{"response":{"docs":[{"id":"hbcula_abco_0303","title":"48th Annual Garnett-Nabrit Lecture Series, March 22-24, 2005","collection_id":"hbcula_abco","collection_title":"American Baptist College Collection","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, Tennessee, Davidson County, Nashville, 36.16589, -86.78444"],"dcterms_creator":["American Baptist College"],"dc_date":["2005-03"],"dcterms_description":["This is an audio recording of the beginning of the Tuesday Community Worship Service during the 48th Annual Garnett-Nabrit Lecture Series at American Baptist College. There is music and singing from the opening of the audio until 6:59. An unknown male speaker then lays out the order of events for the service: Minister Melvin Von Wade will complete an introduction, then there will be a Hymn of Preparation, and then the sermon will take place. Following this speaker, an unknown female voice introduces the pastor from 7:36 - 8:00. The speaker for the morning would have been Rev. Dr. Melvin Von Wade, Sr. He is the President of the Missionary Baptist Convention of America and the Pastor of Mount Moriah Baptist Church. The audio ends before the Reverend begins speaking; however, there is tinkering music that can be heard around 8:29."],"dc_format":["video/mpeg"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":null,"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":null,"dcterms_subject":["African American universities and colleges","African American Baptists","African Americans--Religion","Sermons"],"dcterms_title":["48th Annual Garnett-Nabrit Lecture Series, March 22-24, 2005"],"dcterms_type":["Sound"],"dcterms_provenance":["Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCU) Library Alliance"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["https://hbcudigitallibrary.auctr.edu/digital/collection/abco/id/0303"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["The Susie McClure Library of American Baptist College believes that the items presented in our digital collections are not encumbered by copyright or related rights. Nonetheless, as these materials are accessible to the public, certain limitations on subsequent usage may be in effect. Authorized uses for these items are confined to research, educational, and scholarly endeavors by U.S. Copyright Law Title 17, §108 U.S.C. In addition to educational purposes, individuals seeking to engage in other forms of utilization must secure explicit permission from the Susie McClure Library by contacting us at 615-687-6935."],"dcterms_medium":["sound recordings"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"hbcula_abco_0304","title":"48th Annual Garnett-Nabrit Lecture Series, March 22-24, 2005","collection_id":"hbcula_abco","collection_title":"American Baptist College Collection","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, Tennessee, Davidson County, Nashville, 36.16589, -86.78444"],"dcterms_creator":["American Baptist College"],"dc_date":["2005-03"],"dcterms_description":["This is an audio recording of Dr. David L. Boyle's sermon for one of the event days of the 48th Annual Garnett-Nabrit Lecture Series at American Baptist College. The focus of his sermon is \"Spirituality in the Black Church\", and in this sermon, he focuses on John 5:1-9. Dr. Boyle went to Bishop College, Memphis Theological Seminary, and obtained his Doctor of Ministry from McCormick Theological Seminary; he is a pastor at Antioch Baptist Church in Arlington, TN and directs an \"Extension Center of Continuous Education of American Baptist College.\" The audio ends during the sermon."],"dc_format":["video/mpeg"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":null,"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":null,"dcterms_subject":["African American universities and colleges","African American Baptists","African Americans--Religion","Sermons"],"dcterms_title":["48th Annual Garnett-Nabrit Lecture Series, March 22-24, 2005"],"dcterms_type":["Sound"],"dcterms_provenance":["Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCU) Library Alliance"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["https://hbcudigitallibrary.auctr.edu/digital/collection/abco/id/0304"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["The Susie McClure Library of American Baptist College believes that the items presented in our digital collections are not encumbered by copyright or related rights. Nonetheless, as these materials are accessible to the public, certain limitations on subsequent usage may be in effect. Authorized uses for these items are confined to research, educational, and scholarly endeavors by U.S. Copyright Law Title 17, §108 U.S.C. In addition to educational purposes, individuals seeking to engage in other forms of utilization must secure explicit permission from the Susie McClure Library by contacting us at 615-687-6935."],"dcterms_medium":["sound recordings"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"hbcula_abco_0305","title":"48th Annual Garnett-Nabrit Lecture Series, March 22-24, 2005","collection_id":"hbcula_abco","collection_title":"American Baptist College Collection","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, Tennessee, Davidson County, Nashville, 36.16589, -86.78444"],"dcterms_creator":["American Baptist College"],"dc_date":["2005-03"],"dcterms_description":["This is an audio recording of Rev. Dr. Jemison's sermon for one of the event days of the 48th Annual Garnett-Nabrit Lecture Series at American Baptist College. The focus of his sermon is \"Leadership in the Black Church.\" Rev. Dr. Jamison is a graduate of Bishop College. The audio ends during the sermon."],"dc_format":["video/mpeg"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":null,"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":null,"dcterms_subject":["African American universities and colleges","African American Baptists","African Americans--Religion","Sermons"],"dcterms_title":["48th Annual Garnett-Nabrit Lecture Series, March 22-24, 2005"],"dcterms_type":["Sound"],"dcterms_provenance":["Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCU) Library Alliance"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["https://hbcudigitallibrary.auctr.edu/digital/collection/abco/id/0305"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["The Susie McClure Library of American Baptist College believes that the items presented in our digital collections are not encumbered by copyright or related rights. Nonetheless, as these materials are accessible to the public, certain limitations on subsequent usage may be in effect. Authorized uses for these items are confined to research, educational, and scholarly endeavors by U.S. Copyright Law Title 17, §108 U.S.C. In addition to educational purposes, individuals seeking to engage in other forms of utilization must secure explicit permission from the Susie McClure Library by contacting us at 615-687-6935."],"dcterms_medium":["sound recordings"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"hbcula_abco_0301","title":"48th Annual Garnett-Nabrit Lecture Series, March 22-24, 2005","collection_id":"hbcula_abco","collection_title":"American Baptist College Collection","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, Tennessee, Davidson County, Nashville, 36.16589, -86.78444"],"dcterms_creator":["American Baptist College"],"dc_date":["2005-03"],"dcterms_description":["This is an audio recording of the 48th Annual Garnett-Nabrit Lecture Series at American Baptist College. The focus is \"Spirituality in the Black Church.\" An unknown male speaker introduces the topic at 6:24 and leads prayer from 14:06 - 19:52. Dr. David L. Boyle begins preaching on \"Spirituality in the Black Church\" at 26:01 with a focus on the scripture of Acts 2:42. Dr. Boyle went to Bishop College, Memphis Theological Seminary, and obtained his Doctor of Ministry from McCormick Theological Seminary; he is a pastor at Antioch Baptist Church in Arlington, TN and directs an \"Extension Center of Continuous Education of American Baptist College.\" The audio ends during the sermon."],"dc_format":["video/mpeg"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":null,"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":null,"dcterms_subject":["African American universities and colleges","African American Baptists","African Americans--Religion","Sermons"],"dcterms_title":["48th Annual Garnett-Nabrit Lecture Series, March 22-24, 2005"],"dcterms_type":["Sound"],"dcterms_provenance":["Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCU) Library Alliance"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["https://hbcudigitallibrary.auctr.edu/digital/collection/abco/id/0301"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["The Susie McClure Library of American Baptist College believes that the items presented in our digital collections are not encumbered by copyright or related rights. Nonetheless, as these materials are accessible to the public, certain limitations on subsequent usage may be in effect. Authorized uses for these items are confined to research, educational, and scholarly endeavors by U.S. Copyright Law Title 17, §108 U.S.C. In addition to educational purposes, individuals seeking to engage in other forms of utilization must secure explicit permission from the Susie McClure Library by contacting us at 615-687-6935."],"dcterms_medium":["sound recordings"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"hbcula_abco_0306","title":"48th Annual Garnett-Nabrit Lecture Series, March 22-24, 2005","collection_id":"hbcula_abco","collection_title":"American Baptist College Collection","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, Tennessee, Davidson County, Nashville, 36.16589, -86.78444"],"dcterms_creator":["American Baptist College"],"dc_date":["2005-03"],"dcterms_description":["This is an audio recording of the beginning of the Wednesday Community Worship Service during the 48th Annual Garnett-Nabrit Lecture Series at American Baptist College. There is music and singing from the beginning of the audio until 6:09 where there appears to be a skip in the audio. From there, music and singing can be heard again until 12:59 where there is another time skip in the audio. Dr. Julius Scruggs, a former ABC student and the Vice President-at-Large of the National Baptist Convention, can be heard speaking following this. Dr. Scruggs received his Bachelor of Arts from American Baptist College, and his Masters of Divinity and Doctor of Ministry from Vanderbilt University School of Divinity. In his sermon, he preaches about \"Dimensions of Discipleship\" and focuses on Luke 9:21, 51, 57-62. The audio ends during his sermon."],"dc_format":["video/mpeg"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":null,"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":null,"dcterms_subject":["African American universities and colleges","African American Baptists","African Americans--Religion","Sermons"],"dcterms_title":["48th Annual Garnett-Nabrit Lecture Series, March 22-24, 2005"],"dcterms_type":["Sound"],"dcterms_provenance":["Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCU) Library Alliance"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["https://hbcudigitallibrary.auctr.edu/digital/collection/abco/id/0306"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["The Susie McClure Library of American Baptist College believes that the items presented in our digital collections are not encumbered by copyright or related rights. Nonetheless, as these materials are accessible to the public, certain limitations on subsequent usage may be in effect. Authorized uses for these items are confined to research, educational, and scholarly endeavors by U.S. Copyright Law Title 17, §108 U.S.C. In addition to educational purposes, individuals seeking to engage in other forms of utilization must secure explicit permission from the Susie McClure Library by contacting us at 615-687-6935."],"dcterms_medium":["sound recordings"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"hbcula_abco_0302","title":"48th Annual Garnett-Nabrit Lecture Series, March 22-24, 2005","collection_id":"hbcula_abco","collection_title":"American Baptist College Collection","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, Tennessee, Davidson County, Nashville, 36.16589, -86.78444"],"dcterms_creator":["American Baptist College"],"dc_date":["2005-03"],"dcterms_description":["This is an audio recording of a sermon during the 48th Annual Garnett-Nabrit Lecture Series at American Baptist College. The focus of this sermon is \"Leadership in the Black Church.\" The person preaching this sermon is Rev. Dr. Melvin Wade, Sr. Although the overall theme given is \"Leadership in the Black Church,\" Rev. Wade focuses on 1 Samuel 30:3-8a and narrows the title of his sermon to \"The Peril of Leadership.\" He is the only primary speaker in this audio."],"dc_format":["video/mpeg"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":null,"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":null,"dcterms_subject":["African American universities and colleges","African American Baptists","African Americans--Religion","Sermons"],"dcterms_title":["48th Annual Garnett-Nabrit Lecture Series, March 22-24, 2005"],"dcterms_type":["Sound"],"dcterms_provenance":["Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCU) Library Alliance"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["https://hbcudigitallibrary.auctr.edu/digital/collection/abco/id/0302"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["The Susie McClure Library of American Baptist College believes that the items presented in our digital collections are not encumbered by copyright or related rights. Nonetheless, as these materials are accessible to the public, certain limitations on subsequent usage may be in effect. Authorized uses for these items are confined to research, educational, and scholarly endeavors by U.S. Copyright Law Title 17, §108 U.S.C. In addition to educational purposes, individuals seeking to engage in other forms of utilization must secure explicit permission from the Susie McClure Library by contacting us at 615-687-6935."],"dcterms_medium":["sound recordings"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_74","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":["2005-03"],"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/74"],"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\n-- Arkansas \u0026gt; ~ DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 4 STATE CAPITOL MALL  urrr.E ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201-1071  (501) 682-4475  http://arkedu.state.ar.us Dr. Kenneth James, Director of Education March 31, 2005 Mr. M. Samuel Jones, III Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 200 West Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. John W. Walker John Walker, P.A. 1 723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Mark Burnette Mitchell, Blackstock, Barnes, Wagoner, Ivers \u0026amp; Sneddon P. 0. Box 1510 Little Rock, AR 72203-1510 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 400 West Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 Mr. Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones 425 West Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201 OH='\"roF DESEGREGATI . 1 ,OHITORING Office of Desegregation Monitoring One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 RE: Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District, et al. U.S. District Court No. 4:82-CV-866 WRW Dear Gentlemen: 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 March 2005 in the above-referenced case. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at your convenience. Sincerely, () zj () --a~~~~ General Counsel Arkansas Department of Education SS:law cc: Mark Hagemeier ! II STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION: Chair - JoNell Caldwell, Little Rock  Vice Chair -Jeanna Westmoreland, Ar~\n:\n~h\n- , Members: Sherry Burrow, Jonesboro  Shelby Hillman, Carlisle  Calvin King, Marianna  Randy Lawson, Bentonville MaryJane Rebick, Little Rock  Diane Tatum, Pine Bluff  Naccaman Williams, Johnson An Equal Opportunity Employer f UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. No. LR-C-82-866 WRW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al DEFENDANTS NOTICE OF FILING In accordance with the Court's Order of December 10, 1993, the Arkansas Department of Education hereby gives notice of the filing of the AD E's Project Management Tool for March 2005. Respectfully Submitted, Scott Smitn,Bar # 92251 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 March 31, 2005, 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. M. Samuel Jones, III Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 200 West Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. John W. Walker John Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Mark Burnette Mitchell, Blackstock, Barnes Wagoner, Ivers \u0026amp; Sneddon P. 0. Box 1510 Little Rock, AR 72203-1510 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 400 West Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 Mr. Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones 425 West Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201 Office of Desegregation Monitoring One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Scott Smith IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL PLAINTIFFS V. NO. LR-C-82-866 WRW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENOR$ KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENOR$ 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 March 31, 2005 Bas_ed 9_.0 th~ informaticm ~vailable at Februa 28 2005, the A Sta~e F91,1nqation E.!m!:fing fo u 1ec o periodic adj 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 March 31, 2005 BasedonJb~ii:iform~tion avaflable at F~61..uar:y 28,_2Q.05, the AQ.E cah\nyjatecl fo EY.L0.410..?\n-~ubje~q_t..tQ..P.!lrio_gj~_gj_s~!s C. Process and distribute State MFPA. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of March 31, 2005 p_ . ary 2~.=~005, distributions Qf ~tate FQL!nd_ati9n Fuoding f9r FY: 04/05 'Ii ol ow~\n_ . .,25\u0026amp;  t__ 3,56.Q 8,024134 rrtie allotmerjts of State Foundation Funding calculated for FY 04/05 at Februa!)'. ~.. 20_05 suJ:\n,jecUQ.p~riodic _adjustments, were atj9Jlqws~ LRSD ._ $65,0_82,694 NL8$D~ J3~,304, 16~ EQ.~D -\n$59,7.92,~ 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 March 31, 2005 B.asea on tfil, info ation avail E calculated afl=eb uary EX QAf09J.J\u0026gt;1tbf ![iQ.9ic a 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 March 31, 2005  - vailaJ:il~. t .calcuJated.at ebr,y2[Y. 28 2005 o ~=ic- adjus It should be noted that currently the Magnet Review Committee is reporting this information instead of the staff attorney as indicated in the Implementation Plan. F. Calculate state aid due the LRSD based upon the Magnet Operational Charge. G. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of March 31, 2005 Based on a Court Order on August 27, 2004 for FY 03/04, an adjustment was made in the expense per child. A final magnet payment of 56,074 for FY 03/04 was made to the LRSD on November 10, 2004. Based on the information available, the ADE calculated at February 28., 2005 fo EY 04/05 subjept tp p~riodic adjustme~. Process and distribute state aid for Magnet Operational Charge. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of March 31 , 2005 Di~tributiol').s for FY.04/05 at February 28, 2005, totaled $8,697,573. 6)1o e t ~ated or FY 04L05 was $14,062,106 subjE!Ct to p~riodic 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 March 31, 2005 Calculated for FY 02/03, 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 March 31, 2005 Jhe allotmen s\"calcut~eg for EY Q4/_os ~t f eQ.tl,@_ry 28, 2Q05,_~bj~ ~ ~RSD-$3\n990,19~ NLRSD - $4,091,028 rc~_~o: i~o.999_.14 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 March 31, 2005 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 March 31, 2005 In September 2004, General Finance was notified to pay the third one-third payment for FY 03/04 to the Districts. In September 2004, General Finance was notified to pay the first one-third payment for FY 04/05 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 March 31 , 2005 In February 2004, General Finance made the second one-third payment to the Districts for their FY 03/04 transportation budget. The budget is now paid out in three equal installments. At February 2004, the following had been paid for FY 03/04: LRSD - $2,487,682.66 NLRSD - $526,000.00 PCSSD - $1,454,813.26 In September 2004, General Finance made the last one-third payment to the Districts for their FY 03/04 transportation budget. The budget is now paid out in three equal installments. At September 2004, the following had been paid for FY 03/04: LRSD - $4,019,063.00 NLRSD - $772,940.15 PCSSD - $2,478,863.72 In September 2004, General Finance made the first one-third payment to the Districts for their FY 04/05 transportation budget. The budget is now paid out in three equal installments. At September 2004, the following had been paid for FY 04/05: LRSD - $1,325,043.67 NLRSD - $275,333.33 PCSSD - $845,221.22 M. ADE verifies actual expenditures submitted by Districts and reviews each bill with each District's transportation coordinator. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing, annually. 2. Actual as of March 31, 2005 In August 1997, the ADE transportation coordinator reviewed each district's Magnet and M-to-M transportation costs for FY 96/97. 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 March 31, 2005 (Continued) 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. 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 March 31, 2005 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. 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 March 31, 2005 (Continued) 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. The ADE accepted a bid on 16 buses for the Magnet and M/M transportation program. The buses will be delivered after July 1, 1999 and before August 1, 1999. The buses will be distributed accordingly: LRSD - 8\nNLRSD - 2\nPCSSD - 6. 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 type C 47 passenger buses and fourteen type C 65 passenger buses. Prices on these units are $43,426.00 each on the 47 passenger buses, and $44,289.00 each on the 65 passenger buses. 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 March 31, 2005 (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. Specifications for 16 new Magnet and M-to-M school buses have been forwarded to State Purchasing for bidding. Bids will be opened on May 12, 2003. The buses will have a required delivery date after July 1, 2003 and before August 8, 2003. In June 2003, a bid for 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses was awarded to Ward Transportation Services, Inc. The buses to be purchased include 5 - 47 passenger buses for $47,052.00 each, and 11 - 65 passenger buses for $48,895.00 each. The total amount was $773,105. The buses will be distributed accordingly: LRSD - 8 of the 65 passenger\nNLRSD - 2 of the 65 passenger\nPCSSD - 5 of the 4 7 passenger and 1 of the 65 passenger buses. In June 2004, a bid for 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses was awarded to Ward Transportation Services, Inc. The price for the buses was $49,380 each for a total cost of $790,080. The buses will be distributed accordingly: LRSD - 8, NLRSD - 2, and PCSSD - 6. 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 March 31, 2005 Obligation fulfilled in FY 96/97. P. Process and distribute additional payments in lieu of formula to LRSD as required by page 24 of the Settlement Agreement. 1. Projected Ending Date Payment due date and ending July 1, 1995. 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. (Continued) 2. Actual as of March 31, 2005 Obligation fulfilled in FY 95/96. Q. Process and distribute payments to PCSSD as required by Page 28 of the Settlement Agreement. 1. Projected Ending Date Payment due date and ending July 1, 1994. 2. Actual as of March 31, 2005 Final payment was distributed July 1994. R. Upon loan request by LRSD accompanied by a promissory note, the ADE makes loans to LRSD. 1. 2. Projected Ending Date Ongoing through July 1, 1999. See Settlement Agreement page 24. Actual as of March 31, 2005 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 March 31, 2005 Obligation fulfilled in FY 95/96. T. Process and distribute compensatory education payments to NLRSD as required by page 31 of the Settlement Agreement. 1. Projected Ending Date July 1 of each school year through June 30, 1996. 9 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) T. Process and distribute compensatory education payments to NLRSD as required by page 31 of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of March 31, 2005 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 March 31, 2005 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. V. Process and distribute payments for Office of Desegregation Monitoring. 1. Projected Ending Date Not applicable. 2. Actual as of March 31, 2005 Distribution in July 1997 for FY 97/98 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 97/98. 10 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) V. Process and distribute payments for Office of Desegregation Monitoring. (Continued) 2. Actual as of March 31, 2005 (Continued) Distribution in July 1998 for FY 98/99 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 98/99. Distribution in July 1999 for FY 99/00 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 99/00. Distribution in July 2000 for FY 00/01 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 00/01 . Distribution in August 2001 for FY 01/02 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 01/02. Distribution in July 2002 for FY 02/03 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 02/03. Distribution in July 2003 for FY 03/04 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 03/04. Distribution in July 2004 for FY 04/05 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 04/05. 11 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 March 31, 2005 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 March 31, 2005 (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 pri9r 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 March 31, 2005 (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 March 31, 2005 (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 March 31, 2005 (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 March 31, 2005 (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 March 31, 2005 (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 March 31, 2005 (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 Clearance 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 March 31, 2005 (Continued) On November 4, 2004, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. The ADE is required to check laws that the legislature passes to make sure none of them impede desegregation. Clearence Lovell was chairman of the last committee to check legislation. Since he has retired, the ADE attorney will find out who will be checking the next legislation. The Desegregation ruling on unitary status for LRSD was discussed. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for January 6, 2005 at 1 :30 p.m. in room 201-A at the ADE. 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 March 31, 2005 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 March 31, 2005 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 March 31, 2005 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 March 31, 2005 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 March 31, 2005 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 March 31, 2005 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 March 31, 2005 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 81st General Assembly were requested from the office of the ADE Liaison to the Legislature for distribution to the Districts for their input and review of possible impediments to their desegregation efforts. In August 1997, a meeting to review the statutes passed in the prior legislative session was scheduled for September 9, 1997. 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 March 31, 2005 (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 March 31, 2005 (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 March 31, 2005 (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 March 31, 2005 (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 March 31, 2005 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 March 31, 2005 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 March 31, 2005 Ongoing D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 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 March 31, 2005 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 updpted 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 March 31, 2005 (Continued) During the months of February 1996 through May 1996, the PMT report was the only item on the agenda regarding the status of the implementation of the Monitoring Plan. In June 1996, the State Board of Education was updated on the status of the bias review study. In July 1996, the Semiannual Monitoring Report was provided to the Court, the parties, ODM, the State Board of Education, and the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee. In August 1996, the State Board of Education and the ADE administrative team were provided with copies of the test validation study prepared by Dr. Paul Williams. During the months of September 1996 through December 1996, the PMT was the only item on the agenda regarding the status of the implementation of the Monitoring Plan. On January 13, 1997, a presentation was made to the State Board of Education regarding the February 1997 Semiannual Monitoring Report, and copies of the report and its executive summary were distributed to all Board members. The Project Management Tool and its executive summary were addressed at the February 10, 1997 State Board of Education meeting regarding the AD E's progress in fulfilling their obligations as set forth in the Implementation Plan. In March 1997, the State Board of Education was notified that historical information in the PMT had been summarized at the direction of the Assistant Attorney General in order to reduce the size and increase the clarity of the report. The Board was updated on the Pulaski County Desegregation Case and reviewed the Memorandum Opinion and Order issued by the Court on February 18, 1997 in response to the Districts' motion for summary judgment on the issue of state funding for teacher retirement matching contributions. During the months of April 1997 through June 1997, the PMT was the only item on the agenda regarding the status of the implementation of the Monitoring Plan. The State Board of Education received copies of the July 15, 1997 Semiannual Monitoring Report and executive summary at the July Board meeting. 30 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of March 31, 2005 (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 March 31, 2005 (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 March 31, 2005 (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 March 31, 2005 (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 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 March 31, 2005 (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 March 31, 2005 (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 March 31, 2005 (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 execuUve 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 March 31, 2005 (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. 38 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 March 31, 2005 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 NGA/COE peer team visits. 39 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 March 31, 2005 (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. 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 March 31, 2005 (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. 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 March 31, 2005 (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 March 31, 2005 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 42 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) C. D. Through the ERIC system, conduct a literature search for research evaluating compensatory education programs. (Continued) 2. Actual as of March 31, 2005 An updated ERIC Search was conducted on May 15, 1995 to locate research on evaluating compensatory education programs. The ADE received the updated ERIC disc that covered material through March 1995. An ERIC search was conducted in September 30, 1996 to identify current research dealing with the evaluation of compensatory education programs, and the articles were reviewed. An ERIC search was conducted in April 1997 to identify current research on compensatory education programs and sent to the Cycle 1 principals and the field service specialists for their use. An Eric search was conducted in October 1998 on the topic of Compensatory Education and related descriptors. The search included articles with publication dates from 1997 through July 1998. Identify and research technical resources available to ADE and the Districts through programs and organizations such as the Desegregation Assistance Center in San Antonio, Texas. 1. Projected Ending Date Summer 1994 2. Actual as of March 31, 2005 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 March 31, 2005 The information for this item is detailed under Section VI.F. of this report. 43 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of March 31, 2005 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. 44 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued} 2. Actual as of March 31, 2005 (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 SA T-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 Conferer\nice 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. 45 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of March 31, 2005 (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. 46 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of March 31, 2005 (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 (ACTAAP). On August 16, 1999, professional development on ways to increase student achievement and the components of the new ACT AAP program was presented during the preschool staff development activities for teaching assistant in the LRSD. On August 20, 1999, professional development on ways to increase student achievement and the components of the new ACT AAP program was presented during the preschool staff development activities for the Accelerated Learning Center in the LRSD. On September 13, 1999, professional development on ways to increase student achievement and the components of the new ACT AAP 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 ACT AAP program, and ACT 999 of 1999. However, Southwest Middle School administrators had a need to reschedule, therefore the workshop will be rescheduled. 47 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of March 31, 2005 (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 ACT AAP program, and ACT 999 of 1999. On March 1, 2000, professional development on ways to increase student achievement was conducted for all principals and district level administrators in the PCSSD. The workshop also covered the components of the new ACTAAP program, and ACT 999 of 1999. On April 12, 2000, professional development on ways to increase student achievement was conducted for the LRSD. The workshop also covered the components of the new ACT AAP program, and ACT 999 of 1999. Targeted staffs from the middle and junior high schools in the three districts in Pulaski County attended the Smart Step Summit on May 1 and May 2. Training was provided regarding the overview of the \"Smart Step\" initiative, \"Standard and Accountability in Action,\" and \"Creating Learning Environments Through Leadership Teams.\" The ADE provided training on the development of alternative assessment September 12-13, 2000. Information was provided regarding the assessment of Special Education and LEP students. Representatives from each district were provided the opportunity to select a team of educators from each school within the district to participate in professional development regarding Integrating Curriculum and Assessment K-12. The professional development activity was directed by the national consultant, Dr. Heidi Hays Jacobs, on September 14 and 15, 2000. The ADE provided professional development workshops from October 2 through October 13, 2000 regarding, \"The Write Stuff: Curriculum Frameworks, Content Standards and Item Development.\" Experts from the Data Recognition Corporation provided the training. Representatives from each district were provided the opportunity to select a team of educators from each school within the district to participate. The ADE provided training on Alternative Assessment Portfolio Systems by video conference for Special Education and LEP Teachers on November 17, 2000. Also, Alternative Assessment Portfolio System Training was provided for testing coordinators through teleconference broadcast on November 27, 2000. 48 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of March 31, 2005 (Continued) On December 12, 2000, the ADE provided training for Test Coordinators on end of course assessments in Geometry and Algebra I Pilot examination. Experts from the Data Recognition Corporation conducted the professional development at the Arkansas Teacher Retirement Building. The ADE presented a one-day training session with Dr. Cecil Reynolds on the Behavior Assessment for Children (BASC). This took place on December 7, 2000 at the NLRSD Administrative Annex. Dr. Reynolds is a practicing clinical psychologist. He is also a professor at Texas A \u0026amp; M University and a nationally known author. In the training, Dr. Reynolds addressed the following: 1) how to use and interpret information obtained on the direct observation form, 2) how to use this information for programming, 3) when to use the BASC, 4) when to refer for more or additional testing or evaluation, 5) who should complete the forms and when, (i.e., parents, teachers, students), 6) how to correctly interpret scores. This training was intended to especially benefit School Psychology Specialists, psychologists, psychological examiners, educational examiners and counselors. During January 22-26, 2001 the ADE presented the ACT AAP 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. 49 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued} F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of March 31, 2005 (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. 