47 713.00 22,497.47 11,632.30 116. 66 116. 66 286.61 CHK. NO. 53026 53338 53135 53387 53318 52974 53108 53236 53325 52960 53215 53375 53414 53058 53150 53149 53182 52859 53401 53339 53408 53274 53286 53151 53146 53064 53153 53342 53154 53156 53345 53473 52865 53158 52864 53336 53210 53346 53468 52917 52871 52813 53175 53005 52924 52968 53077 53247 53358 ACCOUNT NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT CHECK LISTING FOR JANUARY, 2006 AMOUNT TEACHER'S MEDIA COMPANY TEACHERS DISCOUNT TEACHERS MEDIA COMPANY TEACHERS' DISCOUNT TEACHING RESOURCE CENTER TECH-KNOW INDUSTRIES TELETOUCH THE ARKANSAS ARTS CENTER THE CENTER FOR LEARNING THE FIELD SHOP THE HR SPECIALIST THE MARKERBOARDP EOPLE THE PRINTING DEPARTMENT INC THE SOUTHERN CO. NLR., INC. THE SPORTSTOP INC. THE SPORTSTOP INC. THE TIMES THE TREE HOUSE, INC. THERAPY PROVIDERS, P.A. THOMSON GALE TIGER DIRECT TODD HUFF TOYS R US TRANS AMERICAN TIRE COMPANY TREADWAY ELECTRIC COMPANY, INC TRI-STATES VIDEO AND TRI-STATES VIDEO AND TRIARCO ARTS \u0026amp; CRAFTS TRIVIA MARKETING TROUTMAN OIL CO.,INC. TROUTMAN OIL CO.,INC. TURNER DAIRY TWIN CITY TRAILER SALES AND US ABLE LIFE US ABLE LIFE INSURANCE CO US ABLE LIFE INSURANCE/CANCER US DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION US DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION US DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION fJ S FUEL US FUEL US NETCOM CORP U.S. PIZZA CO. UALR UALR READING RECOVERY UAPB FOUNDATION UCA UNISOURCE LITTLE ROCK UNITED ART \u0026amp; EDUCATION SUPPLY T-13 212.52 406.06 369.15 190.28 62.59 440.00 105.37 725. 00 140.53 51. 06 97.00 99.00 353.16 264.39 264.94 314.44 66.36 66.00 5,467.50 1,425.91 2,931.92 39.50 90.38 1,226.82 174.55 246.18 34.40 527.34 839.51 15,100.98 15,723.89 12,260.02 29.22 4,261.65 5,809.06 15,893.90 204.03 73.74 120.03 259.27 552.57 235.00 205.52 825.26 910.00 85.00 675.00 4,684.32 37.79 CHK. NO. 53280 53412 53259 53189 53365 53065 52985 53034 53385 53173 53326 53399 53057 53340 53152 53341 53349 53394 53363 52982 53045 52997 53347 52825 53159 52867 53027 53360 52998 53368 53485 53419 52855 52953 52954 52957 53091 53107 53235 52905 53381 53396 53465 53392 52863 53323 53343 52984 53333 ACCOUNT NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT CHECK LISTING FOR JANUARY, 2006 AMOUNT UNITED LABORATORIES INC UNITED WAY OF PULASKI COUNTY UNIV OF MISSOURI-COLUMBIA UNIVERSAL INCORPORATED UNIVERSITY OF ARKANSAS UNIVERSITY OF CENTRAL ARKANSAS UNUM LIFE INSURANCE OF AMERICA UTILITY BILLING SERVICES UTILITY BILLING SERVICES UTILITY BILLING SERVICES UTILITY BILLING SERVICES UTILITY BILLING SERVICES VALIC - VARIABLE ANNUITY LIFE VALIC - VARIABLE ANNUITY LIFE VALIC - VARIABLE ANNUITY LIFE VARSITY W PAUL BLUME WALLACE PRESSURE WASHING WALMART COMMUNITY BRC WALMART COMMUNITY BRC WALMART COMMUNITY BRC WALMART COMMUNITY BRC WALMART COMMUNITY BRC WALMART COMMUNITY BRC WARD TRANSPORTATION SERVICES WARDS NATURAL SCIENCE WEEKLY READER WEEKLY READER WEST CAMPUS ACTIVITY FCJNIJ WEST CAMPUS ACTIVITY FUND WEST CAMPUS ACTIVITY FUND WEST CAME.US ACTIVITY FUND WEST CAMPUS ACTIVITY FUND WEST CAMPUS ACTIVITY FUND. WESTERN FOODS WESTERN PSYCHOLOGICAL SERVICES WILLIAM V MACGILh \u0026amp; CO '.:ILLIAM V MACGLLL \u0026amp; CO\nn,1 STEPHEN- CRAIN WORLD ALMANAC EDUCATION ~lYNDHAMEM ERALD PLAZA HOTEL XEROX CORPORATION YOUTH HOME-INC 600.40 1,541.42 1,750.00 104.62 2,000.00 2,500.00 4,087.80 4,871.26 239.45 629 .11 65.96 478.47 31,119.30 825.00 825.00 788.95 906.25 1,226.25 72.00 1,680.45 203.17 1,150.55 106.45 331.36 33.05 981. 3 9 684.46 272.16 235.98 241.18 80.00 316-70 80.00 80.00 950.50 131.56 160.25 166.50 142.70 437.88 703.12 2,768.44 5,610.00 CHK. NO. 53418 53425 53125 53188 52812 52811 52958 52856 53017 53142 53206 53317 52969 53079 53248 53269 53217 52810 52913 53054 53183 53225 53395 53501 53352 53028 53030 53353 52902 53043 53178 53218 53380 53489 52878 53029 52873 53354 53090 52868 4 52857 53211 53161 CHECK TOTALS FOR JANUARY, 2006 5,309,981.65 CHECK VOIDS FOR JANUARY, 2006 120.00 - T-14 ' . BOARD OF EDUCATION MEETING AGENDA RECEIVED MAR1 3 2006 OFFIOCFE ESEGREGMAOTINOIHT ORING ass North Little Rock School District Thursday, March 16, 2006 5:00 P. M. NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDENT I. II. III. IV. V. VI. AGENDA REGULAR MEETING, BOARD OF EDUCATION Administration Building, 2700 Poplar Thursday, March 16, 2006 -5:00 P.M. PUBLIC COMMENTS CALL TO ORDER, Marty Moore, President INVOCATION, Chasity Walker, NLRHS Senior, daughter of Joyce Rodgers \u0026amp; Tony Walker FLAG SALUTE ROLL CALL OF MEMBERS Marty Moore, President Trent Cox, Vice President Rochelle Redus, Secretary John Riley, Parliamentarian Scott Teague, Disbursing Officer Teresa Burl. Member Dorothy Williams, Member RECOGNITION OF PEOPLE/EVENTS/PROGRAMS A. Superintendent's Honor Roll- S. Brazear 1. Gwen Wiggins, LRHS West Campus Teacher 2. \\11\u0026lt;.:.: iel tone. 'ieventh Street Elementary Assistant Prin\u0026lt;..,:i i B. S 11  1.:0J111tion 1. 2()1). ~ ( Varsit) ~. dball Team - D. Russell DJ TI OF MI l TES OF PRIOR MEETINGS A. lL r ... y,Febr ary !6,2UU6 5:00 P.M.-RegularMeeting-PageA-1 - Page 2 - Board Agenda March 16. 2006 VII. ACTION ITEMS - UNFINISHED BUSINESS A. Consider New Board Policies CEAC Attendance Incentive. CEAD Sick Leave Redemption, CEAC - CL Attendance Incentive, and CEAD - CL Sick Leave Redemption (Second and Final Reading) ' - K. Kirspel - Page B - 1 VIII. ACTIO ITEMS - NEW BUSINESS A. B. C. D. E. F. G. H. I. J. Consider Update Report on Desegregation Unitary Status - K. Kirspel Consider Certified Personnel Policies Committee Report - M. Snider Consider Classified Personnel Policies Committee Report - G. Tucker Consider 2006 - 2007 School Calendar - K. Kirspel - Page C - 1 Consider Secondary Summer School Recommendation-June Haynie - Page D-1 Consider Secondary Math Textbook Adoption Recommendation- Page E - 1 - June Haynie Consider Board Policy CFEB Extra Compensation Recommendation - K. Kirspel - Page F - 1 Consider Proposal to Purchase Four Buses - John Haynie - Page G - 1 Consider Architect's Bids for Indian Hills Elementary Asbestos Abatement and Renovation - Page H - 1 - J. Massey Consider Motion for Consent Agenda - K. Kirs el I. Consider monthly financial repo , Page U - 1 2. Consider employment of personnel - Page P - I 3. Consider bid items - Page R- I 4. Consider building use request - Page S - I 5. Consider payment of regular bills - Page T - I  IX. CALENDAR OF EVENTS A. Spring Break- Monday, March 27, 2006 through Friday, March 31, 2006 B. Regular Board Meeting - Thursday, April 20, 2006 at 5:00 P.M. X. INFORMATIONAL ITEMS A. 2004 -2005 School Year Audit- G. Daniels Page 3 - Board Agenda March 16, 2006 B. Schedule Date for Financial Workshop -M. Moore XI. ADJOURNMENT NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Office of the Superintendent REGULAR MEETING, BOARD OF EDUCATION MINUTES February 16, 2006 The North Little Rock School District Board met in a regular session on Thursday, February 16, 2006 in the Board Room of the Administration Building of the North Little Rock School District, 2700 Poplar Street, North Little Rock, Arkansas. During public comments, Mr. Bill Bowers, Poplar Street Middle School Principal, invited everyone to attend Poplar Street Middle School Mardi Gras celebration on Friday, February 17, 2006 at Fisher Armory. Many Poplar Street Middle students handed out multi-colored beads. President Marty Moore