{"response":{"docs":[{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1140","title":"Little Rock School District Compliance Report","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":["2004-03-12"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--21st Century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Educational law and legislation","Educational statistics","School improvement programs","School integration"],"dcterms_title":["Little Rock School District Compliance Report"],"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/1140"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["reports"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\nThe transcript for this item was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.\nIN' THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DMSION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERIN\"E KNIGHT, ET AL RECEIVED MAR 1 : 2004 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING PLAIN'TIFF DEFENDANTS IN'TER VENO RS IN'TER VENO RS LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT COMPLIANCE REPORT Plaintiff Little Rock School District (\"LRSD\") for its Compliance Report states: 1. On September 13, 2002, the District Court issued its Order finding that the LRSD had substantially complied with all areas of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan (\"Revised Plan\"), with the exception of Revised Plan  2. 7.1. The Court's Order set forth a detailed Compliance Remedy as to Revised Plan 2.7.1. 2. On October 10, 2002, the LRSD 's Board of Directors (\"Board\") adopted a Compliance Plan designed to meet the requirements of the Court's Compliance Remedy. The LRSD filed the Compliance Plan with the Court on March 14, 2003, as Exhibit A to Plaintiffs Notice of Filing Program Evaluations Required By Paragraph C of the Court's Compliance Remedy. 3. Joshua initially raised concerns about the Board-approved Compliance Plan. The LRSD addressed these concerns in an October 25, 2002 letter to counsel for Joshua, attached hereto Page 1 of 6 as Exhibit A. Joshua invoked the \"Process for Raising Compliance Issues\" set for in Revised Plan  8.2, and the Joshua and the LRSD met with Ms. Ann Marshall to facilitate an agreement. The last meeting was February 28, 2003. At that meeting, the LRSD agreed to provide Joshua several documents. The last of these was mailed to Joshua on March 6, 2003. The parties never reached any agreement related to Joshua's concerns about the Board-approved Compliance Plan. Joshua waived any objections to the Board-approved Compliance Plan by failing to present them to the Court as required by Paragraph \"D\" of the Compliance Remedy. 4. The Board-approved Compliance Plan interpreted Paragraphs \"A\" and \"B\" of the Compliance Remedy as requiring the LRSD to: (1) continue to administer student assessments through the first semester of 2003-04\n(2) develop written procedures for evaluating the programs implemented pursuant to Revised Plan  2.7 to determine their effectiveness in improving the academic achievement of African-American students\n(3) maintain written records of ( a) the criteria used to evaluate each program, (b) the results of the annual student assessments, including whether an informal program evaluation resulted in program modifications or the elimination of any programs, and (c) the names of the administrators who were involved with the evaluation of each program, as well as at least a grade level description of any teachers who were involved in the evaluation process\nand ( 4) prepare a comprehensive program evaluation of each academic program implemented pursuant to Revised Plan  2.7 to determine its effectiveness in improving the academic achievement of African-American students and to decide whether to modify or replace the program. See Compliance Plan, p. 3. 5. Continue to administer student assessments through the first semester of 2003- 04. Page 2 of 6 To meet this requirement, the LRSD implemented the 2002-03 Board-approved assessment --- -e .,tM it,~ \"? plan. ~W,\u0026lt;1 Pl/AM 6. Develop written procedures for evaluating the programs implemented pursuant to 2. 7 to determine their effectiveness in improving the academic achievement of African-American students. The Board adopted regulation IL-Rl when it approved the Compliance Plan. Regulation ILRl set forth the written procedures for evaluating the 2.7 programs. 