50 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of March 31, 2005 (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 at the ADE facility in West Little Rock. Bryan Ayres was the presenter. Kathy Brown, a vision consultant from the LRSD, was a participant. On January 23, 2001, Autism and Classroom Modifications for the LRSD at Brady Elementary School was presented. Bryan Ayres and Shelley Weir were presenters. The participants were: Beverly Cook, Special Education Teacher\nAmy Littrell, Speech Language Pathologist\nJan Feurig, Occupational Therapist\nCarolyn James, Paraprofessional\nCindy Kackly, Paraprofessional\nand Rita Deloney, Paraprofessional. The ADE provided training on Alternative Assessment Portfolio Systems for Special Education and Limited English Proficient students through teleconference broadcast on February 5, 2001. Presenters were: Charlotte Marvel, ADE\nDr. Gayle Potter, ADE\nMarcia Harding, ADE\nLynn Springfield, ASERC\nMary Steele, J. A Fair High School, LRSD\nBryan Ayres, Easter Seals Outreach. This was provided for Special Education teachers and supervisors in the morning, and Limited English Proficient teachers and supervisors in the afternoon. The Special Education session was attended by 29 teachers/administrators and provided answers to specific questions about the alternate assessment portfolio system and the scoring rubric and points on the rubric to be used to score the portfolios. The LEP session was attended by 16 teachers/administrators and disseminated the common tasks to be included in the portfolios: one each in mathematics, writing and reading. On February 12-23, 2001, the ADE and Data Recognition Corporation personnel trained Test Coordinators in the administration of the spring Criterion-Referenced Test. This was provided in 20 sessions at 10 regional sites. Testing protocol, released items, and other testing materials were presented and discussed. The sessions provided training for Primary, Intermediate, and Middle Level Benchmark Exams as well as End of Course Literacy, Algebra and Geometry Pilot Tests. The LRSD had 2 in attendance for the End of Course session and 2 for the Benchmark session. The NLRSD had 1 in attendance for the End of Course session and 1 for the Benchmark session. The PCSSD had 1 in attendance for the End of Course session and 1 for the Benchmark session. 51 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of March 31, 2005 (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. 52 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of March 31, 2005 (Continued) On July 19-21, 2000 the ADE held the Math/Science Leadership Conference at UCA. This provided services for Arkansas math and science teachers to support systemic reform in math/science and training for 8th grade Benchmark. There were 200 teachers from across the state in attendance. On August 14-31, 2000 the ADE presented Science Smart Start Lessons and worked with teachers to produce curriculum. This will provide K-6 teachers with activity-oriented science lessons that incorporate reading, writing, and mathematics skills. On September 5, 2000 the ADE held an Eisenhower Informational meeting with Teacher Center Coordinators. The purpose of the Eisenhower Professional Development Program is to prepare teachers, school staff, and administrators to help all students meet challenging standards in the core academic subjects. A summary of the program was presented at the meeting. On November 2-3, 2000 the ADE held the Arkansas Conference on Teaching. This presented curriculum and activity workshops. More than 1200 attended the conference. On November 6, 2000 there was a review of Science Benchmarks and sample model curriculum. A committee of 6 reviewed and revised a drafted document. The committee was made up of ADE and K-8 teachers. On November 7-10, 2000 the ADE held a meeting of the Benchmark and End of Course Mathematics Content Area Committee. Classroom teachers reviewed items for grades 4, 6, 8 and EOC mathematics assessment. There were 60 participants. On December 4-8, 2000 the ADE conducted grades 4 and 8 Benchmark Scoring for Writing Assessment. This professional development was attended by approximately 750 teachers. On December 8, 2000 the ADE conducted Rubric development for Special Education Portfolio scoring. This was a meeting with special education supervisors to revise rubric and plan for scoring in June. On December 8, 2000 the ADE presented the Transition Mathematics Pilot Training Workshop. This provided follow-up training and activities for fourth-year mathematics professional development. On December 12, 2000 the ADE presented test administrators training for midyear End of Course (Pilot) Algebra I and Geometry exams. This was provided for schools with block scheduling. 53 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of March 31, 2005 (Continued) The ADE provided training on Alternative Assessment Portfolio Systems for Special Education and Limited English Proficient students through teleconference broadcasts on April 2-3, 2001. Administration of the Primary, Intermediate, and Middle Level Benchmark Exams as well as End of Course Literacy took place on April 23-27, 2001. Administration of the End of Course Algebra and Geometry Exams took place on May 2-3, 2001. Over 1,100 Arkansas educators attended the Smart Step Growing Smarter Conference on July 10 and 11, 2001, at the Little Rock Statehouse Convention Center. Smart Step focuses on improving student achievement for Grades 5-8. The Smart Step effort seeks to provide intense professional development for teachers and administrators at the middle school level, as well as additional materials and assistance to the state's middle school teachers. The event began with opening remarks by Ray Simon, Director of the ADE. Carl Boyd, a longtime educator and staff consultant for Learning 24-7, presented the first keynote address on \"The Character-Centered Teacher''. Debra Pickering, an education consultant from Denver, Colorado, presented the second keynote address on \"Characteristics of Middle Level Education\". Throughout the Smart Step conference, educators attended breakout sessions that were grade-specific and curriculum area-specific. Pat Davenport, an education consultant from Houston, Texas, delivered two addresses. She spoke on \"A Blueprint for Raising Student Achievement\". Representatives from all three districts in Pulaski County attended. Over 1,200 Arkansas teachers and administrators attended the Smart Start Conference on July 12, 2001, at the Little Rock Statehouse Convention Center. Smart Start is a standards-driven educational initiative which emphasizes the articulation of clear standards for student achievement and accurate measures of progress against those standards through assessments, staff development and individual school accountability. The Smart Start Initiative focused on improving reading and mathematics achievement for all students in Grades K-4. The event began with opening remarks by Ray Simon, Director of the ADE. Carl Boyd, a longtime educator and staff consultant for Learning 24-7, presented the keynote address. The day featured a series of 15 breakout sessions on best classroom practices. Representatives from all three districts in Pulaski County attended. On July 18-20, 2001, the ADE held the Math/Science Leadership Conference at UCA. This provided services for Arkansas math and science teachers to support systemic reform in math/science and training for 8th grade Benchmark. There were approximately 300 teachers from across the state in attendance. 54 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of March 31, 2005 (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. 55 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of March 31, 2005 (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. 56 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of March 31, 2005 (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 MP 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 Director for Accountability, gave a presentation about ACT MP. Break out sessions were held, in which school districts with high scores on the MPH point program offered strategies and insights into increasing student achievement. The NLRSD, LRSD, and PCSSD were invited to attend. The NLRSD attended the workshop. The Smart Start Summer Conference took place on July 8-9, 2002, at the Little Rock Statehouse Convention Center and Peabody Hotel. The Smart Start Initiative focuses on improving reading and mathematics achievement for all students in Grades K-4. The event included remarks by Ray Simon, Director of the ADE. After comments by the Director, Bena Kallick presented the keynote address \"Beyond Mapping: Essential Questions, Assessment, Higher Order Thinking\". This was followed by a series of breakout sessions on best classroom practices. On the second day, Vivian Moore gave the keynote address \"Overcoming Obstacles: Avenues for Student Success\". Krista Underwood gave the presentation \"Put Reading First in Arkansas\". This was followed by a series of breakout sessions on best classroom practices. 57 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of March 31, 2005 (Continued) The Smart Step Summer Conference took place on July 10-11, 2002, at the Little Rock Statehouse Convention Center and Peabody Hotel. Smart Step focuses on improving student achievement for Grades 5-8. The event included remarks by Ray Simon, Director of the ADE. After comments by the Director, Vivian Moore presented the keynote address \"Overcoming Obstacles: Avenues for Student Success\". This was followed by a series of breakout sessions on best classroom practices. On the second day, Bena Kallick presented \"Beyond Mapping: Essential Questions, Assessment, Higher Order Thinking\". Ken Stamatis presented \"Smart Steps to Creating a School Culture That Supports Adolescent Comprehension\". This was followed by a series of breakout sessions on best classroom practices. On August 8, 2002, Steven Weber held a workshop at Booker T. Washington Elementary on \"Best Practices in Social Studies\". It was presented to the 4th grade teachers in the Little Rock School District. The workshop focused around the five themes of geography and the social studies (fourth grade) framework/standards. Several Internet web sites were shared with the teachers, and the teachers were shown methods for incorporating writing into fourth grade social studies. One of the topics was using primary source photos and technology to stimulate the students to write about diverse regions. A theme of the workshop included identifying web sites which apply to fourth grade social studies teachers and interactive web sites for fourth grade students. This was a Back-to-School In-service workshop. The teachers were actively involved in the workshop. On August 13 Steven Weber conducted a workshop at Parkview High School in the LRSD. Topics of the workshop included: 1. Incorporating Writing in\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":"tnn_npldl_crohpbutler11bclip1","title":"Excerpt 1 from oral history interview with Angeline Butler, 2005 March","collection_id":"tnn_npldl","collection_title":"Nashville Public Library Digital Collections Portal: Civil Rights","dcterms_contributor":["Lawson, Rachel","James, Carolyn"],"dcterms_spatial":["United States, Tennessee, Davidson County, Nashville, 36.16589, -86.78444"],"dcterms_creator":["Butler, Angeline Emma"],"dc_date":["2005-03"],"dcterms_description":["An excerpt from an oral history interview with Nashville Civil Rights Movement participant Angeline Emma Butler, conducted in March 2005 by Rachel Lawson as part of the Nashville Public Library's Civil Rights Oral History Project. Butler discusses how she got involved in the Movement and met other people who were involved, such as James Bevel, Bernard LaFayette, and John Lewis, through a group of the American Friends (Quakers) that met at Fisk University.   The complete interview, as well as a transcript, is available in the repository."],"dc_format":null,"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":null,"dcterms_publisher":["Excerpted from:  CROHPButler audio cassette recording(s) converted to mp3 format in 2006.","Civil Rights Oral History Project, Special Collections Division, Nashville Public Library."],"dc_relation":["Forms part of online collection: Civil Rights Online Collection."],"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":null,"dcterms_subject":["Fisk University","African Americans--Social conditions","African Americans--Civil rights--Tennessee--Nashville","Civil rights--Tennessee--Nashville","Civil rights workers--Tennessee--Nashville","Civil rights movements--Tennessee--Nashville","Society of Friends--Tennessee--Nashville","Quakers--Tennessee--Nashville","Nashville (Tenn.)--Race relations","Nashville (Tenn.)--History","Butler, Angeline Emma--Interviews"],"dcterms_title":["Excerpt 1 from oral history interview with Angeline Butler, 2005 March"],"dcterms_type":["Sound"],"dcterms_provenance":["Nashville Public Library (Tenn.). Special Collections Division"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://digital.library.nashville.org/u?/nr,190"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":["U.S. and international copyright laws protect this digital content. This image is provided for educational purposes only and may not be downloaded, reproduced, or distributed for any other purpose without written permission.  Please contact the Special Collections Division of the Nashville Public Library, 615 Church Street, Nashville, Tennessee, 37219. Telephone (615) 862-5782."],"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["sound recordings","oral histories (literary works)"],"dcterms_extent":["audio/mp3 (2.18 MB; 2 min., 23 sec.)"],"dlg_subject_personal":["Butler, Angeline Emma","Bevel, James L. (James Luther), 1936-2008","LaFayette, Bernard, Jr.","Lewis, John, 1940-2020"],"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1078","title":"'Little Rock School District Board of Directors' Meeting,'' agenda","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":["2005-03"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--21st Century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Education--Economic aspects","Education--Curricula","Education--Evaluation","Education--Finance","Educational law and legislation","Educational planning","Educational statistics","School board members","School boards","School improvement programs","School superintendents"],"dcterms_title":["'Little Rock School District Board of Directors' Meeting,'' agenda"],"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/1078"],"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   \n\n  \n\n  \n\nThis transcript was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.\nMAR 2 05 5 Agenda Little Rock School District Board of Directors' Meeting n \u0026gt;-o f=~ ... c 0:1:: oz ~~ m-\u0026lt;\na..,\n-a Cz : on r-\u0026lt; rc5 nz i!!:\"' r .,,\na g ~m mC rC: n~ Or ~ ~ ~ ill \u0026gt;. ~.,, \"C:' O\na ~i!l n:a =\u0026gt;l nm \"O\"'8z z =l \"'a z (I) !D ~ :!l z m\na (I) :c \"6 (I) I. 11. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS PRELIMINARY FUNCTIONS A. Call to Order B. Roll Call PROCEDURAL MATTERS A. Welcome to Guests REGULAR MEETING March 24, 2005 5:30 p.m. Ill. REPORTS/RECOGNITIONS/PUBLIC COMMENTS: A. Superintendent's Citations B. Partners in Education - New Partnerships C. Discussion: Long-term Budgetary Considerations (Berkley) D. Discussion: Tax Increment Financing Issues (Kurrus) E. Discussion: Student Attendance at Athletic Events / Excusing Absences (Daugherty) F. Remarks from Citizens (persons who have signed up to speak) G. Little Rock Classroom Teachers Association IV. REPORTS AND COMMUNICATIONS: V. A. Remarks from Board Members B. Student Assignment Report C. Budget Update D. Construction Report: Proposed Bond Projects E. Internal Auditors Report F. Technology Update APPROVAL OF ROUTINE MATTERS: A. Minutes Regular Meeting - 02-24-05 Special Meeting - 63-10-05 0 \u0026gt;~ i=~ .... C: o\nic oz ~~ m-\u0026lt;\n,c.., -c::\n,o.,.c o..z.. ,.. i5 oz ,~.. \"'\n::: ?' ~ ~ z m\n,c \"::c' '5 \"' Board Meeting March 24, 2005 Page2 VI. ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES A. Grant Application: School-Based Tobacco Use Prevention Project B. Second Reading: Revision of Policy JE - Student Enrollment, Attendance and Transfers C. Establishment of a Tri-District Charter School I Alternative Learning Academy VII. CURRICULUM \u0026amp; INSTRUCTION A. Second Reading: Revision to Policy IKF - General Education Graduation Requirements Second Reading: Revision to Policy IAA - Professional Development B. Secondary English/ Language Arts Textbook Adoption C. Memorandum of Understanding - Audubon Arkansas VIII. HUMAN RESOURCES A. Request from Psychological Examiners B. School Calendar, 2005-06 C. Personnel Changes IX. BUSINESS SERVICES DIVISION: A. Acceptance of Report: Organizational Audit B. Updated Travel Regulations DKC-R C. Cloverdale Elementary School D. Donations of Property E. Financial Report/ Approval of Annual Audit X. CLOSING REMARKS: Superintendent's Report: 1. Dates to Remember 2. Special Functions XI. STUDENT HEARING XII. ADJOURNMENT PRELIMINARY FUNCTIONS CA.LL TO ORDER/ ROLL CALL II. PROCEDURAL MATTERS/ WELCOME Ill. REPORTS/RECOGNITIONS A. SUPT. CITATIONS B. PARTNERSHIPS C. DISCUSSION/ BUDGETARY D. DISCUSSION/TI F DATE: TO: FROM: March 24, 2005 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK, AR 72201 Board of Directors Roy G. Brooks, Ed.D. Superintendent of Schools SUBJECT: Partners in Education BACKGROUND: The Little Rock School District Partners in Education program is designed to develop strong relationships between the community and our schools. The partnership process encourages businesses, community agencies and private organizations to join with individual schools to enhance and support educational programs. Each partnership utilizes the resources of both the school and the business for their mutual benefit. RATIONALE: The following schools and businesses have completed the requirements necessary to establish a partnership and are actively working together to accomplish their objectives. FUNDING: Not applicable. RECOMMENDATION: We recommend that the board approve the following partnership: First United Methodist Church and Chicot Elementary School PREPARED BY: Debbie Milam, ViPS Director p ,...\na C') \u0026gt; Chicot Elementary and First United Methodist Church, Little Rock Partnership Agreement March 2005 First United Methodist Church, Little Rock will provide:  Classroom tutoring during Literacy time  Volunteers one afternoon a week to assemble teacher materials and to assist students in checking out library books  A team responsible for providing treats for the Chicot staff on a monthly basis  Volunteers for VIPS Reading Day  Coordination with other Partners in Education Chicot Elementary will provide:  Students serving as pen pals for church members who are shut-ins  The school facility for church functions as needed DATE: March 24, 2005 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK, AR 72201 TO: Board of Directors FROM: Roy G. Brooks, Ed.D. Superintendent of Schools SUBJECT: March 2005 Construction Report - Bond Projects BACKGROUND: In the February 2005 report to the Board, the completion of the drawings for the renovation of Rightsell Elementary was to be March 1,\n1 . The architect now reports that the drawings will not be completed until the first week in May. The delay is necessary because of a change in the HVAC system that was recommended by Doug Eaton and Bill Goodman. The architect has stated that this delay will not jeopardize the completion of the renovation in time for the start of the 2006-07 school year. The bids for the classroom addition to Gibbs will be received March 24th . It appears that today's bid market favors the owner, and we are optimistic that the low bid will not exceed our budget. Meetings have taken place with the new Principal at Forest Heights, Dr. Debbie Price, regarding the school's remodeling and addition. Dr. Brooks has visited the campus, and his input has been important to the planning process. It is too early to have a firm date for construction start-up. RATIONALE: Monthly reports are submitted to the Board to keep members up-to-date on construction projects in the District. FUNDING: Bond Funds RECOMMENDATION: Report item\nno action necessary. PREPARED BY: Bill Goodman, District Engineer !\"\" .z.... m\n:o z j!!: \u0026gt; C: 0 a\n:o ~ ..... m C') ::i: z 0  -\u0026lt; C: \"ti ~ m\n,, :S Cl\u0026gt; ~o z~ -4Z \u0026gt; (I) -cm \"ti\n:o r- \u0026lt; c'5 \u0026lt;'5 \u0026gt;m :0: ! \"'\nz: ~ \"i''\n::0 ~ 0 z p \"C 0 r- n -\u0026lt; m' CONSTRUCTIONREPORTTOTHEBOARD MARCH 24, 2005 BOND PROJECTS UNDER CONSTRUCTION I I I Est. completIon Facility Name Project Description Cost Date BOND PROJECTS CONSTRUCTION - SPRING/ SUMMER 2005 I I I Est. CompletIon Facility Name Project Description Cost Date Carver ___ Media Center Expansion _ _ $167,490_ Dec-05 Fair Park __ _ _ _Remodel ___ $799,000_ __ Aug-05 Gibbs Addition $705,670 Dec-05 Meadowcliff - Remodel -- -- _- _ __ $164,150 --= Aug-05 Oakhurst (Adult Education) New Windows ___ $215,000 Aug-05 Rightsell - ,==.__~enovation -- , $2,494,000 Aug-06 Western Hills Electrical Upgrade \u0026amp; HVAC $622,160 Aug-05 BOND PROJECTS PLANNING STARTED CONST. DATE TO BE DETERMINED I I I t:SL 1..,ompIet1on Facility Name Project Description Cost Date Booker __ ___ Electrical Upgrade _________ Unknown Unknown Chicot Electrical Upgrade , Unknown Unknown Cloverdale Elementary- Addition I $520,750- Unknown Forest Heights Remodel ________ i $1,547,000 - Unknown Mitchell Renovation 1 _ $2,21_?,493 Unknown Pulaski Hgts. MS Energy monitoring systeminstallation I Unknown Unknown Woodruff Parking addition- $193,777 Aug-05 BOND PROJECTS THAT HAVE BEEN COMPLETED I I I Est. Completion Facility Name Project Description Cost Date f--A_d_m_in_ist_ra_ti_on _____ ,A_s_bes_tos abatement ~ $380,495 ~ Mar-03 Administration Fresh air system , $55,000 Aug-03 ,_A_d_m-in- is- t-ra-ti_on _____ ,_F-ir_e_a_la-rm~----~ $32,350 Aug-03 Administration HVAC 1 $70,000 Nov-04 Administration Annex  Energy monitoring system installation May-02 Alternative Learning Ctr. Energy monitoring system installation $15,160 Oct-01 Alternative Learning'--C_t_r. __E ne_r=gy'-e-f_ficien_t_li=ght_in__,.g'---______l_ ___ __$\n._82,,0_00 ____D_ e_c-_0 1 Badgett Partial asbestos abatement I $237,237 Jul-01 Badg~e_tt ______+ F-=-i,r-e-_a_lar_m_-,-,-,...,.---,---,-----~l~-----=-$..1..,8,'\"\"2\"=..5,...0,.. ____A_ u=g--=0-2=-1 B_a_le_ ________C lassroom addition/renovation 1 $2,244,524 Dec-02 B_a_le Energy monitoring syst_em _____ -,----,-------~M_a_r_-0_2 Bale 'Partial roof replacement _ _ __ $269,587 _ Dec-01 Bale Baseline Booker Booker Booker Booker Booker Booker Brady Brady Brady HVAC -- - - $664,587 Aug-01 - Renovatioo - $953,520 Aug-04 Gym Roof $48,525 Oct-04 ADA Rest rooms $25,000 Aug-04 Energy efficient lighting S170,295 Apr-01 Energy monitoring system installation $23,710 Oct-01 Asbestos abatement $10,900 Feb-02 Fire alarm Addition/renovation Energy efficient lighting Asbestos abatement $34,501 Mar-02 $973,621 Nov-04 $80,593 _ Sep-02 $345,072 Aug-02 CONSTRUCTION REPORT TO THE BOARD MARCH 24, 2005 BOND PROJECTS THAT HAVE BEEN COMPLETED Facility Name I Project Description I Cost I Est. Completion Date Carver Energy monitoring system installation $14,480 May-01 -- Parking lot -- --- Carver I $111,742 Aug-03 Central HVAC Renovation - Band Area $225,000 Dec-04 -- - Central Reflecting Pond $57,561 Sep-04 --- -- Central Parking Student parking I $174,000 Aug-03 Central/Quigley Stadium light repair \u0026amp; electrical repair $265,000 Aug-03 -- Central/Quigley Athletic Field Improvement $38,000 Aug-03 Central/Quigley Irrigation System $14,500 Aug-03 Central Purchase land for school Unknown Dec-02 -- -- -Ce-ntra-l Roof \u0026amp; exterior renovations $2,000,000 Dec-02 -- -Cen-tral --- Ceiling and wall repair $24,000 Oct-01 Central Flre Alarm System Design/Installation $80,876 Aug-01 Central Front landing tile repair-- $22,470 Aug:Q.!_ Chicot Dramage -- -- --~-- ----- -- --- $64,700 Aug-04 ~ Chicot Sound Attenuation $43,134 Jul-04 Cloverdale Elem. 1 Energy efficient light~ ---- --- $132,678 Jul-01 Cloverdale MS Energy efficient lighting $189,743 Jul-01 Cloverdale MS Major renovation \u0026amp; addition $1,393,822 Nov-02 Dodd Fire Alarm Upgrade $9,200 Oct-04 Dodd Energy efficient lighting $90,665 Aug-01 Dodd Asbestos abatement-ceiling tile $156,299 . Jul-01 Dodd Replace roof top HVAC $215,570 Aug-02 Dunbar 'Renovation/addition $6,149,023 Nov-04 Facilities Service Interior renovation $84,672- - Mar-01 Facility Services Fire alarm $12,000 Aug-03 -Fa-ir Par-k --- HVAC renovation/fire alarm $315,956 Apr-01 -- Fair Park Energy efficient lighting $90,162 Aug-01 Fair Park Asbestos abatement-ceiling $59,310 Aug-01 -- J. A. Fair 6 classroom addition \u0026amp; cafeteria/music , room addition $3,155,640 Aug-04 J. A. Fair Energy efficient lighting I $277,594 Apr-01 J. A. Fair Press box $10,784 Nov-00 -J. A-. Fair 'Security cameras $12,500 Jun-01 J. A. Fair Athletic Field Improvement $38,000 Jul-03 J. A. Fair Irrigation System $14,000 Jul-03 J. A. Fair Roof repairs $391,871 Aug-03 ---- - Forest Park Replace window units w/central HVAf $48~258 Nov-03 -- - F-or-est P-ark -- Diagonal parking $111,742 ___ Aug-03 Forest Park Energy efficient lighting $119,788 May-01 --- ~ --- - Fulbright Energy efficient lighting $134,463 Jun-01 - Fulbright Energy monitoring system installation - $1.:1 ,950 - - Aug::Q.!_ Fulbright -Replace roof top HVACunits $107,835 Aug-02 Fulbright Parking lot $140,000 Sep-02 Fulbright Roof repairs $200,000 Oct-02 Franklin Renovation $2,511,736 Mar-03 Geyer Springs Roof Repair $161,752 Jun-04 Gibbs Energy efficient lighting $76,447 Apr-01 Gibbs Energy monitoring system installation $11,770 Jul-01 Hall Maj~ renovation \u0026amp; addition $8,637,709 Sep-03 Hall Asbestos abatement $168,222 Aug-01 - - - Hall Energy efficient lighting $42,931 Jul-01 Hall Energy efficient lighting $296,707 Apr-01 2 !TI .z.. m\n:c .~.... \u0026gt; C: 0 :::::i 0\n:c .:.n. mn :,: z .0.. .. 8 -\u0026lt; C..,: 0 ~ m ?-s G'\u0026gt;  ~o zl!,\n... z \u0026gt;en \"tlm \"tl\n:c n..... o\u0026lt; \u0026gt;m ::! rJ\u0026gt; 0\nz: CONSTRUCTION REPORT TO THE BOARD MARCH 24, 2005 BOND PROJECTS THAT HAVE BEEN COMPLETED Facility Name I Proiect Descriotion I Cost I Est. Completion Date Hall Infrastructure improvements $93,657 Aug-01 -- Hall Intercom I Feb-01 Hall Security cameras $10,600 Jun-01 ----- Henderson Lockers $43,854 Dec-04 Henderson Energy efficient lighting -- - - $193,679 Jul-01 Henderson Roof replacement gym $107,835 May-01 Henderson Asbestos abatement Phase I ---- - I $500,000 Aug-01 -- Henderson Asbestos abatement Phase 2 I $250,000 Aug-02 IRC Energy efficient lighting I $109,136 Jul-02 - -Jef-ferson - Asbestos abatement $43,639 Oct-01 -- Jefferson Renovation \u0026amp; fire alarm ~ $1,630,000 Nov-02 Laidlaw Parking lot - $269,588 Jul-01 - Mablevale Elem Fire Alarm Upgrade $12,000 Oct-04 -- ~ Mabelvale Elem. Energy monitoring system installation ' $12,150 Aug~ Mabelvale Elem. Replace HVAC units $300,000 Aug-02 Mabelvale Elem. Asbestos Abatement - $107,000 Aug-02 Mabelvale Elem. Energy efficient lighting I $106,598 Dec-02 Mabelvale MS Renovate bleachers -I $134,793 __A ug-_Ql Mabelvale MS Renovation $6,851,621 Mar-04 Mann 1 Partial Replacement --- - $11,500,000 ~ -- Apr-04 -Ma-nn - Asphalt walks --- The total $1.8 million Dec-01 Mann Walkway canopies is what has been Dec-01 -- - Mann Boiler replacement -- used so far on the Oct-01 -- Mann - Fencing projects listed Sep~ Mann Partial demolition/portable classroom~completed for Mann. Aug-01 McClellan Athletic Field Improvement $38,000 Jul-03 -- McClellan Irrigation System $14,750 Jul-03 McClellan Security cameras I $36,300 Jun-01 McClellan Energy efficient lighting $303,614 . May-01 McClellan Stadium stands repair i $235,QQQ I Aug-01 McClellan Intercom T $46,000 Feb-02 McClellan Classroom Addition I $2,155,622 Jul-04 -- McDermott Fire Alarm Upgrade I $7,700 Sep-04 McDermott Energy efficient lighting I $79,411 Feb-01 McDermott Replace roof top HVAC units ' $476,000 Aug-02 Meadowcliff Fire alarm I $16,175 Jul-01 -- --- Meadowcliff !Asbestos abatement I $253,412 Aug-02 Meadowcliff Engergy efficient lighting $88,297 Dec-02 -- - - Metropolitan Replace cooling tower I $37,203 Dec-00 ---- Me!ropolitan - _ R~place shop vent system -- $20,000 May-01 Metropolitan Energy monitoring system installation - $17,145 Aug-_Ql Mitchell BuildingR emediation - $165,000 Jul-04 Mitchell Energy efficient lighting $103,642 Apr-01 Mitchell Energy monitoring system installation $16,695 Jul-01 Mitchell Asbestos abatement $13,000 Jul-01 Oakhurst HVAC renovation $237,237 Aug-01 Otter Creek Energy monitoring system installation $10,695 May-01 Otter Creek Energy efficient lighting $81,828 Apr-01 Otter Creek Asbestos abatement $10,000 Aug-02 - Otter Creek Parking lot $138,029 Aug-02 Otter Creek 6 classroom addition $888,778 Oct-02 -- - - Otter Creek Parkinq Improvements $142,541 Aug-03 3 CONSTRUCTIONREPORTTOTHEBOARD MARCH 24, 2005 BOND PROJECTS THAT HAVE BEEN COMPLETED Facility Name I Project Description I Cost I Est. Completion Date Parkview Addition $2,121,226 Dec-04 Parkview HVAC controls I $210,000 Jun-02 Parkview Roof replacement i $273,877 Sep-01 Parkview Exterior lights $10,784 Nov-00 Parkview HVAC renovation \u0026amp; 700 area controls I $301,938 Aug-01 Parkview 1 Locker replacement I $120,000 Aug-01 Parkview Energy efficient lighting $315,000 Jun-01 Procurement Energy monitoring system installation $5,290 Jun-02 Procurement Fire alarm I $25,000 Aug-03 Pulaski Hgts. Elem Renovation $1,193,259 Nov-04 -- -- Pulaski Hgts. Elem Move playground - $17,000 Dec-02 Pulaski Hgts. MS Renovation $3,755,041 Nov-04 -- - Rightsell Energy efficient lighting $84,898 Apr-01 Rockefeller Energy efficient lighting $137,004 Mar-01 Rockefeller I Replace roof top HVAC $539,175 Aug-01 Rockefeller Parking addition -- - $111,7~ Aug-02 Romine Asbestos abatement $10,000 Apr-02 Romine Major renovation \u0026amp; addition --~- $3,534,675 -- Mar-03 - Security/Transportation Bus cameras $22,500 Jun-01 Southwest I Addition $2,000,000 Nov-04 Southwest Asbestos abatement $28,138 Aug-00 Southwest !New roof $690,000 Oct-03 Southwest Energy efficient lighting $168,719 Jan-02 Southwest Drainage/ street widening $250,000 Aug-03 Student Assignment Energy monitoring system installation $4,830 Aug-02 Student Assignment I Fire alarm $9,000 Aug-03 Tech Center Phase 1 Renovation $275,000 Dec-01 Tech Ctr/ Metro Renovation Addition/Renovation - Phase II $3,679,000 Jun-04 Technology Upgrade Upgrade phone system \u0026amp; data Nov-02 Terry Energy efficient lighting $73,850 Feb-01 Terry Driveway \u0026amp; Parking I $83,484 Aug-02 Terry Media Center addition $704,932 Sep-02 Wakefield Rebuild $5,300,000 Dec-04 Wakefield Security cameras $8,000 Jun-01 Wakefield Energy efficient lighting $74,776 Feb-01 Wakefield - Demolition/Asbestos Abatement ----- $200,000 Nov-02 -- Washington Fire Alarm Upgrade $11,600 Oct-04 - -- Washington Security cameras $7,900 Jun-01 Washington - Energy efficient lighting $165,281 ~ r -Q! Watson ~E~rgy monitoring system installation _ $8,530-- Jul-01 --- - - - -- - Watson - - - Asbestos abatement $182,241 Aug-01 -- Watson Energy efficien_!Jighting $106,868 Aug-01 - Watson Asbestos abatement $10,000 Aug-02 Watson Major renovation \u0026amp; addition $800,000 Aug-02 Western Hills Fire Alarm Upgrade $8,400 Oct-04 Western Hills ADA Rest rooms $25,000 Aug-04 Western Hills Asbestos abatement $191 ,946 Aug-02 Western Hills Intercom $7,100 Dec-01 Western Hills Energy efficient lighting_ $106,000 Jul-01 Williams Renovation - -- -- - $2,106,492 Mar-04 Williams Parking expansior:._s $183,717 Dec-03 - T - $122,719 - Williams Energy efficient lighting Jun-01 Renovation/expansion - - $1,263,876 - Wilson Feb-04 - - $110,000 - - Wilson Parking Expansion Aug-03 - Woodruff Renovation $246,419 Aug-02 4 ~... m 0 :z:c 0  -\u0026lt; C: \"\" ~ m :\u0026lt;\n,o  0  C: l]!\ni Zm ~i \"'=l m ill .?..J, i\n:o m \u0026gt; 0 z p \"t\u0026gt; 0 r- 1'i -\u0026lt; 'm- DATE: March 24, 2005 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK, AR 72201 TO: Board of Directors FROM: Roy G. Brooks, Ed.D. Superintendent of Schools SUBJECT: Board Auditor Report BACKGROUND: Monthly report to School Board. RATIONALE: Summary report of activities. FUNDING: No changes. RECOMMENDATION: None. PREPARED BY: Sandy Becker :.n.. m 0 ::c z 0  -\u0026lt; C: ~ m ~ \"i's'\n,:, m \u0026gt; 0 z ~ 2l r- n -\u0026lt; m' LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS Date: March 24, 2005 To: Board of Directors @ From: Sandy Becker, Internal Auditor Re: Audit Report - March This is the sixty-fifth communication regarding status of the current year projects and reviews. Activity Funds a) Working with two high schools, one middle school and three elementary schools to resolve financial issues in their activity funds. b) Reviewing monthly financial infonnation for all schools and assisting in resolving balance issues. c) Training school staff at schools on financial processes by request. Activities Advisory Board (AAB) a) Assist the Activities Advisory Board in its mission to strengthen the effectiveness and viability of activities in the District. . b) The AAB has forwarded a Booster Club Guidelines Package to be included in official publications of the District after review. Board Policy and Regulation a) The amended Out of District Travel regulation is on the agenda to facilitate the use of Pro Cards in a limited manner for travel expenditures. Technology a) Monitoring technology plans and technology meetings to detennine how use of technology will improve and streamline the workflow for staff persons. b) Facilitating technology upgrade in cooperation with the English Department for Yearbook and Newspaper production staff in LRSD high schools to improve access to tools needed for students and staff. Training a) Served as a trainer for financial portion of Tuts \u0026amp; Bolts, Bookkeeper \u0026amp; Secretaries Training, Security Guard Training, individual school in-service meetings, and others as needed. Working to facilitate best means to improve financial processes and increase accountability for resources. Training new bookkeepers on bookkeeping procedures as requested. Audit Report - March 2005 Page 2 of2 b) Placed training material, smart worksheets, and other helpful items on the Teachers Lounge section of the Little Rock School District web page. c) Coordinated guidelines and aids to inform and assist new activity sponsors of specific tasks relating to each activity. Added new checklist for spirit sponsors and smart spreadsheet for fundraiser reconciliation. This information is now in the Teachers Lounge section of the District web page. d) Developed skills test for financial positions. Implementing in coordination with Human Resources. Audit Area Sampling and Review of Financial Procedures Other a) Pulling samples of district expenditures to test for accuracy, accountability, and compliance with District policies. Reviewing district payroll processes for compliance, economy and efficiency, internal controls, and cost control. Working with Financial Services Payroll on internal control and processing issues. b) c) d) e) f) g) h) a) b) c) Working with Financial Services on internal controls and rules for payroll processes and implementation of a new interface system. Monitoring other selected risk areas for efficiency, cost effectiveness, and compliance with District policies. Reviewing grant programs. Working with Child Nutrition on implementation of streamlined information processing system with Information Services and Child Nutrition Staff. Monitoring cost reduction efforts in the District. Monitoring combined payroll and human resources issues for compliance with board direction and internal controls. Reviewing leave accountability system. Reviewing Teacher School Supply Fund Records for recommendations. Provided technical assistance to school staff on grant writing. Served as co-chair of Strategic Team One - Financial Resources. Served as District coordinator of United Way's Day of Caring (April 17, 2004) and on planning committee for 2005. Problem Resolution a) I have made myself available to help resolve financial issues, assist in improving processes, and help find solutions to questions that arise. Please let me know if you need further information. My telephone number is 501-447-1115. My e-mail is sandy.becker@lrsd.org. :,, nl (\") ::,: z 0  -\u0026lt; C: ~ m ~ \"6'\n\u0026lt;) m )\u0026gt; 0 z p \"C ,0.. . n -\u0026lt; \u0026lt;... m DATE: March 24, 2005 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK, AR 72201 TO: Board of Directors FROM: Roy G. Brooks, Ed.D. Superintendent of Schools SUBJECT: Technology Report BACKGROUND: Since the last Board meeting the following technology activities took place:  The Edline project has expanded to McClelland and Central High School this month. By March 25, teachers at both schools will be trained to send grades to Edline. Parents will be trained shortly after Spring Break.  The computer refresh program for the 2004-2005 school year started in January. By the end of June the District will have replaced approximately 1000 old Windows 95 and Windows 98 computers in fourteen schools. Since we have been notified of reimbursed E-rate funds for 2003-2004, we will continue the replacement cycle through the summer.  Five elementary schools will implement the new Compass Learning Enterprise software this month. Software will be loaded at the Technology Center to be accessed by students at 5 elementary schools. This version of the software is directly correlated to Arkansas Curriculum Frameworks. After the software has been tested within the District network, it will be opened up for students and teachers to access from home. RATIONALE: To implement the LRSD Technology Plan 2003 - 2006 FUNDING: N/A RECOMMENDATION: :c:\na \u0026gt;0  c :1:::! z~ ~f\n(I) =l m\na (I) !l' \"5'\na ~ 0 z 0 \"C 0 r-c'i -\u0026lt; 'm- It is recommended that the Board accept this report. PREPARED BY: Lucy Neal, Director, Technology and Media Services John Ruffins, Director, Computer Information Services DATE: March 24, 2005 TO: Board of Directors LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK, AR 72201 FROM: Roy G. Brooks, Ed.D. Superintendent of Schools SUBJECT: Grant Application: School-Based Tobacco Use Prevention Project: 2005-06 Background: Through tobacco-settlement dollars received by the state of Arkansas, the Arkansas Department of Health has issued a Request for Applications to fund school-based tobacco prevention initiatives, for which local school districts are eligible to apply. Priorities to be addressed in the proposal include the development and maintenance of and compliance with comprehensive tobacco free policies for all students and employees\nimplementation of research-based tobacco prevention supplemental curricula K-12, and the reduction of the number of children and youth who initiate smoking or the use of other tobacco products. The Little Rock School District has received a tobacco prevention grant award from the Arkansas Department of Health for the last two years. This proposal is a renewal request for year three. A full-time tobacco coordinator/trainer is required to carry out the activities included in the grant. Goals \u0026amp; Objectives: 1. To reduce the initiation of tobacco use among Little Rock School District adolescents to 16% by January, 2007. 