called the meeting to order at 5 :00 p.m. Ryan Stanley, Lakewood Middle School seventh grader, gave the invocation. The flag salute followed. ROLL CALL OF MEMBERS Present Marty Moore, President John Riley, Parliamentarian Scott Teague, Disbursing Officer Teresa Burl, Member Dorothy Williams. Member Absent Trent Cox, Vice President Rochelle Redus, Secretary Others Present Mr. Ken Kirspel, Superintendent\nBobby Acklin, Assistant Superintendent for Desegregation\nGreg Daniels, Chief Financial and Information Services Officer\npress\nother staff members and Darlene Holmes, Superintendent's secretary were also present. Billy Duvall (audio) and NLRHS-TV (video) taped the meeting. RECOGNITION OF PEOPLE/EVENTS/PROGRAMS Shara Brazear, Communication Specialist, introduced Michael Blythe, Kevin Martin and Jerry Dowdy as new members of the Superintendent's Honor Roll. These three computer technicians were nominated by Roy Spradlin, Technology Coordinator, for their handling A-1 the updating of the District's computer system. Teresa Burl and John Riley presented all three with plaques and umbrellas. Suzette Patterson, NLRHS West Campus Art teacher, introduced three of the five T.H.E.A. Foundation scholarship winners for their art work. DISPOSITION OF MINUTES OF PRlOR MEETING Chairman Moore explained that during the January 12, W06 meeting the Board moved to appoint Dorothy Williams to fill the rest of Mable Mitchell's term until September 2007. However, by Arkansas state law, she could only be appointed until the next school election which will be in September 2006. MOTION Teresa Burl moved to amend the previous motion and to change the Board's appointment of Dorothy Williams to September 2006. Scott Teague seconded the motion. YEAS: NAYS: MOTION Burl, Moore, Riley, Teague and Williams None (Cox and Redus - absent) John Riley moved to accept the minutes of the January 12, 2006 Special meeting with the change of motion\nJanuary 19, 2006 Regular meeting and the January 23, 2006 as printed. Teresa Burl seconded the motion. YEAS: NAYS: Burl, Moore, Riley, Teague and Williams None (Cox and Redus - absent) UNFINISHED BUSINESS None NEW BUSINESS Certified Personnel Policies Committee Report Margie Snider presented their report. Mrs. Snider said the committee worked hard and proposed 2 new Board policies-CEAC Attendance Incentive and CEAD Sick Leave Redemption. Also, the committee requested approval of revisions to Board policies CEA Sick Leave and CEAA Sick Leave Bank. MOTION Teresa Burl moved to accept the changes as presented to Board Policy CEA Sick Leave. Scott Teague seconded the motion. YEAS: NAYS: Burl, Moore, Riley, Teague and Williams None (Cox and Redus - absent) A-2 .. MOTION Teresa Burl moved to accept the changes as presented to Board Policy CEAA Sick Leave Bank. Dorothy Williams seconded the motion. YEAS: NAYS: MOTION Burl, Moore, Riley, Teague and Williams None (Cox and Redus - absent) Teresa Burl moved to accept new Board Policy CEAC Attendance Incentive as presented for a first reading. Scott Teague seconded the motion. YEAS: NAYS: MOTION Burl, Moore, Riley, Teague and Williams None (Cox and Redus - absent) John Riley moved to accept new Board Policy CEAD Sick Leave Redemption as presented for a first reading. Dorothy Williams seconded the motion. YEAS: NAYS: Burl, Moore, Riley, Teague and Williams None (Cox and Redus - absent) - Classified Personnel Policies Committee Report Glenda Tucker presented the report. She explained their committee had also worked on the same revisions to Board Policies CEA - CL Sick Leave and CEAA - CL Sick Leave Bank. She also presented the proposed new Board Policies CEAC - CL Attendance Incentive and CEAD - CL Sick Leave Redemption. MOTION John Riley moved to accept the changes as presented to Board Policy CEA - CL Sick Leave. Scott Teague seconded the motion. YEAS: NAYS: MOTION Burl, Moore, Riley, Teague and Williams one (Cox and Redus - absent) John Riley moved to accept the changes as presented to Board Policy CEAA- CL Sick Lewe Bank. Scott Teague seconded the motion. YEA: AYS: Burl, Moore. Riley, Teague and Williams None (Cox and Redus - absent) A-3 MOTION John Riley moved to accept new Board Policy CEAC - CL Attendance Incentive as presented for a first reading. Teresa Burl seconded the motion. YEAS: NAYS: MOTION Burl, Moore, Riley, Teague and Williams None (Cox and Redus - absent) John Riley moved to accept new Board Policy CEAD - CL Sick Leave Redemption as presented for a first reading. Teresa Burl seconded the motion. YEAS: NAYS: Burl, Moore, Riley, Teague and Williams None (Cox and Redus - absent) Payroll Reduction (Employer Pick-up) Resolution Mr. Kirspel explained that as a requirement by the Arkansas Teacher Retirement System (ATRS) the resolution would need to be adopted to ensure employees who had previously elected to be non-contributory would now have the option to change to contributory. MOTION Dorothy Williams moved to accept the following resolution. John Riley seconded the motion. Payroll Reduction (Employer Pick-up) Resolution Whereas, Internal Revenue code (IRC) Section 414(h)(2) permits employer \"pick-up\" of the employee portion of contributions to a. retirement plan, thereby resulting in tax deferral of employee contributions\nand Whereas, under the Arkansas Teacher Retirement System (ATRS) plan conditions, members may be allowed to make additional contributions, back contributions, conversion contributions. repayment contributions or purchased service contributions through payroll reductions Therefore, be it resolved, that as an Employer (as defined in AC.A.  24-7-202) under the A IRS Act. the undersigned shall make all member contributions required by A.C.A.  24-7-206. and that the employees of such Employer may not elect to receive such contributions directly. This resolution shall apply to all teacher and nonteacher employees a\u0026lt;: defined in A.C.A.  24-7-406. Further resohed, that the undersigned shall pick up the member contributions required by A. C A.  24-7-406 from the salary earned by a member after June 30, 2006, and those contributions shall then be treated as employer contributions in determining tax treatment A-4 - under the provisions of the Internal Revenue Code and the Income Tax Act of 1929,  26-51-101 et seq. If a member elects to make additional contributions, back contributions, conversion contributions, repayment contributions, or purchased service contributions through payroll reductions, the undersigned shall pick up the amount required to make such contributions from the employee's salary earned after the employee signs an irrevocable payroll authorization prescribed by the A TRS, and those contributions shall then be treated as employer contributions in determining tax treatment under the provisions of the Internal Revenue Code and the Income Tax Act of 1929,  26-51-101 et seq. YEAS: NAYS: Burl, Moore, Riley, Teague and Williams None (Cox and Redus - absent) Resolution Certifying the Dedication of Local Resources to Meet District' Share of Financial Participation Mr. Kirspel presented the resolution to certify the dedication of our resources stating that we will meet our share of the financial portion of the proposed projects. MOTION Teresa Burl moved to accept the following resolution. Dorothy Williams seconded the motion. RESOLUTION CERTIFYING THE DEDICATION OF LOCAL RESOURCES TO MEET DISTRICT'S SHARE OF FINANCIAL PARTICIPATION