7. Maintain written records of(a) the criteria used to evaluate each program\n(b) the results of the annual student assessments, including whether an informal program evaluation resulted in program modifications or the elimination of any programs\nand (c) the names of the administrators who were involved with the evaluation of each program, as well as at least a grade level description of any teachers who were involved in the evaluation process. Regulation IL-Rl outlined the criteria to be used to evaluate each program. As to the results of annual student assessments, the LRSD continues to maintain a computer database with the results of annual students assessments administered pursuant to the Board-approved assessmen1. plan. Exhibit B attached hereto identified the members of each team. Exhibits C, D and E document informal modifications of the mathematics, elementary literacy and secondary literacy programs, respectively. 8. Prepare a comprehensive program evaluation of each academic program implemented pursuant to 2.7 to determine its effectiveness in improving the academic achievement of African-American students and to decide whether to modify or replace the program. The LRSD contracted with Dr. Steve Ross, an expert approved by Joshua, to prepare comprehensive evaluations of the District's elementary and secondary literacy programs. These evaluations, combined in a single report, were completed and approved by the Board in November of2003 and are attached hereto as Exhibit F. Dr. Don Wold, a program evaluator funded through Page 3 of 6 a National Science Foundation (\"NSF\") grant\nDennis Glasgow, Interim Associate Superintendent for Curriculum and Instruction\nand Vanessa Cleaver, Director of the NSF Grant, authored the comprehensive mathematics and science evaluation. The comprehensive mathematics and science evaluation was completed and approved by the Board in December 2003 and is attached hereto as Exhibit G. 9. The LRSD substantially complied with the Revised Plan and the Court's Compliance \u0026lt;f' Remedy by implementation of the Board-approved Compliance Plan. 10. By letter dated January 12, 2004, copies of the comprehensive evaluations were provided to counsel for the Joshua Intervenors, and counsel was asked to advise the District of any \"questions or concerns\" about these evaluations. In a fax dated March 8, 2004, counsel for the Joshua Intervenors wrote: I have reviewed your evaluations and find that they are grossly inadequate and incomplete. In addition to that I am still awaiting the evaluations of the other remaining programs which were contemplated by our agreement. Because we have already invoked the process required by the court, I am putting ODM on notice of our position. The LRSD denies that it agreed to prepare evaluations other than those described in the Board- ti' approved Compliance Plan. WHEREFORE, the LRSD submits the program evaluations as required by paragraphs \"A\" and \"B\" of the Court's Compliance Remedy. The LRSD prays that the Court find that the LRSD has substantially complied with Revised Plan  2. 7.1, as specified in the Compliance Remedy\nthat the LRSD is unitary with regard to all aspects of school operations\nand that it be released from all further supervision and monitoring of its desegregation efforts. Respectfully Submitted, Page 4 of 6 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK Christopher Heller (#81083) 2000 Regions Center 400 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 (501) 376- Page 5 of 6 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing has been served on the following people by depositing a copy of same in the United States mail on March 12, 2004: Mr. John W. Walker JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1 723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Sam Jones Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 2200 Nations Bank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON \u0026amp; JONES, P.A. 425 W. Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201-3472 Judge J. Thomas Ray U. S. District Courthouse 600 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 149 Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Ann Marshall Desegregation Monitor 1 Union National Plaza 124 W. Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Tim Gauger Mr. Mark A. Hagemeier Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Clayton Blackstock Mr. Mark Burnett 1010 W. Third Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Page 6 of 6 HElSCHEL H. fl.JOA Y (1'22-1\"4) WIWAM tL SlJTTON, P.A. BYI.OH M.. EISEMAN. JL, P.A. JOE D. BELL P.A. JAMES A. BUTT1.Y, P.A. fl.EDERJCX S. URSEllY, P.A OSCAl. E. DAVIS. JL. P.A. JAMES C. CLAll. JL, P.A. THOMAS P. LEGGETT. P.A. JOHN D!Wl!Y WATSON, P.A. PAUL 8 . BENHAM Ill, P.A. LAJ.J.Y 'W. BUllS, P.A. A. WYCll.lFP NISBET, Jl.., P.A. JAMES EDWAJ:D HAIJUS, P.A J. PtoWP MALCOM. P.A. JAMES M. SIMPSON, P.A. JAMES M. SAXTON, P.A. J. SHEPHEU\u0026gt; lUSSE.LL Ill. P.A DONALD H. BACON, P.A. WIWAM THOMAS BAXTEIL P.A. 1.JCHAI.D D. TAYLOa.. P.A. JOSEPH B. KUUT. JI.., P.A. ELIZABETH ROBBEH MUllAY, P.A. CHR.ISTOPHER HELLEl. P.A. LAUR.A HENSLEY SMITH. P.A. ROBEI.T S. SHAFER. P.A. WIU.IAM M. GltJFFIN Ill. P.A. MICHAELS. MOOl.E. P.A. DIANE S. MACXEY, , .A. WAL TEI. M. EBEL Ill, P.A UVIN A. CRASS, P.A. WlLLIA.M A. WADDELL JL, P.A. SCOTT J. LANCASTEl. P.A. I.OBEI.T 8. BEActl JL, P.A. J. UE Bl.OWN, P.A. JAMES C. BAK.ER.. JL. P.A. H.AllY A. LIGHT. P.A SCOTT H. TUCl.ER. P.A. GUY ALTON WADE. P.A. Pl.ICE C. GAkDNER. P.A. TONIA P. JONfS, P.A DAVID D. lr'IUON. P.A. JEFPJl.EY H. MOOR.I., P.A. DAVID M. Gll.A.F, P.A. ( By Hand Delivery ) Mr. John W. Walker John W. Walker, P.A. 1 723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell Law Firm Plaza West Building 415 N. McKinley, Suite 465 Little Rock, Arkansas 72205 FRIDAY ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK ATTORNEYS AT LAW A LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP www.frldayfirm.com 2000 REGIONS CENTER  00 WEST CAPITOL LITTLE ROCK. ARKANSAS 72201-3 93 TELEPHONE 501-376-2011 FAX 501-376-21  7 3425 NORTH FUTRALL DRIVE. SUITE 103 FAYETTEVILLE. ARKANSAS 72703..4811 TELEPHONE 470.-HS..2011 FAX 479--ISV52147 2011 HORTH FIFTH STREET BLYTHEVILLE. ARKANSAS 72315 TELEPHONE 170.-782 211H FAX 170,-7822911 October 25, 2002 Mr. Sam Jones Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 2200 Bank of America Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 ( By Hand Delivery) Ms. Ann Marshall Desegregation Monitor 1 Union National Plaza 124 W. Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, Arkansas 722Ql RE: Compliance Remedy Dear Counsel and Ms. Marshall: CAJ..LA GUNNELS SPAINHOUR. P.A. JOHN' C. FENDLEY. Jl.., P.A. JONANN ELIZABETH CONIGLIO. P.A. R. CHUSTOPKER LAWSON, P.A FR.AH C. HICKMAN. P.A BETIY J. DEMORY, P.A. LYNDA M. JOHNSON. P.A. JAMES W. SMJTtl P.A. CUfl'OllD W. PLUNKETT, P.A DANIELL. KEIJUNGTON, P.A MARVIN L CHILDEJ..s [.. COLEMAN' WESTBR.OOK.. JR.. ALLISON J. COkHWEU EUEN M. OWENS JASON 8 . HfMDR.EN BRUCE B TIDWELL MICH.A.EL E. r..A.JJaY KEU Y MUR..PKY MCQUEEN JOSEPH P. MCXA Y AU:XANDllA A. In.AH JAY T. TAYLOR M.UTIN A. LUTEN Mr. Steve Jones BRYAN W. DUX.E JOSEPH G NlCHOU ROBUT T. SMITH RY AN A. BOWMAN TIMOTifY C. UEU. T. MICHELU ATOk KAIEN S. HALBERT SAlAH M. COTTON PHJLIP 8. MONTGOMERY lklSTEN S l.JGGINS Al.AH G. BRY A\u0026gt;I LINDSEY MITCHAM SLOAN lHAYYAM M. !J\u0026gt;DJNGS JOtof F. PEISlllCH AMANDA CA.PPS lOSE Bl.ANDON J. HAU..ISOH o, C'OUNll.l B.S. a.All WJWAM L TEllY WlWAM L PATTON, JR. K. T. LAllUl.E. P.A. JOlffi C. EOfOU. P .A A.D MCAWSTEl JOHN C. FENDLEY, JR. LITTLE ROCK TEL so1 .. no-nn FAX 501 .. 24-lSJ.41 fendleyClec.net Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones, P.A. 425 W. Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Dennis Hanson Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 In our letter dated October 11, 2002, we asked the parties to specifically identify in writing any perceived deficiency in the Board-approved Compliance Plan on or before Monday, October 21, 2002. No responses were received on or before that date. However, Mr. Pressman called on October 21, 2002, and advised that Joshua would rely on the comments contained in Mr. Walker's October 10, 2002, facsimile. On October 24, 2002, additional comments were received from Mr. Walker. All of Mr. Walker's comments will be addressed in turn. i.. EXHIBIT I A All Counsel and Ms. Marshall October 25, 2002 Page2 October 10, 2002 Facsimile 1. More consideration is needed of the programs to be identified as \"implementat[ ed] pursuant to Section 2.7 ... \", which are to be subjected to \"comprehensive program evaluation ... \" Your document at page 7 identifies three areas. We note the absence of specific reference and detail regarding interventions/ \"scaffolding\" - areas of vital importance given the achievement patterns of African-American students. We note also that the LRSD compliance report cited many more programs as designed to fulfill Section 2.7. Mr. Pressman clarified this concern during our October 21, 2002 telephone conversation. Mr. Pressman explained that Joshua was concerned that interventions designed to assist low achieving students, for example SAIPs, were not being fully implemented and wanted some assurance that the comprehensive program evaluations