2. To reduce the suspension rate for smoking related offenses in Little Rock School District schools. 3. To implement and maintain a comprehensive tobacco prevention policy that prohibits the use of tobacco products on school grounds and in any other district facility or at any school-related event. 4. To implement research-based tobacco prevention curricula and programs, K-12, that provide students with the knowledge, skills and understanding to resist tobacco usage and maintain a healthy lifestyle. f) !I:: 0 C: \u0026gt; C: C C: a, 0 z ~ ?- ?' \"5'\nc m \u0026gt; C z .p,, 0 r-c'i -\u0026lt; L.. m Rationale: The initiation of daily smoking often begins in grades five through nine. Smokers who begin at a young age find it hardest to quit. Each day, approximately 4,400 youth in the U.S. between the ages of twelve and seventeen try their first cigarette. In Arkansas, 23. 7 percent of all high school students (9-12) are current smokers and 13.5 percent have used chew tobacco or snuff at least once in the past 30 days. School-based programs can reach children and adolescents when they are most vulnerable to starting a tobacco habit or before their tobacco use has become a strong addiction. Moreover, children spend a third of their waking time in school, and much of the peer pressure kids feel regarding whether or not to use tobacco occurs in school. At the same time, school-based tobacco prevention strategies are most likely to have a strong, enduring effect when supported by strong anti-tobacco school district policies. Funding: Grant Budget: $100,000.00 - No match required. Recommendation: It is recommended that the board approve the submission of this grant application. Prepared By: Junious Babbs, Assoc. Superintendent-Administrative Services Jo Evelyn Elston, Director - Pupil Services Department DATE: March 24, 2005 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK, AR 72201 TO: Board of Directors FROM: Roy G. Brooks, Ed.D. Superintendent of Schools SUBJECT: Second Reading: Revision of Policy JE - Student Enrollment, Attendance, and Transfers BACKGROUND: Expanded language in Arkansas State Statutes for school enrollment, birth documentation and transfers has been recommended by the State Standards Monitoring Team. RATIONALE: Arkansas Department of Education compliance. FUNDING: No funding is required. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the board adopt revised Policy JE - Student Enrollment, Attendance, and Transfers PREPARED BY: Junious Babbs, Associate Superintendent for Administrative Services fl 31: 0 C: \u0026gt; C: C C: a, 0 z \u0026gt;\na ?\u0026lt; ~ \u0026gt;:= :.,,:r \u0026lt;J\u0026gt;c n-\u0026lt; ::I.! ::c:z ~~ 3_1: cC z\n:, mc\nan (J) u LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPN CODE: JE STUDENT ENROLLMENT, ATTENDANCE, and TRANSFERS The Little Rock School District is open and free to any child five (5) through twenty-one (21) years who resides within the District and has not graduated from high school. Children who attain the age of five (5) on or before September 15th of a given year will be eligible to attend kindergarten during that school year. School attendance is required until a student's eighteenth (18th ) birthday. All students are required to maintain a level of attendance that will enable them to discharge their responsibility as learners and will enable the school to meet its obligations to the students. Parents/guardians seeking enrollment of a child in the District will provide the following:  Certified copy of birth certificate, visa/passport or military I.D. card, and /or other documentation as provided by law (A.C.A. 6-18-208)  Proof of address (lease agreement, current utility bill, or personal property tax bill)  The child's immunization record  Social security number or request that the District assign an alternate nine-digit number  Expulsion records if applicable Any student transferring from a school accredited by the Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) to another school accredited by the ADE will be placed into the same grade the student would have been in had the student remained at the former school. Any student transferring from home school or a school that is not accredited by the ADE to a school that is accredited by the ADE will be evaluated by the staff of that accredited school to determine that student's proper placement in the accredited school. All transfer students must meet the graduation requirements of the Little Rock School District in order to receive a diploma. The LRSD high schools will accept transfer credits, grades and grade placement for students who previously attended Arkansas high schools that are accredited by the Arkansas Department of Education. Students transferring from out-of-state schools or from Arkansas schools that are not accredited by the Arkansas Department of Education will be assessed by the school staff to determine appropriate grade placement and course credit. Multiple criteria, LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPN CODE: JE (continued) including the following as appropriate, will be used for decision-making in determining grade placement and credit: 1. Any performance data presented by the sending school and/or parents, such as portfolios of work, project samples, etc. 2. Indicators of achievement such as report cards, reports from participation in virtual schools, correspondence course reports, and dual-enrollment college reports. 3. Results of norm-referenced tests. 4. Results of criterion-referenced tests that are part of the sending state's NCLB accountability plan. 5. Results of assessments administered by the sending school staff, such as local criterion-referenced tests in language arts, mathematics, science, and social studies\ntests available through educational software programs used by the school, etc. 6. Results of \"credit-by-examinations\" in the core subject areas administered by LRSD. 7. Information gained from oral interviews with the students or performance tasks administered by LRSD staff. Students who transfer into a Little Rock School District high school from a home school or an unaccredited high school must attend at least two (2) semesters in order to receive a high school diploma (see IKED and IKED-R) and must attend at least four semesters to be eligible for rank-in-class (see IKC-R). Foreign Exchange students who complete the senior year in good standing may, at the discretion of the principal, participate in the graduation ceremony. Revised: Revised: May 23, 2002 Adopted: May 25, 2000 Legal References: A.C.A. 6-18-201(a), A.CA 6-18-202, A.C.A. 6-18-207(a) Cross References: Board of Education Policy and Regulations JLCB, IKF, IKED, IKED-R, IKC-R and the LRSD Student Handbook 2 f\u0026gt; ii: 0 c:: \u0026gt; c:: C c:: a:, 0 z \u0026gt; :,::, ?\" DATE: TO: For consideration of a suspension of the rules. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK, AR 72201 March 24, 2005 Board of Directors FROM: Roy G. Brooks, Ed.D. Superintendent of Schools SUBJECT: The Establishment of a Tri-District Charter School for the purpose of housing the Pulaski Alternative Learning Academy (PALA) and the Juvenile Justice Step One-Program BACKGROUND: The Pulaski Alternative Learning Academy (PALA) was operated through a Juvenile Justice Department Grant which was established with the Juvenile Justice Judges and the three school districts, LRSD, NLRSD, and PCSSD. The three Juvenile Judges placed students in the program as a last alternative before placing them in juvenile detention facilities. The JJC Step-One Program is currently housed in the Juvenile Justice Complex and is funded by the three school districts, OHS, and the Pulaski County Government. Representatives from the three school districts place students in the Step-One Program who have committed serious offenses and/or who have had weapons on their campuses or at school-related activities. RATIONALE: Currently, none of the school districts claim the students for ADM purposes who have been placed in the PALA program. The LRSD presently uses the Step-One Program to place students who have displayed serious behaviors in school and/or have had guns on a school campus. If the program were discontinued, the district would not have a program/or facility to place these students. FUNDING: Since this would be the first year the school would be in operation, funding would come from a $350,000.00 special improvement appropriation provided by the state leg islature, a $150,000.00 Charter School Implementation Grant provided by the ADE, $141 ,000.00 provided by OHS and approximately $170,000.00 that is currently being provided by the three school districts for the JJC Step-One Program. The Pulaski County Government plans to provide the facility and the building maintenance. NOTE: Additional funding would come from the allocation of seats to the three school districts which will be determined in future meetings. !I' ~ :t: 8,.... n ~ mz i !..I..' m ~ CD 8\n\u0026gt;: \u0026gt; 8 '.!l 0 z ~ :I: 0 C: \u0026gt; C: 0 C: CD 0 z \u0026gt; \"?\u0026lt;' ~ \u0026gt;\n: :.., :i en C -\u0026lt; 3 (\") ~ :t: 2 ~ ~\n_i:cC z\n:, me \"e'n\"\" RECOMMENDATION: The administration recommends that the Little Rock School District form a partnership with the North Little Rock School District, and the Pulaski County Special School District for the purpose of establishing a Tri-District Conversion Charter School in conjunction with the Juvenile Courts. Little Rock School District would serve as the Lead Educational Agency (LEA) and would claim the students for funding purposes. PREPARED BY: Linda Watson LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK, AR 72201 DATE: TO: March 24, 2005 Board of Directors FROM: Roy G. Brooks, Ed.D. Superintendent of Schools SUBJECT: Second Reading: Policy Revisions: IKF - General Education Graduation Requirements\nIAA- Professional Development BACKGROUND: The Board of Education policies IKF - General Education Graduation Requirements and IAA - Professional Development require slight revisions in order to ensure compliance with Arkansas state statutes and Arkansas Department of Education Standards for Accreditation. RATIONALE: Little Rock School District Board of Education policies will be updated to ensure all are current, clear and compliant. FUNDING: None required. RECOMMENDATION: Board adoption is recommended for policies IKF - General Education Graduation Requirements and IAA - Professional Development. PREPARED BY: Dr. Olivine Roberts, Associate Superintendent for Curriculum and Instruction !J:I ~ ::,: ,8- (\") ~ m z C \u0026gt;\n,o .!\".\u0026gt;, m\n,o !S z z ,m- (\") ::,: \u0026gt;z C) m Cl\u0026gt; !J:I  a:, 8\n:,\u0026lt;: \u0026gt; 8 ~ 0z !\"\u0026gt; ll: 0 C: \u0026gt; C: C C: a:, 0 z \u0026gt;\n,o ?\" :: :\u0026gt;_.\",:,' C/)c: -\u0026lt; :f n:. ::,: 2\n,.,\n:, ~~ 3_: cC: Z\n:\u0026lt; mC'\n,\n, \" Cl\u0026gt; u LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPN CODE: IKF GENERAL EDUCATION GRADUATION REQUIREMENTS The Little Rock School District Board of Education believes that students should graduate from high school possessing the skills, knowledge, and attitudes needed for responsible citizenship, life-long learning, and productive employment in our modern economy. Programs for post-secondary preparation will be available to equip students for the advanced training that will be needed for the work of the 21 st century. The Little Rock School District will be responsible for providing the educational opportunities and experiences that will enable our students to take full advantage of post-secondary education and employment opportunities available to them after graduation. The District shares with the state of Arkansas the commitment to ensure all students have access to a rigorous curriculum. The District' general graduation requirements meet and exceed the State's adopted Smart Core or Common Core curriculum. Diploma-Earning Options A student may earn a diploma from a Little Rock School District high school in one of four ways. Each has different requirements and different numbers of required units of credit. 1. Diploma from any of the five high schools for completion of the required 24 units for tho classes of 2002 and 2003\nor the required 26 units for the class of 2004 and after. 2. Diploma from any of the -five high schools for completion of the Little Rock Scholars curriculum of 27 units for tho class of 2003\nor 28 units, including at least eight PreAdvanced Placement or Advanced Placement courses, for the class of 2004 and after. Hall High School students may take University Studies courses as substitutes for Pre-Advanced Placement and/or Advanced Placement courses. 3. Diploma earned at the Accelerated Learning Center for completion of the 21 units required by the State of Arkansas. 4. Diploma with waived or altered requirements established by an Individual Education Program (IEP) team for a student identified with disabilities. Even though the graduation requirements may be changed by the Board of Education during the time a student is enrolled in high school, the requirements established for a student's graduation class (assuming graduation in four years of high school) are those he/she must meet, even though he/she may require more than four years to earn the necessary number of units. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPN CODE: IKF (continued) Units of credit will generally be earned in grades nine through twelve, except that one unit of Algebra I (or higher-level mathematics) and Level I (or higher level) of foreign language may be earned in grade eight. High school courses taken before grade eight will not satisfy a unit of credit toward graduation. (See policy IKEC for list of creditearning options.) Transfer Students All transfer students must meet the graduation requirements of the Little Rock School District in order to receive a diploma. The LRSD high schools will accept transfer credits, grades and grade placement for students who previously attended Arkansas high schools that are accredited by the Arkansas Department of Education (see JE for additional information). Students who transfer into a Little Rock School District high school from a home school or an unaccredited high school must attend at least two semesters in order to receive a high school diploma (see IKED and IKED-R) and must attend at least four semesters to be eligible for rank-in-class (see IKC-R). Foreign Exchange students who complete the senior year in good standing may, at the discretion of the principal, participate in the graduation ceremony. Senior-Year Enrollment Requirements Students participating in dual-credit courses with local colleges/universities during their senior year must be enrolled in high school courses at least half time for their senior year (four units of credit) or full-time during the fall semester in order to receive a diploma from a Little Rock School District high school. This enrollment standard is required regardless of how many credits a student may need to satisfy graduation requirements. (See IKEC-R1 for regulations governing dual-credit enrollments.) Magnet Program Seal Students who participate in the District's high school magnet programs may meet the magnet curriculum requirements through completion of the designated Career Focus courses established for each magnet. In order to receive a Magnet Seal, magnet students must complete ill! the requirements of the magnet program. Students transferring into a magnet program after the freshman year may earn a diploma from that high school, but they will not earn the Magnet Seal. ADE Seal In order to receive the ADE Seal, students must complete the state's recommended core curriculum with a minimum grade point average of 2.75 ( see Standards for Accreditation 14.01 and 14.02). 2 ?I ltl :,: 8 r ~ m z g :,0 p \"t, m :,0 is z z rm (\"') i'\nz Cl m en p ll:: 0 C: \u0026gt; C: C C: a, 0 z \u0026gt; :,0 ?\" LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT (continued) Arkansas Scholars Seal NEPN CODE: IKF Arkansas Scholars, a program of the Arkansas business \u0026amp; Education Alliance, is a partnership between the District and the Little Rock Chamber of Commerce's Education Committee. Many local businesses have agreed to recognize the achievement of Arkansas Scholars status as a symbol of high quality education. A special Arkansas Scholars seal will be affixed to the diploma and transcript of a student who meets the following standards established by the Arkansas Scholars program: 1. Earn a grade of \"C\" or above in all courses. 2. Achieve a 95 percent or better attendance record for each of the four years of high school. 3. Complete high school in eight consecutive semesters. 4. Complete successfully at least three units in science, three units in mathematics, three units of social studies, and four units in English. Honors Diploma Seal A special Honors Seal will be affixed to the diploma and transcript of a student who meets the following standards: 1. Completes the units required for the Little Rock Scholars curriculum, which includes and goes beyond the requirements of the Arkansas Higher Education Coordinating Board for unconditional admission to any public two-year or fouryear institution of higher education in Arkansas and which includes, but goes beyond, the requirements for eligibility for the Arkansas Challenge Scholarship. The Little Rock Scholars curriculum also reflects the admission requirements of the most competitive universities in the United States of America. 2. Successfully completes a minimum of eight Pre-Advanced Placement or Advanced Placement courses over a four-year period. Hall High School students may take University Studies courses as substitutes for Pre-Advanced Placement and/or Advanced Placement courses. Other approved dual-credit courses offered to LRSD students in collaboration with area colleges/ universities may also be substituted for the Pre-AP or AP requirement. 3. Earns a grade-point-average of at least 3.5. Students designated for valedictory or salutatory recognition must have completed the Little Rock Scholars curriculum. Recognition of Graduates Each high school may design its own traditions to commend and celebrate the achievements of the following sets of graduates: 1. The valedictorian and salutatorian\n2. Students earning an overall average of 3.5 or above\n3 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPN CODE: IKF (continued) 3. Students earning Magnet Program, Arkansas Scholars, Little Rock Scholars, and/or Honors Diploma Seals\n4. Members of the National Honor Society or similar honors organization\n5. Scholarship recipients\n6. Students with perfect attendance throughout high school\nand 7. Students whose other achievements are worthy of special recognition. Participation in Graduation Ceremony In order to be a participant in the graduation ceremony, the student must be within one unit of completing the graduation requirements and must have paid the tuition for the one-half or one unit to be taken in summer school (or, alternately, in another approved credit-earning program). All high school students and their parents will be informed in writing of this expectation when course lists and graduation requirements are published for the spring registration process. Principals will make a determination of potential graduates at the end of the junior year and each quarter of the students' senior year and inform students and their parents immediately if it is determined that the student is in danger of not graduating. Such students will be advised of all the appropriate credit-earning options, including, but not limited to, evening high school, summer school, correspondence courses, online courses, credit-by-examination, and placement at the Accelerated Learning Center. Award of Diploma The award of the high school diploma will not be made until all graduation requirements are met. Specific Course Requirements The following table specifies the required courses for graduation for each curriculum area. Revised: Revised: January 22, 2004 Adopted: July 22, 1999 Legal References: A.C.A. 6-15-1101 , Standards of Accreditation 9.03, 14.01 , 14.02 Cross References: Board of Education Policies and Regulations IKED, JE, IKED-R, IKC-R, and IKEC-R1 , and the LRSD Student Handbook 4 ~ ::c 8 rn \"l!= m z ~ fl \"D m :x, ~ z z m rn ::c \u0026gt;z C, m Cl\u0026gt; !..\".. s a, 8\n:,,\n\u0026gt; 8 '.!l 6 z fl ll: 0 C: \u0026gt; C: 0 C: a, 0 z \u0026gt; :x, ?\" ~ \u0026gt;\" :.., :i cn C -n\u0026lt; :3. ::,: 2 ~ ~ 3_: cC Z\ni\u0026lt; me\n,:, \" Cl\u0026gt;CJ High School Graduation Requirements Little Rock School District Reauired, Classes of 2004 and After Reauired, ACC Students English-4 units English-4 units English I (ESL, Regular, or Pre-AP)\nand English I (ESL, Regular, or Pre-AP)\nand English II (ESL, Regular, or Pre-AP)\nand English II (ESL, Regular, or Pre-AP)\nand English Ill (ESL, Regular, or AP)\nand English Ill (ESL, Regular, or AP)\nand English IV (ESL, Regular, or AP). English IV (ESL, Regular, or AP). Oral Communications-1/2 unit Oral Communications-1/2 unit Communications IA (1/2 unit) Communications IA--one-half unit English Language Arts-1/2 unit One-half unit from any English, Journalism, or Communications course. Modern Grammar (1/2) is strongly recommended. Mathematics--3 units Mathematics-3 units Algebra I (ESL, Regular, or Pre-AP)\nand Algebra I (ESL, Regular, or Pre-AP)\nand Algebra II (ESL, Regular, or Pre-AP) or Statistics Algebra II (ESL, Regular, or Pre-AP) or Statistics (ESL, Regular, or AP)\nand (ESL, Regular, or AP)\nand Geometry (ESL, Regular, or Pre-AP) Concepts of Geometry (ESL or Regular) or Statistics (ESL, Regular, or AP) will no longer Geometry (ESL, Regular, or Pre-AP) substitute for Algebra II for the Class of 2007. Effective for the Class of 2007, four (4) units of mathematics are required in grades 9-12. All students must take a mathematics course in arade 11 or 12 and comolete Aloebra II. Science--3 units Science-3 units Physics I (ESL, Regular, or Pre-AP)\nand Physical Science or Physics I\nand Biology I\nand Biology I (ESL, Regular, or Pre-AP)\nand One additional unit Chemistry I (ESL, Regular, or Pre-AP) Social Studies--3 units Social Studies-3 units Civics (ESL, Regular, or Pre-AP) or United States Civics (ESL, Regular, or Pre-AP) or United States Government (ESL, Regular, or AP)\nand Government (ESL, Regular, or AP)\nand World History (ESL, Regular, or AP)\nand World History (ESL, Regular, or AP)\nand United States History (ESL, Regular, or AP) United States History (ESL, Regular, or AP) Physical Education-1/2 unit Physical Education-1/2 unit Physical Education IA Physical Education IA Health and Safety-1/2 unit Health and Safety-1/2 unit Health and Safety Health and Safety Fine Arts-1 unit Fine Arts-1/2 unit One unit from art, dance, drama, or music Technology--1 unit None One unit from any of the approved technology courses. Career Focus-3 units Career Focus-3 units At least three units from any of the approved Career Three units from any of the approved Career Focus proqrams. Focus proqrams. 5 High School Graduation Requirements Little Rock School District (continued) Electives-6 units (5 units, effective for Class of Electives-3 units 2007) A fourth year of both science and social studies is encouraged, as are at least two units of foreign language. Total-26 units Total-21 units Although not required to do so, students graduating in 2004 through 2006 are encouraged to complete the requirements for the Class of 2007, especially the four units of mathematics in grades 9-12. 6 f\u0026gt; \"0 m\no is z z,m.. . n $\nz Cl m u, !.D... ~ 8\n,: \u0026gt; 8 ~ 5 z f\u0026gt; !I: 0 C: \u0026gt; C: C C: a, 0 z \u0026gt;\no ?' ~  \" :., ::i u, C n-\u0026lt;: ,:i,i ::i: 2 ~~ 3_: cC z\n,: mr\nuo, (\"J Little Rock Scholars Curriculum The Board of Education recommends that students elect the challenge of a more rigorous graduation plan than the minimum requirements, including at least eight Pre-Advanced Placement or Advanced Placement courses (or University Studies courses at Hall High or approved dual-credit courses). Little Rock Scholars, Class of 2004 and After English--4 units English I (ESL, Regular, or Pre-AP)\nand English II (ESL, Regular, or Pre-AP)\nand English Ill (ESL, Regular, Pre-AP, or AP)\nand Enolish IV (ESL, Reoular, or AP). Oral Communications-1/2 unit Communications IA English Language Arts-1/2 unit Any one-half unit from Enolish, Communications, or Journalism. Modern Grammar is stronoly encouraoed. Mathematics--4 units (in grades 9-12, class of 2007} Algebra I (ESL, Regular, or Pre-AP)\nand Algebra II (ESL, Regular, or Pre-AP)\nand Geometry (ESL, Regular, or Pre-AP)\nand One or more additional units of advanced mathematics for the completion of four units in orades 9-12. Science--4 units Active Physics (ESL or Regular) or Physics I Pre-AP\nand Biology I (ESL, Regular, or Pre-AP)\nand Chemistry I (ESL, Regular, or Pre-AP)\nand One additional unit Social Studies--4 units Civics (ESL, Regular, or Pre-AP) or United States Government (ESL, Regular, or Pre-AP)\nand World History (ESL, Regular, Pre-AP, or AP)\nand United States History (ESL, Regular, Pre-AP, or AP)\nand One additional unit Foreign Language-2 units Two units of any one foreion lanouaoe Physical Education-1/2 unit Physical Education IA Health and Safety-1/2 unit Health and Safety Fine Arts-1 unit One unit from art, dance, drama, or music Technology-1 unit* One unit from any of the approved technolooy courses. Career Focus-3 units* Three units from any of the approved Career Focus proorams. Electives-3 units Total-28 units *Students graduating in 2004 through 2006 are encouraged to take four units of mathematics m grades 9-12, although they are not required to do so since their plan only specified three units of mathematics. If they do choose to take the Class of 2007 plan, they may also reduce the requirements in Technology and Career Focus and have three electives instead of one. 7 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPN CODE: IAA PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT The Board of Education is committed to providing the best possible educational opportunities for all students in the District. The Board will, therefore, commit the necessary time and other resources to a comprehensive professional development program that will be driven primarily by student performance data and result in improved educational achievement and equity of outcomes for all students. The Board recognizes that the key to a quality professional development program is the establishment of an environment that facilitates and nurtures customer service, continuous learning, data-driven decisions, and continuous improvement at every level of the District. By definition a learning community member assumes responsibility for his or her own growth. The District, however, has the responsibility to encourage, facilitate, and provide a full range of learning opportunities, including job-embedded learning, study groups and seminars, workshops, informational or awareness sessions, in-depth study, access to resources and distance learning, in-classroom coaching and follow-up, tuition reimbursement for university courses, conference attendance, participation on various committees, and so forth . Required Professional Development As per State Board of Education regulations, all certified employees of the District will complete a minimum of sixty (60) required approved hours of professional development annually. The professional development calendar begins July 1 and ends June 30. Any excess professional development hours earned in a given year cannot be carried over to the next school year. An employee who misses any part of regularly scheduled professional development activities for any reason (such as sickness) must make up that time in other professional development activities so that the sixty (60) required hours are earned by each certified employee of the District prior to June 30. Approved professional development activities must relate to one or more of the following areas: content (Pre K - 12)\ninstructional strategies\nassessment\nadvocacy/ leadership\nsystemic change process\nstandards, frameworks, and curriculum alignment\nsupervision\nmentoring/coaching\ninstructional technology\nprinciples of learning/developmental stages\ncognitive research\nand building a collaborative learning community.  At least six (6) of the sixty (60) hours of required professional development will be in the area of educational technology. At least two (2) hours for teachers and !\"\u0026gt; \"'0 m\na lS z ,mz.. n $: z C) m fJ) !.X...' m ~ a, 8\n:,,\n\u0026gt; 8 '.!:l 6 z !\"\u0026gt; :I: 0 C: \u0026gt; C: C C: a, 0 z \u0026gt;\na ?- ~ \u0026gt;\n= :.,, :r \u0026lt;Jl c -\u0026lt; 3' c-, ), :,: 2 ~~ 3_:cC z\n, mr\na\" \u0026lt;J)CJ LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPN CODE: IAA (continued) three (3) hours for administrators will be in the area of parent involvement strategies.  Approved professional development activities that occur during the instructional day or outside the employee's annual contract days may apply toward the sixty (60) hour minimum professional development requirement.  For each administrator, the sixty (60)-hour professional development requirement will include training in data disaggregation, instructional leadership and fiscal management  A three-hour graduate-level, college credit course will count as twelve (12) hours of professional development. Professional development will be awarded only when the college credit is related to a teacher's current teaching assignment or is part of the requirements for the teacher to obtain additional certification in a subject matter that has been designated by the ADE as having critical shortage of teachers. No more than half of the required sixty (60) hours of professional development time may be met through college credit hours An effective professional development program which results in improved student learning includes, but is not limited to, the following characteristics:  has adequate financial resources, space, and time to facilitate effectiveness\n is designed in collaboration with potential participants\n is primarily driven by needs identified through the analysis of student performance data and needs identified in the school improvement plans\n includes performance evaluations of staff both to enhance strong performance and to address weaknesses\n is designed to reflect research-based best practice, to be subject-specific and site-specific as often as possible, and to align with the professional development standards established by the National Staff Development Council\n2 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPN CODE: IAA (continued)  incorporates the requirements of the State Board of Education relative to professional development activities for certified staff\n is evaluated annually for its impact on student learning. Definitions: Advocacy/leadership means building the capacity for shared visions and system improvement in order to improve student learning. Assessment means measuring and judging student performance and achievement relative to the learning standards. Building a collaborative learning community means understanding community, sensitivity, diversity, and effective communication of high expectations. Cognitive research means research about learning and application to practice. Content (PreK-12) means increasing knowledge in a discipline or domain. Educational technology means the use of any technology to enhance instruction, learning and management. Instructional strategies mean techniques or methods for teaching students. Mentoring/coaching means increasing capacity for coaching and mentoring others to assist in growth of instructional skills and effectiveness of colleagues. Principles of learning/development stages means understanding and applying knowledge about how humans learn from birth through adulthood in order to maximize achievement. Professional development means a coordinated set of planned learning activities for teachers and administrators which are standards-based and continuous. Professional development will result in individual, school-wide, and system-wide improvement designed to insure that all students demonstrate proficiency on the state academic standards. Approved professional development will be linked to the local school's improvement plan, demonstrate research-based best practice, and be subject-specific and site-specific as often as possible. 3 !D !!l :t: 8 r(\") ~ m z ~ ~ fl \"D m ~ ~ z z m r(\") $: z C\u0026gt; m en fl :I: 0 C: \u0026gt; C: C C: a, 0z ~\n-: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPN CODE: IAA ( continued) Standards, frameworks, and curriculum alignment means defining what students should know and be able to do at acceptable performance levels and organizing curriculum and instruction to bring about desired learning results. Supervision means gaining knowledge and skills in instructional management in order to improve the quality of staff members and staff performance. Systemic change process means understanding changes across an entire system such as culture, governance, community, roles, rules, responsibility, etc., to improve the education results and increase student achievement. Revised: Adopted: February 22, 2001 Legal References: A.C.A. 6-17-701 through A.C.A. 6-17-703 A.C .A. 6-15-1001 through A.C.A. 6-15-1006 Act 603 of 2003 Standards for Accreditation 15.04, 15.04.1, 15.04.2 Cross References: Arkansas Department of Education Regulations Governing Professional Development and the LRSD Strategic Plan 4 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK, AR 72201 DATE: March 24, 2005 TO: Board of Directors FROM: Roy G. Brooks, Ed.D. Superintendent of Schools SUBJECT: Secondary English/Language Arts Textbook Adoption BACKGROUND: The Little Rock School District English/Language Arts Textbook Adoption Committee began the reviewing and selection process as outlined in the LRSD policy manual in December of 2004. This process was completed in February of 2005 after several days of participation in a caravan day, a study day, and several meetings of discussion. The books were available in all secondary schools for perusal by teachers and administrators as well. A set was available at the IRC for inspection also. RATIONALE: The committee, who represented all levels and schools, worked diligently and comprehensively to determine which series most closely aligned to the State Benchmarks and Frameworks, the LRSD curriculum, and the needs of LRSD students. Much consideration was given to the support provided to both teachers and students through materials and professional development opportunities. The voting members were clear in their choices of the above series as those best suited for meeting the needs of the students and teachers of the LRSD. Much time was spent looking at the reading and writing and grammar components of the different series, and the recommended books and materials were viewed to be the best for preparing our students for success in these areas. A list of the committee members will be made available upon request. As a result of the exemplary work of the committee, the following recommendations are made for purchase for the LRSD Secondary English/Language Arts program: 1. Middle School English: Prentice Hall Series for Literature and Language Arts, all levels 6-8. 2. High School English: Holt, R_inehart and Winston Series for Literature and Language Arts, regular and Pre AP 9-12. !Xl ~ ::c 8,.... ~ m z i !\"\u0026gt; \"ti m ::tJ ~ z z m re-, $\nz C) emn ?-x - na, n c: men -\",tzl m nz eenn men om ..,\no ~ c: m l en !\"\u0026gt; I: 0 C,.: C: C C: a, 0 z  ::tJ ?\" ~ ,_\n: :..,,::i enc: n-\u0026lt; :3. ::c:z ~~ 3_:c C\nz\n,: mce:: no\"\" 3. High School AP English: McGraw-Hill - Literature: Reading Fiction, Poetry, Drama (grade 12) Five Steps to a 5- AP Lit and Comp (12) Five Steps to a 5- AP Language (11) W.W. Norton - The Norton Reader :An Anthology of Nonfiction ( 11 ) Harper \u0026amp; Roe - On Writing Well (11) Wadsworth Co.-The Informed Argument (11) 4. Journalism: National Textbook Co. - Journalism Today, Level I Jostens - Radical Write, Levels II - IV 5. Speech/Communication: Glencoe - Speech FUNDING: Textbook funding is provided by the District and the State. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Board accepts the recommendations of the Secondary English/Language Arts Textbook Adoption Committee. PREPARED BY: Suzi Davis, Director of Secondary English and Foreign Languages LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK, AR 72201 DATE: March 24, 2005 TO: Board of Directors FROM: Roy G. Brooks, Ed.D. Superintendent of Schools SUBJECT: Memorandum of Understanding by and between LRSD and Audubon Arkansas BACKGROUND: Audubon Arkansas and the Little Rock School District are renewing a previous Memorandum of Understanding to continue educational projects that center on Audubon's planned restoration of the Fourche Creek watershed and the creation of an Audubon Center in Little Rock focused on science and technology experiences. J. A. Fair, Central, Mabelvale, and Mann have been engaged with Audubon over the past few years. J. A. Fair, which has an Environmental Science theme as part of its magnet program, has been the primary partner with Audubon. Current projects that are underway at Fair include a nature trail, greenhouse, teaching garden, and sediment basin. Audubon and J. A. Fair also have an approved partnership agreement. Audubon and the District, under this MOU, propose to collaborate on:  Designing, piloting, and disseminating materials linking the Fourche Creek Restoration Project and the proposed Audubon Center\n Developing environmental studies projects involving LRSD students and Audubon and its partners\n Developing proposals to fund project activities. RATIONALE: A Memorandum of Understanding gives credence to the value of the proposed activities and indicates the importance that Audubon and LRSD give to real world, project-based learning activities. Interdisciplinary learning that will be aligned with state standards holds the prospect of increased student achievement in science, math, and literacy. Developing a sense of stewardship of the environment is another noteworthy goal. FUNDING: No funding is requested under this MOU. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Board approve this Memorandum of Understanding. PREPARED BY: Dennis Glasgow, Director of Mathematics and Science !\"' ~ ::c 8 rC') ~ mz i .r.\u0026gt;, m ::0 is z z m rC') $: z C, m (I)\n,,,x ' C') a, C') C: -m.C,1-1 -\nZ \u0026gt;m zCII nCII mCII .o,.,m::o \u0026gt;~ c: m ~(I) !\"' .... i r-ill C, C: \u0026gt;.... 0 z V, ~ \u0026gt;\n: :..,:x v, C -\u0026lt;\n: C')), ::c 2 ~~\n_i:cC z\n,: me ::0\" (I)(/ MEMORADUM OF UNDERSTANDING BY AND BETWEEN LITTLE ROCK PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICT AND AUDUBON ARKANSAS This MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING (\"MOU'') between Little Rock Public Schools and Audubon Arkansas, the Arkansas State Program of National Audubon Society, Inc., (\"Audubon\"). The MOU is designed to foster a community and educational environmental leadership partnership between the District and Audubon. The focus of the partnership will be built around Audubon's planned restoration of the Fourche Creek watershed and the creation of an Audubon Center in Little Rock focused on science and technology experiences. 