WHEREAS, North Little Rock School District of Pulaski County, Arkansas (the \"District\") proposes to construct and equip new construction projects at the District (the \"Projects\") as follows: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. Crestwood Elementary/6002-36/Roofing Improvement Boone Park Elementary/6002-37/HV AC Improvement Amboy Elementary/6002-38/ Roofing Improvement Redwood Preschool/6002-39/Roofing Improvement Snenth treet Elementary/6002-40/Roofing Improvement Rose City Middle/6002-41 /Roofing Improvement Lakc\\\\ood Elementary/6002-42/Roofing Improvement Lynch Drive Elementary/6002-43/Roofing Improvement Nonh Heights Elementary/600 -44/Roofing Improvement Poplar treet Middle/6002-45/1 oofing Improvement East Carnpus16002-46/Roofing Improvement West Campus Fine Ans Building/6002-47/Roofing Improvement \\\\ 'St Campus Science Building/6002-48/Roofing Improvement R1Jgeroad \\liddle Charter/6002-49/Roofing Improvement Boone Pai Elementary/6002-50/Roofing Improvement A-5 16. West Campus Main Building/6002-51/Roofing Improvement 17. West Campus Music Building/6002-52/Roofing Improvement 18. Crestwood Elementary/6002-5 3/ Addition 19. West Campus/6002-54/HV AC Improvement 20. East Campus/6002-55/Cafeteria Restroom Addition 21. Lakewood Middle/6002-56/Addition 22. East Campus/6002-57/HV AC Improvement 23. Lakewood Middle/6002-58/HV AC Irnprove~ent WHEREAS, the District proposes to obtain a portion of the funds to accomplish the Projects from the issuance of one or more series of Bonds to be issued in the approximate principal amount of $6,415,000 (collectively, the \"Bonds\")\nWHEREAS, the Projects have been previously included on the District's Master Plan\nWHEREAS, the District has prepared an application in conformance with the requirements published by the Division of Public School Academic Facilities and Transportation (the \"Application\")\nand WHEREAS, the purpose of this Resolution is for the District to certify its dedication oflocal resources to meet its share of financial participation in the Projects\nNOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Directors of the District: Section 1. That the District hereby dedicates its local resources to meet its share of financial participation in the Projects (the \"Local Resources\"). The Local Resources includes (i) debt service on the Bonds which will be paid from the proceeds of a continuing debt service tax voted [ and approved] by the electors of the District at a school election to be held on March 14. 2006, specifically for the payment of these Bonds, and surplus revenues derived from debt service taxes heretofore or hereafter voted for payment of other issues of the District subject to prior pledges of. such surplus revenues, and (ii) funds on hand.] Section 2. That the total estimated cost of the Projects, including professional fees for design and construction management is $10,415,300. Sectio~ hat the Projects conforms with sound educational practices. !\u0026gt;ection 4. That the iects will be in compliance with current acade~ facilities standards co11':1ined1 n \u0026lt;1-..ansaSsc hool Facility Manual, including, without limitation 1 _ riate space utilization of existing academic facilities in the District as determi by rn~ Division of Public School Academic Facilities and Transportation. A-6 Section 5. That the allocation of Projects costs between new construction activities and maintenance, repair and renovation activities is as described in the Application attached hereto. Section 6. That the Projects supports the prudent and resourceful expenditure of state funds and improves the District's ability to deliver an adequate and equitable education to public school students in the District as described in the Application attached hereto. Section 7. That all Resolutions in conflict herewith are repealed to the extent of such conflict. Section 8. That this Resolution shall be in full force and effect from and after its adoption. YEAS: NAYS: Burl, Moore, Riley, Teague and Williams None (Cox and Redus- absent) Recommendations for Professional Services Jerry Massey, Plant Services Director, presented the recommendations for the transitional funding projects which approval will be needed to begin after the March 14 election. MOTION Dorothy Williams moved to accept the professional services recommendations as printed in the agenda. Teresa Burl seconded the motion. YEAS: NAYS: Burl, Moore, Riley, Teague and Williams None (Cox and Redus - absent) Board Member Reappointment to Desegregation Team Mrs. Moore explained due to the resignation of Mrs. Mable Mitchell from the Board of Education, a new Board me1 '1er n eded to be appomted to the District's Desegregation Team. MOTIO John Riley moved to appoint Dorothy William as tile new Board member to the District\" s Desegregation 1 eu 11. ere Burl seconctL Ile motion. YEA. NAYS: Burl, Moore. Ptky. Te nd Williams one (Cox anJ Redus - .1 nt) A-7 ACCOUNT NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT CHECK LISTING FOR FEBRUARY, 2006 AMOUNT THE BLACK STALLION LITERACY THE BRIDGEWAY THE FIELD SHOP THE FIELD SHOP THE PRINTER WORKS THE PRINTING DEPARTMENT INC THERAPY PROVIDERS, P.A. THOMPSON PUBLISHING GROUP INC. THOMSON LEARNING TNT SCHOOL SUPPLIES INC. TOYS R US TRACEE RAINEY TRANS AMERICAN TIRE COMPANY TREADWAY ELECTRIC COMPANY, INC TRIARCO ARTS \u0026amp; CRAFTS TROUTMAN OIL CO.,INC. TROUTMAN OIL CO.,INC. TROUTMAN OIL CO.,INC. TURNER DAIRY TWIN CITY PRINTING \u0026amp; LITHO INC US ABLE LIFE US ABLE LIFE INSURANCE CO US ABLE LIFE INSURANCE/CANCER US BEVERAGE INC US DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION US DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION US DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION US DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION US FUEL U S FUEL UALR UALR DEPT. OF AUDIO \u0026amp; HEARING UAMS UAMS UNIPACK CORP. UNITED WAY OF PULASKI COUNTY UNUM LIFE INSURANCE OF AMERICA US DEPARTMENT OF TREASURY-F~S US DEPARTMENT OF TREASURY-FMS UTILITY BILLING SF~VICES UTILITY BILLINGS~. VICES UTILITY BILLING SERVICES VALERIE KEENER VALERIE KEENER VALIC VARIABLE ANNUITY LIFE VALIC - VARIABLE ANNUITY LIFE VALIC - VARIABLE ANNUITY LIFE VALIC - VARIABLE ANNUITY LIFE VIRCO MFG. CORPORATION T-16 184.00 4,950.00 102.41 400.41 150.36 349.89 9,675.00 298.50 739.28 199.54 487.03 55.34 3,166.88 65.15 87.35 3,587.84 15,490.54 15,239.05 19,937.07 30.52 4,261.90 5,811.60 15,893.40 1,415.88 204.03 114.53 204.03 94.97 434.04 650.15 825.26 80.00 50,044.80 20.00 27.00 1,531.48 4,173.80 2,648.24 27,115.55 5,423.89 208.35 1,175.50 9.20 281.00 31,144.30 825.00 30,992.63 825.00 3,292.73 CHK. NO. 54016 53739 53740 54126 53613 53794 54116 53958 53573 53607 54246 53636 53998 54092 53713 53738 53935 54125 53962 53699 53509 53539 53541 54025 53446 53554 53862 54190 53941 54139 54147 54263 53923 54188 53700 54198 53512 53871 53872 53658 53903 54060 53526 53860 53434 53565 53846 53971 54093 ACCOUNT NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT CHECK LISTING FOR FEBRUARY, 2006 AMOUNT VIRGINIA WALLACE 41. 36 VIVIAN HARRIS 41.15 VIVIAN HARRIS 1,188.00 VIVIAN HARRIS 13. 46 WALMART COMMUNITY BRC 3,342.18 WALMART COMMUNITY BRC 426.50 WALMART COMMUNITY BRC 1,205.16 WALMART COMMUNITY BRC 109.29 WANDA BROWN 25.00 WANDA HAWKINS 124.35 WARDS TURF EQUIPMENT REPAIRS 307.67 WEEKLY READER 41. 