would assess implementation of these programs. LRSD RESPONSE: On October 24, 2002, the Board approved the Division of Instruction's \"Plan to Support Low-Performing Schools,\" a copy of which is enclosed for your review. Under that plan, the LRSD will conduct curriculum, instruction and classroom management audits at low performing schools. Data gathered through these audits and other monitoring under the plan may be used by a program evaluation team to identify possible causes of poor performance, including poor implementation of interventions such as SAIPs. The LRSD lacks the resources to implement this plan at every school. Approximately 10 schools will receive the full compliment of services outlined in the plan. Those 10 schools will be identified based on the priority system set forth in the plan. 2. In a discussion prior to his testimony in the hearing [before] Judge Wilson, we understood Dr. Ross to indicate that the existing evaluation of the PreK-2 literacy program was not adequate. The notation on page 4 of your document of the changed use of the Observation Survey and the DRA relates to part of the concerns he expressed. This undermines the LRSD argument (page 11) that the existing evaluation, upon Board approval, will satisfy a part of the Court's remedy. LRSD RESPONSE: As the LRSD understands this statement, Joshua objects to the LRSD considering the PreK-2 literacy evaluation to have been completed pursuant to Paragraph C of the Compliance Remedy. Attached are the comments received by the LRSD from Dr. Ross related to that evaluation. As can be seen, Dr. Ross did not advise the LRSD that the evaluation was \"inadequate.\" Moreover, it does not make sense for the LRSD to expend resources to have this evaluation \"completed\" by an outside expert while it also prepares a new, comprehensive evaluation of the same program with the assistance of an outside expert. All Counsel and Ms. Marshall October 25, 2002 Page3 3. The LRSD discussion about satisfying the court's order regarding the evaluations mentioned at page 148 of the compliance report does not seem to talce account of the material provided, which describes an adequate evaluation. LRSD RESPONSE: As the LRSD understands this statement, Joshua objects to the LRSD not completing the evaluations identified on page 148 of the Final Compliance Report in a manner consistent with IL-RI. As the LRSD understands Paragraph C of the Compliance Remedy, the / District Court simply wants the LRSD to do what it said it did and complete the evaluations identified on page 148 of the Final Compliance Report. That is what the LRSD intends to do. It is true that those evaluations, even after being completed, may not be model program evaluations as envisioned by IL-Rl. The LRSD decided, however, that the most prudent use of its limited resources would be to focus on the new, comprehensive evaluations of programs designed to improve African-American achievement. 4. We question the period of implementation of a remedy which the court has identified and, therefore, the LRSD schedule. LRSD RESPONSE: The LRSD is willing to agree that any agreement between the LRSD and Joshua related to implementation of the Compliance Remedy will not prejudice Joshua's appeal of the District Court's September 13, 2002, Memorandum Opinion. October 24, 2002 Facsimile 1. In using historical student assignment results, attention should be given to the quality of the data. In the past, LRSD has used results on the [D]RA and the Observation Survey in ways not consistent with the purposes of those instruments. In adpition, because teachers provided scores for their own students, the past use made of the data was in conflict with the district's recognition in the newly enacted Regulation IL-RI that \"Conflict of Interest\" must be avoided. LRSD RESPONSE: Paragraph A of the Compliance Remedy requires the LRSD to use all available data in its evaluations. It will be the responsibility of the evaluation team to weigh the reliability and validity of the available data. The Arkansas Department of Education and national organizations \\ with expertise in early literacy recommend the use of the DRA and Observation Surveys. The J primary purpose of those assessments is to determine whether students are learning the essential components of the reading curriculum. As to the integrity of the data from those assessments, the LRSD monitored student scores year-to-year to discourage teachers from inflating scores in an effort to show improvement. Moreover, the ultimate success of the LRSD's early literacy program will I - All Counsel and Ms. Marshall October 25, 2002 Page4 be judged by performance on the State's Benchmark examinations, rather than the DRA and Observation Surveys. 