1. Audubon and the District intend to pursue the following areas of cooperation ( collectively, the \"Projects\"), subject to the execution by the parties of a written agreement for each such project setting forth the specific terms thereof prior to beginning work thereon: A. Collaboration with Little Rock Public School District schools to design, pilot, and disseminate materials linking Fourche Creek Restoration Project and the proposed Audubon center. These materials would include teacher resource packets, teacher training workshops, and student project opportunities. The materials would focus on an understanding of local environmental systems--watershed science and stewardship, native plants and animals, and human impact on those systems. The Winthrop Rockefeller Foundation provides support for Common Ground, Audubon's educational initiative. Support for the Fourche Creek Education and Restoration Project is provided by the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. B. Development of environmental studies projects involving LR public school students and Audubon's Fourche Creek Restoration Project and its governmental and educational partners. Federal, state, and city agencies, the Environmental Protection Agency, Arkansas Soil and Water, Department of Environmental Quality, Arkansas Forestry Commission, Arkansas Game and Fish Commission, Arkansas Heritage, Little Rock Public Works, and Little Rock City Parks. Educational partnerships include the University of Arkansas Extension and Environmental and Spatial Technology (EAST) initiative. C. Collaboration in proposal development for funding and sponsorship of the Projects is expected with the understanding that the MOU does not obligate either party to financially support or fundraise for the benefit of this MOU. Additional funding of equipment, travel, and restoration expenses could be developed via grants, partnerships, and donations. 2. The Projects will be developed under the direction of Roy Brooks, Superintendent of Little Rock Public Schools and Ken Smith, Executive Director of Audubon Arkansas, who hereby designate the following individuals to work closely with each other to ensure the success of the Projects: Dr. Olivine Roberts, Associate Superintendent for Curriculum and Instruction Cassandra Norman, Principal, J. A. Fair Magnet High School, LRPSD Ann Blaylock, Principal, Mablevale Magnet Middle School, LRPSD Dennis Glasgow, Director of Mathematics and Science, LRPSD Mary M. Smith, Director of Education, Audubon Arkansas Kevin Pierson, Director, Fourche Creek Restoration, Audubon Arkansas 3. The parties affirm that, absent an agreement to the contrary signed by each party, this MOU shall not result in i) the transfer of ownership or control of any intellectual property between the parties\nii) a requirement that either party share information that the party considers to be proprietary, confidential or beyond the scope of the MOU\nor iii) an obligation by either party to financially support or fundraise for the benefit of this MOU. The District further agrees that it will not use Audubon's name or trademarks, including but not limited to AUDUBON, in any written manner accessible to the public without Audubon's prior written approval. Similarly, Audubon agrees that it will not use the District's name or trademarks in any written manner accessible to the public without the District's prior written approval. 4. This Agreement shall be in effect for two years, at which time it shall be reviewed for possible extension. Either party may terminate the agreement by providing written notice of termination to the other. Superintendent of Little Rock School District Roy G. Brooks, Ed.D. Executive Director, Audubon Arkansas Kenneth L. Smith, Vice President National Audubon Society Monique Quinn, ChiefFinancial Officer !I' lll ::i: 8,- (\") ~ zm ~ .r,\u0026gt;, m\n:o ~ z z m,- (\") $\nz C) m en\n,,,x \u0026gt;  C\"la, nc:: men ~z \u0026gt;zemn nen men om ..,\n:o \u0026gt;~ C:m ~en !I' --\u0026lt; ~ ~,- ~ C) C: \u0026gt; --\u0026lt; \u0026lt;zS en DATE: TO: March 24, 2005 Board of Directors LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK, AR 72201 FROM: Roy G. Brooks, Ed.D. Superintendent of Schools SUBJECT: Request for Psychological Examiners to form a collective bargaining group with LRTCA BACKGROUND: On March 13, 2001 , a memo was submitted to the LRSD Board of Education through Dr. Les Carnine by Dr. Richard Hurley regarding the Psychological Examiners. As a group they asked permission to withdraw from the Little Rock Classroom Teachers' Association {LRCTA). Their reason was the extra schooling / training required for their position justified being placed on a higher paying salary schedule than the teachers, ala the Occupational and Physical Therapists. The Administration made a neutral recommendation regarding their request. (The memo is attached for your information.) At the regular Board meeting on March 22, 2001 , the board voted 5-1 to allow them to withdraw from the Association. This is reflected in the attached minutes under VIII. Action Agenda Item F. Psychological Examiners. One of the conditions to this withdraw is that it would not occur until the current contract was exhausted. Therefore, with the negotiations last spring for the 2003-05 school years, the examiners were removed from the Association. Working with the Chief Financial Officer, the Human Resources Director placed the examiners on the pay 06-60 schedule which is a similar placement for OTs and PTs. This was the request of the examiners in their petition to the board in 2001 . The attached petition is a request from the Psychological Examiners to form a collective bargaining group with LRCTA. It contains the signatures of fourteen (14) of the sixteen (16) examiners. Two examiners did not sign the petition. All signatures have been verified by the Human Resources Department. Also attached is board policy NEPN Code HD regarding Negotiation Practices and Process and the Recognition of Bargaining Practices and Initial Recognition. !I\u0026gt; ~ :c 8,... n ~ m z ~ .r.\u0026gt;, m\na z~ z ,m... n ~ z Cl rn\n,,,x   n a, n c: mu, ~z \u0026gt;m zU\u0026gt; nu, mu, om ..,\na \u0026gt;~ \u0026lt;=m ~u, RATIONALE: See attached petition FUNDING: Any negotiations for salary and benefits will be funded by District Operating Budget RECOMMENDATION: The Administration is making a neutral recommendation regarding their request to for a collective bargaining group with LRCT A. PREPARED BY: Beverly Williamrirector of Human Resources '.\n-4.n I ndividuai A pproach ro a World of Knowieage\" March 13, 2001 To: From: Through: Sub}ect: BoardO!E~ Dr. Richa'?~ (r ey, /ector - Human Resources Dr. Les Carnine, Superintendent of Schoois Psychological Examiners The Psychological Examiners in the Little Rock School District have requested that they, as a group, be oermitted to withdraw from the Little Rock Classroom Teacners' Association (LRCTA). Their reasoning is the extra schooling/training required for their position justifies being placed on a higher paying salary schedule than the teachers, ala the Occupational and Physical Therapists. DiSCl..!SS io n The Psychological Examiners are specifically mentioned in the Recognition clause (Article 1, Section D) of the P. N. agreement. The Occupational and Physical Therapists were not. When the Occupational and Physical Therapists requested being allowed to leave the LRCTA bargaining unit, their logic was that 1) they were not specifically covered in the recognition clause\n2) they are required by law to be licensed in their profession\n3) the profession is in great demand and therefore can command a higher salary in order to compete for licensed staff\n4) the cost difference to outsource the position instead of hiring internally was so great as to justify placing them on a different saiary schedule\n5) the schooi distric: :::or.metes with the medical profession (ie: hosoi,ais and ciinics) for their senti:::es. :.onve\nse!:~_' . :ns =:tsy:::7oiagicai =xaminsr~ =r= s2rtfiso :J~ th~ 3ta::s c.: -!,_t\n~2.ns2~ ~u:\n:~2 sar::~ 2s ~ss:\ne:~ ~~c :-1\ni~- eJ~:31::~~\ns:i:s:::a!js:\n.. 2:7: -\n-:3\n:- 35:--1.':::s~    r 'J', ~,._, \\ .... '  ----:._. 1  =- _- ,... __ _ ,..._r,_- !D !!l :,: 8,... (\") i!!: mz ~\n,\n:, f.,), m\n,\n:, lS z z ,m... (\") $\nz Cl m en\n,,,x \u0026gt;' Oc:, nc ,m,e_n __.z \u0026gt;m z en o en men om ..,\n,\n:, \u0026gt;~ Cm l en !D --\u0026lt; i,...\n,\n:, ~ C r\n: --\u0026lt; 0z en While the ?sychologicai Examiners make a compelling argument about their salary !eve!, it is believed that our curient difficulty in hiring speciaiized teachers (ie: foreign languages. science, and special education) would justify much the same salary request. Lastly, the LRCTA has officially rejected the Psychological Examiners' request to be dropped from the bargaining union. The Union's position was that to do so might cause considerable damage io the solidarity of the bargaining unit. Conclusion/Recommendation While this is truly a justifiable request on the part of the Psychological Examiners' to get higher salaries, the Administration makes a neutral recommendation regarding their request. To grant their request obviously would be of greater cost to the District and potentially would cause other specialist groups to request separate treatment from the LRCT A. This could certainly raise the issue of Union-busting on the part of the LRCTA and may not be in the iong-term best interest of the District while we are in the first year of a multi-year agreement with the Union. Cc: fvlr. 3rady Gadbeny, Associate Suoerintendent - Operations LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS MINUTES REGULAR BOARD MEETING March 22, 2001 The Board of Directors of the Littie Rock School District held its regularly scheduied meeting at 6:00 p.m. on Thursday, March 22, 2001, in the Boardroom of the Administranon Building, 810 West Markham Street, Little Rock, Arkansas. Vice President Balcer Kurrus presided. MEMBERS PRESENT: Balcer Kurrus Judy Magness Larry Berkley Micheal Daugherty Tony Rose Sue Strickland MEMBERS ABSENT: Katherine Mitchell ALSO PRESENT: I. Leslie V. Carnine, Superintendent of Schools Beverly Griffin, Recorder oflV'Jinutes CALL TO ORDER Vice President Balcer Kurrus called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. Six members of me Board were present at roll call\nDr. Mitchell was absent. In addition, ex-officio representatives to the'Board were also present: Tonya Johnson. teacher at Forest Heights ::vfiddle Schoo:. and :vfichael Gutien-ez. stuci.ent at Parkview Magner High Schooi ~vi:rn.:t=~ ::.-c-i:-~: !'. ..= : e\n1..1i:.:-r:.:-=e::::~ o:\"?e::112.:-:.- :.:::.. : .. ,~'- anL :. 3pe::12.  :.:-i~er~:g 0::. l'-.1 2.:-::\n:\n.:.. 20CJ:. v.e:-:: nrese::1ec. fo: appro'-2.l. -:\n:-:ne ,mnme~ we,:: ur.ammo ,sj.- a:3oro,,ej OL I,,,. 1n o:1ar.i. :\n: ~,\n.:-. 3e:~~e~ .. se~on:J.e:. ~: ~.\\'.!.S. ~\\.ic..p e~:. ~ ::c 8 ,- (\") ~ mz ~ fl ~\n:c is z z m,- (\") z~ C) m \"'\n,i.,., .\u0026gt;\u0026lt; (\") CD (\") C: m.,, ::!lz ,..m nz\"\"'' m\u0026lt;h om ..,\n:c c\u0026gt;: ~m ~\"' REGULAR BOARD MEETING March 22, 2001 Page6 F. Psychoiogical Examiners The District's Psychological Examiners petitioned the Board requesting that they be permitted to withdraw from the L. R. Classroom Teachers' Association. The District's administration took a neutrai position on the request and asked the Board to make a determination based on the information from the Examiners, talcing into consideration the LRCTA's opposition to the request. Mr. Berkley made a motion to approve the request from the Psychological Examiners to be removed from representation by the L. R. Classroom Teachers Association. Mrs. Magness seconded the motion. :Mr. Rose questioned the legality of taking such action while a valid contract is in force, and :tvlr. Kurrus recommended that additional discussion take place prior to making the final decision. Ms. Magness suggested that the original motion be amended to make cenain that this action would not have any effect on the current contract. Although there was no formal amendment to the motion. it was agreed by consensus that there was no iment to change the current contract by approval of the Examiner's request. The monon nassed. 5-1. with Mr. K.urrus casting the \"no\" vote. G. Short Term Debt for Bus Purchase Mr. Gadberry presented a proposal for the purchase of seven to eleven diesel buses to replace several older buses that need to be retired from the special needs transportation fleet. The administration plans to review and inspect several used buses that are available and if they are of good quaiity, we would be able to purchase eleven used buses for the same price as seven new ones. The administration requested Board approval to expend approximately $390,000 for the purchase of school buses. Mr. Berkley made a motion to approve the purchase. W1r. Rose seconded the motion and it carried unanimouslv. H. Te~hnoiogy: Dr. Stewan reviewed the information provided for consideration of a District Technology Ceme:. In aci.dinon rn a cemraiizec: technoiog: facility. :he Boan:: was asked to consider :he ::unciing p\noposai for ne~wori: sysrems integration and caiJiing for non-E-rate schools. ~aci: o: tnese projec1s w2.s suomine::: as pa::.: o::he wrn: te:::lmoiog: pi2.i., which w2.s compie,e::: ::i:  ::c1e ~ ec~: '.:,000 ,vori: group. ~::. ~te\\.\\at .. dis::.:::se::. pu::h2.sin\ne:::::~ng p!Jpe:-::y t:) i1ous\n: ~i1: ~ e:~1 =~nte-:-- :cn-r1pare:_ LC :ie c,:,s: c: 0u11Q.::1f:: ne\\.': ~2.::1r::\\_ _..:i ._r__ e::t~ns1ve repor:: ,\na5: p::-ovicied. as par: o:\" ti1~\nrimec. 2.genciL _-_::\n2.:-: o:\"thE rel)0:-:. :v.c:. :.C2.\nac.is. Director o::.Crocure::nen:. provicied mio:u:an01: or. me ?\n.eques: io: :?roposa1: io: the van.ous se::-v1ces v.rncc. w:l: oe conrrz..:Le~ U1i-OU:~-- Ollls1c:- ,enci.orE:. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPN CODE: HD NEGOTIATION PRACTICES AND PROCESS The Little Rock School District Board of Education wishes to establish a working relationship with all employees which will result in a working environment which will be as productive, efficient, and creative as possible. The Board of Education is willing to allow groups of employees to establish the type of relationship they would like to have with the Board of Education, including the communication process between the Board and the employees.  Staff members will have the opportunity to work with their supervisors to determine their working conditions, to use the process of \"Meet and Confer,\" or to select the process of negotiations. RECOGNITION OF NEGOTIATING PRACTICES While there is no legal obligation on the part of the Board of Education to negotiate with employee groups, the Little Rock School District Board of Education will voluntarily enter into negotiated agreements with certain classifications of non-management employees. It is the desire of the Board to extend negotiating rights on economic conditions of employment, e.g., -safaries and fringe benefits, to these classifications of employees, as long as this arrangement is beneficial to the employees and to the District as determined by the Board of Education. Recognition of the right to negotiate will be granted under the following condi_tions: A. That such recognition of the rights to negotiate be deemed by the Board of Education to be in the best interest of the employees and the District. 8. That such negotiating practice will be a voluntary practice of the individual groups of employees. C. That the Board of Education will recognize the official representatives of those individual groups. D. That in the opinion of the Board of Education , the employees to be represented have a community of interests, including but not limited to, the following: 1. Similarity of duties, skills, interests, and working conditions of employees. 2. Similar placement in the Little Rock School District organizational structure . For the purpose of this policy, the Board identifies the following !I' ~ ::,: 8 rn '{!: zm C ~ .f.l, m\n:a ~ z z m rn ~ z Cl m Cl\u0026gt;\ni,,x :,.  n a, n c: .m.,e_,, ... z :,.m zCI\u0026gt; c-,CI\u0026gt; me,, om ..,:::a \u0026gt;~ c: m ~Cl\u0026gt; LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPN CODE: HD (continued) groups to have differing community of interests: security officers\nbus drivers\nmaintenance workers\ncustodians\nfood service workers\nclerical personnel\nparaprofessionals\nnurses\nand teachers. If it can be shown that a different community of interest does exist, the Board of Education will be willing to combine those groups into a community for the purpose of negotiations, and reserves the right to do so. (Upon the decision of the Board of Education to alter the defined groups, this policy will be edited to reflect the change.) 3. The following positions will be excluded from the above groups because of their direct relationship with management: executive assistants and the staff assistant in the superintendent's office. Any employee who has access to information subject to use by the Board of Education in the negotiations or meet and confer process also will be excluded from the groups. E. While the Board is willing to negotiate with employee groups under the above conditions, it also recognizes the necessity-to reserve for the Boan:l and the administration, certain management rights, including, b~t not limited to establishment of policy\nto determine qualifications, hire, direct, assign, suspend, demote, promote all employees\nand to establish the work year. In this vein, the Board directs that an acceptable management rights clause be part of every negotiated agreement. PERSONNEL SERVICE OBLIGATIONS F. Any employee organization will not cause or permit its members to cause, nor will any member of the organization take part in any curtailment of work or restriction of services or interference with the operations of the District in any manner in those areas affecting work responsibility. The organization will not support the action of any employee taken in violation of this article nor will it directly or indirectly take reprisals of any kind against an employee who ' continues the full, faithful, and proper performance of his/her contractual duties, obligations, or refuses to participate in any strike or curtailment of work or restriction of services activity. Violation of this policy or Arkansas law by an organization will cause the Board of Education to remove recognition of the organization and terminate 2 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPN CODE: HD (continued) any contract. Violation of this policy or Arkansas law by any employee will cause the Board of Education to terminate the employee. The Board agrees that as long as recognition is granted, and a valid contract remains in force, the Board will not participate in a lockout. PROCESS A. Initial Recognition For a group to be initially recognized, or to challenge the recognition of the present representative, the following procedure shall be followed: A valid petition calling for a representative election will be presented to the Board of Education. For a petition to be valid it must (1) contain at least a majority of the signatures of the employee group, e9be accompanied with a statement from a -certified public accountant, mutually agreed to, that a majority of the employees of the group are bona fide dues paymg members of an organization representing the group, and (2) be presented to the Board prior to December 1 of the school year. Petitions may be circulated only in the month of November. The Board may ask the Human Resources Office to verify the signatures of the employees. If the petition is valid, the Board will schedule an election to select or decertify an official representative. B. Continued Recognition Once an organization has been recognized as the official representative of an employee group, the following procedures will be followed: The organization must present certified verification that it represents at least a majority of the employees of the employee group. To determine whether or not an organization represents a majority of the employees in the group, the Human Resources Office will provide the organization a list of all of the persons employed in the group on December 1. The organization will present a statement from a cenified public accountant, mutually agreed to, verifying that a majority of the employees on the list were bona fide dues paying members of the organization on December 1. Such verification will be presented to the Board by January 15. 3 f) .., m ::0 is zz m rn z~ C) Cl\n,,,\u0026gt;\u0026lt; \u0026gt;  n a, n c: .m.,\"_' \u0026gt;... mz nz\"\"'' men o..,:m:o \u0026gt;~ \u0026lt;=m l\"' !ll r. (' re \u0026lt; IT\nt c:: ,)\u0026gt;IT ,IT-IT ~ LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPN CODE: HD (continued) If the organization fails to provide such verification by January 15, the Board will withdraw its recognition of the group. The Board will schedule an election to determine the desire of the employees concerning representation. C. Elections 1 . The ballot used for representation elections will be approved by the Board and will include an option to the issue being considered. 2. The election will be conducted by the Human Resources Office and will be by secret ballot. 3. In order for an employee representative to be recognized\nit must receive in the election at least a majority of the votes of the total number of employees in the employee group. 4. Campaigning on District property will not be allowed. 5. The cost of the petition and the cost of the election will be paid by the organization petitioning the Board. D. Harassment Harassment or coercion of employees concerning joining or not joining or voting or not voting for an employee group will not be allowed. Such conduct is grounds for invalidating the results of an election or withdrawing continued recognition of a representative. E. Non-compliance Non-compliance with any of these regulations will be grounds for the Board to revoke the recognition or the privilege to negotiate with the Board. Continued recognition of any employee group bargaining representative will be contingeht upon both of the following: 1. Continued belief on the part of the Board of Education that such recognition is in the best imerest of the employees and the District\nand 4 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPN CODE: HD ( continued) 2. Continued desire on the part of the employees of that particular group that continued recognition is desirable. Adopted: April 22, 1999 5 ~ ::,: 8 rC') ~ m z ~ r, \"ti m\n,c is z z m rC') $\nz C'l m \"'\ni,,,\u0026gt;\u0026lt; \u0026gt; C'la:, C') C: m v, ::!lz \u0026gt;m z\"' C')\"' m v, om ..,\n,c \u0026gt;~ c: m ~\"' DATE: TO: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK, AR 72201 March 24, 2005 Board of Directors FROM: Roy G. Brooks, Ed.D. Superintendent of Schools SUBJECT: School Calendar 2005-06 BACKGROUND: In order to plan for the upcoming school year, the proposal of the 2005-06 school calendar is presented for Board approval. RATIONALE: None FUNDING: None RECOMMENDATION: The Administration is recommending the Board's approval of the attached school calendar for the 2005-06 school year. PREPARED BY Beverly WiWams~ctor of Human Resources !\"\u0026gt; \"D m\nn !S z z mr C') s\nz Cl m Cl) 8 z g z Cl)\n,,,x \u0026gt;' C') a, C') C: men ::!lz z\u0026gt;emn nen men om ..,\nn \u0026gt;~ c: m ~Cl) !%' --\u0026lt; ~ \u0026lt; m r ~ Cl C: ~ 0 z en ,. ,r-c ,\u0026lt;,. ::t C: ,,),\u0026gt;. ,,. ,,,. 31: MONTH M T JULY AUGUST 1 2 SEPTEMBER OCTOBER 3 4 NOVEMBER 1 DECEMBER SD JANUARY '06 2 3 FEBRUARY MARCH APRIL 3 4 MAY I 2 JUNE Legend * I J WV sv PC ST DAY LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT STUDENT CALENDAR 2005-2006 w TH F M T w TH F M T 1 4 5 6 7 8 11 12 SD SD 3 4 5 8 9 10 11 12 15 16 H 1 2 5 6 7 8 9 12 13 5 6 7 10 11 12 13 14 17 18 SD SD 2 3 4 7 8 9 10 11 14 15 1 2 5 6 7 8 9 12 13 [85] R H ~ 4 5 6 9 10 11 12 n 16 17 I 2 3 6 7 8 9 10 13 14 I 2 3 6 7 8 9 10 13 14 SD 5 6 7 10 11 12 13 14 17 18 3 4 5 8 9 10 11 12 15 16 (178( R I 2 5 6 I 1 JU 9 12 13 1st Day Students H Holiday End Quarter SD Staff Development w TH 13 14 SD WD 17 18 14 15 [42] 19 20 16 17 14 15 18 19 15 16 15 16 19 20 17 18 14 15 Winter Vacation R Record Days (one-half day) F 15 * 19 16 SD 21 18 16 20 17 17 21 19 16 Spring Vacation TCD Total Contract Days (9.25 teachers) Parent Conference WD Non-student Work Day Student Days # Last Day Students M 18 22 19 24 21 WV 19 23 PC 20 20 24 22 19 T w 19 20 23 24 20 21 25 26 R 22 23 WV WV 20 21 24 25 SD 21 22 21 22 25 26 23 24 20 21 FOR BOARD AP 3/10/05 WV WD ST sv PC TH F M T w TH F DAY H R SD TCD 21 22 25 26 27 28 29 25 26 29 30 31 9 0 1 3 13 PC SD 22 23 26 27 28 29 30 19 1 1 1 21 27 28 31 20 0 0 1 21 H H 24 25 28 29 30 17 3 0 2 19 WV WV H WV WV WV H 22 23 26 27 28 29 30 12 10 0 0 12 26 27 30 31 19 1 0.5 1 20.5 23 24 27 28 18 0 1 1 20 [132] sv sv SV sv SV 23 24 27 28 29 30 31 18 5 0 0 18 27 28 19 0 0 1 20 H 25 26 29 30 31 22 I 0 0 22 22 23 26 27 28 29 30 5 0 0.5 5.5 TOTALS 178 21 4 10 192 I STUDENTS DO NOT ATTEND ON THE DAYS SHADED ABOVE 1st Quarter = 42 student days 2nd Quarter = 46 student days 3rd Quarter = 4 7 student days 4th Quarter = 46 student days TOTAL = 178 STUDENT DAYS DATE: March 24, 2005 TO: Board of Directors FROM: Roy G. Brooks, Ed.D. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK, AR 72201 Superintendent of Schools SUBJECT: Personnel Changes BACKGROUND: None RATIONALE: To staff allocated positions within the District FUNDING: Operating Fund RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the following personnel changes be approved at the indicated positions, salaries and classifications. In accordance with A.CA 6-17-1502, it is recommended that one additional year of probationary status is provided for all teachers who have been employed in a school district in this state for three (3) consecutive years. Teachers with an effective date of employment after August 19, 2004 for regular schools are considered intern teachers. Teachers with an effective date of employment after August 9, 2004 for EYE are considered intern teachers. PREPARED BY, Beverly Williamrirector of Human Resources ~ g z g z \"' ?-s. \u0026gt;  na, n c: mu, .\".0.. z- \u0026gt;m z\"' n\"' mu, o..,m\nc \u0026gt;~ C:m l\"' !Jl .... ~\u0026lt; m r\nc m C) C: .r.\n.\n.: 0z u, r: r r C ,\u0026lt;,. ::t C )\u0026gt; ,,r,, .. ,r, . 3: Personnel Changes Page 2 March 24, 2005 NAME Howard, Dianne Reason: None Given Johnston, Margaret Reason: Personal Banks, Cal Bernard, David Crader, Jason DeBow, Bradley Holloman, Berlinda Humphrey, Vernita Martinez, Diana START DATE/ POSITION/ SCHOOL END DATE Resignations/Terminations Certified Employees Counselor/ 8-16-93 OTTER CREEK 3-1-05 Kindergarten/ 8-7-03 MEADOWCLIFF 2-7-05 New Certified Employees Social Studies/ 2-14-05 MABELVALE MIDDLE Physical Education/ 2-10-05 ALC Tutor/ 2-14-05 BALE Band/ 2-7-05 PARKVIEW Elementary I/ 2-15-05 BOOKER ISSP/ 2-11 -05 ALC Tutor/ 2-7-05 BASELINE SALARY ANNUAL CLASS SALARY 4-12 46128.00 CNL925 1-03 31195.00 TCH925 1-05 33506.00 TCH925 annual 12913.77 prorated 4-04 36885.00 TCH925 annual 13063.44 prorated 1-01 30040.00 TCH925 annual 11577.92 prorated 4-05 38041 .00 TCH925 annual 15652.29 prorated 1-09 38127.00 TCH925 annual 14496.20 prorated 4-09 42662.00 TCH725 annual 16664.84 prorated 1-01 30040.00 TCH925 annual 12360.21 prorated Personnel Changes Page 3 March 24, 2005 START DATE/ NAME POSITION/ SCHOOL END DATE Pinkard, Tawanna Math/ 1-31-05 HENDERSON Relford, Melvia Special Education/ 1-18-05 CENTRAL Richardson, Joyce Special Education/ 2-22-05 HALL Signaigo, Katherine Tutor/ 2-10-05 BALE Whitby, Jennie Kindergarten/ 10-19-04 BRADY Certified Promotion NONE Certified Transfer NONE SALARY ANNUAL CLASS SALARY 1-01 15020.00 TCH925 annual 6571.25 prorated 1-05 33506.00 SPE925 annual 16229.47 prorated 1-16 46215.00 SPE925 annual 16367.81 prorated 1-01 30040.00 TCH925  annual 11890.83 prorated 1-03 31195.00 TCH925 annual 24692.24 prorated !=' 0 0 z )\u0026gt; 6 z en ~?\u0026lt; -en,\u0026lt;\"r\u0026gt; c:0 c!!! mz zc\n, -,\n,:, :cm m\n:: )\u0026gt; )\u0026gt; e'!!\n,:, Z,\u0026lt; c\n, en\n,,,\u0026gt;\u0026lt; )\u0026gt; . n a, nc: men ~z \u0026gt;m zen nen men om ...,\n,:, )\u0026gt; ~ c:m ~en !\" -, I r ~ G\"\u0026gt; C: s\n: -, 0z en C: C: re ,\u0026lt;,. ::c C )\u0026gt; ,,r,,.. ,r,. !I: Personnel Changes Page4 March 24, 2005 NAME START DATE/ POSITION / SCHOOL END DATE SALARY ANNUAL CLASS SALARY Resignations/Terminations Non-Certified Employees Baird, Sharon Reason: Deceased Bryant, Caroline Reason: Personal Crawford, John Reason: Personal Edwards, Norma Reason: Accepted another position House, Evans Reason: Retired Mason, Shanika Reason: Never reported to work Moore, Tamalyn Reason: Job Abandonment Pondexter, Brack Reason: Accepted another position White, Anthony Reason: Retired Albritton , Salvin Instructional Aide/ WILLIAMS Care/ CARE Maintenance/ FACILITY SERVICES Child Nutrition/ BRADY Bus Monitor/ TRANSPORTATION Care/ CARE Care/ CARE Instructional Aide/ GARLAND ALE GED Examiner/ ADULT EDUCATION New Non-Certified Employees Instructional Aide/ ALC 8-23-93 3-24-05 10-28-04 3-24-05 7-28-04 2-14-05 8-26-91 2-11-05 9-13-99 3-17-05 1-31-05 2-25-05 1-24-05 2-14-05 8-13-03 1-13-05 5-02-88 4-28-05 2-14-05 33-13 14735.00 INA185 3-17 10.36 CARE per hour 49-07 29760.00 MAINT 7-14 11739.00 FSH650 1-06 11509.00 BUSMON 2-03 7.85 CARE per hour 2-02 7.70 CARE per hour 33-09 13070.00 INA925 43-20 36672.00 AN10 33-07 12307.00 INA925 annual 4789.75 prorated Personnel Changes Page 5 March 24, 2005 !=' 8 START DATE/ SALARY ANNUAL z \u0026gt; CLASS SALARY .... NAME POSITION/ SCHOOL END DATE i5 z U\u0026gt; Bunting, Devona Custodian/ 2-15-05 31-01 5689.50 FULBRIGHT CUS925 annual 2257.25 prorated Carter, John Care/ 2-28-05 3-17 10.36 ~?'\u0026lt; u,n -\u0026lt; r- CARE CARE per hour cO mo!!z! !:i Cl Dulaney, Stephanie Instructional Aide/ 3-21-05 33-08 12682.00 :c\n:o mm \u0026gt;~ CHICOT INA925 annual ::!!\n:o Z\n\u0026gt;: 3290.46 Cl tn prorated Givens, Vera Care/ 2-21-05 3-15 10.05 CARE CARE per hour Hardman, Melissa Instructional Aide/ 2-7-05 33-16 16109.00 ,\n,.,.,\u0026gt;. \u0026lt; (') a, FOREST HEIGHTS INA925 annual nc mu, 6704.83 .-..,. :z,- \u0026gt;m prorated zU\u0026gt; nU\u0026gt; mu, o.,,\nm:o Hawkins, Clifford Instructional Aide/ 1-18-05 33-16 16109.00 \u0026gt;~ c: m HENDERSON INA925 annual ~ U\u0026gt; 7923.89 prorated Johnson, Tonya Instructional Aide/ 2-14-05 33-16 16109.00 WILLIAMS INA925 annual 6269.45 !l:l prorated .... ~ \u0026lt;m r- Lyles, Eddie Care/ 2-21-05 3-03 8.06\n:o m Cl CARE CARE per hour C: !\n-\u0026lt; i5 McClure, Jesse Custodian/ 1-31-05 31-01 14532.00 z en CLOVERDALE CUS12 annual ELEMENTARY 6369.34 prorated c-: Pulliam, Shareka Care/ 3-7-05 2-03 7.85 c-: r- CARE CARE per hour C ,\u0026lt;,. :,\nC: )\u0026gt; ,,r,,-.. ,r,-. 31: Personnel Changes Page 6 March 24, 2005 NAME Shumate, Emma Steverson, Patrick Thomas, Crystal Thomas, Tamiko Tyler, David Williams, Shirley Woods, Anne Woodus, Sherri Yelder, Robert START DATE/ POSITION/ SCHOOL END DATE Child Nutrition/ 2-15-05 BRADY Custodian/ 1-31-05 METROPOLITAN Instructional Aide/ 1-31-05 FULBRIGHT Instructional Aide/ 2-21-05 WILSON Technician/ 2-21-05 CHILD NUTRITION Instructional Aide/ 2-14-05 STEPHENS Instructional Aide/ 2-16-05 ROCKEFELLER Instructional Aide/ 2-15-05 FULBRIGHT Instructional Aide/ 1-3-05 FOREST HEIGHTS SALARY ANNUAL CLASS SALARY 3-01 9350.00 FSH550 annual 3669.62 prorated 31-01 11379.00 CUS928 annual 5194.76 prorated 33-16 8054.50 INA925 annual 3570.10 prorated 33-04 11253.00 INA925 annual 4075.41 prorated 42-04 22080.00 AN12 annual 8362.21 prorated 33-16 16109.00 INA925 annual 6269.45 prorated 33-16 20463.00 INA12 annual 8011 .05 prorated 33-16 16109.00 INA925 annual 6182.37 prorated 33-09 13070.00 INA925 annual 7135.51 prorated Personnel Changes Page 7 March 24, 2005 NAME START DATE/ SALARY POSITION / SCHOOL END DATE CLASS Non-Certified Promotion Montgomery, Timothy - Promoted from Bus Aide to Bus Driver White, Donna - Promoted from Bus Aide to Bus Driver ANNUAL SALARY\n,,-5\u0026lt;  - 0 a, 0 C: me,, ~z \u0026gt;m z\"' moc\"n' .o., m\n., \u0026gt;~ c: m !!l\"' !D ..... i ..... ~ C) C: !j\n: ..... 0z V, ,. CrC ,\u0026lt;,.\n:c C ,,).,\u0026gt;... ,,.,... ,,. ~ DATE: TO: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK, AR 72201 March 24, 2005 Board of Directors FROM: Roy G. Brooks, Ed.D. Superintendent of Schools SUBJECT: Organizational Audit Report BACKGROUND Upon acceptance of the position of Superintendent of Schools, I shared my vision and defined some guidelines for strategic thinking for the Little Rock School District. The Superintendent's Entry Plan, The First 100 Days included a two-part approach for taking action and the steps that would be required to turn the vision into reality. First, the numerous school visits, interviews, and community forums provided an opportunity for me to meet with a cross-section of the LRSD school community including students, teachers, administrators, parents, and business people for the purpose of sharing the vision and expectations. It also provided an opportunity for me to listen carefully and take note of concerns, challenges, and hopes. The investment of time was significant\nhowever, the results were invaluable. The second essential element of the Entry Plan was the formation of a district transitional assistance team to work closely with the outside consultants in providing an objective audit of the district's organizational structure and staffing. In doing so, the consultants would provide the leadership necessary to compare the most effective school practices with those in the Little Rock School District and detail our areas of strength and identify specific areas for improvement. On September 23, 2004, the Board of Education approved a recommendation to offer a contract to these consultants and the work commenced immediately. The services and deliverables included:  Independent interviews conducted with key district and community leaders, staff, selected student leadership, and Board of Education members in gaining strategic, technical and political insights. !=' 8 z .\u0026gt;... 0 z en ~ \u0026gt; 0 '- 0 C\no z\n:: m z :--\u0026lt; !D .... i ,- ~ C\u0026gt; C \u0026gt;.... 0z en C\": ,. r C \u0026lt; IT :,: C )\u0026gt; r IT IT r IT !C Page 2  Consolidation and analysis of all gathered data.  Continuous review and refinement of work with the transitional assistance team.  Face to face debriefing with the Superintendent and Board President and other leaders as determined by the Superintendent.  Scheduled presentations to the Board of Education for the purpose of project updates.  Preparation of written executive report and supporting exhibits. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the Board of Directors approve / accept the organizational audit report as submitted and direct the Superintendent to move forward to implement the restructuring efforts. The audit recommendations will be used as a blueprint and changes will be made following Board policies, Arkansas law and established school district practices. DATE: March 24, 2005 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK, AR 72201 TO: Board of Directors FROM: Roy G. Brooks, Ed.D. Superintendent of Schools SUBJECT: Updated Travel Regulations DKC-R BACKGROUND: The current travel regulation has been modified to include the instructions for utilization of the ProCard for certain portions of travel. RATIONALE: Utilization of the District ProCards will allow for less expensive travel cost and empower staff to more efficiently make travel arrangements. FUNDING: No changes. RECOMMENDATION: Submitted for review by Board. PREPARED BY: Mark Milhollen Darral Paradis Sandy Becker 8 z .\u0026gt;... iz5 U\u0026gt; ~ \u0026gt; 0 \u0026lt;... 0 C\no z\ni: m z :--\u0026lt; ,. (\"' E ,\u0026lt;,. A C: )\u0026gt; ,,r,, .. ,r, . 3: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPN CODE: DKC-R (Updates the Previous DKC-R - Out-OfDistrict Travel Regulations) TRAVEL EXPENSE AUTHORIZATION/REIMBURSEMENT Travel will be for necessary school business purposes. Prior approval for all travel, including prepaid expenses, will be obtained before any expenses are incurred. Economical and reasonable modes of transportation, lodging, and other expenditures in accordance with the purpose of the travel must be used . A copy of the full agenda for the conference or training will be provided with the request for travel and request for professional leave. To insure that maximum impact can be achieved, the following regulations apply to all out-of-district travel. Out-of-district travel will be defined as being outside Pulaski County, AR. Travel Day The travel day will begin at 6:00 a.m., include breakfast, lunch, dinner and one night's lodging, and will end the following morning at 6:00 a.m. Request for reimbursement of expenses incurred in less than full travel days must reflect a reasonable allocation based on the expense limits directed herein for a full travel day. Meal costs will be prorated by one half for that travel day if travel begins after 2:00 p.m. and for a return time prior to 2:00 p.m. Meals and Incidental Costs Meals costs will be determined by the last accepted federal per diem schedule. Partial days meal cost will be determined by the departure and return time as indicated in the above section. Meals included in the cost of registration will be deducted from the per diem amount as follows: breakfast (20%), lunch (30%), and dinner (50%). No deductions will be made for continental breakfasts. Lodging Expenses The District will reimburse actual lodging expense incurred in travel for the District. Lodging will be reimbursed only for the days of the conference attended plus night(s) required based on the conference schedule. Economical and reasonable lodging in accordance with the purpose of the travel must be used . Reimbursement for lodging LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPN CODE: DKC-R ( continued) expenses will require lodging receipts that indicate the employee has paid for the lodging. Receipts from personal credit cards will not be accepted unless accompanied by the receipt from the lodging establishment. If the rate for lodging exceeds the federal maximum for lodging, a justification must be provided (i.e. no local travel costs between hotel and conference hotel\nlegitimate safety concerns\nor room sharing to reduce cost). Travelers are encouraged to use cost saving initiatives such as appropriate sharing of rooms, car pooling and like arrangements. Using District Pro Card for Travel AFTER THE TRAVEL FORM HAS BEEN APPROVED, Go to your principal/ director and request to use the site's main ProCard (usually the principal/director's) to do the following: a. Secure a hotel reservation\nb. Purchase airline tickets on-line (use website of your choosing, or online service, etc). DO NOT USE ANY ON-LINE SERVICE THAT REQUIRES YOU TO ENTER YOUR CARD NUMBER TO FIND A RATE)\nc. Book airfare or obtain the estimated cost of airfare using a local travel agency\nhowever, employees are encouraged to book tickets using available on-line services. d. Pay for registration fees\ne. Purchase transportation tickets for multiple persons from same location traveling to same destination. If amount is expected to exceed $1,000 contact Procurement. Employees CANNOT USE THE ProCard to PAY for the following: a. Hotel room\nb. Meals\nc. Auto rental\nd. Incidental Expenses. You will receive an expense check to pay for these items that have been approved on your travel form. Travel to Destination The District will reimburse travel expenses to the maximum limit for point-to-point costs for coach fare on common carriers. Receipts or ticket stubs are required for reimbursement of common carrier costs. If an employee chooses to use a personal automobile, reimbursement will not exceed the current per mile rate approved by the 2 8 z \u0026gt; g z en ~ )\u0026gt; 0 '- 0 C\n,:, z ~ m z :--\u0026lt; f' (,.