00 WEST CAMPUS ACTIVITY FUND 322.73 WEST CAMPUS ACTIVITY FUND 540.00 WEST CAMPUS ACTIVITY FUND 80.00 WHITNEY FLETCHER 34.54 WM STEPHEN CRAIN 142.70 WM STEPHEN CRAIN 142.70 XEROX CORPORATION 548.27 YARBROUGH THERAPY SERVICES INC 2,730.00 501 TIRE AND WHEEL 252.41 501 TIRE AND WHEEL 22.35 CHECK TOTALS FOR FEBRUARY, 2006 CHECK VOIDS FOR FEBRUARY, 2006 T-17 CHK. NO. 54268 53749 53750 53936 53786 53948 54151 54278 53670 53793 53956 54250 53758 54133 54272 53823 53444 53861 54029 54155 53615 54009 6,509,223.91 320 .11 BOARD OF EDUCATION MEETING AGENDA RECEIVED APR 19 2006 OFACEOF DESEGREGMAOTNIOITNO RING ass North Little Rock School District Thursday, April 20, 2006 . 5:00 P. M. ., NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDENT I. II. m. IV. V. AGENDA REGULAR MEETING, BOARD OF EDUCATION Administration Building, 2700 Poplar Thursday, April 20, 2006-5:00 P.M. PUBLIC COMMENTS CALL TO ORDER, Marty Moore, President INVOCATION, Anton Beard, Meadow Park Elementary Fourth Grader, son of Ms. Katina Brown and Mr. Floyd Beard FLAG SALUTE ROLL CALL OF MEMBERS Marty Moore, President Trent Cox, Vice President Rochelle Redus, Secretary John Riley, Parliamentarian Scott Teague, Disbursing Officer Teresa Burl, Member Dorothy Williams, Member RECOGNITION OF PEOPLE/EVENTS/PROGRAMS A. Special Recognition: 1. State PT A Winners - D. Boone, NLR PT A Council President 2. PTA Reflection Winners-M. Ware 3. Young Arkansas Artist Winners - M. Douglass 3. Duke Talent Search Students -A. Kincl 4. Environmental Excellence Award Winners -K. Collie VI. DISPOSITION OF MINUTES OF PRIOR MEETINGS A. Thursday, March 16, 2006 5:00 P.M. -Regular Meeting-Page A- 1 VII. ACTION ITEMS - UNFINISHED BUSINESS None VIII. ACTION ITEMS - NEW BUS~SS Page 2 - Board Agenda April 20, 2006 A. Consider Certified Personnel Policies Committee Report - M. Snider B. Consider Classified Personnel Policies Committee Report - G. Tucker C. Consider North Little Rock Public Education Foundation Resolution - K. Kirspel - Page B - I D. Consider Revisions to Salary Schedules -K. Kirspel E. Consider Contract Renewal for Administration, Certified, and Clerical Personnel - D. Reed - Page C - I F. Consider Pre - K and Elementary Summer School Recommendation - K. Lowe - Page D - I G. Consider Resolution Finalizing Bond Issue - G. Daniels -Page E - I H. Consider Approval of the 2003 - 2004 School Year Audit - G. Daniels I. Consider Motion for Consent Agenda - K. Kirspel I. Consider monthly financial report - Page O - 1 2. Consider employment of personnel - Page P - 1 3. Consider bid items - Page R- I 4. Consider building use request - Page S - 1 5. Consider payment of regular bills - Page T - 1 IX. CALENDAR OF EVENTS A. Lakewood Village Band Night - Friday, April 28, 2006 B. Grand March - Friday, May 6, 2005 at 6:00 p.m. at Lakewood Village C. Senior Prom - Friday, May 5, 2006 at 8:00 p.m. - The Next Level D. PTA Post Prom Party-May 7, 2005 from 12:00 a.m. to 4:00 a.m. at The Fisher Armory E. Regular Board Meeting-Thursday, May 18, 2006 at 5:00 P.M. ., X. STUDENT EXPULSIONS XI. ADJOURNMENT Page 3 - Board Agenda April 20, 2006 NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Office of the Superintendent REGULAR MEETING, BOARD OF EDUCATION MINUTES March 16, 2006 The North Little Rock School District Board met in a regular session on Thursday, March 16, 2006 in the Board Room of the Administration Building of the North Little Rock School District, 2700 Poplar Street, North Little Rock, Arkansas. During public comments, Shawn Key, Education Renewal Zone Representative, addressed the Board. President Marty Moore called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. Chassidy Walker, NLRHS Senior, gave the invocation. The flag salute followed. ROLL CALL OF MEMBERS Present Marty Moore, President Trent Cox, Vice President Rochelle Redus, Secretary John Riley, Parliamentarian Scott Teague, Disbursing Officer Teresa Burl, Member Dorothy Williams, Member Absent None Others Present Mr. Ken Kirspel, Superintendent\nBobby Acklin, Assistant Superintendent for Desegregation\nGreg Daniels, Chief Financial and Information Services Officer\npress\nother staff members and Darlene Holmes, Superintendent's secretary were also present. Billy Duvall (audio) taped the meeting. RECOGNITION OF PEOPLE/EVENTS/PROGRAMS Shara Brazear, Communication Specialist, introduced as new members of the Superintendent's Honor Roll. The first new member is Gwen Wiggins, NLRHS West Campus Teacher, nominated by Gregg Thompson, NLRHS West Campus Principal, for her continuing great work with students and always having a positive attitude. John Riley presented her with a plaque. The second new member is Michael Stone, Seventh Street Elementary Assistant Principal, nominated by Pam Wilcox, Seventh Street A-1 Elementary Principal, for his great work with the students and faculty. Teresa Burl also presented him with a plaque. Mr. Acklin presented Coach Daryl Fimple, NLRHS Girls Basketball Head Coach and all of the Girls Basketball Team as the new AAAAA Arkansas State Girls Basketball Champions. Each athlete and all coaches were given a framed picture of their State Championship photo. All Board members thanked them for representing the District as very \"World Class\" student athletes. DISPOSITION OF MINUTES OF PRIOR MEETING MOTION Teresa Burl moved to accept the minutes of the February 16, 2006 as printed. John Riley seconded the motion. YEAS: NAYS: Burl, Cox, Moore, Redus, Riley, Teague and Williams None UNFINISHED BUSINESS New Board Policies-CEAC Attendance Incentive, CEAD Sick Leave Redemption, CEAC - CL Attendance Incentive, and CEAD - CL Sick Leave Redemption (Second and Final Reading) - Mr. Kirspel explained that he recommended the adoption of these new Board policies with the exception of changing the second paragraph in CEAC Attendance Incentive: From: The incentive will be paid twice yearly. The first attendance incentive period includes July 1 to December 15. The first attendance incentive will be paid on the last student day in December, at the end of the work day. The second attendance incentive period will include December 16th to June 30th . This second incentive will be paid on the last working day of the employee's contract at the end of the working day. To: The incentive will be paid twice yearly. The first attendance incentive period includes the attendance period associated with the July 15th paycheck through the attendance period in December associated with the December 15th paycheck. The first attendance incentive will be paid on the last student day in December at the end of the working day. The second attendance period includes the second attendance period in December through the last attendance period of the fiscal year. The second incentive will be paid on the last working day of the employee's contract at the end of the working day. A-2 Also, recommending that CEAC - CL Attendance Incentive revised: From: The first attendance incentive period will include July 1 to December 15. This incentive will be paid on the last student day in December. The second attendance incentive period will include December 16 to June 30. This will be paid on the employees last contract day of the year. The Attendance Incentive will be paid at the end of the employees work day. To: The incentive will be paid twice yearly. The first attendance incentive period includes the attendance period associated with the July 15th paycheck through the attendance period in December associated with