2. We are concerned about the manner in which the regulation describes the \"team\" process for preparing evaluations, again in the context of\"conflict of interest.\" In order to insure that \"conflict of interest\" is avoided, the \"external consultant\" needs to write the report and control the -context of the analysis. Paragraphs 3, 5 and 6 of the \"Program Evaluation Procedures\" do not guarantee that the external expert will have these roles. Of course, if reports were prepared in the manner which we describe, there would be no bar to LRSD staff preparing comments to the Board with a differing interpretation of the evaluation results. LRSD RESPONSE: The LRSD rejects the implication that LRSD personnel cannot be trusted to write an honest program evaluation. The LRSD's commitment to improving student achievement is second to none. To fulfill that commitment, it is in the LRSD's best interest to effectively evaluate its Ero grams. The success of the programs and program evaluations will ulhmately be measured by the State's Benchmark evaluations. All evaluation team members will be actively involved in the evaluation process and are expected to provide a check against the self-interest of any one team member. The evaluation team will decide who writes the report based on the expertise of team members. The outside expert will be asked to take to the Superintendent any concerns about the evaluation not being addressed by the evaluation team. The outside expert will also be asked to be present when the evaluation is presented to the Board so that the Board can be advised of any concerns the outside expert may have about the final evaluation. 3. We continue to be concerned about the global, general manner in which the content of planned evaluations is described (page 7 of the document, first paragraph). For example, the Board has adopted a policy and two regulations dealing with remediation for students whose performance is below par. Studying the actual implementation of these standards (in all or a representative sample of schools) is of vital importance to the Intervenor class because class members are so much more likely than other students to exhibit unsatisfactory performance on the Benchmark and Stanford Achievement Tests. A satisfactory description by the School Board of the evaluations which it requires the staff to undertake should make clear that the actual implementation of remediation activities in district schools is to receive careful consideration. This is surely an important contextual factor (see \"Accuracy Standards,\" para. 2). LRSD RESPONSE: As the LRSD understands this comment, it is a restatement of the first number paragraph in Mr. Walker's October 10, 2002 facsimile, and the LRSD hereby incorporates its response thereto. All Counsel and Ms. Marshall October 25, 2002 Page 5 4. We understand from the Plan that the LRSD plans evaluations of programs deemed to be particularly directed to achievement of African-American students for the indefinite term, not simply for the period necessary to satisfy the court. We would like to receive the Board's assurance that this is the case. LRSD RESPONSE: The Board's approval ofIL-Rl was not limited to the term of the Compliance Remedy, and at this time, the Board anticipates continuing to evaluate programs pursuant to Policy IL after the term of the Compliance Remedy. Conclusion The LRSD hopes that it has been able to address all of Joshua's concerns. If any party has any questions about the LRSD's responses to Joshua's comments, we ask that those be submitted in writing, and the LRSD will promptly provide a written response. If Joshua continues to have concerns about the LRSD's Compliance Plan, Joshua should consider this the LRSD's written response to alleged noncompliance in accordance with Revised Plan 8. Pursuant to Revised Plan 8.2.4, Joshua has 15 days ofreceipt of this letter to submit the issue to ODM for facilitation of an agreement. Thank you for your cooperation. Sincerely, cc: Dr. Ken James (via hand-delivery) PROGRAM EVALUATION TEAMS Elementarv Literacy Krista Underwood, Director of Early Childhood and Elementary Literacy-Team Leader Pat Busbea, Literacy Specialist Judy Teeter, Literacy Specialist Judy Milam,\nLiteracy Specialist Melinda Crone, Literacy Specialist Ann Freeman, Literacy Specialist Dr. Ed Williams, statistician Ken Savage (technician) Dr. Steve Ross, External Program Evaluator Secondary Literacy Suzi Davis-Director of Secondary English, Team Leader Sarah Schutte, Middle School Literacy Specialist Dr. Karen Broadnax, Supervisor of ESL Eunice Smith, Supervisor, Special Education Dr. Mona Briggs, Safe Schools Grant Dr. Ed Williams, statistician Ken Savage (technician) Dr. Steve Ross, External Program Evaluator Mathematics and Science Vanessa Cleaver-Team Leader Dennis Glasgow, Interim Associate Superintendent for Curriculum and Instruction Marcelline Carr Beth Clifford Annita Paul Dr. Ed Williams, statistician Ken Savage (technician) Dr. Don Wold, NSF Program Evaluator Dr. Steve Ross, External Program Evaluator ..  