\".' C ,\u0026lt;,.\n,:: C: ,,),.\u0026gt;.. ,,,... ,,. 3: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPN CODE: DKC-R (continued) District or point-to-point coach fare, whichever is less. When more than one employee travels to the same location in a personal automobile, mileage will be reimbursed only to the employee whose personal automobile is used. When automobiles are used for transportation to a destination, car pooling for multiple attendees is recommended. Mileage requests may be denied when the best interest of the District is not met after taking into account the circumstances of the request. Local Travel at Destination Actual reasonable expenses of local travel by common carriers at the destination will be reimbursed. Mass transit or taxi fare does not require receipts if all local travel claimed for the trip is less than thirty dollars. Receipts are required if the claim is over thirty dollars. Automobile Rentals - At Destination Automobiles will not be rented at District expense without prior approval of the superintendent or his/her designee and in no case without documentation, in advance, that automobile rental will be less expensive to the District than the cost of public transportation to meeting, conferences, etc. Reimbursement is conditioned upon advance authority as well as receipts from the leasing agency. Automobile Rentals - Travel to Destination If an employee chooses to rent a vehicle to travel to an approved destination, the employee will only be reimbursed the lesser of common carrier coach rates or round trip map mileage to and from the destination. If a vehicle is rented for multiple attendees, the limit for reimbursement will be the lesser of common carrier coach rates for two employees or round trip map mileage to and from the destination for two employees. The approval or disapproval level will be at least at the equivalency level of an assistant superintendent for this type of arrangement. Reasonableness must be documented. Advance Request for Travel The first two forms listed below must be submitted at least thirty days prior to travel if an advance is requested. If there is no District expense for this trip or no advance required 3 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPN CODE: DKC-R (continued) the deadline will be two weeks prior to the trip. The third form should be filled out only when multiple attendees from the same location or area are attending the same event. If an employee has not sent in documentation for the advanced funds within sixty days, payroll deduction will be made for the non-documented advance that has not been reimbursed.  Request for Absence for Professional Meetings - to be completed and submitted in accordance with the instructions on that form.  Request for Out-of-District Travel - to be submitted in accordance with the instructions on that form (attached). Non-travel items will not be included on advances or reimbursed with travel. Registrations and common carrier expenses (to and from the destination) should be paid by separate check to the vendor unless you used your district ProCard.  Travel Summary for School - When multiple attendees from the same area or school are going to the same educational event. A travel summary will be prepared by the administrator of that school or area and sent with the other documents. No employee will be reimbursed for out-of-district travel unless the required forms are submitted and approved in advance by the area supervisor, funding source manager (if required) and financial services. These forms must cover the entire cost of travel, the total days absence requested, be accompanied by the full agenda of the conference or event to be attended, and be delivered together for approval. Requests for travel will be completed in a timely manner to avoid registration penalties, and to obtain good rates for hotels, airlines, registration, etc. No travel will be paid from any source for which the required forms have not been completed and approved. Date: March 24, 2005 4 8 z g z \"' ~ \u0026gt; 0 c.... 0 C\n,:, z ~ m z :-\u0026lt; r. DATE: TO: FROM: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK, AR 72201 March 24, 2004 Board of Directors Roy G. Brooks, Ed.D. Superintendent of Schools SUBJECT: Cloverdale Elementary School BACKGROUND: The Board has been provided frequent reports on the status of structural problems at Cloverdale Elementary School. These structural instabilities will require relocation of the students beginning with the 2005-06 school year. RATIONALE: A full report, The Big Picture - Cloverdale Elementary School, contains a detailed analysis and further recommendations. This document will be provided under separate cover. FUNDING: Funding issues will be determined by the Board's final decision on which option will provide the best educational environment for the students at that school. PREPARED BY: Sadie Mitchell Mark Milhollen bjg DATE: March 24, 2005 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK, AR 72201 TO: Board of Directors FROM: Roy G. Brooks, Ed.D. Superintendent of Schools SUBJECT: Cloverdale Elementary School Structural Concerns BACKGROUND: Cloverdale Elementary School has been identified as having structural damage that requires correction in the near future. The attached report details the concerns and options for resolving the problems. RATIONALE: To inform the Board there are structural problems with the Cloverdale Elementary building that require the District to relocate the students. FUNDING: Capital Projects Fund RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Board of Directors approve Option 3 which will relocate the Cloverdale Elementary students to Mabelvale Elementary beginning with the 2005-06 school year using a combination of available classrooms and portable buildings. This option also includes the demolition of the defective areas of the Cloverdale Elementary site. PREPARED BY: Mark D. Milhollen, Manager Financial Services Sadie Mitchell, Associate Superintendent School Services 8 ~ z \"' ~ \u0026gt; 0 '- 0 C \"z '\n:: zm :-' The Big Picture District Operation of Schools with Major Structural Concerns CLOVERDALE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL March 2005 INTRODUCTION This paper is intended to provide an overview of the structural problems at Cloverdale Elementary School and options to resolve the problems. Information regarding this situation has been included in the January 14 and January 28, 2005 Snapshots. A brief history and discussion of the problem, conclusions, possible options, and the administration's recommendation are presented to assist the Board in taking appropriate and timely action so that the administration can effectively plan for the 2005-06 school year. OVERVIEW Cloverdale Elementary School, constructed in 1959, was transferred by Court Order from the Pulaski County Special School District to the Little Rock School District in the 1987- 88 school year. It is located in southwest Little Rock at 6500 Hinkson Road. Additions to the facility were constructed in 1961, 1971, 1975, and 1978. The campus consists of a three-wing facility housing the administrative area and classrooms and a separate building attached to the north wing that houses the media center (See ATTACHMENT l). The school is a covered open-corridor type which provides partial protection from the weather for students moving from one area to another. Cloverdale Elementary School has the capacity for 448 students\nthe October 1, 2004 student enrollment was 360. While not at full operational capacity, the school is considered a viable entity in southwest Little Rock. The Cloverdale attendance zone is bordered on the northwest by the attendance zones of Watson and Mabelvale Elementary Schools, on the northeast by the Geyer Springs Elementary School zone, and on the east by the Baseline Elementary School zone. The school generally serves a population that resides south of Interstate 30, west of Geyer Springs Road, and east of Mabelvale Pike. Any future planning consideration for zone changes in the southwest part of the city might impact the enrollment, capacity and design for this location. FACILITY PROBLEM/ HISTORY Cloverdale Elementary School, a single-story building elevated approximately three feet off the ground, was built on farmland with soil that would be considered poor for construction, poorly graded and consisting of expansive clay and areas of largely organic matter. The school is built on bar joists supported by grade beams on drill piers. The Cloverdale Elementary School March 2005 Page 2 metal structural members on which the floor slab is resting have become seriously eroded over the 45 years that the school has been in existence. This erosion can be attributed to a lack of adequate preparation to protect these members from ground moisture and poor drainage around the school. As a result, these structural members have been identified as being problematic and are most assuredly going to fail in the future. In 1995, the building was surveyed as part of the 3D/I Little Rock School District Facilities Master Plan. Of the District's 35 elementary schools, 3D/l's survey ranked Cloverdale Elementary as 25th in general overall condition and suitability for retention as an elementary school. At that time, the survey did not include an in-depth structural analysis of the facility. In 2001 the LRSD Facility Services staff, in conjunction with structural engineers, conducted inspections of Cloverdale Elementary School. The problems were identified, and portions of the building have been braced, or \"shored up,\" as a precautionary and temporary measure. However, it is a problem that we have been monitoring, inspecting periodically, and assessing for appropriate and timely corrective action. A structural study of Cloverdale Elementary was commissioned in the spring of 2004 when water began pooling on the exterior walkways and running back toward the building. The construction of the facility, if it were standing as it was originally constructed, would not allow this to happen. This evidence shows that portions of the building are subsiding, or slowly sinking, due to structural failure. The study, completed in May 2004, verified that the metal structural members, or bar joists, supporting the school are seriously deteriorating and several have already failed. The structural analysis concluded that eventual structural failure is probable. These structural failures are evident by cracks in the floors, floors have begun to shift or move, and cracks are in the walls. It should be noted that structural failure and continued deterioration of the steel members is imminent, but the rate of deterioration is varied throughout the building. The deterioration will continue to be slow but will eventually reach a point where failure will occur. SEE PHOTOS FROM THE 2004 STRUCTURAL STUDY AT ATTACHMENT 2. CONCLUSION The District is at the point where a plan must be formed and necessary action determined. Large portions of Cloverdale Elementary School will need to be demolished. The structural engineer's report shows that consideration was given to replacing the bar joists under the building\nhowever, this is not a feasible option because of space limitations and massive engineering problems. Without doing an in-depth cost analysis, it would be extremely expensive and very risky to undertake this type of repair. The probability of success would be extremely low, and we would continue to have the moisture problem and differential settlement even if these joists were replaced. For these reasons, the best alternative is to demolish the defective sections of the building. ~ \u0026gt; 0 '- 0 C:\n,::, z\n:: zm :-\u0026lt; Cloverdale Elementary School March 2005 Page 3 The deterioration under the Pre-K section (Area 4 on Attachment 1) is extremely limited, and it is possible this portion of the building could remain intact by drying and treating the soil under the building. The two remaining wings (Areas 1 and 3 on Attachment 1) will require demolition. The media center (Area 2 on Attachment 1) was not evaluated in the 2004 study due to lack of crawl space accessibility\nhowever, there is no evidence of distress on the exterior. Further evaluation is needed to determine the actual condition of the media center structure. RECOMMENDATION A committee of administrative staff has developed options for resolving the problems that exist at Cloverdale Elementary School and continuing the education of the Cloverdale Elementary students for the Board's consideration: Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 Option 4 Place portable buildings between Cloverdale Elementary and Middle School campuses, continue school at that location and demolish the defective areas of the elementary site (similar to the method used at Mann Middle School). Place portable buildings between Cloverdale Elementary and Middle School campuses, utilize available classrooms at Cloverdale Middle School and demolish the defective areas of the elementary site. Place portable buildings on the Mabelvale Elementary School campus and use eight (8) available classrooms to conduct school separately from the Mabelvale program and demolish the defective areas of the Cloverdale Elementary site. Place portables at Watson Elementary School, divide the Cloverdale students between Watson and Mabelvale Elementary School and demolish the defective areas of the Cloverdale Elementary site (similar to the initial Mitchell School plan whereby some students attended Stephens and others attended Washington). SEE ATTACHMENT 3 FOR THE COST ESTIMATE FOR EACH OPTION. The committee recommends Option 3, the relocation of Cloverdale Elementary students to the Mabel vale Elementary campus. Availability of classroom space at Mabel vale, supplemented by placement of portable buildings, leads the committee to believe this option would be the least disruptive to the overall operation of Cloverdale Elementary School. Option 3 will require no additional buses to transport the students. With Board approval, relocation would take place over the summer of 2005. t N !I 1 Administrative Offices \u0026amp; 1/ Classrooms 2 Media Center 3 Classrooms 4 Pre-K / K Classrooms WHILIUh CLOVERDALE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL  1N3WNMnorov 'IIX ONIM\\f3H 1N30n1S 'IX S\u0026gt;4MlfW3M ONISOl:\u0026gt; x SNotlVNOO 'O )\u0026gt; -I -I )\u0026gt; (\") :c s: m z -I ...... ATTACHMENT 2 Page 1 of 3 (') '+- 0 N (I) 0) ro D.. X. CLOSING REMARKS XII. ADJOURNMENT. D. DONATIONS XI. STUDENT HEARING I, ~ q. ,1, _] ,,. .... .!. Page 3 of 3 T ) \"- Cloverdale Elementary Cost Estimate - Cost item Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 Portables I $638,000_ $638,000 _ $112,000 --- -- Covered Walks $67,770 $67,770 $26,0QQ__ Fencinq $11,4QQ.._ $11,400 $8,000 Steps I $18,000 $18,000 $11,450 Liqhts I $4,500 $4,500 $3,150 Intercom I $11,000 $11,000 $7,000 Data I $4,200 $4,200 $1,960 Walks/Steps I $1,185 $1,185 $1,580 Telephones I $9,000 $9,000 $4,200 Fire Alarm ___$7 ,500 _ $7,500 $3,500 Securit I $5,250 $5,250 _ $2,450 i I Relocation $2,500 $2,500 $6,000 Demolition I $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 Misc Cost I $3,700 $3,700 $3,700 I TOTAL I $984,005 $984,005 $390,990 ATTACHMENT 3 Option_!_ $112,000 $26,000 $8,000 $11,450 $3,150 $7,000 $1,960 $380 $4,200 $3,500 $2,450 $8,000 $200,000 $3,700 $391,790 ~ )\u0026gt; a '- 0 C\nc z s:: zm :--\u0026lt; DATE: March 24, 2005 TO: Board of Directors LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK, AR 72201 FROM: Roy G. Brooks, Ed.D. Superintendent of Schools SUBJECT: Donations of Property BACKGROUND: The Little Rock School District receives donations from businesses and individuals on a regular basis. It is the policy of the Little Rock School District that donations are not formally accepted until they are approved by the Board of Directors. RATIONALE: District policy states that, in order to maintain the centralized fixed asset property accounting system, all property donation requests are forwarded to the Director of Procurement. The Procurement Department forwards the requests, along with the appropriate recommendations, to the Board of Directors for acceptance and approval. In order for proper recognition and appreciation to be conveyed to the donor, donor's name and current mailing address should be included in the donation memo. FUNDING: None RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the attached donation requests be approved and accepted in accordance with the policies of the Board of Directors of the Little Rock School District. PREPARED BY: -~' Darral Paradis, Director of Procurement . \\- Gwen Caraway, Fixed Asset Property Manager ~ \u0026gt; 0 c.... 0 C: ::c z\n: m z :-- DONATIONS School/Department Item Donor Central High School Equipment, valued Roy \u0026amp; Louise Gutierrez at $589.00, to LR Central Quiz Bowl Team Central High School $250.00 cash Gregg Heming to LR Central Girls' Cheerleading Squad Metropolitan Career Assorted supplies and Billy-Jack's Body Shop, Inc. \u0026amp; Technical Center materials, valued at $1 ,500.00, to the Paint \u0026amp; Body program Romine Elementary $500.00 cash to be Hunter United Methodist School used for student Church Incentives Williams Magnet Trees and 6 hours Clayton Johnson and Elementary School labor valued at Trent Roberts of the $550.00 Merriweather Park Neighborhood Association in conjunction withe City of LR Urban Forestry Commission LRSD ASAP Program $1 ,700.00 check to Landers Auto Sales purchase Project THRIVE t-shirts LRSD CARE Program Assorted toys valued Mrs. Cheryl Stanley at $200.00 Little Rock Central High School 1500 South Park Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72202 Phone 501-447-1400 Fax 501-447-1401 DATE: 2/15/2005 TO: DARRAL PARADIS, DIRECTOR OF PR_QCUREMENT FROM: A CY ROUSSEAU, PRI CIPAL J K/LilJdi{UA_,/ SUBJECT: DO ATIO Roy \u0026amp; Louise Gutierrez of 32 Fontenay Circle, Little Rock, AR  72223, very graciously contributed equipment valued at $589.00 to our Quiz Bowl team. It is my recommendation that this contribution be accepted in accordance with the donation policies of the Little Rock School District. ~ )\u0026gt; a '- 0 C\n,:, z 3:: zm :-\u0026lt; DATE: TO: FROM: Little Rock Central High School 1500 South Park Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72202 Phone 501-44 7-1400 Fax 501-44 7-1401 FEBRUARY 28, 2005 DARRAL PARADIS, DIRECTOR OF PROCUREMENT A CY ROUSSEAU, PRI CIPAL 7U::_t,~ SUBJECT: DO ATIO Gregg Herning, in behalf of the Peabody Hotel at #3 Statehouse Plaza, Little Rock, AR 72201, graciously donated $250.00 to our girl's cheerleading squad. It is my recommendation that this be accepted in accordance with the donation policies of the Little Rock School District. To: From: Date: RE: Darral Paradis, Dir of Procurement Michael Peterso~rincipal Metropolitan Career ff echnical February 8, 2005 DONATION Billy-Jack's Body Shop, Inc has donated the following items to the Paint and Body program at Metropolitan, valued at $1 ,500.00. 1 - LX 90 A Turbine paint sprayer 2 - AirHose 1 - Paint Gun 4 - HD Jack Stands 1 - 21/2 Ton Floor Jack 2 - Snap on Roll around seats 1 - Paint Shaker 8 - Cans/plastic Body Mat. 1 - Dirt Rag Can 1 - Sanding Board 1 - 3/8 Air Rachet cp 1 -  Air Rachet cp 1 - Drill 1 - Welding Helmet 1 - Paint Mixing System w/ various paint mixing colors 1 - Computer mixing scales Books It is my recommendation that this donation be accepted in accordance with the policies of the Little Rock School District. Metropolitan Career-Technical Center 7701 Scott Hamilton Drive  Li ttle Rock, Arkansas 72209  (501) 447-1200  Fax (501) 447-1201 ~ )\u0026gt; 0 c.... 0 C :,:, z 3: m z :-\u0026lt; ROMINE INTERDISTRICT SCHOOL Theme: Computer Science and Basic Skills February 21 , 2005 TO: Darral Paradis, Director of Procurement FROM: 1s. Li!lie Scull, Principal RE: Donation Hunter United Methodist Church has generously donated $500.00 to our school. The money will be ust\u0026gt;d for student incentives. It is my recommendation that this donation be approved in accordance with the policies of the Board of Education of the Little Rock School District Sponsor: Hunter United Methodist Church 3301 Romine Road Little Rock, AR 72204 '... .... - ,. .... - ,. .. t WILLIAMS RADITIONAL r\\/iAGr IET SCHOOL A CHOICE FOR EXCELLENCE Date: Re: Dottatiotts The Cifii of littk Rock Vrbatt Forestr\\i Commissiott has bottateb $\n0.00 from the .. ,-,act Grattt for Tree PlatttittS.. to the Memweather Park Nd5hborhoob Associatiott for the purchase of trees. Mr. da\\itOtt Johttsott 1203 M Street littk Rock. Ar. 72207 attb Mr. T rmt Roberts 7304 vu5rem Street littk Rock. Ar. 72207 bottateb the trees attb 6 hours of thdr time itt platttitt5 the trees at WiTiiams Masttct School. lt is recommettbeb that this bottatiott be accepteb itt accorbattee with the policies attb procebures of the little Rock School District. Thattk \\.10U for \\iOUr cottsiberatiott. ~ )\u0026gt; 0 '- 0 C\no z\n: m z :-\u0026lt; DATE: TO: Accelerated Student Achievement Program LRSD Advanced Placement Incentive (API) Program 3001 S. PULASKI STREET March 3, 2005 Board of Directors LITTLE ROCK, AR 72206 FROM: f Darral Paradis, Director, Procurement and Materials Management THROUGH: Roy G. Brooks, Ed. D., Superintendent of Schools SUBJECT: Donation Landers Auto Sales will donate a check in the amount of $1,700.00 to the Little Rock School District for Project THRIVE t-shirts. The donor's mailing address is: Landers Auto Sales, Attention: Rodney Plack, 7800 Alcoa Road, Benton, AR 72015. It is recommended that this donation request be approved in accordance\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":"bcas_bcmss0837_697","title":"\"\"Quarterly Update to the Office of Desegregation Monitoring (ODM) and Joshua,'' Planning, Research, and Evaluation, 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":["2005-03-01/2005-12-01"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Educational planning"],"dcterms_title":["\"\"Quarterly Update to the Office of Desegregation Monitoring (ODM) and Joshua,'' Planning, Research, and Evaluation, 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/697"],"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 (LRSD) QUARTERLY UPDATE to Office of Desegregation Monitoring (ODM) and Joshua RECEIVED FEB 2 8 2005 March 1, 2005 OFFICE OF desegregates MONITORING LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, PLAINTIFF V. PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. I ET AL., DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ETAL., INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL., INTERVENORS 1 Planning, Research, and Evaluation (PRE) Little Rock School District 3001 South Pulaski Little Rock, AR 72206Introduction This is the second quarterly written update by the Little Rock School District (LRSD) and its Planning, Research, and Evaluation (PRE) Department, submitted in accordance with the District Courts 2004 Compliance Remedy (Memorandum Opinion of June 30, 2004, pp. 61-67). The organization of this report is that of the Compliance Remedy\nA. B. C. LRSD must promptly hire a highly trained team of professionals to reinvigorate PRE. The first task PRE must perform is to devise a comprehensive program assessment process, which must be deeply embedded as a permanent part of LRSDs curriculum and instruction program. During each of the next two academic school years (2004-05 and 2005-06), LRSD must hire one or more outside consultants to prepare four (4) formal step 2 evaluations. 9 D. PRE must (1) oversee the preparation of all eight of these step 2 evaluations\n(2) work E. closely with Dr. Ross and any other outside consultants . . . and (3) provide the outside consultants with any and all requested assistance and support... Evaluations will contain numbers and grade levels of teachers and administrators who contributed data, recommended program changes necessary for improved academic achievement by African-American students, and brief explanations of how each change will increase a programs effectiveness. F. . . . PRE must notify the ODM and Joshua in writing of the names of those eight programs. In addition, after PRE and Dr. Ross have formulated a comprehensive program assessment process and reduced it to a final draft, PRE must provide a copy to the ODM and Joshua at least thirty days before it is presented to the Board for approval.. . by December 31,2004. G. PRE must submit quarterly written updates on the status of the . . . four step 2 program evaluations . . . during the 2004-05 school year and the four step 2 program evaluations that will be prepared during the 2005-06 school year ... to ODM and Joshua on 9? December 1, March 1, June 1, and September 1...' H. [ODMs responsibilities.] 1. [Joshuas responsibilities.] J. Four step 2 program evaluations due to the Court October 1, 2005 and four more due October 1,2006. K. Compliance Report due October 15,2006. L. [This Compliance Remedy supersedes earlier one.] Page 2 of 19Status as of March 1, 2005 A. Hire a highly trained team of professionals. LRSD hired a highly trained team of professionals in 2004 and reported its action in the first quarterly written update, December 1, 2004. This team has continued its duties as described below, in this second quarterly written update. B. Devise and embed a comprehensive program assessment process. At its December 16, 2004 session, LRSD Board of Directors approved the comprehensive program assessment process devised by PRE. The final draft was in Appendix B of the first quarterly written update. C. Hire outside consultant(s) to prepare four formal step 2 evaluations. Credentials of Drs. Catterall and Ross were in this section and Appendix C of the first quarterly written update. Both agreed to prepare step 2 evaluations of LRSD programs. Their progress is described below in Section D. D. PRE (1) oversees the preparation of the step 2 evaluations, (2) works closely with Drs. Ross and Catterall, and (3) assists them. PRE continued discussions with Dr. Steven Ross of step 2 evaluation designs for the three LRSD programs which he will conduct, reported December 1, 2004Compass Learning (CL), Reading Recovery (RR), and Smart/Thrive (S/T). By January 14, PRE and Dr. Ross agreed on evaluation designs, whose descriptions are in the appendix of this second quarterly written update. Negotiations also continued in January with Dr. James Catterall regarding evaluation of Year- Round Education (YRE), the fourth step 2 evaluation for 2004-2005. Its design, too, is in the appendix of this second quarterly written update. At the monthly Leadership Team (school principals) meeting, on January 19, PRE staff alerted LRSD principals about the four evaluations and answered their questions. At the February 16 Leadership Team session. Dr. Ross and his team described designs of his three evaluations and answered questions. After his presentation to the principals on February 16, Dr. Ross and his team met with PRE. each program director, and two other outside experts (Drs. Linda Dom and Gail Weems, both of UALRs College of Education). During these discussions, ODM officials and counsel for Joshua Intervenors provided feedback and assisted with the final design of data collection instruments. Page 3 of 19PRE has established four evaluation teams, led by PRE members and composed of people with skills and experiences appropriate to their respective evaluations. Parent and teacher represent- tatives are also members of these teams, whose first formal meeting was arranged for February 24. Dr. DeJamette will lead the evaluation of Compass Learning\nMs. Malcolm, Smart/Thrive\n)r. Williams, Year-Round Education\nand Mr. Wohlleb, Reading Recovery. Members names and results of that meeting will appear in the third written quarterly update, due June 1. E. Evaluation will have (1) numbers and grade levels of teachers and administrators who submit data for evaluations, (2) recommended program changes necessary for improved achievement by African-American students, and (3) succinct explanations of how each change will increase its respective programs effectiveness. Designs of the evaluations, furnished in the appendix to this report, will include records of the teachers and administrators who furnish data, opinions and guidance, and 1) 2) 3) their grade levels and positions\ndata in addition to race/ethnicity and test scores that will enable the evaluators to find reasons for differences in academic achievement and recommend changes\nbases for explanations of how these other factors impact on academic achievement and how program changes will bring about improved academic achievement. F. Delivery of names of programs to be evaluated and the comprehensive program assessment process to ODM and Joshua. Names of the four programs evaluated during 2004-2005 and the process were delivered before they were due last year and so reported in the first written quarterly update. G. PRE must submit quarterly written updates on the status of step 2 evaluations. PRE submitted its first written quarterly update on December 1, 2004. PRE submits this one on or before March 1, 2005 and will submit its third by June 1,2005. Page 4 of 19Appendix C. Designs of Step 2 Evaluations of 20042005 Reading Recovery (RR) Compass Learning (CL) Smart/Thrive (S/T) Year-Round Education (YRE) Evaluation Schedule 2004-2005 Page 5 of 19 oReading Recovery Program Description RR is one of the eight literacy programs, interventions, and/or models used by various LRSD schools. Restricted to the first grade, it provides systematically designed, individual tutoring to students identified as having the highest need for supplemental support. LRSD funds are used to support the RR Program. Currently, 17 elementary schools are implementing RR: School Booker______ Carver_______ Chicot_______ Dodd________ Franklin Geyer Springs Gibbs_______ Meadowcliff Mitchell Otter Creek Rightsell Wakefield Watson______ Williams Wilson ___ Number of Reading Recovery Teachers 4 2 3 1 2 1 2 1 1 I I 2 1 2 1 Number of Teachers 55 43 44 27 35 23 30 24 22 31 25 29 34 36 27 Number of Students 496 496 536 261 387 299 310 349 156 511 262 451 456 461 285 Percent African- American Students 53 52 73 54 96 88 53 78 96 60 100 78 96 52 89 Percent Free/Reduced Lunch Students 63 53 86 69 94 81 44 85 92 56 88 92 93 34 92 RR Evaluation Questions and Design A mixed-methods design will address the research questions as follows: Primary Evaluation Question: 1. Has the RR program been effective in improving and remediating the academic achievement of African-American (AA) students? A. Whole School Sample: A treatment-control school, pretest-posttest design will be employed in Grades 1-3. The analysis will control for pretest, gender, ethnicity, and SES. The analysis will possibly examine (a) all 17 schools relative to the entire district elementary-school database or (b) a stratified random sample of RR schools relative to matched control schools. Pretests: DRA or DIBELS (whichever has the more usable database), administered in Kindergarten. Page 6 of 19Posttests\n2004-05 Iowa Test of Basic Skills (ITBS) Reading and Math Subtests. B. RR Subsample: Within each of the RR schools, first- to third-grade students who participated in RR as first graders will be identified and their achievement gains compared to predicted scores based on school status (RR vs. non-RR), and student pretest, gender, ethnicity, and SES. ^^PPlemental (Qualitative/Step 2) Evaluation Questions: 1. What are the quality and level of implementation of RR at the 17 schools implementing it in 2004-05? RR teachers will be interviewed by phone. First-grade teachers and other grade-level teachers will be surveyed. Observations of RR sessions will be at a sample of schools. A minimum of 10 observations will be conducted. To the extent resources are available, an attempt will be made to observe at all 17 sites. What is the level of participation in RR by AA students relative to other ethnic groups at the school? Student records/archival data for 2003-04 and 2004-05 will be analyzed. What is the progress demonstrated by AA and other student participants in RR in improving achievement, as demonstrated on program-specific measures? What percent of students are discontinued or not discontinued? RR teachers will be asked to complete Achievement Profiles (to be developed) for each 2004-05 RR student. The Achievement Profiles will be one-page forms designed to require only a few minutes to complete. Procedures will be written through consultation with PRE and RR experts in LRSD. 4. What are the perceptions of RR teachers regarding RR program implementation, impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? The RR teacher interview will directly address this question. 5. What are the perceptions of non-RR first-grade teachers and other teachers in the schools regarding RR program implementation, impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? The RR School Teacher survey will address this question via closed-ended and open-ended items. Respondents will identify their status by grade and role. 6. What are the perceptions of parents/guardians of RR students regarding program impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? A RR Parent survey will be conducted via a questionnaire including closed- and open-ended items. Page 7 of 19Summary of RR Data Sources and Participants by Evaluation Question _______Evaluation Question Primary Question______ I Participants Data Sources 1. What are the effects of participation in RR on AA student achievement?  All grades 1-3 students at 17 RR schools and other elementary schools  RR student participants within above samples  DRA or DIBELS (pretest in K)  2004-05 ITBS Reading and Math subtests (posttest in grades 1-3) Step 2 Questions 1. What is the quality and level of implementation of RR at the 17 schools implementing it in 2004-05? All RR teachers All teachers at RR schools 2. What is the level of participation in RR by AA students relative to other ethnic groups by school?____________ 3. What is the progress demonstrated by RR students in improving achievement, as demonstrated on programspecific measures? What percentage of students are discontinued or not discontinued?_______________ 4. What are the perceptions of RR teachers re: RR program implementation, impacts, strengths, and weaknesses?____ 5. What are the perceptions of regular first-grade teachers and other teachers re: RR program implementation, impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? 6. What are the perceptions of parents/guardians of RR students re: program impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? All RR schools All RR teachers All RR teachers All RR school teachers Parents of RR students Page 8 of 19  RR Teacher Phone Interview  RR School Teacher Survey (faculty meeting)  RR Achievement Profiles  One-hour RR Tutoring Observation (min. of 10 schools)  School records/archival data RR Achievement Profile RR Teacher Interview RR School Teacher Survey (disaggregated by r' grade V5. other grades) RR Parent SurveyCompass Learning Program Description Compass Learning (CL) is a computer-based program designed to develop students skills in reading, writing, and spelling. Additional purposes are to support teacher management of student performance, personalize instruction, and connect communities of learners. The themebased lessons and activities provided by CL take a cross-curricular approach and offer a real world context for learning. The Compass Management system assessment is either automatic or customizable. Technology Specialists assist classroom teachers with any technology question or need. In the 2004-05 school year, 21 LRSD elementary schools, two middle schools, and the Accelerated Learning Center (high school) utilize CL programs: Schools Bale Elementary Booker Elementary Brady Elementary Carver Elementary Chicot Elementary Fair Park Elementary Forrest Park Elementary Franklin Elementary Fulbright Elementary Geyer Springs Elementary Gibbs Elementary Mabelvale Elementary______ McDermott Elementary Mitchell Elementary________ Otter Creek Elementary Rightsell Elementary_______ Rockefeller Elementary Stephens Elementary_______ Wakefield Elementary______ Williams Elementary_______ Cloverdale Middle School Henderson Middle School Accelerated Learning Center Number of Teachers 27 55 28 43 44 19 25 35 38 23 30 25 26 22 31 25 35 39 29 36 59 60 14 Number of Students 319 605 318 496 536 187 361 387 554 299 310 257 406 156 511 262 453 499 451 461 682 630 178 Percent African- American Students 82 53 78 52 73 75 20 96 26 88 53 80 62 96 60 100 67 95 78 52 82 82 92 Percent Free/Reduced Lunch Students 88 63 80 53 86 73 14 94 17 81 44 88 88 92 56 88 66 91 92 34 66 70 15 Page 9 of 19CL Evaluation Questions and Design A mixed-methods design will be employed to address the research questions as follows: Primary Evaluation Question-. 1. What are the effects of participation in CL on the achievement of African-American (AA) students? A. Quasi-experimental design: Due to the insufficient sample size and unique nature of the high school {n = 1), the quasi-experimental analysis will be conducted with the elementary ( = 21 schools) and middle (n = 2) school samples only. A descriptive examination (see below) of test scores for the high school will also be conducted to determine trends and patterns at that site. Specifically, the quasi-experimental design will compare CL elementary and middle schools to other schools in the district, most likely by multiple-regression analyses in which the dependent variable is posttest (2004-05) scores (Arkansas Benchmarks in grades 3-8, and Iowa Test of Basic Skills in grades K-8) and covariates are pretest (pre-program) test scores, gender, ethnicity, and SES. Pretests: Iowa Test of Basic Skills (ITBS) (for grades K-8), Arkansas Benchmarks (for grades 4-8) Posttests: 2004-05 ITBS Reading and Math Subtests (for grades 1-8)\nArkansas Benchmarks (for grades 3-8). B. Descriptive design: For the one high school using CL, whole-grade pretest and posttest means on Arkansas Benchmarks, ITBS, Grade 11 Literacy Exam, and Algebra I and Geometry End-of-Course (EoC) exams will be compared to district norms. The purpose will be to assess absolute and relative performance as possible conelates of CL implementation. Supplemental (Qualitative/Step 2) Evaluation Questions: 1. What are the quality, nature, and level of implementation of CL at the 24 schools implementing the program in 2004-05? Phone interviews will be conducted with (a) the LRSD CL Coordinator and (b) a sample of 10 school Technology Specialists (the 1 high school, the 2 middle schools, and a random sample of 7/21 elementary schools). All teachers at the 24 schools will be surveyed so that site-specific data regarding implementation will be available. Observations of CL laboratory sessions will be conducted at a sample of 10 schools (the 1 high school, the 2 middle schools, and 7 of 21 elementary schools). At half of the observed schools (n = 5), a brief (20-minute) student focus group ( = 5 to 7 students) will be conducted to ascertain students perspectives on their experiences in using CL (nature of activities, usefulness, enjoyment, etc.). 