the December 15th paycheck. The first attendance incentive will be paid on the last student day in December at the end of the working day. The second attendance period includes the second attendance period in December through the last attendance period of the fiscal year. The second incentive will be paid on the last working day of the employee's contract at the end of the working day. MOTION Trent Cox moved to accept the recommended change in paragraph two for proposed Board Policy CEAC Attendance Incentive. John Riley seconded the motion. YEAS: NAYS: MOTION Burl, Cox, Moore, Redus, Riley, Teague and Williams None Trent Cox moved to accept CEAC Attendance Incentive as a second and final reading. Scott Teague seconded the motion. MOTION Dorothy Williams moved to accept CEAD Sick Leave Redemption as a second and final reading. Teresa Burl seconded the motion. YEAS: NAYS: MOTION Burl, Cox, Moore, Redus, Riley, Teague and Williams None Scott Teague moved to accept the recommended second paragraph change for CEAC - CL Attendance Incentive. Dorothy Williams seconded the motion. YEAS: NAYS: MOTION Burl, Cox, Moore, Redus, Riley, Teague and Williams None Scott Teague moved to accept Board Policy CEAC -CL Attendance Incentive as second and final reading. Trent Cox seconded the motion. A-3 YEAS: NAYS: Burl, Cox, Moore, Redus, Riley, Teague and Williams None Mr. Kirspel explained Proposed Board Policy CEAD - CL Sick Leave Bank needed an addition in item three (3). The addition needs to include (A-drop) which will cover the employees covered by the Arkansas Public Employee Deferred Retirement Option Plan. MOTION Trent Cox moved to accept the recommended change in Board Policy CEAD - CL Sick Leave Redemption. John Riley seconded the motion. YEAS: NAYS: MOTION Burl, Cox, Moore, Redus, Riley, Teague and Williams None Trent Cox moved to accept Board Policy CEAD - CL Sick Leave Redemption for a second and final reading. Scott Teague seconded the motion. YEAS: NAYS: Burl, Cox, Moore, Redus, Riley, Teague and Williams None NEW BUSINESS Update Report on Desegregation Unitary Status Mr. Kirspel explained that he requested Steve Jones, NLRSD Desegregation attorney, to address the Board concerning our District's unitary status. Mr. Jones spoke with the Board at length to explain things are changing and that he felt like the time may be here to request unitary status from the court. Mr. Jones also stated there are many different phases to the request but he wanted to make sure he had the Board's approval to do so. Mr. Jones stated he would also meet with John Walker, attorney for the Joshua Interveners. MOTION John Riley moved to accept the following resolution with Teresa Burl seconding the motion: To authorize the District's Desegregation Attorneys, Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones P.A., to initiate discussions with the State of Arkansas for Assistance in seeking unitary status and to seek a judicial declaration that North Little Rock School District is unitary and request release from court supervision in Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County School District\nET AL. USDC No. LR - C - 82 - 8266 WR W /JTR and for other purposes. YEAS: NAYS: Burl, Cox, Moore, Redus, Riley, Teague and Williams None A-4 The Board discussed that a Board member needed to appoint a member to negotiate with Mr. Kirspel and Mr. Jones on behalf of our school district. MOTION Teresa Burl moved to appoint Board President Marty Moore as a member of the negotiating team with Superintendent Kirspel and Attorney Steve Jones. Rochelle Redus seconded the motion. YEAS: Burl, Cox, Moore, Redus, Riley, Teague and Williams NAYS: None Certified Personnel Policies Committee Report Margie Snider stated there were no new proposals and no minutes. Classified Personnel Policies Committee Report Glenda Tucker stated their proposals with corrections were handled under unfinished business. 2006 - 2007 School Calendar Mr. Kirspel presented the calendar for next school year with revisions. MOTION Rochelle Redus moved to accept the 2006 - 2007 School Calendar as presented. Teresa Burl seconded the motion. YEAS: NAYS: Burl, Cox, Moore, Redus, Riley, Teague and Williams None Secondary Summer School Recommendation June Haynie, Administrative Director of Secondary Education, presented the recommendation for 2006 secondary summer school with the list of programs with their funding information. MOTION Rochelle Redus moved to accept Administration's recommendation for secondary summer school as presented. Scott Teague seconded the motion. YEAS: NAYS: Burl, Cox, Moore, Redus, Riley, Teague and Williams None Secondary Math Textbook Committee Recommendation Mrs. Haynie presented the committee's recommendation for secondary math textbooks. MOTION Teresa Burl moved to accept Administration's recommendation for the secondary math textbooks as printed in the agenda. Rochelle Redus seconded the motion. A-5 YEAS: NAYS: Burl, Cox, Moore, Redus, Riley, Teague and Williams None Board Policy CFEB Extra Compensation Recommendation Mr. Kirspel explained the extra compensation committee had completed their recommendation to him and complimented all of them on their work. He recommended the policy changes as printed in the agenda. ' MOTION Teresa Burl moved to accept the Administration's recommendation as printed in the agenda with the exception of adding \"and/or\" after the first comma in the second sentence of the first paragraph of Policy CFEB Extra Compensation. Rochelle Redus seconded the motion. YEAS: NAYS: Burl, Cox, Moore, Redus, Riley, Teague and Williams None Proposal to Purchase Five Buses John Haynie, Director of Transportation, requested approval of the recommendation to purchase five new buses to keep our fleet updated. MOTION John Riley moved to accept the Administration's recommendation to purchase five new buses. Rochelle Redus seconded the motion. YEAS: NAYS: Burl, Cox, Moore, Redus, Riley, Teague and Williams None Architect's Bids for Indian Hills Elementary Asbestos Abatement and Renovation Jerry Massey, Director of Plant Services, presented the bids for the asbestos abatement and renovation as printed in the agenda. MOTION John Riley moved to accept the bids for the asbestos abatement and renovation as printed in the agenda. Rochelle Redus seconded the motion. YEAS: NAYS: Burl, Cox, Moore, Redus, Riley, Teague and Williams None Consent Agenda Mr. Kirspel recommended approval of consent items listed on pages O - 1 through T - 14. A-6 ,.  