EXHIBIT I B Program Modifications Based on Informal Program Evaluation Elementary Mathematics 2001-02  An item analysis of 4th Grade Benchmark Data for 2000-01 reveals that students perform lowest on the geometry strand. (Note-The State Math Framework and NCTM National Standards for Mathematics contain 5 strands: number sense, geometry, probability and statistics, algebra, and measurement.) The analysis of data from the Benchmark Exam consisted of identifying the strand of each item, ranking the items from highest to lowest, and looking for trends in the data.  Program modifications made based on the low performance on geometry items was:  Train teachers to do item analyses for their own schools.  Work with teachers to discern reasons why students struggled with the specific geometry items (the released items were available for review).  Develop strategies for increasing the focus on geometry in the elementary mathematics curriculum.  School by school analysis of 4th Grade Benchmark Data for 2000-01 (and prior years) revealed different levels of achievement by schools that were demographically similar. Classroom observations in these schools by elementary\\ math/science lead teachers confirmed that the level of implementation of the . ) elementary mathematics curriculum was different from school to school. Schools with a higher level of implementation were having higher student achievement than schools who were not implementing the curriculum at that high level.  A program modification made based on uneven achievement at similar schools was to have principals identify a lead person in their schools to receive intensive and sustained training to serve as a \"coach\" for other teachers (See list of Math Support Personnel for LRSD).  Sara Hogg, UALR Mathematics Specialist, was utilizec'1 to provide monthly \"coaches\" training so that additional implementation support would be available at each school. A variety of types of training has been provided by Ms. Hogg, much of it directed at greater knowledge of strategies for implementing our elementary mathematics curriculum.  Another program modification made as a result of uneven achievement among schools was to begin a process of changing the way professional development for teachers is structured. In the past most professional development for elementary mathematics has been district-led (e.g., all third grade teachers go to a district-led training on the 3rd grade mathematics curriculum). The modification has been to shift more focus on site-based professional development. The \"Lesson Study' and \"Study Group\" approach was begun with elementary mathematics teachers to allow them more responsibility and accountability for their own training needs. ) 2002-03   The same item analysis was completed for 2001-02 4th grade Benchmark Data . Results of this analysis showed that students had gained in the area of geometry . The lowest strands were probability and statistics, measurement, and algebra. Staff and teachers reviewed the LRSD elementary mathematics curriculum to determine if there was a correlation between extend to strand coverage in the curriculum and student performance on those strands on the Benchmark Exam. The curriculum analysis revealed that there were some gaps in the curriculum that likely resulted in low performance on certain items on the exam.    Staff and teachers worked over the summer of 2003 use the Benchmark data to determine the \"big ideas\" or concepts students need to have a deep understanding about in grades K-5. Using several years worth of data, grade level teams of teachers in grades 1-4 (see list of teachers who worked on curriculum revision) ( revised the mathematics standards and benchmarks according to the five strands listed in NCTM Standards and the State Framework. Kindergarten and fifth grade will do similar work during the summer of 2004. Curriculum resources in grades 1-4 were aligned to those standards assessed most frequently on the exam. Supplemental curriculum resources were identified from several sources for use to broaden the scope of the curriculum at certain grade levels. Internet resources, Marilyn Burns and Associates materials, and other materials were identified and compiled into a notebook for use by teachers.  