2. What is the level of participation in CL by AA students relative to other ethnic groups at the schools involved? Page 10 of 19Student records/archival data for 2003-04 and 2004-05 will be analyzed. 3. What are the perceptions of teachers and Technology Specialists regarding CL program implementation, impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? This question will be addressed via the Technology Specialist Interview and closed-ended and open-ended items on the CL Teacher Survey. 4. What are the perceptions of parents/guardians of CL students regarding program impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? A CL Parent survey will be conducted to address this question via a questionnaire including closed- and open-ended items. Page 11 of 19Summary of CL Instruments and Participants by Evaluation Question ______Evaluation Question Primary Question I Participants Data Sources 1. What are the effects of participation in CL on the achievement of AA students?  Students at 23 CL elementary and middle schools and comparison schools  Whole grade-level means at the CL high school.  ITBS as pretest for Grades K-9  Arkansas Benchmarks as posttest for 3-8)  2004-05 ITBS Reading and Math subtests (grades 1-9 posttests)  2004-05 Grade 11 Literacy Exam (as posttest)  2004-05 Algebra I and Geometry EoC Exams (as posttest) Step 2 Questions 1. What are the quality, nature, and level of implementation of CL at the 21 schools implementing the program in 2004-05?  All CL school teachers  10 Technology Specialists (1 high school, 2 middle schools, and 7 randomly selected elementary schools)  District CL Program Coordinator  5 student focus groups (1 high school, 1 middle school, 3 elementary schools) 2. What is the level of participation in CL by AA students relative to other ethnic groups at the schools concerned?________________ 3. What are the perceptions of teachers and Technology Specialists regarding CL program implementation, impacts, strengths, and weaknesses?_______________ 4. What are the perceptions of parents/guardians of CL students regarding program impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? All CL schools  All CL school teachers  10 Technology Specialists Parents of CL students Page 12 of 19  CL Teacher Survey (faculty meeting)  Technology Specialist Phone Interview  District CL Program Coordinator Phone Interview  Two-hour CL Laboratory Observations (10 schools: 1 high school, 2 middle schools, 7 randomly selected elementary schools)  20-min. Student Focus Groups (n = 5-7 students), one each at 5 of the 10 observation schools  School records/archival data  CL Teacher Survey  Technology Specialist Interview  CL Parent SurveySmart/Thrive Programs Program Description The Smart/Thrive (S/T) program was designed as an intervention for 8*- and 9*-grade African- American students who are lacking the knowledge, skills, and/or confidence required for success in Algebra I. S/T currently (2004-2005) engages approximately 10 percent of the total African- American student population enrolled in Algebra I classes. During the 2003-2004 academic year, 264 students participated, studying pre-algebra for two weeks during the summer (Smart Program) and 10 Saturdays across the school year (Thrive Program). Various local grants have funded this program since 1999. Currently, S/T serves students from all eight LRSD middle schools: Middle Schools Cloverdale Dunbar Forest Heights Henderson Mablevale Mann Pulaski Heights Southwest Number of Teachers 59 58 59 60 57 64 57 55 Number of Students 682 747 688 630 634 873 708 493 Percent African- American Students 82 61 77 82 81 52 57 94 Percent Free/Reduced Lunch Students 86 57 62 70 75 37 47 87 S/T Evaluation Questions and Design A mixed-methods design will be employed to address the research questions as follows: Primary Evaluation Question: 1. Have the S/T programs been effective in improving and remediating the academic achievement of African-American (AA) students?  A treatment (2 levels)-control student, pretest-posttest design will control for pretest, gender, ethnicity, and SES. Three types of Algebra 1 students will be compared depending on their program enrollment: i. No program ii. Smart program only iii. Both Smart and Thrive programs  Pretests: 2002-2003 and 2003-2004 6* and 8* grade Benchmark tests. Page 13 of 19 Posttests: 2004-05 (ITBS) Math Subtests\nAlgebra I EoC Supplemental (Qualitative/Step 2) Evaluation Questions: 1. What is the level of participation in Smart and Thrive by AA students? Student records/archival data of 2003-04 and 2004-05 will be analyzed. In addition to descriptive information, levels of participation will be gathered as a potential variable for the student achievement analyses. 2. What instructional strategies are used during the tutoring sessions? Approximately five random observation visits will be conducted during the Saturday Thrive Program sessions in 2005. 3. What are the perceptions of S/T Tutors regarding program impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? A questionnaire will be administered to S/T Tutors. 4. What are the perceptions of Algebra I teachers regarding program impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? A questionnaire will be administered to Algebra 1 teachers. 5. What are the perceptions of participating students regarding program impacts, strengths, and weaknesses of S/T? A questionnaire will be administered to student participants. A sample of them will also be selected to participate in approximately 3-5 student focus groups, each comprised of approximately 5 students. 6. What are the perceptions of parents/guardians of S/T students regarding program impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? An S/T parent survey will be conducted to address this question via a questionnaire including closed- and open-ended items. Page 14 of 19 oSummary of S/T Data Sources and Participants by Evaluation Question Evaluation Question Primary Question Participants I Data Sources 1. What are the effects of participation in the Smart and/or Thrive Programs on AA student achievement? Supplemental Questions 1. What is the level of participation in Smart and Thrive by AA students? 2. What instructional strategies are used during the tutoring sessions? 3. What are the perceptions of S/T Tutors regarding program impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? 4. What are the perceptions of Algebra I teachers regarding program impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? 5. What are the perceptions of participating students regarding program impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? 6. What are the perceptions of parents/guardians of S/T students regarding program impacts, strengths, and weaknesses?  All 8'' and 9\" grade Algebra I students 2003-2004 benchmark 2004-05 ITBS Math subtests\nAlgebra I EoC  All program participants S/T teachers and students All S/T Tutors  All Algebra 1 teachers  Program participants Parents of S/T students Page 15 of 19 School records/archival data  Qbservations of tutoring sessions  S/T Tutor Questionnaire  Algebra 1 Teacher Questionnaire  S/T Student Questionnaire  Focus Groups  S/T Parent QuestionnaireYear-Round Education Programs Program Description Year-Round Education (YRE) rearranges instruction and vacations so that they occur throughout the year, for more continuous learning and frequent breaks. YRE has emerged nationally as a way to educate all students better, regardless of ethnic backgrounds, social strata, or academic performance. LRSDs design is a single-track, 45-10 calendar where all students and teachers in the school are in class or on vacation at the same time. (The 45-10 means 45 days in a quarter, then 10 days of intersession/vacation. Intersession is a five-day program and attendance is voluntary.) Currently, five elementary schools are implementing YRE: Elementary Schools Cloverdale Mablevale Mitchell Stephens Woodruff Number of Teachers 26 25 22 39 21 Number of Students 360 257 156 499 235 Percent of Students African- American 77 80 96 95 91 Percent Eligible for Free/Reduced Lunches 89 88 92 90 86 YRE Evaluation Questions and Design Primary Evaluation Question: 1. Has the Year-Round Education (YRE) Program effectively improved and remediated the academic achievement of African-American (AA) students? Whole-school sample: In a treatment vs. control school, pretest vs. posttest design, the analysis will control for pretest scores, gender, ethnicity, and family income (eligibility for free or reduced lunch program). Subsample: Within each YRE school, evaluators will compare achievement gains of students who participate in intersession to predicted gains (based on category of school, pretest scores, gender, ethnicity, and family income). Supplemental (Qualitative/Step 2) Evaluation Questions: 1. What are the quality and level of implementation of intersession instructional strategies? 2. What are the quality and level of implementation of instructional strategies during regular session? Page 16 of 19 o'Evaluators will interview YRE teachers by phone and observe YRE classrooms (during both the regular session and intersession). 3. What is the level of participation in YRE Programs by AA students relative to other ethnic groups at the school? Student records/archival data for 2003-04 and 2004-05 will be analyzed. 4. What are the perceptions of YRE teachers regarding program impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? The YRE teacher interview and the YRE teacher survey will address this question via both closed- and open-ended items. 5. What are the perceptions of participating students regarding program impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? Evaluators will administer a survey to YRE program participants. 6. What are the perceptions of parents/guardians of YRE students regarding program impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? A Parent survey will address this question via a questionnaire including both closed- and open-ended items. Page 17 of 19 'o'Summary of YRE Data Sources and Participants by Evaluation Question Evaluation Question Primary Question: I Participants Data Sources 1. What are the effects of YRE participation on achievement of AA students? Supplemental (Step 2) Questions: 1. What are the quality and level of implementation of intersession instructional strategies? 2. What are the quality and level of implementation of instructional strategies during regular session? 3. What is the level of participation in YRE Programs by AA students relative to other ethnic groups? 4. What are the perceptions of Year Round Education teachers regarding program impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? 5. What are the perceptions of participating students regarding program impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? 6. What are the perceptions of parents/guardians of YRE students regarding program impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? All grades at YRE schools and other elementary schools. Year Round Education intersession student participants within above samples. All YRE teachers Selected teachers and students All YRE schools All YRE teachers YRE students grades 4 and 5 Parents of YRE students Page 18 of 19 Benchmark and ITBS Teacher phone interview Classroom observations School records/archival data YRE teacher interview and survey YRE student survey YRE parent surveyRR January Planning, refining, and consulting with PRE and RR experts\nand developing instruments with PRE review. CL Planning, refining, and consulting with PRE and CL experts\nand developing instruments with PRE review. S/T YRE Evaluation Schedule 2004-2005 February Begin observations and March-April Survey RR School Teachers, complete RR interview RR. teachers, teacher interviews. Begin observations, phone interview of program coordinator\nselect tech, specialist \u0026amp; school samples\nphone interview of tech, specialist. Planning, refining, Observe Thrive and consulting with PRE and S/T experts\nand developing instruments with PRE review. sessions. Planning, refining. Develop instruments and consulting with PRE and YRE specialists. with PRE review. May-June Profile RR achievement\nanalyze records/archival data analyses. Survey CL Teachers (at Analyze faculty meetings), complete technology specialist interviews and observations\ncomplete student focus groups. Administer teacher, tutor, and student questionnaires\nbegin focus groups. Administer teacher, tutor, and student questionnaires\nbegin focus groups. Page 19 of 19 July-September October Analyze achievement data, survey, \u0026amp; interviews. Draft reports for review. PRE review draft reports. November PRE submit reports to LRSD for approval. records/archival data analyses. Complete focus groups and observations\nanalyze records/archival data. Complete focus groups and observations\nanalyze records/archival data. Analyze achievement data, survey, \u0026amp; interviews. Draft reports for review. Analyze achievement data, survey, \u0026amp; interviews. Draft reports for review. Analyze achievement data, survey, \u0026amp; interviews. Draft reports for review. PRE review draft reports. PRE review draft reports. PRE review draft reports. PRE submit reports to LRSD for approval. PRE submit reports to LRSD for approval. PRE submit reports to LRSD for approval.Little Rock School District (LRSD) QUARTERLY UPDATE to the Office of Desegregation Monitoring (ODM) and Joshua June 1, 2005 received may 2 7 2005 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, PLAINTIFF V. PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. I ETAL., DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ETAL., INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ETAL., INTERVENORS /I Planning, Research, and Evaluation (PRE) Instructional Resource Center (IRC) Little Rock School District 3001 South Pulaski Little Rock, AR 72206 V Jil A. il fi An Individual Approach to a World opKnoivledge May 27, 2005 John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206-1220 Dear Mr. Walker: We received your letter of May 24 as a facsimile on the same day acknowledging your ( receipt of lists of programs from us. Primarily from them, we selected the four programs which Drs. Catterall and Ross are evaluating this year. Your recommendation, in your May 24 letter, to evaluate the 21 Century Community Learning CentersJ iiiniutveirie-osLtso uuos.. rAtXfLtecri udiissLcuussssiinngg IiTt wwiitmh uDrr.. RKoossss aanndd ootthheerrss., we propose to evaluate it rather than PLATO Learning during the coming school year. Because our quarterly update for June 1 has already been printed (which we are delivering to you with this letter), the next update can report this change for next years evaluations. We understand that 21 Century Community Learning Centers will end within I I iw J v/viiiiuujuiy i-zcdriung Centers will end within a year or so at several of the sites you named. Limiting our evaluation to a few sites where the program s support is secure for at least a couple more years makes sense to us. We will keep you informed of our progress and invite your further ideas. Please do not hesitate to contact us with any further comments or questions. Sincerely yours, 1 ? I  ) KKaarreenn DeJame^, Ph.D. Director, PRE Ph.D. L.  I ill ,1 xc: Mr. Gene Jones \u0026amp; Ms. Marjorie Powell, ODM Mr. Chris Heller, Friday Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark k 810 W Markham OU Little Rod: l-22e-2(iir Ancansar 7\ni Little Rock School District (LRSD) QUARTERLY UPDATE to the Office of Desegregation Monitoring (ODM) and Joshua June 1, 2005 n^Fil'^OCKSCHOOLDIS^^ PLAINTIFF V. PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NOT ET AL., DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ETAL., INTERVENORS K athf.rine knight, ET al., INTERVENORS_ Planning, Research, and Evaluation (PRE) Instructional Resource Center (IRC) Little Rock School District 3001 South Pulaski Little Rock, AR 72206Introduction the third quarterly written update by the Little Rock School District (LRSD) and its ~ ' ______ 1 -,.1 ________________fko nictnnt This is t - -1----- . . . Planning, Research, and Evaluation (PRE) Department, submitted m accordance with the District Courts'2004 Compliance Remedy (Memorandum Opinion of June 30, 2004, pp. 61-67). The organization of this report is that of the Compliance Remedy\nA. LRSD must promptly hire a highly trained team of professionals to reinvigorate PRE. B. The first task PRE must perform is to devise a comprehensive^pro^mn assessment process which must be deeply embedded as a permanent part of LRSDs curriculum c. D. and instruction program. During each of the next two academic school years (2004-05 and 2005-06), LRSD must outside consultants to prepare four (4) formal step 2 evaluations. hire one or more outside consultants to prepare lour loniwi 4 PRE must (1) oversee the preparation of all eight of these step 2 evaluations, (2) wor closely with Dr. Ross and any other outside consultants . . . and (3) provide the outside consultants with any and all requested assistance and support. . . VUlloUlUvllltO Willi 4*1*^ UllU ----------------------- XX E. Evaluations will contain numbers and grade levels of teachers and administrators who recommended program changes necessary for improved academic contributed data, recommended program changes necessary lor uiipiuvcu atauviuv achievement by African-American students, and brief explanations of how each change F. will increase a programs effectiveness. .  PRE must notify the ODM and Joshua in writing of the names of those eight programs In addition, after PRE and Dr. Ross have formulated a comprehensive program assessment process and reduced it to a final draft, PRE must provide a copy to the ODM and Joshua at least thirty days before it is presented to the Board for approval ... by December 31, 2004. G PRE must submit quarterly written updates on the status of the . . . four step 2 program evaluations . . . during the 2004-05 school year and the four step 2 program evaluations that will be prepared during the 2005-06 school year ... to ODM and Joshua on December 1, March 1, June 1, and September 1... H. [ODMs responsibilities.] 1. [Joshuas responsibilities.] J. Four step 2 program evaluations due to October 1, 2006. the Court October 1, 2005 and four more due K. Compliance Report due October 15, 2006. L. [This Compliance Remedy supersedes earlier one.] Page 2Status as of June 1, 2005 A. Hire a highly trained team of professionals. LRSD hired a highly trained team of professionals in 2004 and reported this action in its first quarterly written update, December 1, 2004. This team has continued its duties as described below, in this third quarterly written update. B. Devise and embed a comprehensive program assessment process. At its December 16, 2004 session, LRSD Board of Directors approved the comprehensive program assessment process devised by PRE. The final draft was in Appendix B of the first quarterly written update. Through program evaluation teams, stakeholders (any people who are variously responsible for and/or vitally interested) participate in the LRSDs comprehensive program assessment process. These four teams (one for each step 2 evaluation) formed when the PRE Department and outside consultants commenced designing the step-2 evaluations. The teams met on February 24, March 4 and 18, and May 6 and 20 for dialog on evaluation designs, issues, and progress. A Joshua representative attended May 6, while ODM officials attended February 24, May 6, and May 20. A table of members of the four teams and their affiliations appear in Appendix B of this third quarterly written update. General composition of those attending is in the following table: Meetings of Program Evaluation Teams FebruaryMay 2005 Dates February 24 March 4 March 18 May 6 May 20 Places Stephens Elem. IRC Fulbright Elem. IRC Stephens Elem. Teachers 4 1 3 4 1 Admin 6 3 3 8 4 Parents 1 1 1 2 0 Others 2 2 0 4 1 C. Hire outside consultant(s) to prepare eight formal step 2 evaluations. Credentials of outside evaluators Drs. Catterall and Ross were in this section and Appendix C of the first quarterly written update. They agreed to undertake step 2 evaluations of four LRSD programs during 2004-2005, and D below describes their progress. For step 2 evaluations in 2005-2006, Dr. Ross has identified four 2.7 programs, named below. (Please see Appendix C for his letter stating this.) Page 3Arkansas A+ Schools Network, at Woodruff Elementary School, incorporates the arts in teaching language and mathematics. KnowledgePoints is a Supplemental Educational Service (SES) selected at Bale, Brady, Chicot, Wakefield, and Watson Elementary Schools and offered as an after-school program. PLATO Learning is a computer-based program at the Accelerated Learning Center. Pre-kindergarten (PreK) literacy development will be evaluated in the 31 schools with classes for 4-year-old children. These young students participate in developmentally appropriate and fun lessons and activities intended to nurture essential language skills. Dr. Catterall will evaluate A+, while Dr. Ross will evaluate KnowledgePoints, PLATO Learning, and PreK literacy. Their supporting letters are in Appendix C. Data for schools where these programs operated this year (2004-2005) are in the tables below. Additional schools may participate next year, particularly schools chosen per the school choice option of No Child Left Behind regulations. Schools in these tables which are on the Arkansas School Improvement List are so noted by an asterisk (*). I I Proposed Programs Evaluations 2005-2006 2004-2005 School Data. Schools Number of Teachers Number of Students Perctitr \"i SiuJmis -IfricuH- 'inieiican PerreHt of Srudeiirs Lti)\niblefrr b'rtV.Neduced l.tinch Woodruff* I 21 A+ I 235 I Ml I Hh KnowledgePoil ints Bale* Brady* Chicot* Wakefield* * Watson^ 27 28 44 29 34 319 318 536 451 456 82 78 73 78 96 86 81) 86 92 93 ACC PLATO I 17 I 136~~T X I iS These schools are on the School Improvement list. Page 4II LRSD Schools Offering PreK Classes for Four-Year-Old Students School Bale* Baseline* Brady* Carver Chicot* Cloverdale* Dodd Fair Park* Forest Park Franklin* Fulbright Geyer Springs Jefferson M. L. King ,* Mabelvale McDermott Meadowcliff Otter Creek Pulaski Heights Rightsell Rockefeller* Romine Stephens Terry * Wakefield* Washington* Watson* Western Hills Wilson* Woodruff* No. of Teachers 1 1 1 1 4 1 1 1 1 3 1 2 1 4 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 4 1 2 4 1 1 1 1 No. of Aides 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 0 0 0 Max. Students 40 40 40 20 80 40 40 40 40 60 40 40 40 60 40 40 40 40 20 40 40 40 80 40 40 80 40 20 20 40 Enroll- No. of . \u0026lt;111 ment 38 39 37 20 59 40 36 37 40 55 40 36 40 80 38 40 40 39 20 38 39 39 78 35 39 75 36 37 18 36 AAf 32 32 27 NAt 46 32 11 I'i, 1 52 8 35 5 46 31 27 35 22 6 38 24 31 72 18 29 67 34 20 16 32 84.2 82.1 7.3.0 N 7 78.0 80.0 61.1 5.0 94.5 20.0 97.2 12.5 8! ' hl.3 5\u0026lt;\u0026gt;.4 .30.0 IPi.U 61.5 -u 5 9 2..3 51, 74.4 X9..\n94.' 54.1 88.9 88.9 No. of Hispanic 2 1 0 NA 11 6 3 0 0 0 1 1 0 3 3 1 1 2 0 0 1 5 0 1 11 1 1 0 0 0 ('er evDl lliSDHII.. '.3 0.(1 \\ \\ 18.6 15. 8.3 fi.\" 0.(1 0.0 \u0026gt; c 5.0 II. C 5.0 5.0\n3.1 (1.0 0.0 5.1 .4.8 (1.0 2.9 28.2 2.7 2.8 0.0 0.(1 No. of Per will White 3 5 10 NA 1 2 12 7 36 4 30 1 3^ 13 1 9 3 16 12 0 13 0 6 16 0 9 1 0 1 4 Whii.- 12.8 \u0026gt; .P .4 5.0 33.3 tS,9 90.(1 ' .3 85.0 31..5 5..3 22.5 7.5 41.0 00,0 0.0 3.\u0026lt;.3 :.o 0.0 12.0 2.8 0.0 Pl I \u0026lt; 1 t AA is African American. NA is not available\". * These schools are on the School Improvement List of Arkansas Public Schools.  In the 2005-2006 school year, Fair Park Elementary converts to a preK center with eight or more classes\nwhile the other elementary schools keep their current preK capacity. Page 5D. PRE (1) oversees the preparation of the step 2 evaluations, (2) works closely with Drs. Ross and Catterall, and (3) assists them. PRE continued working closely with Dr. Steven Ross and his team at the Center for Research in Educational Policy (CREP), University of Memphis, and with Dr. James Catterall of UCLA. Dr. Ross team is conducting three step 2 evaluations of LRSD programs, reported March 1, 2004 Compass Learning (CL), Reading Recovery (RR), and Smart/Thrive (S/T)\nwhile Dr. Catterall completed data collection instruments and instructions for his step 2 evaluation of Year-Round Education (YRE). In this section of this third quarterly written update, PRE reports progress for all four step 2 evaluations. Appendix D exhibits data collection instruments and instructions. Progress on the three evaluations conducted by Dr Ross: CompassLeaming (CL) CL evaluation activities for this quarter included the following\n CL Teacher Technology Questionnaire went to all 20 CL Elementary schools on March 9. As of April 27, 17 schools returned them.  All seven CL school observations were completed by Drs. Gail Weems and Dan Strahl.  All four Student Focus Group Interviews have been completed by Dr. Gail Weems after permission letters were distributed to parents and five to seven fifth-grade students were randomly chosen from the returned permissions.  Parent surveys have been returned from all five (randomly selected) schools. Parent participation appears to have been very good.  Drs. Deborah Lowther, Gail Weems, and Dan Strahl completed interviews of all lab attendants, technology specialists, district CL Coordinator, and designated principals.  Data analysis began after data collection ended in May. Reading Recovery (RR) Dr. Anna Grehan led RR data collection: o o o o o 16 RR teachers were observed by Drs. Melissa Schulz of Ohio State University and Cliff Johnson of Georgia State University in March and April, respectively, in 10 schools. 22 RR teachers returned the Teacher Questionnaire (RRTQ) in 14 schools. 141 non-RR teachers returned the Classroom Teachers Questionnaire (RRCTQ) 86 Parent Survey (RRPS) in English language came from 15 elementary schools, and 9 Parent Survey (RRPS) in Spanish language from 4 elementary schools were collected. Page 6SMART/THRIVE (S/T) The S/T evaluators, coordinated by Dr. Lyle Davis, completed collection of qualitative and survey data in April:  They observed six tutoring sessions (2 per day on February 19, March 5, and March 19).  They distributed 190 student surveys on March 5 and received 144 completed ones.  Two student focus groups met on March 5, and another met on March 19. Their results have been summarized but not yet analyzed.  Of 24 S/T teacher surveys, distributed on March 5, 18 were completed and returned.  45 algebra I teacher surveys were distributed March 5 to both S/T and non-S/T algebra I teachers during the school week. Approximately 45 have been returned in roughly equal numbers from non-S/T and S/T teachers.  190 parent surveys went to their homes on March 5, and more were collected during the carnival on April 23. In total, 37 were completed.  Dr. Davis group conducted a mentor focus group on April 25 and collected data from it. Progress on the evaluation conducted by Dr. Catterall: Year-Round Education (YRE) YRE evaluation included the following:  Review of all existing LRSD reports on YRE.  Detailed review of the longitudinal YRE student test-score database, provided by LRSD, and construction of trial models for analysis of longitudinal scores accommodating 2005 scores.  Alternative data cells and alternative data formats have been specified for 2005 student longitudinal achievement assessment.  Review of 2003 and 2004 student survey data and presentations from participating YRE schools.  Planning for 2005 student surveys.  Development of the 2005 parent interview protocol and discussion and exploration of work agreements with professional personnel who may conduct parent interviews. PRE sent Dr. Catterall a list of all 4***- and 5'^-grade teachers at YRE schools and a list of parents and students in both YRE and traditional year schools. E. Evaluation will have (1) numbers and grade levels of teachers and administrators who submit data for evaluations, (2) recommended program changes necessary for improved achievement by African-American students, and (3) succinct explanations of how each change will increase its respective programs effectiveness. j The evaluations will address these requirements when prepared for PREs review later this year. Page 7F. Delivery of names of programs to be evaluated and the comprehensive program assessment process to ODM and Joshua. Names of the four programs evaluated during 2004-2005 and the LRSD comprehensive program assessment process were delivered before they were due last year and reported in the first written quarterly update. This third written quarterly update names the four LRSD programs selected for step 2 evaluations during 2005-2006. (Please see C above.) PRE has now notified both ODM and Joshua of all eight LRSD programs selected for step 2 evaluations and furnished both parties with the comprehensive program assessment process per F of the June 30, 2004 remedy by the US District Court (page 65). G. PRE must submit quarterly written updates on the status of step 2 evaluations. Per F of the June 30, 2004 remedy by the US District Court (page 65), PRE submitted its first written quarterly update on December 1, 2004 and its second on March 1, 2005. PRE submits this third written quarterly update before June 1, 2005, to date meeting due dates of this remedy. S' (J i r Page 8Quarterly Update Appendix June 1,2005 Appendices B. Program Evaluation Teams C. Letters of Outside Evaluators D. Data Collection Instruments for Step 2 Evaluations of 20042005 Evaluation Schedule 2004-2005Quarterly Update Appendix June 1,2005 B. Program Evaluation Teams Members Names and Affiliations CompassLeaming (CL) Reading Recovery (RR) SMART/THRIVE (S/T) Year-Round Education (YRE)Quarterly Update Appendix June 1, 2005 Program Evaluation Teams Team Role Team Leader Program Specialist Statistician Programmer______ Technical writer External consultant External consultant External consultant External reviewer PRE reviewer PRE reviewer PRE reviewer Parent \u0026amp; teacher Teacher Principal Program Evaluation Name Karen DeJamette, PhD Travis Taylor________ Jim Wohlleb Ken Savage__________ Deborah Lowther, PhD Dan Strahl, PhD Aaron McDonald Steve Ross, PhD James Catterall, PhD Yvette Dillingham Maurecia M Robinson Ed Williams, PhD Amy Thompson______ Thelma Watson Deborah Mitchell Team: CompassLeaming Position or Title Director of PRE Dept.____________ Instructional Technology Specialist Statistical Research Specialist Programmer Analyst Researcher Researcher Research Coordinator Evaluator \u0026amp; Professor Evaluator \u0026amp; Professor Evaluation Specialist Statistical Research Specialist Statistical Research Specialist Elementary teacher IV Elementary teacher IV___________ Principal Location PRE Info Technology PRE Info services CREP CREP CREP CREP UCLA PRE PRE PRE Fulbright Elem Fulbright Elem Fulbright Elem team Role Team leader Program specialist Program specialist Statistician Programmer______ Technical writer External consultant External consultant External consultant External reviewer PRE reviewer PRE reviewer Parent Teacher Program Evaluation Team: Reading Recovery Name Jim Wohlleb Pat Busbea Linda Dom, PhD Ed Williams, PhD Ken Savage__________ Deborah Lowther, PhD Anna Grehan, PhD Aaron McDonald Steve Ross, PhD James Catterall, PhD Yvette Dillingham Maurecia M Robinson Michelle Bonds-Hall Michelle Dorsey Position or Title Statistical Research Specialist Reading Coordinator Professor Statistical Research Specialist Programmer Analyst________ Researcher Researcher Research Coordinator Evaluator \u0026amp; Professor Evaluator \u0026amp; Professor Evaluation Specialist Statistical Research Specialist Reading Recovery teacher Location PRE Early Child. Ed. UALR PRE Info services CREP CREP CREP CREP UCLA PRE PRE Chicot ElemQuarterly Update Appendix June 1,2005 Program Evaluation Teams (continued) _____Team Role Team leader______ Program specialist Program specialist Statistician_______ Programmer______ Technical writer External consultant External consultant External consultant External consultant External reviewer PRE reviewer PRE reviewer Parent___________ Teacher ____ Program Evaluation Team\nSMART / THRIVE Name Maurecia M Robinson Vanessa Cleaver______ Marcelline Carr_______ Ed Williams, PhD Ken Savage__________ Deborah Lowther, PhD  Lyle Davis, PhD______ Aaron McDonald_____ Steve Ross, PhD Gail Weems, PhD James Catterall, PhD Yvette Dillingham Jim Wohlleb Rose Cook___________ Tonjuna Iverson Program _____Team Role______ Team leader_________ Program specialist Program specialist Statistician Programmer_________ Technical writer External consultant External consultant External consultant External consultant External reviewer PRE reviewer_______ PRE reviewer_______ Parent_____________ Teacher ______ Position or Title Statistical Research Specialist Math - API Math - API Statistical Research Specialist Programmer Analyst Researcher Researcher Research Coordinator Evaluator \u0026amp; Professor Professor Evaluator \u0026amp; Professor Evaluation Specialist Statistical Research Specialist Reading Recovery teacher Location PRE IRC Math. IRC Math PRE Info services CREP CREP CREP CREP UALR UCLA PRE PRE Parkview Evaluation Team: Year-Round Education Name Ed Williams, PhD Janice Wilson Sophia Parchman Ed Williams, PhD Ken Savage_________ Catterall \u0026amp; Associates Lyle Davis, PhD Aaron McDonald Steve Ross, PhD Gail Weems, PhD James Catterall, PhD Yvette Dillingham Jim Wohlleb________ Diana Layne-Jordan Judy Harbour_______ Position or Title Statistical Research Specialist Principal Assistant Principal__________ Statistical Research Specialist Programmer Analyst Evaluatorr Researcher Research Coordinator Evaluator \u0026amp; Professor Professor Evaluator \u0026amp; Professor Evaluation Specialist Statistical Research Specialist PTA President Grade 5 Location PRE Woodruff Mann Magnet PRE Info services UCLA CREP CREP CREP UALR UCLA PRE PRE Stephens StephensQuarterly Update Appendix June 1, 2005 C. Letters Dr. Steven M. Ross Approval of four 2005-2006 step 2 evaluations Commitment to perform three of them Dr. James Catterall Commitment to perform step 2 evaluation of Ad-THE UNIVERSITY OF Center for Research in Educational Policy MEMPHIS A Tennessee Center of Excellence 325 Browning Hall Memphis, Tennessee 38152-3340 Office: 901.678.2310 Toll-Free\n866.670.6147 Fax\n901.678.4257 www.memphls.edu/crep May 17, 2005 Dr. Karen DeJamette Director, PRE Little Rock School District 3001 S. Pulaski Little Rock, AR 77206 Dear Dr. DeJamette: I have reviewed the four programs selected for Step 2 evaluations in the 2005- 2006 school year: (a) Knowledge Points, (b) PLATO Learning, (c) Pre-K Literacy Program, and (d) A+. These programs presently or potentially serve large numbers of African American students, but have not yet been evaluated with regard to implementation or student achievement. I believe that these are appropriate choices for the Step 2 evaluations. 1 look forward to working with you and PRE personally on the first three studies (a-c). Please feel free to contact me if any additional information is needed. Sincerely, Steven M. Ross, Ph.D. Faudree Professor and Director Center for Research in Educational Policy A Tennessee Board of Regents Institution An Equal Opportunity  Affirmative Action UntversKyUNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, LOS ANGELES BERKELEY  DAVIS  IRVINE  LOSANCEl.ES  RIVERSIDE  SANDIECO * SAN FRANCISCO SANTA BARBARA  SANTA CRUZ UCLA Graduate School of Education \u0026amp; Information Studies P.O. Box 951521 Los Angeles, CA 90095-1521 May 10, 2005 Karen DeJamette, Ph.D. Director, Planning, Research, and Evaluation Department Little Rock School District 3001 South Pulaski Little Rock, AR 72206-2873 Dear Dr. DeJarnette: The A+ Program, along with certain other arts-academics programs, has shown effects on motivation and learning of elementary students who read below grade level and are otherwise at-risk of school failure. The A+ program now operating in the Little Rock School District may be making contributions to the Districts interest in improving achievement of its African-American students. 1 have extensive experience with evaluating curricula that serves to integrate the arts and academic learning. 1 have some familiarity with the A+ program particularly - its history and previous efforts to assess effects of its large scale projects, 1 will be pleased to join you in designing and implementing an formal evaluation of this program during the 2005-2006 school year. Sincerely, dProff les S Catterall, Ph.D. 'rofessor, Graduate School of Education \u0026amp; Information Studies (310)825-5572/455-078.5 Fax:(310)455-0795 E-mail: jamesc@gseis.ucla.edu I-J Quarterly Update Appendix June 1, 2005 D. Data Collection Instruments for Step 2 Evaluations of 20042005 CompassLeaming (CL) District Coordinator Interview Protocol Middle and High School Principal Interview Protocol Technology Specialist Interview Protocol Lab Attendant Interview Protocol Parent/Guardian Consent Form Encuesta para los padres de fam ilia Parent Survey Survey of Computer Use Student Focus Group Protocol Teacher QuestionnaireLittle Rock School District (LRSD) CompassLearning-. District Coordinator Interview Protocol District Coordinator Responsibilities  What are your primary responsibilities with regard to CompassLearning?  How were you chosen as the district coordinator for the CompassLearning program? Level of Implementation  How long has CompassLearning been implemented in LRSD?  Why is the use of CompassLearning determined by each school rather than by the district?  What guidance was given to schools as to which students should use CompassLearning, when they should use it, and how they should use it? In what document(s) would these guidelines be found?  To what degree are teachers actively involved with using CompassLearning resources (e.g., student performance reports) to improve teaching and learning activities? How do you obtain this type of information?  