MOTION Rochelle Redus moved to accept the consent agenda as presented. Dorothy Williams seconded the motion. YEAS: NAYS: Burl, Cox, Moore, Redus, Riley, Teague and Williams None INFORMATIONAL ITEMS Mike Cobb of Cobb and Suskie presented the 2004 - 2005 School Year Audit. Mr. Cobb highlighted areas of improvement for the Board and answered questions from the Board. The 2004 - 2005 School Year Audit will be presented for approval at the April Board meeting. The Board decided to have a financial workshop on Thursday, April 13, 2006 at 5:30 p.m. in the Board Room. ADJOURNMENT MOTION Rochelle Redus moved to adjourn the meeting. Scott Teague seconded the motion. YEAS: NAYS: Burl, Cox, Moore, Redus, Riley, Teague and Williams None President Moore declared the meeting adjourned at 8:02 p.m. Marty Moore, President Rochelle Redus, Secretary A-7 RESOLUTION WHEREAS, the mission of the North Little Rock School District is to provide for achievement, accountability, acceptance, and the necessary assets in the pursuit of each student's educational success, and WHEREAS, the m1ss10n of the North Little Rock Public Education Foundation is to improve academic achievement for students in the North Little Rock public schools through community support\nTHEREFORE, Be It Resolved, on this 20th day of April, 2006, that the North Little Rock School Board supports the North Little Rock Public Education Foundation and its work on behalf of the students of North Little Rock. Marty Moore, President Trent Cox, Vice - President Rochelle Redus, Secretary John Riley, Parliamentarian Scott Teague, Disbursing Officer Teresa Burl, Member Dorothy Williams, Member Kenneth Kirspel, Superintendent B-1 'I North Little Rock School District Board Agenda April 20, 2006 LICENSED PERSONNEL TO BE ELECTED FOR 2006-2007 SCHOOL YEAR Abbott, Robin C. Abdin, Ruba W. Adams, Eltrudia C. Ainley, Becky Alexander, Catherine L. Alexander, Richard C. Allen, Dinah M. Allen, Eva M. Allen, Rebecca Allen, Sylvia J. Allgeyer, David C. Amis, Glen P. Anderson, Deborah A. Arendt, Robin Arnold, Kathleen A. Ashcraft, Allison Badgett, Susan R. Baggett, Michelle Bailey, Rebecca S. Baker, Amber R. Baker, Hope L. Baker, Karen S. Baker, Lorie A. Baker, Sheila M. Balest, Mary A. Bangs, Paige Banks, Rhonda Barber, Melissa Barnette, Stephany Barrett-Smith, Gina L. Barton, Elaine Barton, Raquell Batte, Donna E. Battles, Autreana M. Bazil, Brenda A. Beard, Cheryl Bearden, Karyl S. Beckett, Cynthia L. Beeks, Camille D. Beeson, Gayle Belew, Rebecca J. Bell, Anita J. Bell, Cynthia L. Belton, Pamela Bennett, Jessica M. Bennett, Linda S. Benson, Priscilla L. C-1 Benson, Sheila Beranek, Jennifer Berry, Sherry L. Berryman, Sara L. Best, Abbra M. Beverly, William A. Billings, James M. Billings, Lee Bing, Cheryl Bingham, Judy Bledsoe, Sue A. Bona, Renee Bones, Michelle Botts, Mary J. Boutwell, Steve R. Bowers, Shirley I. Bradley, Paula S. Bragg, Melissa Brainerd, Lori B. Branch, Glenn D. Brazear, Shara B. Brewer, Karen S. Briggs, Mae K. Brinkley, Nancy L. Brixey, Gena Brooks, Elizabeth Brossett, Ramona Broughton, Judy A. Brown, Barbara E. Brown, Debbie J. Brown, Erin R. Brown, Jeffrey D. Brown, Paul W. Brown, Rhonda L. Bryant, Dawnley Bryant, Ruth M. Buch, Archita Bunn, Gary 0. Bunting Jr., Verdell Burks, Amy Burl, Brad G. Burnett, Judy C. Burrall, Sharon S. Burton, Lynn Bush, Jamie Bussard, Alison L. Butler, Brenda S. Butler, Debra L. North Little Rock School District Board Agenda April 20, 2006 LICENSED PERSONNEL TO BE ELECTED FOR 2006-2007 SCHOOL YEAR Butts, Carol A Calhoun, Stephanie Callahan, Allison Calva, Tina Camp, Drew C. Cannon, Melissa H. Cantrell, Anthony A Carlson, Emily A Carroll, Dawne M. Casavechia, Natalie D. Casey, Rita K. Cass, Natalie G. Cathey, Kasey Chamberlain, Robert A Chambers, Robbi S. Chandler, Angela Chaudoin, Amanda Chrisman, Tracy Clayborn Jr, Nathan L. Clement, Leslie Clemons, Elizabeth J. Clemons, Kairi Clemons, Peggy J. Cleveland, Joyce Clevenger, Dawna Clifton, Donna Cobb, Karen L. Cochran, Stacy Cochran, Thad M. Cody, Paul Coker, Deborah D. Coleman, Jennifer Collier, Tammy Conner, Jennifer Converse, Erin Cook, Cynthia L. Coombe, Amanda Cope, Natalie Copeland, Jairus L. Copeland, Mary C. Copley, Judi Cottrell, Arthur L. Coulter, S. P. Cowart, Ann M. Cox, Mary B. Cox, Takecia L. Crews, Brenda Crowder, Amanda K. C-2 Crumpler, Clair J. Crunkleton, Mitchell Crymes, Marilyn H. Curran, Samantha Custer, Rosemary P. Dale, Joann D'andrea, Wende Daniels, Diana L. Darby, Randa E. Darnell, Natalie Davenport, Debbie David, Jennifer M. Davis, Barbara Davis, Bettie L. Davis, Danna Davis, Gary L. Davis, Rebecca Davis, Sharon L. De Roche, Charlotte Deal, Dianna J. Dean, Marcia Dearworth, Rebecca Deatherage, Tamara M. Dees, Erin Dehan, Halita Derden, Julie A. Derden, Robert C. Derrick-Coleman, Karen Devore, Rhonda L. Dicus, Sasha R. Ditty, Debra K. Dishmon, Gloria M. Disterdick, Mindi Doolittle, Heidi Doss, Lisa B. Dotson, Jimmie S. Douglas, Melissa Douglass, Kimberlee D. Douglass, Mauri T. Drake, Rosemarie Dreher, Billie A Duke.Shannon Duke, Stephen Duncan, Stacy Dunn, Sherry M. Earles, Darla Eason, Jennifer East, Mary C. North Little Rock School District Board Agenda April 20, 2006 LICENSED PERSONNEL TO BE ELECTED FOR 2006-2007 SCHOOL YEAR Eaton, Ashley Edmonds, June M. Eldred, Sharon L. Elliott, Linda K. Ellis, Theresa Ellis, Ulanda Engelkes, Erin Ervin, Margaret A. Evans, Crystal P. Evatt, Emily Everley, Caleb M. Ewart, Kay T. Faith, Susan Farrar, Melissa G. Farris, Dorothy Felton, Teri L. Fendley, Susan C. Ferguson, Mary L. Fimple, Amanda Fimple, Daryl L. Fiser, Elizabeth Fitzpatrick, Gwenn Fleming, Sean J. Fletcher, Whitney Floyd, Molly M. Floyd, Vanessa L. Ford, Kenya Fortner, Lynn L. Fortune, Shay Foster, Janet L. Fox, Connie France, Jennifer Frazier, Robin A. French, Terri Fricioni, David R. Frodyma, Judy Fuller, Stephen Fulmer, Lila A Furlough, Loretta J. Fuselier, Anita K. Gardner, Nona L. Gardner, Rebecca W. Garlington, Shirley Garrett, Carolyn F. Garrigus, Claudia M. Garrison, Janet Gaskalla, Diedra E. Gereaux, Amber D. C-3 Gibson, Elaine B. Gibson, Roger E. Gieringer, Christy Gill, Marc Gilliam, Melanie Gilliam, Suzanne Girone, Daniel L. Giuisti, Thomas M. Gladwin, Marla J. Golden, Jason S. Goodwin, Randi M. Gordon, Shandria L. Gott, Janice Gray, Anita K. Gray, Kathy C. Green, Michele S. Green, Nancy C. Greene, Debra K. Greenfield, Debra K. Grice, Andrea S. Grissom, Kimberly D. Grossmann, Linda Gump, Barbara E. Hadley, Telisa Hain, Andrea Hale, Kathryn D. Hall, Cherryl Hall, Cheryl (. Halliburton, Carla D. Hamlin, Sheri L. Hammonds, Gwendolyn M. Hampton, Cynthia Hampton, Jacqueline Hanan, Ashley Hancock, Melissa Hankins, Raymond L. Hanks, Carolyn S. Harris, Linda K. Harris, Nina C. Harris, Tracy A Harris, Vivian Harrison, Paula Hart, Elizabeth Hart, Lyndli P. Hartl, Elsa M. Haver, Gary L. Haver, Sharon HawkinsW, anda North Little Rock School District Board Agenda April 20, 2006 LICENSED PERSONNEL TO BE ELECTED FOR 2006-2007 SCHOOL YEAR Hayden, Mary G. Hazeslip, Heather Heath, Honnye Heathcock, Rebecca S. Heller, Kathy L. Henderson, Patrick M. Hendrickson, Don Hensley, Pamela J. Henson, Sandra K. Herring, Alisha Herring, Melissa Hickey, Anne M. Hickman, Catricia D. Hicks, Mary E. Higgins, Debra S. Hill, Kimberly Hobbs, Thurman A Hoggard, Ashely G. Hogue, Kelli Holcomb, Meredith Holiman, Carol Holland, Anita Z. Holland, Kathy J. Holley, Schula M. Holt, Michelle Homan, Danniell N. Homan, Rosetta M. Hoover, Audrey Hopper, Jacqueline Horton, Darla K. Horton, Deborah J. Howard, Amanda Howell, Lou A Huddleston, Jeffrey R. Huels, Michael Huels, Shannon Huey, Cathie Huff, Todd Huffman, Leslie Humphries, Lara Hunt, Kathryn J. Hunter, Christie A Hurd, Joe Huston, Kristen M. Hutson, Angie Hutson, Bryan Hyden.Susan Hynum, Kathleen K. C-4 llochi, Kristine Ingalls, Ashley A lsgrig, Kimber L. Ivory, Lorine Jackson, Susan E. Jaros, Melissa L. Jarry, Cecelia Jennings, Claudette Johnson, Angela Johnson, Ozetta Johnston, Cathy L. Jones, Cassandra Jones, Elizabeth A Jones, Ellen M. Jones, Faith R. Jones, George S. Jones, Sandra A Jones, Shelly R. Jorgensen, Alaina Jorgenson, Lizbeth A Joshua, Leslie L. Joshua-Smith, Stacy Kaiser, Patricia A Keaton, Michelle Keeling, Paula S. Kelley, Darlene Kelly, Letitia M. Kelton, Amy Killingsworth, Jeffrey B. Kimbrell, Jennifer L. Kimbrough, Rebecca A Kirby, Cynthia D. Kirchner, Lessie Kite, Kathi J. Kleitsch, Pamela A Klippert, Sharon R. Klucher, Christy Klucher, Michael A Koettel, Patti A Koller, Tim Krebs, Leslie L. Kremers, Barbara E. Kron Jr, Richard T. Lanes, Quilla Lang, Janet Lann, Cynthia A. Larkan, Gina R. Larson, Pat A. . 