Benchmark results show that district students generally perform less well on the open-response test items compared to the multiple choice items.  Program modifications based on this data were:  Developed packets of open-response items for teachers to use with students.  Trained teachers to score open-response items using a rubric.  Developed and administered District-developed end-of-quarter or end-ofsemester exams that included open-response items.  4 th grade Literacy and Mathematics Benchmark Results over a period of three years caused some schools to be given \"School Improvement\" status by the Arkansas Department of Education (ADE). Schools in which the total population or one or more sub-populations (white, African-American, Hispanic, Limited English Proficient, Low Socioeconomic Status, and Special Education) did not meet Adequate Yearly Progress as defined by ADE were sanctioned with Year 1, Year 2, or Year 3 School Improvement Status.  A thorough and detailed School Support Audit was done for schools in Year 2 or Year 3 School Improvement. (An attachment explains the school audit process). The schools that were audited were Fair Park, Baseline, Mabelvale Elementary, Wakefield, and Southwest Middle School).  A variety of program modifications were made in schools on School) Improvement as a result of the audit findings.  One major common finding from the audits was that effective questions strategies were not being routinely used in the audited schools. The modification made was to bring in an expert on questioning strategies (Dr. Lee Hannel-author of Highly Effective Questioning: Developing the Seven Steps of Critical Thinking) to 1 ead a workshop for all LRSD principals. 2003-04  All grade level teachers were trained in the use of these new curriculwn resources that were developed by the math staff and teachers during the August, 2003, preschool conference.  Item analyses of the 4th Grade Benchmark Exam showed that the statistics and probability strand was the lowest area for students.  A program modification made was to strengthen concept development in ( probability by added a replacement unit on probability from Marilyn Burns' s materials. Twenty-six primary teachers and coaches and twenty-five intermediate teachers and coaches participated in full-day training on the Marilyn Burns materials.  Three elementary schools on School Improvement Status collaborate to bring in Dr. Hannel to provide training for all teachers in the schools.  Dr. Hannel provided full day training for all elementary principals. (  21 of 24 principals responded that they were interested in having the questioning strategies training for all faculty in their schools.  Additional schools received School Support Audits-Chicot, Bale, Mitchell.  Program Modifications made by selected schools were to hire math coaches to assist with professional development and training related to implementation of the elementary mathematics curriculum. r Uneven achievement among schools was evident in the results of the 2002-03 4th Grade Benchmark Exam.  A Program Modification strategy used was to hire Dr. Linda Griffith to check the alignment of the mathematics curriculum, grades K-8, to the State Framework. The results ofthis alignment will include recommendations for improving the alignment in the curriculum. , Program Modifications Based on Informal Program Evaluation Secondary Mathematics 2001-02  Item analyses of 6th , 8th , Algebra L and Geometry Benchmark Data for 2001-02  Continued District-wide end-of-quarter tests for Algebra I - Pre-Calculus  District-wide end-of-module tests for grades 6-8  TI-83 plus calculator training provided for all secondary math teachers  Full implementation of high quality standards-based instruction/materials in math for all students in grades K-12  District leveraged support of professional development for all math teachers by providing funds to pay substitute teachers and stipends for teachers receiYing trninill-g.s -  Lead teachers continued to provide technical assistance inside and outside the classroom by conducting professional development workshops and classroom observations\n Continued partnership with University of Arkansas at Little Rock (UALR) to develop and