To what degree do school administrators use CompassLearning reports as the basis for school improvement efforts? How do you obtain this type of information? How do you obtain this type of information?  To what degree do district administrators use CompassLearning reports as the basis for school improvement efforts? How do you obtain this type of information? Evaluation of the Software  How would you evaluate the CompassLearning software and the support provided by the vendor?  What are the strengths of the CompassLearning product?  What are the weaknesses of the product? Nature and Quality of Implementation  How would you evaluate the way in which CompassLearning has been implemented in the district?  What are the best aspects of how the district and its schools have implemented the CompassLearning program? In what ways could the implementation process be improved?  How and to what extent is CompassLearning integrated into the curriculum?  What are the Districts goals with regard to the CompassLearning program? When and how are those goals evaluated?  How does CompassLearning fit in with other LRSD initiatives being implemented?  How is equitable student access to CompassLearning ensured?  How is appropriate implementation of CompassLearning activities ensured? Support  What types of CompassLearning training and support have been requested from and/or provided by the district? Overall  Overall, what are the strongest aspects of the CompassLearning Program in the LRSD?  Overall, what are the weakest aspects of the CompassLearning Program in the LRSD?  To what degree do you think use of CompassLearning has increased (or decreased) student learning?  Do you think your district should continue using CompassLearning? Why?Little Rock School District CompassLeaming: Middle and High School Principal Interview Protocol Past Use of CompassLeaming  How many years did your school use the CompassLeaming program?  What was your overall impression of the program?  How was the program implemented?  Where did students most frequently use the program?  Which students used the program?  How frequently did they use it?  How were teachers involved?  Why did your school quit using CompassLeaming? Current Program  Is your school currently using an integrated learning system? If no, why not? If yes, o o o o Which one? What are your overall impressions of the new program? In what ways is the new program better than Compass? In what ways is the new program worse?Little Rock School District CompassLeaming: Technology Specialist Interview Protocol Technology Specialist Responsibilities  What are your primary responsibilities with regard to CompassLeaming?  How were you chosen for your position?  Who, besides you, provides technical support for the schools? How do their responsibilities differ from yours? Evaluation of the Software  How would you evaluate the CompassLeaming software and the support provided by the vendor?  What are the strengths of the CompassLeaming product?  What are the weaknesses of the product? Implementation  How long has CompassLeaming been used at your school?  How would you evaluate the way in which CompassLeaming has been implemented in your school?  What are the best aspects of how your school has implemented the CompassLeaming program? In what ways could the implementation process be improved?  How and to what extent is CompassLeaming integrated into the curriculum?  At your school, which students use the CompassLeaming system? When do they use it? How do they use it?  What aspects of the CompassLeaming program do teachers most frequently use? Customizing tests, generating reports?  To what degree are teachers actively involved with using CompassLeaming resources (e.g., student performance reports) to improve teaching and learning activities?  To what degree do school administrators use CompassLeaming reports as the basis for school improvement efforts?  How is equitable student access to CompassLeaming ensured?  How is appropriate implementation of CompassLeaming activities ensured? Technical Aspects and Support  Where is CompassLeaming used in your school? Classrooms? Computer labs? Library or media center?  How would you rate the capacity of your schools computers and networking to fully implement the CompassLeaming program? Specifically with regard to the server, student computers, and teacher computers.  What process is used to solve technical problems related to CompassLeaming? About how long does it typically take for the problems to be resolved?  What types of CompassLeaming training and support has been requested and/or provided to your school by the District? By the vendor? By others? Overall  Overall, what are the strongest aspects of the CompassLeaming Program?  Overall, what are the weakest aspects of the CompassLeaming Program?  To what degree do you think that CompassLeaming has increased or decreased student learning?  Do you think your school should continue using CompassLeaming? Why?Little Rock School District CompassLearning: Lab Attendant Interview Protocol Lab Attendant Responsibilities  What are your primary responsibilities with regard to CompassLearning?  How were you chosen for your position?  Who, besides you. provides technical support for the schools? Evaluation of the Softvyare  How would you evaluate the CompassLearning software and the support provided by the vendor?  What are the strengths of the CompassLearning product?  What are the weaknesses of the product? Implementation  How long has CompassLearning been used at your school?  How would you evaluate the way in which CompassLearning has been implemented in your school?  What are the best aspects of how your school has implemented the CompassLearning program? In what ways could the implementation process be improved?  How and to what extent is CompassLearning integrated into the curriculum?  At your school, which students use the CompassLearning system? When do they use it? How do they use it?  What aspects of the CompassLearning program do teachers most frequently use? Customizing tests, generating reports?  To what degree are teachers actively involved with using CompassLearning resources (e.g., student performance reports) to improve teaching and learning activities?  To what degree do your school administrators use CompassLearning reports as the basis for school improvement efforts?  How is equitable student access to CompassLearning ensured?  How is appropriate implementation of CompassLearning activities ensured? Technical Aspects and Support  Where is CompassLearning used in your school? Classrooms? Computer labs? Library or media center?  How would you rate the capacity of your schools computers and networking to fully implement the CompassLearning program? Specifically with regard to the server, student computers, and teacher computers.  What process is used to solve technical problems related to CompassLearning? About how long does it typically take for the problems to be resolved?  What types of CompassLearning training and support has been requested and/or provided to your school by the District? By the vendor? By others? Overall  Overall, what are the strongest aspects of the CompassLearning Program?  Overall, what are the weakest aspects of the CompassLearning Program?  To what degree do you think that CompassLearning has increased student learning?  Do you think your school should continue using CompassLearning? Why?Parent/Guardian Consent Form Dear parent or guardian, As part of a study conducted by the Center for Research in Educational Policy, The University of Memphis, and endorsed by the Little Rock School District, we are requesting permission for your child to participate in a group interview of 5 to 7 students from your childs school. During the group interview (focus group), a trained researcher will ask your child questions regarding his/her participation in the CompassLeaming (computer lab) program. The questions are designed to help us find out how well the CompassLeaming program is helping to improve student learning. The focus group should take approximately 20 minutes and will only pertain to the computer lab or CompassLeaming program that your child participates in. The focus group will be conducted during a computer lab session. Individual responses to the questions will not be seen by anyone at the school, and the identity of individuals participating in the focus group will remain confidential. The responses to the focus group will be reported together in summary form to school personnel. Please note that your child is not required to participate in the focus group. Your permission is required to participate. If you give permission, please have your child return the completed form to his/her school. If you have questions you may contact Dan Strahl, Project Manager, The Center for Research in Educational Policy, The University of Memphis, toll free at 866-670-6147. I give my permission for my child, group as described above. (Childs Name) , to participate in a focus Signed Date (Parent or Guardian)Distrito escolar de Little Rock: Encuesta para los padres de familia sobre CompassLearning Estimado Padre de familia /Tutor: Quisieramos conocer que op ma acerca de que sufs) hijo(s) utilice(n) e! programa CompassLearning (e! programa que sufs) hijofs) utiHzafn) en e! laboratorio de computadoras). Strvase tomar unos minutos para completar la siguiente encuesta. Solo complete 1 funa) encuesta si tiene mas de un hijofa) en e! distnto escolar. Instrucciones:  Encierre su respuesta en circulo o complete la informacion solicitada en el espacio en bianco.  No coloque su nombre en la encuesta.  Comparta con nosotros sus opiniones honestas para ayudar a mejorar este programa. Informacion acerca de su(s) hijo(s) Encierre en circulo los niveles de su(s) hijo(s): K 1 23456789 10 11 12 Encierre en circulo la etnia de su(s) hijo(s): Caucasico(s) Afroamericano(s) Hispano(s) Asiatico(s) Mestizo(s) Programa de laboratorio de computadoras (CompassLearning) iConoce usted acerca del programa de laboratorio de computadoras (CompassLearning) en la escuela de su(s) hijo(s)? I Si No S\nla respuesta es si, sirvase responder las preguntas restantes. Si la respuesta es no, sirvase hacerque su hijo(a) entregue la encuesta a su profesor(a). tComo se entero de las actividades del laboratorio de computadoras? Escuela Profesor(a) Mis hijos Otros padres de familia / amigos iQue entusiasmo muestra(n) su(s) hijo(s) con el laboratorio de computadoras? Mucha___________Poca__________Ninguna_______No esta seguro__________________________________________ tCree usted que el tiempo en el laboratorio de computadoras es una parte importante de la educacion de su(s) hijo(s)? Si Ligeramente No No esta seguro cCree usted que el uso del laboratorio de computadoras ha mejorado en su hijo(a)\nel interes en la escuela? aorovechamiento en la lecture y matematicas? Si Si Ligeramente Ligeramente No No No esta seguro No esta seguro Sus comentarios acerca del programa de laboratorio de computadoras (CompassLearning): j Responda en el espacio en bianco y utilice el reverso de la hoja si necesita mas espacio. ____ cQue es Io mejor acerca de que su(s) hijo(s) utilice(n) el programa de laboratorio de computadoras? cQue es io peor acerca de que su(s) hijo(s) utilice(n) el programa de laboratorio de computadoras? iQue cambios quisiera ver en el programa de laboratorio de computadoras? J Tennessee Bonn! of Regain hissilufion pn t I M IJ 4 a Etfua! Opporiunin  Affirmiitivc Action UniversityLittle Rock School District: CompassLeaming Parent Survey DIRECTIONS use NO t pewa. ON.T DARk MARKS EX O =\u0026gt;\u0026lt;=  == ERASE COMPLETELY TO CHANGE  2005 f (\\nier lor Hescan h in Educaiional Policy. All Righls lie-ien eil. Dear Parent/Guardian: We would like to know what you think about your child or children using the CompassLeaming program (the program your child or children work on in the computer lab). Please take a few minutes to complete the H ^11 IC piu^iaill JUUl VIIIIU VI VIIIIUIVII vvs^iix wn m iiiw wa-/11 j-/wvwi ........................................................................- - r Bl following survey. Only complete 1 (one) survey even if you have more than one child in the school district. Directions: - Indicate your response or fill-in the requested information in the space provided. - Do not put your name on the survey. - Share with us your honest opinions to help improve this program. Information about your Child/Children Indicate the grade levels of your child/children. K 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Indicate the ethnicity of your child/children. Caucasian African-American Hispanic Asian Multi-Ethnic Computer Lab Program (CompassLeaming) Do you knotw about the computer lab (CompassLeaming) program at your child's/children's school? Yes No If Yes, please answer the remaining questions. If No. please have your child return the survey to his/her teacher. I = How did you learn about the computer lab activities? School Teacher My kids other parents/friends How excited do your child/children get about using the computer lab? A lot Some Not at all Not sure Do you think time in the computer lab is an important part of your child's/children's education? Yes Somewhat No Not sure Do you think use of the computer lab has improved your child's/children's: interest in school? achievement in reading and math? Yes Somewhat No Not sure Yes Somewhat No Not sure Your comments about the Computer Lab Program (CompassLeaming)  Please respond in the space provide and use the back of this sheet if more space is needed. \" What is the BESTthing about your child/children using the computer lab program?________ H__________________________________________________________________________________________  What is the WORST thing about your child/children using the computer lab program? r . I - I \" What CHANGES would you like to see in the computer lab program? k ACL ArytllC '* Tennessee Board of Regents tnsrttnlion M t M r n ! An EqimI Oppormnin  Affirinaiire Action Unnersin Page 1 of 2Survey of Computer Use for CompassLearning 2-HOUR DATA SUMMARY FORM DIRECTIONS use no JOeNtXONLV DARK MARKS IB School 2005c ('enterfar Research tn Educational Policy. ______________All Rights Resetved.______________ Observer Name ERASE COMPLETELY TO CHANGE Observer Date Indicate all grade(s) observed. K 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 2-Hour Begin Time End Total number of classes observed during the 2-hours: [ ] Total number of students using CompassLearning (by ethnicity): Total number of teachers present: African American Non-African American Classroom Teacher(s) Lab Attendant(s) Technology Specialist(s) I Computer Configuration and Use How many computers were available for CompassLearning? One 2-4 5-10 11 or more How frequently did malfunctions occur on computers used for CompassLearning? Never Rarely Occasionally Frequently Extensively Most of the computers used for CompassLearning were: Up-to-date Aging but adequate Outdated/limited capacity During the observation, what percentage of the African American students in the class used CompassLearning? Only a few (less than 10%) Some (about 10-50%) Most (about 51-90%) Nearly all or all (about 91-100%) During the observation, what percentage of the Caucasian students in the class used CompassLearning? Only a few (less than 10%) Some (about 10-50%) Most (about 51-90%) Nearly all or all (about 91-100%) CompassLearning Activities u u il VI s u Indicate the extent you agree with the following statements.____________________ Subject Areas of observed CompassLearning Activities Language Arts Mathematics Reading Science Social Studies Writing Cross-Cultural Types of Questions Students Asked Whiie Using CompassLearning Content area (e g. howto solve a problem, the meaning of a word). Software use (e g. how to log in\nhow to move to the next section\nhow to take a test) Computer use (e.g. how to get the mouse or keyboard to work properly) Non-CompassLearning questions (e g. Do I have to sit next to John? Can I go to the restroom?) o z I i S' s u 'R c X UJ Continue to the next page. MEMPHIS. A Tennessee Board of Regents Institution .-In Equal Opportunity - Affirmative Action University Page 1 of 2 bSurvey of Computer Use for CompassLeaming continued CompassLeaming Activities V u V! (3 C Indicate the extent you agree with the following statements.___________________ Types of Instruction Given to Students at the Start of the Lesson Content area review (e.g. reading, math) Software use (e g. how to log in, find correct lesson) Computers use (e.g. locate software, use mouse) Classroom Behavior Rules No instruction given Types of Teacher Activities Teachers continuously moved among students to actively monitor student work and answer questions. Teachers occasionally moved among students to monitor student work and answer questions. Teachers rarely moved among students to monitor student work and answer questions. Teachers remained at one location (e.g. desk) rather than moving among the students. HIGH Level of Student Attention and Academic Focus HIGH level of African American student attention, interest, and engagement while using CompassLeaming HIGH level of NON-African American student attention, interest, and engagement while using CompassLeaming HIGH level of academically focused class time V n ai c t c 3 u c w ui Tennessee Board of Regents Institution MCMl 111,4w Equal Opportunity - Affirmative Action University Page 2 of 2Little Rock School District CompassLearning: Student Focus Group Protocol Nature of the Activities 1. How long have you been using CompassLearning? a. What kinds of activities do you do when using CompassLearning? b. Have you been using it in your classroom or in a lab? 2. 3. 4. What do you think about the amount of time that you spend using CompassLearning? a. Is it enough - or too much? b. Why? What kinds of problems have you experienced when using it? What types of changes would you like to see in the CompassLearning program? Usefulness of CompassLearning 5. 6. 7. 8. Do you think CompassLearning helps you to do better in school? a. Why? Do you think CompassLearning ever makes you do worse in school? a. Why? What do you think are some of the disadvantages to using CompassLearning? What have your parents said about CompassLearning? 9. What have your friends said about using CompassLearning? 10. Which types of students do you think are benefiting the most from using CompassLearning? 11. Which types of students are benefiting the least? Enjoyment of CompassLearning 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. Do you like or dislike using CompassLearning? How much? Whats your favorite thing about using Compass? What's your least favorite thing? Would you like to keep on using it or would you like to stop using it? Why? What else can you tell me about using CompassLearning that we havent discussed?Teacher CompassLeaming Questionnaire DIRECTIONS USE NO ZKNOL ONLY ] 2OI\u0026gt;3r Center for Reseanh m Kdiicaiional I'olicy. All Righix Reserved. MAKE DARK MARKS EX \u0026lt;=\u0026gt; cs-o  \u0026lt;=\u0026gt; ERASE COMPLETELY TO CHANGE School Name: r 1 Your Ethnicity Caucasian African-American Hispanic Asian Other (Describe) Do you know about the CompassLeaming (computer lab) program at your school? Yes No If YES. please describe your understanding of the CompassLeaming Program in your school, then please answer the remaining survey questions. If NO, please stop here and return the survey when they are collected. Your Gender Male Female Il\u0026gt; s O) O) c o OT in 0) S O) 2 3 o z \u0026lt;*) o  O) (0 OT b  o\u0026gt; TO \u0026lt;2 b \"ct c o th 1. Most of our school computers that are used for CompassLeaming are kept in good working condition. 2.1 can readily obtain answers to questions about CompassLeaming. 3. The use of CompassLeaming has increased the level of student attention, interest, and engagement in learning. 4. Parents and community members support our school's use of CompassLeaming. 5. The use of CompassLeaming has increased student learning and achievement. 6.1 routinely align CompassLeaming with my lessons and the district's standards-based curriculum. 7. Overall, this program seems valuable for improving the achievement of African American students. 8.1 have received enough training to address student learning needs through the use CompassLeaming resources. 9. My computer skills are adequate to access CompassLeaming resources. 10. The administration fully supports teacher use of CompassLeaming resources. 11.1 routinely customize CompassLeaming activities to meet the individual needs of students. 12. Our school has a well-developed plan that guides the CompassLeaming program. 13.1 routinely provide academic review of content covered during student use of CompassLeaming. 14. Teachers in this school are generally supportive of the CompassLeaming program. 15.1 routinely modify my instructional practices on the basis of student performance in CompassLeaming. 16. The use of CompassLeaming has improved the quality of student work. 1 Directions: Please use the space provided to write a brief response to the following questions. 1. How many years of experience do you have with CompassLeaming? 2. Circle the grade level(s) you currently teach that use CompassLeaming: Years 8 6 7 4 5 2 3 K 1 3. How are the subject areas and performance levels of CompassLeaming activities selected for each of your students? V J r- It DU IC Tennessee Board of Regents Institution M C MI II lO Jn Equal Opportunity - Affirmative Action University Page 1 of 2Teacher CompassLearning Questionnaire continued c 0) CT P E o 2 \u0026lt;D Vi fM \u0026lt;u o z 4. How frequently do you use the followingCompassLearning reports ? Whole Class Individual Student Class by Ethnicity Class by Gender Other _____________________________ 5. a. If you use CompassLearning reports, what is your primary reason? b. If you do NOT use CompassLearning reports, what is your primary reason? 6. What are the strongest aspects of the CompassLearning Program? 7. What are the weakest aspects of the CompassLearning Program? 8. Do you think your school should continue using CompassLearning? Why? Yes No 1 iPk jryiJIC Tennessee Board of Regents Instrniiion M t M r n 10 tn F.gal Opporltinin - Af/irmaltve Action L'ntrersity Page 2 of 2 n i L I I iQuarterly Update Appendix June 1,2005 D. Data Collection Instruments for Step 2 Evaluations of 20042005 Reading Recovery (RR) Implementation Assessment Instrument Teacher Questionnaire Teacher Questionnaire Demographic Information Classroom Teacher Questionnaire (K-3) Parent Survey Cuestionario de recuperacion de lectura para los padres de familialittle rock public schools program evaluation READING RECOVERY IMPLEMENTATION ASSESSMENT INSTRUMENT School Observer Reading Recovery Teacher # Date Student Gender Student Ethnicity Time In Time Out I. Please check: Observed: O Not Observed: N II. Please rate each of the following items in terms of the quality of implementation by using the appropriate number according to the folloz/ing scales: Quality 1 = Poor or unacceptable\n2 = Below average in comparison to other programs observed\n3 = Above average in comparison to other programs\n4 = Meets nearly all standards of program quality. O N DNA Quality o  O \"S z \" o z (O a O \u0026lt; Q Reading Recovery Program Components o o Q. o 2 O 0) 5 O) o S  3 o \u0026lt; w \"s 5 = S w (A Reading familiar stories___________________________________________________ Reading a story that was read for the first time the day before - incorporates running record ______________________________________________________ Working with letters and /or words using magnetic letters___________________ Writing a story__________________________________________________________ Assembling a cut-up story__________________________________________________ Introducing and reading a new book Overall rating: Follows the Reading Recovery lesson frameworksI. Pleasecheck: Observed: O Not Observed: N II. Please rate each of the following items in terms of the quality of teacher instructional strategies by using the appropriate number according to the following scales: Quality 1 = Poor or unacceptable\n2 = Below average in comparison to other programs observed\n3 = Above average in comparison to other programs\n4 = Meets nearly all standards of program quality. o OBSERVED N NOT OBSERVED Reading Recovery Program Strategies POOR Quality BELOW AVERAGE ABOVE AVERAGE MEETS STANDARDS During tutoring lesson________________________________________________ Appropriate pacing of lesson components___________________________________ Appropriate text selected throughout the lesson___________________ Appropriate prompts are used for scaffolding the child to problem solve______ ChiId is engaged in constructive problem solving________ Echo of focus throughout the lesson ____________________________________ Procedures are adjusted according to childs needs _____________________ Balance of fluency phrasing practice and problem solving____________________ Opportunities to develop phonological awareness within the lesson__________ After tutoring lesson: observer questions and examination of student records Accurate up-to-date records______ Articulates childs strengths and needs______________________________________ Has high expectations for the child__________________________________________ Overall Rating\n_________________________________________________Please provide any comments related to the extent or quality of implementation of any of the above components that would elucidate your overall rating. Observer perceptions of Reading Recovery program implementation. 1. Do they Reading Recovery materials (books, magnetic letters, writing, book, etc.) appear to be well organized for each child? _____________________________________________________________________________ 2. Do Reading Recovery teachers appear to be fully supportive of the program? 3. Do administrators appear to be fully supportive of the program? i Does the program receive an adequate allocation of time, material, and other resources? Summary of findings:School Reading Recovery Teacher Questionnaire 2005T- Cenierfor Research in Educational Policy. All Rights Reserved. DlRECTfONS 2PCNCL0M.* make DARK MARRS EX o ERASE COMPLETELY TO CHANGE Indicate the extent to which you agree with each of the following items as they are currently reflected in your school. _________ u QO \u0026lt; qo B O s U) \u0026lt; es is B z u u (Q V) 2 P3 (O 5 qc B  (Zi 1. 2, 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 1 have a thorough understanding of the school's Reading Recovery program. I have received adequate initial and ongoing professional development/training for implementation of the Reading Recovery program. Our Reading Recovery program has positively impacted student achievement. Because of Reading Recovery, Literacy Group interventions occur for students in grades K-3. Overall, this program seems valuable for improving the achievement of African-American students. Reading Recovery teachers are given sufficient planning time to implement the program. Our school has enough tutors to fully implement its Reading Recovery program. The administration protects the lime for daily uninterrupted Reading Recovery tutoring and O 0 o  O H Literacy Small Group interventions.  9. Because of our Reading Recovery program, parents are more involved in the literacy program of B this school. H 10. This school has a plan for evaluating all elements of our Reading Recovery program. 11. Teachers in this school are generally supportive of the Reading Recovery program. H supponivc oi uic nwumg H 12. Ongoing communication exists between Reading Recovery tutors and classroom reading teachers. _ 13. Reading Recovery teachers are encouraged to communicate concerns, questions, and constructive ideas regarding the program.  14. Our Reading Recovery program adequately addresses the requirements of children with special needs. H 15. Reading Recovery teachers participate in the special education referral process to provide early  literacy intervention.  16. Because of Reading Recovery, teachers in this school spend more time working together to plan H instruction and review student progress.  17. Reading Recovery monthly meetings (continuing contact) are effective and useful. H 18. Instructional materials (books, assessments, and other resources) needed to implement our Reading H Recovery program are readily available.  19. The faculty, staff, and administration believe that all children can read at grade level or above by the end of third grade. 20. The Reading Recovery program is aligned with state and district reading and language arts standards. Please provide one rating for each of the following items. B 1. To what degree did your school administration support your efforts as a Reading Recovery teacher? I 2. To what degree did your school Reading Coach support your efforts as a Reading Recovery teacher? 3. To what degree does the district support your efforts as a Reading Recovery teacher? 3. 10 wnai uegree uoes inc uibuivi suppun juui viivno  iwuwu j I 4. To what degree did your schedule allow the time to routinely monitor first grade students' progress after they were discontinued from Reading Recovery tutoring? ntJ IC Tennessee Board of Begems Instiimion M t MI n I b /In gua\nOppominily - Affirmalree Action University Page 1 of 2 G  G G G 0  G G Q G  o o o  o o       O O O O G O O O o Q o G G   o o o o o o G G   O G O G G o o o o G G G G G G o o o o o O G o O G G o o o o O O o o o 4) K B u s G G G O O G o G G eS | E o (/} \u0026lt;s o o  O o o o O O a o Z o o o OReading Recovery Teacher Questionnaire DEMOGRAPHIC INFORMATION How many years of experience do you have as an employee in this school? How many years of experience do you have working in any school? How many years experiences have you had as a Reading Recovery teacher? O Less than one year 01-5 years 0 6-10 years 011-15 years O More than 15 years O Less than one year 01-5 years 0 6-10 years 011-15 years O More than 15 years O Less than one year 01-5 years 06-10 years 011-15 years O More than 15 years What is the highest level of education you have completed? O Bachelor's O Master's O Master's plus 20 hrs O Education Specialist's O Doctoral What best describes your cuitural background? O Asian or Pacific Islander O American Indian or Alaskan Native O Black, not of Hispanic origin O Hispanic, regardless of race O White, not of Hispanic origin O Multi-racial / Other What are the strongest aspects of the Reading Recovery program? 1 What are the weakest aspects of the Reading Recovery program? 1 I Do you think your school should continue the Reading Recovery program? Why? O Yes ONo JNiVESSnViV LinkjniJlC Tennessee Board of Regents Institution M t MI fl I O' An Equal Opportunity  Affirmative Action University Page 2 of 2Reading Recovery Classroom Teacher Questionnaire (K-3) DIRECTIONS USCMO JPEJ*a.QM.Y Dark Marks' ] School 2005Z Center for Research in Educational Policy. All Rights Reserved. . ERASE COMPLETELY TO CHANGE Grade Level Please describe your understanding of the Reading Recovery program in your school. DEMOGRAPHIC INFORMATION How many years of experience do you have as an employee in this school? How many years of experience do you have working in any school? What is the grade level of the majority of children you work with? O Less than one year 01-5 years 06-10 years 011-15 years O More than 15 years O Less than one year 01-5 years 06-10 years 011-15 years O More than 15 years O O o o K 1 2 3 I i What is the highest level of education you have completed? What best describes your cultural background? O Bachelors O Master's O Masters plus 20 hrs O Education Specialists O Doctoral I I O Asian or Pacific Islander O American Indian or Alaskan Native O Black, not of Hispanic origin O Hispanic, regardless of race O White, not of Hispanic origin O Multi-racial! Other T4rOF L i C k 4 D LJ1C Tennessee Board of Regents Institution M U M r 11 li- Equal Opportunity - AJftrmative Action University Page 1 of 2Reading Recovery Classroom Teacher Questionnaire (K-3) (Continued) \u0026lt; 'Sb Indicate the extent to which you agree with each of the following items as they are currently | reflected in your school. \u0026lt; s 3 z Of) S o K bO cn Q 5) c o 55 tn I 1.1 have a thorough understanding of this school's Reading Recovery program. H 2. Our Reading Recovery program has positively impacted student achievement.  3. Because of Reading Recovery, Literacy Group interventions occur for students in grades K-3. H 4- Overall, this program seems valuable for improving the achievement of African-American students. 5. Our school has sufficient faculty and staff to fully implement our Reading Recovery program. H . sunicieni lacuiiy ano siaii lo luiiy iinpicniciu uui jvcauiug rcwvwj pugiwu. B 6. The administration protects the time for daily uninterrupted Reading Recovery tutoring and Literacy Small Group interventions.  O  o     o   o o    o       o o O 7. Because of our Reading Recovery program, parents are more involved in the literacy program of this school^  8. Teachers in this school are generally supportive of the Reading Recovery program.  9.1 routinely modify my classroom reading instructional practices on the basis of student performance in  Reading Recovery tutoring and Literacy Small Groups.  10. Teachers are encouraged to communicate concerns, questions, and constructive ideas regarding the B Reading Recovery program.  11. Our Reading Recovery program adequately addresses the requirements of children with special needs.  12. Because of Reading Recovery, teachers in this school spend more time working together to plan  instruction and review student progress.  13. The faculty, staff, and administration believe that all children can read at grade level or above by the I end of third grade. o o   o o   o   o    O   o o   o 0 o o o o o o     o o  o Your Comments: Please respond in the space provide and use the back of this sheet if more space is needed. What are the strongest aspects of the Reading Recovery program? Do you think your school should continue the Reading Recovery program? Why? O Yes No r-\" kJCkiDLIIC Tennessee Board of Regents Institution M t M r n IJ Eifual Opportunity - Affirmative Action University Page 2 of 2 1Little Rock School District Reading Recovery Parent Survey 2005V Center for Research in Educational Policy. All Rights Reserved. Dear Parent/Guardian: We would like to know what you think about your child's Reading Recovery tutoring sessions. Please take a few minutes to complete the following survey. Directions:  Circle your response or fill-in the requested information in the space provided. - Do not put your name on the survey. ~ Share with us your honest opinions to help improve this program. DIRECTIONS use NO SPENCLONLY : DARK MARKS------------- m' \\ ERASE COMPLETELY TO CHANGE Ethnicity of your Child: Information about your child:  Caucasian O African-American  Hispanic  Asian  Other Grade OK  1  2  3 Age  5  6  7  8 (Describe Reading Recovery Program Do you know about your child's involvement in the Reading Recovery tutoring program at their school?  Yes If YES, please answer the remaining questions. If NO, please have your child return this survey to his/her teacher.  No Please describe your understanding of the Reading Recovery tutoring program at your child's school. ' A Tennessee Board of Regents institution I- An Equal Opportunity - Affirmative Action University MEMPHIS. Page 1 of 2Little Rock School District Reading Recovery Parent Survey (Continued) Indicate the extent to which you agree with each of the following items as they are currently reflected in your school. If you cannot answer an item, please mark \"Don't Know.\"________________________________________ o o \u0026amp; \u0026lt; 'oa c o CZ3 V s 00 2 1 Z co (A s (N (U OJO co (A 5 ob c o is c/o o 12 \"c o O o 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Reading Recovery tutoring has improved my child's reading skills. Learning to read is the highest priority at my child's school. My child enjoys and looks forward to their daily tutoring sessions. I have many opportunities to talk with the Reading Recovery teacher about my child's progress. Because of Reading Recovery tutoring, I believe my child will be successful 03 03 03 CD CD 03 CD CD CD CD CD CD O 03 CD CD CD 03 03 03 CD CD  03 in school. 6. My child reads books at home daily. CD 03 Q CD CD CD CD  Your Comments: Please respond in the space provide and use the back of this sheet if more space is What is the BEST thing about your child's involvement with Reading Recovery tutoring program? What CHANGES would you like to see in the Reading Recovery tutoring program? kJCkjtDLIIC Tennessee Board of Regents Institution M U M r n 10 An Equal Opportunity - Afftrmatne /(ction University Page 2 of 2 CD CD 03 03Distrito escolar de Little kock Cuestionario de recuperacion de lectura para los padres de familia Estimado Padre de familia /Tutor: Quisieramos saber cual es su opinion sobre las sesiones guiadas de recuperacion de lectura de su hijo(a). Sirvase tomar unos minutos para completar el siguiente cuestionario. Instrucciones: -- Enciene su respuesta en circulo o complete la informacion solicitada en el espacio en bianco.  No coloque su nombre en la encuesta. -- Comparta con nosotros sus opiniones honestas para ayudar a mejorar este programa. Etnia de su hijo(a) Informacion acerca de su hijo(a) Caucasico(a) Afroamericano(a) Hispano(a)______ Asiatico(a)______ Otra___________ Grado Edad K 1 2 3 5 6 7 8 Programa de recuperacion de lectura ^Conoce usted sobre la participacion de su hijo(a) en el programa de clases guiadas de recuperacion de lectura en su escuela? Si No Si la respuesta es si, si'rvase responder las preguntas restantes y luego haga que su hijo(a) entregue el cuestionario a su profesor(a). Si la respuesta es no, sirvase hacer que su hijo(a) entregue la encuesta a su profesor(a). Si'rvase describir su comprension del programa de clases guiadas de recuperacion de lectura en la escuela de su hijo(a). THE UNIVERSITY OF   . /rS'll IC Temtessee Bwil of Httgenis Insiiimiott. M t M r H IO- An Equal Oppornmiiy  Affirmative At tion University. Pagina 1 de 2 feDistrito escolar de Little Rock Encuesta sobre recuperacion de lectura para los padres de familia (Continuacion) Indique su grado de acuerdo con las siguientes opciones tai como se reflejan actualmente en la escuela. Si no puede responder una opcion, si'rvase marcaria como No sabe.___________________________ \u0026lt;u o (U c E S o o 3 O K3 o 3 3 (U Q I 3 3 O I o V 3 u 3 (/) o c u I CM c c \u0026lt;u E o  I o u 3 Vi o X) 3 CZ) O Z I o u. I 1. La clase guiada de recuperacion de lectura ha mejorado las destrezas de lectura de mi hijo(a).___________________ 2. Aprender a leer es la mayor prioridad en la escuela de mi hijo(a).________________________________________ 3. Mi hijo(a) goza y espera con ansias sus sesiones guiadas diarias._______ 4. Tengo muchas oportunidades de hablar con el(la) profesor(a) acerca del avance de mi hijo(a).