'I North Little Rock School District Board Agenda April 20, 2006 LICENSED PERSONNEL TO BE ELECTED FOR 2006-2007 SCHOOL YEAR Lasley, Sandra K. Lassiter, Jennifer R. Lathrop, Pamela Lawhon, Jill M. Le, Vu N. Lee, Barbara Lee, Deedra 8. Lefear, Bill Leger, Gwen Leirer, Kendra Lewis, Kathryn M. Lewis, Lisa Lewis, Rebekah H. Lincoln, Jennifer M. Loftis, Dorothy J. Lofton, Artis T. Lofton, Clara A Lofton, Joyce A. London, Cynthia C. Long, Gaye L. Looney, Lynne W. Lowrance, Anna Lupton, Cynthia Lutz, Deborah Luzzi, Dawna K. Mac Millan, Lindsay A Madden, Carrie J. Maddox, Kristen L. Malone, Frances N. Mann, Deanna Mann, Melonie Manning, Carrie J. Markham, Julia R. Marsh, Michael S. Marshall, Nancy L. Martin, Leslie Martin, Sally Martin, Terri S. Mascuilli, Sam J. Masterson, Deborah A Mathews, Joshua D. Matthews, Bettianne H. Matthews, Kristy Matthews, Mary D. Matthey, Lora Maxam, Denise Maxwell, Jimmy L. May, Susan H. C-5 Mayerhoff, Carol L. McAlister, Sara McAdams, Carol A McAfee, Marjorie E. McAlpine, Marva L. McCollum, Diana K. McCoy, Dana McCoy, Gretchen McCrannie, Wanda G. McGehee, Shari L. McGill, Natalee McGinley, Donnas K. McKinley, April McLean, Valerie C. McMahan, Mary P. McMillen, Martha B. McPherson, David M. McP herson, Jo E. McRae-Miller, Edwina Mcspadden, Susan F. Melvin, Brenda Merrell, Lisa Mick, Doreen K. Miller, Patrick A Miller, Susan M. Mills, Stephen W. Monnot, Katy D. Monroe, Megan Montgomery, Nancy A Moore, Brock Moore, Donald R. Moore, Ely D. Moore, Kendrick R. Moore, Nancy H. Moorehead, Kennith D. Moran, Claudia Murdaugh, Dottie Murdock, Jill Murphy, Olivia Murphy, Pilar Muse, Kelli L. Myers, Dorothy I. Nannen, Leann 0. Nash, Vandy M. Naylor, Janet S. Needler, Michelle Nesselrodt, Brandy Neumeier, Shanon K. North Little Rock School District Board Agenda April 20, 2006 LICENSED PERSONNEL TO BE ELECTED FOR 2006-2007 SCHOOL YEAR Neville, Andrea M. Newburg, Jessica R. Nichols, Joyce J. Nichols, Staci A. Nilz, John Noah, Judy G. Noland, John M. Norman, Virginia L. Nutz, Chasity A. Oberle, Sandra J. O'dell, Connie J. Orobona, Steven Otwell, Sharon Pack, Delinda Papineau, Deborah A. Park, Jennifer Parker, Brenda Parker, Edward 0. Parker, Renita G. Parker, Sandra K. Parr, Perry L. Parrish, Julie Parsley, Carrie A. Patterson, Suzzette R. Pearce, Kristan N. Pearce, Lori A. Pearson, Kimberly Peck, Cassandra M. Pendergraft, J.B. Pennington, Cheryl G. Pepper, Kayce Perkins, Marla C. Perry, Corrie Petty, Tammy L. Phaup, Courtney Phillips, Shauri Pierce, Judy K. Pierce, Marie L. Pitts, Christen B. Ploszay, Jane Ploszay, Joy Ponder, Anne S. Pool, Harriett S. Pope, Charles E. Porter, Steven Powell, Ami B. Powell, Betty Powell, Holly H. C-6 Powell, Karen L. Pride, Anita Priest, Lena Priester, Rebecca M. Pritchett, Alexandra T. Purtle, Damaris K. Quarry, Cindy A. Quattlebaum, Judith A. Rainey, Tracee L. Ralston, Laura Ratliff, Sherry A. Redden, Clara L. Reed, Mary A Reed, Rebecca Reed, Stacy L. Reeder, Tammy Reeves, Kimberly Reyes-Lovins, Elena Reynolds, Brouke Reynolds, Kimberly N. Rhodes, Natalie L. Rice, John W. Rigsby, Wilene Ripper, Donna A. Ritchie, Suzanne E. Ritter, Shelly L. Roach, DeAnn Robbins, Sarah L. Roberts, Tammy L. Rodgers, Keva Rogers, Mala J. Roper, Carol S. Rowe, Marjean Rozzell, Debora A. Runsick, Amber Russenberger, Cynthia Rynders, Michael E. Sallis, Roseanne Sandefur, Randy H. Schafer, Nicole Schimmel, Holly B. Schnarr, Loretta K. Scott, Marcia L. Scott, Marilyn M. Scott, Melinda Seidl, Catherine Sela, Melissa Selhorst, Prisca ., North Little Rock School District Board Agenda April 20, 2006 LICENSED PERSONNEL TO BE ELECTED FOR 2006-2007 SCHOOL YEAR Seratt, Amber D. Serbousek, Mary C. Setzler, Morgan Sexton, Cortney Shadid, Joy R. Sheehan, Nancy Sheffield, Kellie L. Shelton, Anita Shimek, Becky Shipman, Meredith Shoemaker, Patricia A Showalter, Laura Siems, Maribel Sifford, Deborah K. Simon, Charlotte H. Simpson, Dawn T. Sisco, Lynda Skiba, Carol L. Skinner, Adonna Slattery, Leslie D. Smith, Andria Smith, Anita J. Smith, Beth A Smith, Lori Smith, Melinda Smith, Nannette L. Smith, Sammye L. Smith, Sheila A Smith, Shelly Smith, Sherry B. Smith, Tammy J. Sneed, Mary E. Snider, Margie A Somers, Amy Southwell, Jan Spadaro, Sara Spainhour, Billy Speyer, Bethany Stafford, Brooke Stafford, Kimberly S. Stamp, Maria Standley, Larry Standley, Mildred M. Stane, Dawn Stanfield, Joyce L. Stanley, Gale Stanley, Kimberly R. Stark, Harold D. C-7 Starks, Brigetta L. Steadman, Vicki L. Stewart, Linda P. Stewart, Nancy L. Stickland, Nelda R. Stogsdill, Lora Stone, Abigail Story, Arclista J. Sullivan, Jennifer Sumler, Jacqueline Summons, Dorie T. Sutherlen, Letitia Sutterfield, Lagatha Symancyk, Amanda A. Talley, Johnny J. Tate, John P. Taylor, Mary C. Taylor, Paul D. Thomas, Bryan K. Thomas, Majoice Thomas, Vicki L. Thompson, Elizabeth Thompson, Phylis Y. Tillery, Jane A. Toney, Connie M. Torres, Valerie D. Touchstone, Maria Tucker, Kevin Turner, Donna M. Tyler, Amity Ushery, Jennifer A Valentine, Terri Vammen, Anna N. Vance Chambers, Kathy V. Vancleve, Marcia Vandiver, Katherine Vanpelt, Amy L. Vasquez, Paula J. Veasey, Cora A. Vickers, Margaret Virden, Charlotte S. Vollman, Amy C. Wadley, Denise Wadley, Kristin Waits, Klevon Waldorf, Eric Walker, Joni L. Walker, Joyce M. North Little Rock School District Board Agenda April 20, 2006 LICENSED PERSONNEL TO BE ELECTED FOR 2006-2007 SCHOOL YEAR Walker, Mary L. Wallace, David J. Walls, Melissa Ward, Kimberly J. Ward, Lindsey Ware, Amanda A Warford, Bob Warnock, Sherah Wasson, Michele R. Watson, Esther M. Watts, Roy K. Weaver, Kathy J. Weimer, Jessica Welch, Mary C. Wells, Kassandra R. Wesson, Allison J. West, Lisa L. Whisnant, Karla R. Whisnant, Stanley A White, Michael C. Whitehead, Jacqui P. Whiteside, Carolyn R. Whitlock, Valarie K. Whitten, Robin D. Whitten, William H. Wickliffe, Sandy Wiggins, Gwen K. Wiles, Mary A Williams, Bettye M. Williams, James \"Jay\" R. Williams, Jeanne Williams, Joye P. Williams, Linda I. Williams, Meredith K. Williams, Sandra W. Williams, Sheila Williams, Sherrye Williamson, Danyial Willis, Don Wilsey, Linda A Wilson, Candace L. Wilson, Christie Wilson, Jada Winter, Charla D. Witcher, Mary R. Winters, Laura Wood, Crystal Woodard, James W. C-8 Woodard, Victoria Woods, Cynthia D. Woods, Pheleisa Woodsmall, Amy L. Woody, Pilar Woolqridge, Melanie Wright, Anita P. Wyeth, Victoria L. Yager, Tiffany B. Yarbrough, Alicia Young, Casey Young, Emily L. Zeiser, Juel North Little Rock School District Board Agenda - April 20, 2006 NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT North Little Rock, Arkansas ADMINISTRATIVE PERSONNEL TO BE ELECTED FOR THE 2006-2007 SCHOOL YEAR Acklin, Bobby J. Alexander, Karen L. Asti, Martha K. Bowers, Billy A Broadway, Lenisha Calvin, Jonathan D. Cameron, Anita K. Canady, Steven C. Chadwick, Dana G. Chadwick, Susan L. Cherry, Mavis V. Cohen, Perry I. Colclasure, Angela M. Coleman, Rosie A Crites, Diane Danaher, Kevin H. Daniels, Gregory N. Dillinger, Rellia A Edrington, Jody L. Faulkner, Caroline Ferguson, Pamala Gallot-Knighten, Daphne Gillison, Sara F. Hartwick, Barbara J. Hassell, Loretta M. Haynie, John C. Haynie, June Jackson, Francical J. Jasper, Thelma Jennings, Laura 8. Jones, Charles L. Jones, Rickey E. Kelso, Beverly A Kincl, Barry L. Kirspel, Kenneth A Lowe, Kaye Martin, Brenda K. Martin, Letitia R. Massey, Jerry D. McMurray, Patricia C-9 Melton, Cynthia S. Mitchell, Brent S. Pharo, Jann Ratliff, Kristie A Rich, Larry G. Russell, Danny B. Satterfield, Marsha L. Shurley, Susan G. Smith, Gloria A Smith, Sheryll D. Snowden, Dana K. Stone, Micheal A Tackett, Dana L. Taylor, George Thompson, Gregory J. Thornton, Carol T. Turner, Winston B. Wallace, Virginia M. Warren, Shedrick J. Wilcox, Pamela A Wilson, Linda H. Woods, Richard E. Wright, Aimee T. NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT APRIL 20, 2006 CLERICAL PERSONNEL TO BE ELECTED FOR THE 2006-2007 SCHOOL YEAR ADAMS, ARETHA M. AMICK, KAREN Y. ANDERSON, DONNA S. ARENDT, CONNIE M. ARMAN, MARY K. ARMSTRONG, JACQUELYN D. ARNOLD, SHEILA A BARNETT, JUDY K. BAUGHER, KA THY M. BOARDMAN, PETREVIA A BRAY, CHERYL P. CAMPBELL, MURIELENE CARROLL, ELIZABETH A CHAPMAN, NORA L. CLARK, LA TONY A Y. COCHRAN, THERESA L. COLLINS, SANDRA K. CUMMINGS, L. C. CURRAN, NANCY L. DAHLBERG, RHONDA G. DANIELS, PEGGY DUCKERY, CARYN S. EUBANK, MICHEELA J. GATES, JUDIE A GILES, LINDA C. GLOVER, PAMELA D. GODWIN, ELIZA A HARPER, LINDA B. HAYGOOD, AMY K. HERNDON, MARY R. HESS, CARMA L. HICKMAN, CHRISTINE HOLMES, DARLENE V. HOLT, BRENDA S. HUDSON, NELL C. JACKSON, PAMELA M. JONES, PATSY Y. KILBURY, NANCY J. KINCL, CAROLYN L. KIRBY, SHEILA K. LANCASTER, LAURA L. LAWSON, DANETTE LIVELY, BOBBYE LIVELY, PATTI A C-10 LOVENSTEIN, RITA C. MCCARROLL, ROBINETTE MEEKS, JANA K. MITCHELL, LAMONICA R. MONK, CAROL MORRIS, NANCY E. MORRIS, TAMI R. NEWTON, ROSALYN J. OLIGER, JANELLE PARKER, VICKIE L. PETTIT, SHERRI PHILLIPS, TAMMY M. PLATT, YOLANDA A PORTWINE, FELICIA A PROCTOR-PERSON, ARETHA RICHBOURG, MARY S. RODGERS, JANET L. RODGERS, JOYCE M. RUBLE, JANET L. SARTIN, LOU A SARTIN, MALYNDA C. SHUFFIELD, MARY E. SIMS, MARVA D. SMITH, DOLLY A SMITH, SANDRA L. STOKES, PHYLLIS B. TEMPEL, SANDRA K. TERRY, LISA A THIBAULT, BETTY J. TILLMAN, MARGARET B. TUCKER, GLENDA L. URTON, PAULA K. WASSON, DOYALENE WATSON, BRENDA K. WILLIAMS, TONYA L. WILLIS, LINDA K. WILLOUGHBY, BRENDA WIRGES, ELIZABETH WISE, LINDA G. WONN, PATRICIA D. WOOD, SANDRA G. YOUNTS, KAREN L. ZAKRZEWSKI, MARY J. NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT TO: MR. KEN KIRSPEL FROM: KA YE LOWE, ADMINISTRATIVE DIRECTOR OF ELEMENTARY EDUCATION SUBJECT: ELEMENTARYSUMMERPROGRAMS DATE: APRIL 13, 2006 Proposed Elementary Summer Programs Seventh Street Elementary Arkansas Reading First Summer Reading Camp Dates: June 5-June30, 2006 Student Hours: 8:00 a.m.-11 :30 a.m. Students Served: Eighty (80) Seventh Street Students, maximum, in grades K-3 Funding Source: Arkansas Reading First Grant Description: Four master teachers work collaboratively with four literacy coaches in providing intensive instruction for struggling readers. Breakfast will be served each morning. The site will also serve as a laboratory for professional development for K-3 teachers, literacy coaches, administrators, and K-12 special education teachers. Student transportation will be provided by the district. Budget: Budget Item Amount Fringe (22.6%) Number Total K Teacher - Erin Engelkes $5 000 $1,130 1 $6,130 1st Teacher - Ruba Abdin $5,000 $1,130 1 $6,130 2nd Teacher - Christie Wilson $5,000 $1,130 I $6,130 3rd Teacher - Laura Showalter $5,000 $1,130 I $6,130 K Coach - Joni Walker $5,000 $1,130 I $6,130 1st Coach - Fran Harris $5,000 $1,130 1 $6 130 200 Coach - Denise Houghton $5,000 $1,130 1 $6,130\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":"ndd_bsams_01035","title":"Box 1, Folder 35: Black graduation yearbooks, 2006","collection_id":"ndd_bsams","collection_title":"Black Student Alliance records, 1969-2006","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, North Carolina, Durham County, Durham, 35.99403, -78.89862"],"dcterms_creator":["Duke University. Black Student Alliance"],"dc_date":["2006"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["image/jpeg"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":null,"dcterms_publisher":["Printed Materials, Black Student Alliance Records, Duke University Archives, David M. Rubenstein Rare Book \u0026 Manuscript Library, Duke University."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":null,"dcterms_subject":["African American college students--North Carolina--Durham","African Americans--North Carolina--Durham--History","African Americans--North Carolina--Durham--Social conditions","African Americans--North Carolina--Durham--Social life and customs","African Americans--North Carolina--History--Archival resources","Duke University. Black Student Alliance","Duke University--Students--Social conditions","Duke University--Students--Yearbooks"],"dcterms_title":["Box 1, Folder 35: Black graduation yearbooks, 2006"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["David M. Rubenstein Rare Book \u0026 Manuscript Library"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://library.duke.edu/rubenstein/findingaids/uabsa/#bsams01035"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":["[Identification of item], Black Student Alliance Records, Duke University Archives, David M. Rubenstein Rare Book \u0026 Manuscript Library, Duke University."],"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["school yearbooks"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"fhm_floh_fort1","title":"Clarence Fort / interviewed by Andrew Huse","collection_id":"fhm_floh","collection_title":"Florida Civil Rights Oral Histories","dcterms_contributor":["Huse, Andrew T.","University of South Florida. Library. Florida Studies Center. Oral History Program"],"dcterms_spatial":["United States, Florida, Hillsborough County, Tampa, 27.94752, -82.45843"],"dcterms_creator":["Fort, Clarence, 1938-"],"dc_date":["2006"],"dcterms_description":["Clarence Fort discusses his involvement in Tampa's civil rights movement. Fort was head of the NAACP Youth Council, organizing sit-ins and other demonstrations. He describes some of the events that led to the end of segregation in Tampa, including the first sit-in at Woolworth's in February 1960. He also explains how he became the first African American bus driver for Trailways Bus Lines and comments on the current status of race relations in Tampa.","Interview conducted June 1, 2006."],"dc_format":["audio/mp4","application/pdf"],"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":["Civil rights demonstrations--Florida--Tampa","National Association for the Advancement of Colored People","Civil rights workers--Interviews","Civil rights workers--Florida"],"dcterms_title":["Clarence Fort / interviewed by Andrew Huse"],"dcterms_type":["Sound","Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["University of South Florida. Tampa Library"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://digital.lib.usf.edu/SFS0022274/00001"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["transcripts","oral histories (literary works)","sound recordings"],"dcterms_extent":["1 sound file (110 min.) : digital, MPEG4 file + transcript"],"dlg_subject_personal":["Fort, Clarence, 1938-"],"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null}],"pages":{"current_page":275,"next_page":276,"prev_page":274,"total_pages":6766,"limit_value":12,"offset_value":3288,"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}}]}}