____________________ 5. A causa de las clases guiadas de recuperacion de lectura, creo que mi hijo(a) tendra exito en la escuela__________ 6. Mi hijo(a) lee los libros en casa a diario. Sus comentarios: Si'rvase responder en el espacio en bianco. Use el reverse de la hoja si necesita mas espacio. iQue es lo MEJOR de la participacion de su hijo(a) en el programa de clases guiadas de recuperacion de lectura? ____________________________________________________________________ /,Que CAMBIOS quisiera ver en el programa de clases guiadas de recuperacion de lectura? TetUKssee Board Regenis Jnsiiiuiimi. M t MI II Io. All Equal Opportuniry  Affirmalive Acliou University. Pagina 2 de 2 kQuarterly Update Appendix June 1,2005 D. Data Collection Instruments for Step 2 Evaluations of 20042005 SMART/THRIVE (S/T) Rubric for Observation of Select NCTM Standards in Teaching Mathematics School Observation Measure (SOM) Data Summary Teacher Questionnaire Algebra I Teacher Questionnaire Parent Questionnaire Student Questionnaire Mentor Focus Group ProtocolRUBRIC FOR OBSERVATION OF SELECT NCTM STANDARDS IN TEACHING MATHEMATICS* School Name___ Observation Date, Observer Name____ Extension of SOM # Directions\n NCTM Standard: Mathematical concepts, procedures, and connections The teacher\no o o o o Demonstrates a sound knowledge of mathematical concepts and procedures\nRepresents mathematics as a network of interconnected concepts and procedures\nEmphasizes connections between mathematics and other disciplines and connections to daily living\n. , Engages students in tasks that promote the understanding of mathematical concepts, procedures, and connections\nEngages students in mathematical discourse that extends their understanding of mathematical concepts, procedures, and connections. Emphasizes conceptual understanding over rote learning Demonstrates connections between math and daily living, (or authenticates math in real life).  NCTM Standard: Mathematics as problem solving, reasoning, and communication o The teacher\n. , Models and emphasizes aspects of problem solving, including formulating and posing problems, solving problems using different strategies, verifying and interpreting results, and generalizing o o o o solutions\nDemonstrates and emphasizes the role of mathematical reasoning\nModels and emphasizes mathematical communication using written, oral, and visual forms\nEngages students in tasks that involve problem solving, reasoning, and communication. Engages students in mathematical discourse that extends their understanding of problem solving and their capacity to reason and communicate mathematically. Engages students in problem solving activities. Demonstrates and emphasizes the role of mathematical reasoning (from yours) NCTM Standard: Promoting mathematical disposition The teacher\na o o o Models a disposition to do mathematics\nDemonstrates the value of mathematics as a way of thinking and its application in other disciplines and in society\n, Promotes students confidence, flexibility, perseverance, curiosity, and inventiveness in doing mathematics through the use of appropriate tasks and by engaging students in mathematical discourse. , , This one is toucih fora LB Specialist (me)....needs a real math person...in a sentence, how does one develop a math disposition? If I can learn this, years of frustration will melt away (insert smile here). I gathered that we could communicate it in a similar vein to thinking in a foreign language, but I am having a tough time adeguatelv putting it into words. a NCTM Standard: Learning Environments The teacher\n. . Conveys the notion that mathematics is a subject to be explored and crated both individually o o o and in collaboration with others\nRespects students and their ideas and encourages curiosity and spontaneity\nEncourages students to draw and validate their own conclusions. 1o o o o Selects tasks that allow students to construct new meaning by building on and extending their prior knowledge\nMakes appropriate use of available resources\nRespects and responds to students diverse interests and linguistic, cultural, and socioeconomic backgrounds in designing mathematical tasks\nAffirms and encourages full participation and continued study of mathematics by all students. Integrates themes of diversity into mathematical experiences. (????Yuck) Promotes appreciation for math within diverse learning environments (???Yuck yuck).RUBRIC FOR OBSERVATION OF SELECT NCTM STANDARDS IN TEACHING MATHEMATICS NOTES PAGE NCTM Standard: Mathematical concepts, procedures, and connections NCTM Standard: Mathematics as problem solving, reasoning, and communication NCTM Standard: Promoting mathematical disposition NCTM Standard: Learning Environments Source: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (1991). Professional standards forteaching mathematics. Reston, VA: NCTM.DiRECnONS km M/ \u0026lt;. PLEASE 1)0 NOT FOLD OR Sl AlLK THIS FORM.  MB .MAM: DARK MARKS fcX EHASF COMM STl l Y TO CHANCiF School Observation Measure (SOM) Data Summary S.M. Hosa, L.J. Smith i: M J. Aibcri\nCenter for fteivarrh n Educctinnal Piiltcy. The Vnitrrstiy nfMemphi.3 Ail Rights Re^rted.   School Name Observer Name:   n Date of Observation: SOM # Obser\\'er Role/Afilliation\nNumber of classroom observations comprising this SOM. D\\nectxon'. tioe your class-opecifie nofe# to reflect upon the extent to which each of the following its present in the ochttol: Instructional Orientation Direct instruction (lecture) Team teaching Cooperative/coUaborative learning -------------------------- - Individual tutoring (teacher, peer, aide, adult volunteer^^ \\ Classroom Organization Ability groups Multi-age grouping Work centers ''t ((7? n uping t (toT individuals or groups) Instructional Strategies Higher level instructional feedback (v^ten or verbal) to enhance student learning Integration of .subject areas (interdisciplinarv/themalic units) Project-based learning ) Use of higher-level questioning strategies * Teacher acting as a coach/facilrtator Parenl/community involvement in learning activi^s \u0026lt; ! : Student Activities Independent seatwork (self-paced worksheets, individual assignments) Experiential, hands-on learning Systematic individual instructioti assignments geared to individual needs) Sustained wriling/composition (seH\nelect^ or teacher-generated topics) Sustained reading \\ - Independent inquiry/research on the part of students Student discussion Technology Use Computer for instructional delivery (e.g. CAI, drill \u0026amp; practice) Technology as a learning tool or resource (e.g. Internet research, spreadsheet or database creation, multi-media, CD Rom, Laser disk) Assf.ys/npn/ Performance assessment strategies Student self-assessment (portfolios, individual record books) Summary Items High academically focused class time High level of student attention/interest/engagement Rubric for SOM Scoring (0) Not Observed: (1) Rarely: (2) Occasionally: (3) FrxKiuently: (4) Extensively: I I  Q Q  'Mil- 0 o  0  0 0 0 0  0 Oy O 0 0 0' 0 0 0 0 C 0 ' 0 t 0 K S ,l I  2. 2 J'- 2  2~ 1   2 2 2- 1 2 2 2  2  2 2  2   2  2 i s J 3 _ 3 7  3 4  3 - 3 3 3  3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 J Strategy was never observed. \u0026lt;)l).sen-ed in nnh- one or two dassc.s. Receives isolated use and/or little time in classes Clearly not a prevalent/cniphasized component of teaching and learning acros.s cla.s.ses. Observed in some classes. Receives minimal or modest time or emphasis in clas,se8 Not a prevalent/cmphaaized comiionent of teaching and learning across classes. Obsened in many but not all classes. Receives substantive time or emphasis in classes A prevalent component of teaching and learning across classes. Observed in must or all classes Receives substantive lime and/or emphasis in classes. A highly prevalent component of teaching and learning across cla.sses. I ,, I O'^ FORM NO F-17021-UM e JU**)** -xw*u*o* WAKI WF3 3102-532-54 3 2 1What are perceptions of participating students regarding program impacts  Tell me about Thrive. How would you describe it to a student who asked how you were spending Saturday morning.  Why do you think they have the Thrive program?  How does Thrive work? Tell me about what you do during your Saturday mornings here.  Do you like Thrive? Why or why not.  Would you recommend Thrive to other students? Why? Why not?  Has what you have learned in Thrive changed how you approach math problems?  Have you learned any new ways to study math. Could you tell me about them? What are the effects of participation in the Thrive program?  How is Thrive helping you in algebra? o o o PROBE: What makes using a calculator special? PROBE: How do the games help\ndo they help? PROBE: How do you use what you learn here in your weekly Algebra classes?  How do you think you will do on your Benchmark tests (????does this raise anxiety?)...do you think your performance has anything to do with Thrive?  Do you like algebra? Math in general? Have you always felt this way?  What do you think algebra would be like without Thrive?SMART/THRIVE Teacher Questionnaire DiRFcnoisrs ~ jia n I EX \u0026lt;=\u0026gt; csc=\u0026gt; * o j SSL6SEC.OM?5Jm.TTDai\u0026lt;^\u0026gt;^' Dear SMART/THRIVE Teachers: Please take a moment to answer these questions about the SMART and THRIVE programs. Please do NOT put your name on the questionnaire. Your honest opinions will be important to help , us assess this program.__________________________________________________________________ SMART THRIVE Cj C C3 DIRECTIONS: Please indicate the extent to which you agree with the tollowing items. If you cid not serve as a SMART instructor last summer (summer 200^), then only respond using the Thrive column. If you have no basis to respond, indicate (Don't Know). I Irava received adequate protessxxial devetopmenl to imoiemant -.. thss program, 'r, G IJJ CD I have a thorough undefBtarxSng cf the objectives of sh.a prcgrarr _ Q tf J G2 j) CD The students enjoy the planned acdvttles. \u0026lt; O J CD G3 CD  The (ad ity a! which the classes are held is adeq^le. f.h CJ I, L. 3 (Materials (books, copies, equipment) needed tor this program are  read ly available. C Zi CD CD GC Tne da ly bnefmg and deCneftng ses\u0026amp;^rts are va. uable. CC c G Cj c:^ - The program has improved my ability to use graphing calculators\n~r. L\n_ dunng math Instruction. \u0026gt; f  C-J The program has Imo roved my students' abflity to use groph ng ( ) (1) catoulatom In their math lessons. 1 (J t?0 3 CD I t') l.-'J -D t.D  .1 The program is aligned with state arsd district madi standards. j  1 r 1 ( i CJ C3 The co-leacher (THRIVE) and Mentor (SMART) aporoachas are Pectve instrucbonal .methods (or teaching and reinlox-ng Algebra concapa. fl CJ DEMOGRAPHICS How many total years of teachlrig experience do you have? \u0026lt;1 -5 years C 6- lOyears \u0026lt; 11 -15 years 2 16-20 yea'S 20 or mo'S years Hovr many years have you worked in the THRIVE PfOflram? i 1 year G 2 years \u0026gt; I 3 yea'S ~i 4 years  J 5 or more years If you have worked with the SMART program, for how many years?   1 year G 2 years T T 3 years  I 4 years  5 or more years What is your eltnicfty? ' Caucas'an A'rican-American : I Hispanic . 2 Asan j Muti-E-Jnic C? Other J J Continue to page 2. MuMi nD  A/Rn\u0026gt;wa:7r Araos Page 1 of 2 SMART/THRIVE Teacher Questionnaire Continued What SMART/THRIVE strategies do you use In your classroom? 1 ! What are the most/toast beneficial aspects ol the professional development component of SMART and/or THRIVE. i t L  Ara there any additional comments that you would like to make about the THRIVE Program? 1 If you were a teacher for SMART during the past summer, ere there any additional comments that you would like to make about the SMART Program?__________________________________________________________________ Thank you (or your input! rhi.s'-'EJjITf MEMPHIS A TrrotcUcr hutOMliiM Page 2 of 2* DTBEC71O5 Algebra I Teacher Questionnaire _   A .A f\"..) . _ TAB . J Ql. B *A tJC o e=-sa  =\u0026gt; Dear Algebra I Teacher Please take a few minutes to complete the following survey. We would like to know what you think about the SMART and THRIVE programs. Thank you for your time and attention. - Please do NOT pul your name on the questionnaire. - Your honest opinions will be important to help us assess this program. Please enclose your completed questionnaire in the attached pre-paid envelope and mail by March 18. 2005. Piease briefly descnbe your undefstanding of :hG SMART Program Please briefly describe your understanding of the THRIVE Program: SMART THRIVE l i73 G' Z~J DIRECTIONS\nPlease indicate the extent to which you agree with the following flems related to the Smart and Thr.ve Programs. If you do na have a basis to respond, please bubble in 'Doni Krxjw.' The program has..._________________________ Positvely impacted student ach evemen: in math He oed dose tne achievement gap between African G3 American and Caucasian stuoerts ____________ He ped students become more confdem of meir ab' it-es G-i in Algebra________________ __________ ___________ _ Effectively enab ed studerTiS to use technology to solve Algebra problems__________________________ Fadliiated students' meaningful unoerstandirg of aisetei'c gpncepa------------------------ ----------------- GD Gj Ej \"~i Gj CJ L-j GJ Ci Z O X'! ftiftUi ^faiwWMMXts^ hjiiry. r \u0026lt; I Q  I t 1 j , Ohered me strateg es that I use in my own classroom  O Continue to page 2. k jQk 4 r^ssn^aee bfjcrd MtMl nl^ I'lU^rna) Page 1 or 2 Algebra I Teacher Questionnaire Continued DEMOGRAPHICS What is your gender? What is your ethnicity? How many years of teaching I Have you worked for ths SMART\n:T: Male CT Fema'e LJ Caucasian O African-American I ' Hispanic G Asian MuKl-Eihnic experience do you have? F\" 1-5 years 3 6-10 years i 11 -15 years 2? 16-20 years (2i more than 20 years Of TTiRIVE programs at the past? | i Yes O No I What do you see as the most effective aspects of the SMART and/or THRIVE Programs? What do you see as the least effective aspects or areas in need of improvement? Thank you for your inputl \"\nLHV?FTfCr MEMPHIS A RfftKV [n2ri:^ien An Eqaai Opp\u0026gt;^Janin  AcJtvn bMvtntt. Page 2 or 2SMART/THRIVE Parent Questionnaire tHRCT!C^5' .VI ' Dear ParenVGuardian\nYour child has participated in either the SMART and/or THRIVE program and we would like your impressions of the programs. Please take a moment to answer these questions about the programs. Please DO NOT put your name on the questionnaire. Your honest opinions will be important to help us assess this program. Please give the completed form to your child to return lo the next THRIVE class. What is the gender of your child? f ,i Mate O Female P ease tel' us yt/ur i'lipression of .he THRIVE p'ojrain What do yo.. see as\nak ng olaoe dt.iirg ihc sess arc? What is the ethnicity of your child? G Caucas an i ' A'rican-Amercar G' Hispanic i._ Asian ~ Mjlti-Elnnic O Other Please indicate your agreement with the following items related lo tlie THRIVE Progiam. _______ H 1, The teachers in this program ma^e my Ofld tees that ha/sho can succeed. Because of this program, my cniid is more mofvated to compieie a-^ebra homework. 1 i 3. Thia program has hsfped improve my chiJds attrtude about math. a 4.1 am comlonab e having my crTd aitand classes on Saturdays. H 5. Because of tfiis orogram. I have seen an improvement In my child's Algebra I grades. I 6. Overall. I th-hk this is a good program._______________________________________  T. How dd you find out about THRIVE?_____________________ __________________  , ( i C, ( J \u0026lt;  C .z~!. T3 . I 1 i. J  8. What oo you tike about the THRIVE program? I 9. What, if Miythkig. woukt you change about the THRIVE program? f------ ------ -  10. Was transportation a problem? Please explain. If your child attended SMART last summer, please respond to the following Hems. If your child has NOT attended SMART, please stop here and send this form with your child to the next THRIVE session. 1 I SMART/THRIVE Parent Questionnaire Continued P ease Id us your i''i[jcssio'i cl IIic SMART pro\njra-n. 'I d.3 yyj S2e as tak nc\nolact- (lir ng (lie s\nSIOIIS? 1 I i I J Please indicate youi agreement SMART Program. ilh tlie loitowing items relaleti to Ilie 1, Became c\u0026lt; tf^TXDgwn, my cniW fen WWshe oouid sucxeed In Math. 2. The summer classes *ere easy tor my child to atterd. 3. This program helped improve my chfitfa arttode abosA Main, 4. I am comforlab  havng my cnild anerxJ c-asses during the summer. 5. TWs program \u0026lt;gd a pood job of fxaparihg jny child (or begmning Atgetxa Hn the faB. 8. Hoim dM you find out a\u0026amp;oot SMART?___________________________________ L 7. Wa did you like ifecwt 8MAHT? 8. What, if an\niTiiiu?. !, wotrfd you chffixy about SMART? 9. Was tranaponation a prooletn? Plaaae expialn. ! I, 0^.0 -. O ' X ! I t ( 3 o : g Thank you (or your input! Please send this form with your child to the next THRIVE session. p.T LH.flSrV MEMPHIS A rfKKfUrt bfiarit of As /.pr-* Artioii L'-Kj^mity Page 2 of 2SMART/THRIVE Student Questionnaire DiHKrnoxjT WAXC UAjtXt 2005^ Ceobtr^^ UtitNffvh rt CdasiXiiWii P-sitf)- aS Dear Student: Please take a few minutes to complete the following survey. We would like to know what you think about THRIVE. Thank you lor your time and attention. - Please DO NOT put your name on the questionnaire. -- Your honest opinions will be important to help us assess this program. What Is your age? j What is your gender? O Male O Fema'e What is your ethnicity? f ' Cairasian r.. Afca'^Araccin Hsqarw LJ Asiar? J J MuR\u0026gt;-Eirr: 1 O O(fiaf .9 Ploabc inuicaie tiie exicnl to Lvhicti you agiee will: the {ollov.'irig items related to tlic THRIVE Program. 1.  2.  3.  4. I 5. H 6.  7.  8.  9.  to. Because of THRIVE, I have learned how to use a calculator to help solve algebra problems. THRIVE makes algebra more enjoyable. THRIVE has helped me get good grades in Algebra. I think I will Cto well on the Algebra Benchmark Exam because ol THRIVE. tn THRIVE, I have learned how algebra can be used in real life. THRIVE has made me more confident about math. My THRIVE teacher helps me with problems I am having in my algebra class. I feel comfortable asking quesbons In THRIVE class. Team competitions make THRIVE classes fun. What do you like about THRIVE?__________ ________________________ fU L*r (Z) 3 P' I J '3 CD pl O rj \u0026lt;_L\u0026gt; I I f::) co I - r- C\nC' L- ' L-- I. ' L.  3 n r I 11. 'What woutd you change about theTTifflVE progratnT 12. 13. If THRIVE has helped you, describe HOW H helped you How is THRIVE different from your regular Algebra I class? ! If you DID NOT attend the SMART Program last summer, STOP HERE. rr you DID attend SMART last summer, go to the next page. SMART/THRIVE Student Questionnaire Continued Complete (his seclicn CJNLY il you weio enrolled in SMART ou'iiiy the summer of 2G04. 1. SMART helped me remember the math skills I learned last school year. C'i 1 2. SMART made algebra more fun. 3. In SMART, we learned how to use math to solve real-life problems. c'-5 L 4. I was motivated to go to my SMART class Airing ths summer. 5. Because of SMART, I was prepared to begin Algebra I in the fall. n GJ (?) 6. What do you like about SMART? 7. What would you change about the SMART program? 8. It SMART helped you, describe HOW. Thank you for your input! MEMPHIS Aa UntvffMr, ) 03 G CO KI G I \nI V} t ' l I Page 2 of 2 SMART Mentor Focus Group Protocol Due to the small number of mentors, all mentors will be invited to attend the focus group. The focus group sessions will be tape-recorded only, no video-taping, and mentors will be asked not to give their names. What are perceptions and perceived impacts of participating mentors regarding SMART impacts?  Tell me about SMART. How would you describe it to a student who asked you what it was?  How does the mentoring work? Tell me about what you do for SMART.  Do you think SMART is helping students? If so, how? o o Prompt: Do you think it is improving their math skills? Prompt Do you think it is improving their attitude toward math?:  Would you recommend SMART to other students? Why? Why not?  What have you learned through working with SMART?Quarterly Update Appendix June 1,2005 D. Data Collection Instruments for Step 2 Evaluations of 20042005 Year-Round Education (YRE) Teacher Survey Student Survey Parent SurveyLITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Student Survey Extended-Year Schools Please bubble in your opinion of the statements listed as they relate to the extended-year school project, comparing your school situation before extended-year school began. -Use a No. 2 pencil only -Fill in a bubble completely -Erase completely to change -Do not fold or staple I No Opinion [ I Disagree Agree 1. I have been more interested in my education this year. a o 2. I like having a number of short vacation periods. o J 3. 1 think I have learned more on the extended year calendar than I did in the regular 9-month calendar. o 4. The extended-year-educational program should be offered to all Little Rock School District students. a 5. My teachers have been more patient and helpful. 6. I have had more time to learn and time to get extra help when I've needed it. 7. I look forward to coming to school. J 8. I have liked the intersessions. 9. My parents like the extended-year program. o 10. I want my school to continue with this program. 11. Intersession has helped me be a better student. o (Answer #11, only if you have attended at least one intersession) School Cloverdale Mabelvale _\u0026gt; Mitchell _ Stephens Woodruff Grade r 3rd 7 4th 3 Sth Gender Male Female Ethnicity Black White OtherLITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PARENT SURVEY FOR EXTENDED-YEAR SCHOOL -Use a No. 2 pencil only -Fill in bubble completely -Erase completely to change -Do not fold or staple A. Number of Children in Extended-Year I r B. Grade School 1 2 3 4 or more K 1 2 3 4 5 Please indicate the grade level(s) of each of your children. C. Other Children Please indicate if you have other children attending school on a regular August to May school calendar. O Elementary O Middle School Senior High D. School Cloverdale Mabelvale Mitchell Stephens Woodruff O o o o o o a O O 1 r E. Race F. Gender O Black O White C, other O Male O Female I No Opinion I Disagree Agree 1. My children show a greater interest in their educational program. Please bubble in your opinion of the statements listed as they relate to the extended-year school project, comparing your school situation before extended-year school began. [ O 2. My children like having a number of short vacation periods. O 3. A wider variety of educational programs has been provided for my children. 4. My children have achieved at a higher level than in their previous 9- month school. O 5. Our personal family life activities such as church, ...__X AHorfon o I./UI uciownw ----- .er X J scouts, clubs, etc., have not been effected. 6. My children have attended one or more intersessions this year. O 7. This program should be expanded to other schools in this district on an optional basis. I 8. I want my children to continue in this program.LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Teacher Survey Extended-Year Schools Please bubble in your opinion of the statements listed as they relate to the extended-year school project, comparing your school situation before extended-year school began. -Use a No. 2 pencil only -Fill in a bubble completely -Erase completely to change -Do not fold or staple I  1 1. 2. 3. I No Opinion [ I Disagree Agree My students show a greater interest in their educational program. My students like having a number of short vacation periods. A wider variety of educational programs has been provided for my students. 4. My students have achieved at a higher level than they would have in their previous 9-month school calendar. 5. Parents are more involved in their children's education on the extended-year schedule. 6. This program should be expanded to other schools in this district on an optional basis. 7. 8. 9. 7) O O a 3 I want my school to continue with this program. My students benefit from their intersession more than they have in their past regular summer school experiences. The extended-year-educational schedule provides continuity in academic instruction and more time on task. 10. The extended-year-educational schedule has been better for my attitude and stress reduction. 11. The absence of a long summer break reduces the need to reteach skills and rules. 12. Teachers benefit from the opportunity to earn stipends during optional intersession employment. School Cloverdale Mabelvale Mitchell Stephens Woodruff Gender Male Female o o I j Ethnicity Black White Other ilRR January Planning, refining, and consulting with PRE and RR experts\nand developing instruments with PRE review. CL Planning, refining, and consulting with PRE and CL experts\nand developing instruments with PRE review. S/T Planning, refining, and consulting with PRE and S/T experts\nand developing instruments with PRE review. YRE Planning, refining, and consulting with PRE and YRE specialists. Evaluation Schedule 2004-2005 February Begin observations and interview RR teachers. Select technical specialist \u0026amp; school samples, observe classes, interview program coordinator \u0026amp; tech, specialist by phone. Observe Thrive sessions. Develop instruments with PRE review. March-April Survey RR School Teachers, complete RR teacher interviews. Survey CL Teachers (at faculty meetings), complete technology specialist interviews and observations\ncomplete student focus groups. Administer teacher, tutor, and student questionnaires\nbegin focus groups. Develop instruments with PRE review \u0026amp; review archival data. May-June Profile RR achievement\nanalyze records/archival data analyses. Analyze records/archival data analyses. July-September Analyze achievement data, survey, \u0026amp; interviews. Draft reports for review. Analyze achievement data, survey, \u0026amp; interviews. Draft reports for review. Complete focus groups Analyze achievement and observations\nanalyze records/archival data. data, survey, \u0026amp; interviews. Draft reports for review. October Final report due to the Court Oct. 1. Final report due to the Court Oct. 1. Final report due to the Court Oct. 1. Administer teacher, tutor, student questionnaires, lead focus groups, \u0026amp; observe classes. Analyze achievement, survey, \u0026amp; interview data. Draft reports for review. Final report due to the Court Oct. 1.Little Rock School District (LRSD) QUARTERLY UPDATE to the Office of Desegregation Monitoring (ODM) and Joshua September 1, 2005 received AUG 2 9 2005 BESEQREGMWHSjMIflW# LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, PLAINTIFF V. PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1 ET AL., DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ETAL., INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ETAL., INTERVENORS Planning, Research, and Evaluation (PRE) Instructional Resource Center (IRC) Little Rock School District 3001 South Pulaski Little Rock, AR 72206Introduction This is the fourth quarterly written update by the Little Rock School District (LRSD) and its Planning, Research, and Evaluation (PRE) Department, submitted in accordance with the District Courts 2004 Compliance Remedy (Memorandum Opinion of June 30, 2004, pp. 61-67). The organization of this report is that of the Compliance Remedy: A. B. LRSD must promptly hire a highly trained team of professionals to reinvigorate PRE. 99 c. D. The first task PRE must perform is to devise a comprehensive program assessment process which must be deeply embedded as a permanent part of LRSDs curriculum and instruction program. During each of the next two academic school years (2004-05 and 2005-06), LRSD must hire one or more outside consultants to prepare four (4) formal step 2 evaluations. PRE must (1) oversee the preparation of all eight of these step 2 evaluations\n(2) work closely with Dr. Ross and any other outside consultants . . . and (3) provide the outside E. consultants with any and all requested assistance and support. . 99 F. Evaluations will contain numbers and grade levels of teachers and administrators who contributed data, recommended program changes necessary for improved academic achievement by African-American students, and brief explanations of how each change will increase a programs effectiveness. . . . PRE must notify the ODM and Joshua in writing of the names of those eight programs. In addition, after PRE and Dr. Ross have formulated a comprehensive program assessment process and reduced it to a final draft, PRE must provide a copy to the ODM and Joshua at least thirty days before it is presented to the Board for approval ... by December 31, 2004. 99 G. H. 1. J. K. PRE must submit quarterly written updates on the status of the . . . four step 2 program evaluations . . . during the 2004-05 school year and the four step 2 program evaluations that will be prepared during the 2005-06 school year ... to ODM and Joshua on December 1, March 1, June 1, and September 1... [ODMs responsibilities.] [Joshuas responsibilities.] Four step 2 program evaluations due to the Court October 1, 2005 and four more due October 1,2006. Compliance Report due October 15, 2006. L. [This Compliance Remedy supersedes earlier one.] Page 2Status as of September 1, 2005 A. Hire a highly trained team of professionals. LRSD hired a highly trained team of professionals in 2004 and reported this action in its first quarterly written update of December 1, 2004. This team continues its activities, as stated in this fourth quarterly written update. B. Devise and embed a comprehensive program assessment process. The comprehensive program assessment process, devised by the PRE Department and approved by LRSD Board of Directors December 16, 2004, includes school portfolios among a spectr\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":"fda_houck_390143","title":"Reopening the Emmett Till Case: Lessons and Challenges for Critical Race Practice","collection_id":"fda_houck","collection_title":"Davis Houck Papers","dcterms_contributor":["Russell, Margaret M."],"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Mississippi, 32.75041, -89.75036"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["2005-03"],"dcterms_description":["Summary: Article on the reopening of the Emmett Till murder case."],"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Santa Clara, Calif. : Santa Clara Law Digital Commons"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["http://purl.fcla.edu/fsu/MSS_2015-007"],"dcterms_subject":["African Americans--Civil rights--History--20th century","African Americans--Crimes against","Civil rights","Journalism--Political aspects--United States","Mississippi--Race relations","Racism in the press","Rhetoric--Political aspects--United States--History--20th century","Trials (Murder)--United States"],"dcterms_title":["Reopening the Emmett Till Case: Lessons and Challenges for Critical Race Practice"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Florida State University Libraries. Special Collections"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://purl.flvc.org/fsu/fd/FSU_MSS_2015-007_S03_SS03_I005"],"dcterms_temporal":["1900/1999"],"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["articles"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"tws_oid16_31279","title":"Jesse Motley, 2005","collection_id":"tws_oid16","collection_title":"Crossroads interviews","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, Tennessee, Shelby County, Memphis, 35.14953, -90.04898"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["2005-02-25"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["video/mp4","application/pdf","image/jpeg"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":null,"dcterms_publisher":["Memphis, Tenn. : Rhodes College"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["https://vimeo.com/279894219"],"dcterms_subject":["Interviews","Oral history","Music","Memphis (Tenn.)","Stax Records"],"dcterms_title":["Jesse Motley, 2005"],"dcterms_type":["MovingImage"],"dcterms_provenance":["Rhodes College"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://hdl.handle.net/10267/31279"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["oral histories (literary works)"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null}],"pages":{"current_page":303,"next_page":304,"prev_page":302,"total_pages":6797,"limit_value":12,"offset_value":3624,"total_count":81557,"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":40428},{"value":"StillImage","hits":35298},{"value":"MovingImage","hits":4529},{"value":"Sound","hits":3226},{"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":9445},{"value":"Civil rights","hits":8328},{"value":"African Americans","hits":5912},{"value":"Mississippi--Race relations","hits":5750},{"value":"Race relations","hits":5604},{"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":4440},{"value":"Civil rights workers","hits":3536}],"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":1815},{"value":"Meredith, James, 1933-","hits":1709},{"value":"Baker, Augusta, 1911-1998","hits":1495},{"value":"Herrera, John J.","hits":1312},{"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":1915},{"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":440}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"event_title_sms","items":[{"value":"Martin Luther King, Jr.'s Nobel Prize","hits":1769},{"value":"Ole Miss Integration","hits":1670},{"value":"Housing Act of 1961","hits":969},{"value":"Little Rock Central High School Integration","hits":853},{"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":17987},{"value":"United States, Georgia, Fulton County, Atlanta, 33.749, -84.38798","hits":5437},{"value":"United States, Alabama, Montgomery County, Montgomery, 32.36681, -86.29997","hits":5151},{"value":"United States, Georgia, 32.75042, -83.50018","hits":4847},{"value":"United States, South Carolina, 34.00043, -81.00009","hits":4599},{"value":"United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","hits":4328},{"value":"United States, Alabama, 32.75041, -86.75026","hits":3948},{"value":"United States, Mississippi, 32.75041, -89.75036","hits":2910},{"value":"United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","hits":2580},{"value":"United States, Tennessee, Shelby County, Memphis, 35.14953, -90.04898","hits":2580},{"value":"United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959","hits":2536}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"us_states_facet","items":[{"value":"Georgia","hits":12823},{"value":"Alabama","hits":11313},{"value":"Mississippi","hits":10220},{"value":"South Carolina","hits":8493},{"value":"Arkansas","hits":4733},{"value":"Texas","hits":4399},{"value":"Tennessee","hits":3786},{"value":"Florida","hits":2602},{"value":"Ohio","hits":2403},{"value":"North Carolina","hits":1875},{"value":"New York","hits":1840}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"year_facet","items":[{"value":"1966","hits":10632},{"value":"1963","hits":10287},{"value":"1965","hits":10218},{"value":"1956","hits":9840},{"value":"1955","hits":9619},{"value":"1964","hits":9365},{"value":"1968","hits":9345},{"value":"1962","hits":9247},{"value":"1967","hits":8897},{"value":"1957","hits":8523},{"value":"1961","hits":8282},{"value":"1958","hits":8259},{"value":"1959","hits":8061},{"value":"1960","hits":7948},{"value":"1969","hits":7348},{"value":"1954","hits":7240},{"value":"1950","hits":7118},{"value":"1953","hits":6969},{"value":"1970","hits":6835},{"value":"1971","hits":6425},{"value":"1977","hits":6367},{"value":"1972","hits":6254},{"value":"1952","hits":6162},{"value":"1951","hits":6046},{"value":"1975","hits":5894},{"value":"1976","hits":5863},{"value":"1974","hits":5849},{"value":"1973","hits":5689},{"value":"1979","hits":5416},{"value":"1978","hits":5405},{"value":"1980","hits":5366},{"value":"1995","hits":4885},{"value":"1981","hits":4811},{"value":"1994","hits":4704},{"value":"1948","hits":4597},{"value":"1949","hits":4573},{"value":"1996","hits":4542},{"value":"1982","hits":4417},{"value":"1947","hits":4317},{"value":"1985","hits":4313},{"value":"1998","hits":4281},{"value":"1983","hits":4261},{"value":"1997","hits":4258},{"value":"1984","hits":4152},{"value":"1999","hits":4074},{"value":"1946","hits":4047},{"value":"1945","hits":4018},{"value":"1986","hits":4006},{"value":"1990","hits":3988},{"value":"1943","hits":3900},{"value":"1944","hits":3896},{"value":"2000","hits":3894},{"value":"2001","hits":3876},{"value":"1942","hits":3868},{"value":"1940","hits":3765},{"value":"1941","hits":3758},{"value":"1987","hits":3744},{"value":"2002","hits":3624},{"value":"1991","hits":3553},{"value":"1936","hits":3507},{"value":"1939","hits":3501},{"value":"1992","hits":3500},{"value":"2003","hits":3489},{"value":"1993","hits":3478},{"value":"1938","hits":3466},{"value":"1937","hits":3450},{"value":"1989","hits":3441},{"value":"1930","hits":3378},{"value":"1988","hits":3355},{"value":"1935","hits":3307},{"value":"1933","hits":3271},{"value":"1934","hits":3271},{"value":"1932","hits":3255},{"value":"1931","hits":3240},{"value":"2005","hits":3143},{"value":"2004","hits":2995},{"value":"2006","hits":2860},{"value":"1929","hits":2790},{"value":"1928","hits":2272},{"value":"1921","hits":2124},{"value":"1925","hits":2040},{"value":"1927","hits":2026},{"value":"1924","hits":2012},{"value":"2016","hits":2011},{"value":"1926","hits":2010},{"value":"1920","hits":1976},{"value":"1923","hits":1955},{"value":"1922","hits":1929},{"value":"2007","hits":1715},{"value":"2008","hits":1664},{"value":"2011","hits":1661},{"value":"2009","hits":1624},{"value":"2019","hits":1623},{"value":"2015","hits":1613},{"value":"2013","hits":1604},{"value":"2010","hits":1601},{"value":"2014","hits":1567},{"value":"2012","hits":1553},{"value":"1919","hits":1533},{"value":"1918","hits":1531}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":100,"offset":0,"prefix":null},"min":"0193","max":"2035","count":506439,"missing":56},{"name":"medium_facet","items":[{"value":"photographs","hits":10710},{"value":"correspondence","hits":9628},{"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":2771},{"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":41201},{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/","hits":17721},{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/UND/1.0/","hits":8830},{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/CNE/1.0/","hits":7090},{"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":145},{"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":8153},{"value":"South Caroliniana Library","hits":4251},{"value":"Atlanta University Center Robert W. Woodruff Library","hits":4102},{"value":"University of North Texas. Libraries","hits":3854},{"value":"University of South Carolina. Libraries","hits":3438},{"value":"Hargrett Library","hits":3292},{"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":2785},{"value":"Rhodes College","hits":2264}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"class_name","items":[{"value":"Item","hits":81102},{"value":"Collection","hits":455}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":100,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"educator_resource_b","items":[{"value":"false","hits":81360},{"value":"true","hits":197}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":100,"offset":0,"prefix":null}}]}}