offer graduate courses based on the needs of the District. The r.l 1 ~ following course was developed and offered during the 2001-02 SY: \\l.Y o Strategies for Teaching Geometry  Developed and distributed pacing guides for secondary mathematics and courses to address the issue of student mobility within the District  High school mathematics courses (Algebra I - Precalculus) were revised to reflect a closer alignment with the national and state standards and frameworks\n The SMART (Summer Mathematics Advanced Readiness Training) program is an academic student support program for students who will be enrolled in Algebra I the upcoming fall semester. Project THRIVE, the follow-up component of SMART, is a Saturday academy for students currently enrolled in Algebra I. sV These programs are aligned with the State Goals for Algebra I. Algebra I EOC (.,.,IJJVK.l--t results of students who participate in these programs are compared with the overall District results o SMART /Project THRIVE served more than 200 students in Algebra  The agendas for horizontal team meetings (each grade/subject level 6th gradeCalculus) are developed around the results of the benchmark exams. Teachers concentrate on areas of wealmess for students and work on modifications in instructional strategies to improve those areas. In addition, trends and patterns are studied to measure the impact of instructional practices in the classroom.  Implemented instruction in Algebra I through Riverdeep software in all high schools 7 2002-03  Changed format of pre-school conference meeting to involve more teachers doing presentations on standards-based activities\n Purchased Texas Instruments APPs Suite for Algebra I for all middle and high J schools\n Provided training from College Board Pacesetter for Algebra I - Pre-calculus teachers - over 80% of secondary math teachers were trained  Continued District-wide end-of-.s!1arteLtest..for 6th grade - Calculus\n Continued to provide prof'essTo\"nal development for all secondary math teachers on topics including: o Riverdeep Interactive Software o TI-83 plus calculators o UALR Graduate Courses  Strategies for Teaching Algebra  Integrating the Graphing Calculator  Revised and enacted procedures for ensuring that students who are Limited English Proficient (LEP) achieve the curriculum content standards and benchmarks established by the State of Arkansas and LRSD\n Continued to implement high-quality standards-based instruction for grades 6-12 mathematics\n Continued to hold monthly vertical team meetings for secondary math teachers/ vlt,\n..,  Held horizontal team meetings (one per semester) for each secondary math course\n2003-04  Classroom sets of graphing calculators provided for all Algebra I - Calculus teachers\n Offered UALR graduate course on Using Handheld Technology to Enhance the t1n-vti,,...-/ Mathematics Classroom - used the TI-Navigator system\n Continued vertical and horizontal team meetings including 6th -8th  Workshop by Dr. Linda Griffith for calculus teachers on integrating calculator to teach calculus\n Continued end-of-quarter tests\n 6 th -8 th grade curriculum revised to reflect a closer alignment with the national and state standards and frameworks\nMarcelline Carr and Vanessa Cleaver FY 2002-03 Actions of the LRSD Elementary Literacy Department related to Literacy Program Evaluation The LRSD Elementary Literacy Department continued to provide professional development (ELLA, EFFECTIVE LITERACY, Reading Recovery) to all LRSD schools to support implementation of the LRSD Pre-K-3 Literacy Plan. The Elementary Literacy Department examined the Spring 2002 CRT Literacy data to identify the schools most in need of assistance in the area ofliteracy with particular attention to the academic achievement of African American students and their needs. The data indicated that the writing rogram was the weak comRone_!_lt oft~ literacy instructional prQg[am. The Elementary Literacy Department provided staff development related to writing instruction, and the writing programs in schools were modified to include \"best practices.\" The Spring 2003 CRT Literacy data from several schools reflected the schools' efforts to improve their students' academic achievement in writing. The District used the assessment data to also provide the low performing schools with the opportunity to participate in the LRSD Reading First Project. The project, which is federally funded, provides significant funding to schools to implement research-based instructional strategies. -T-w-el-ve schools chose to participate in the pniiect to begin.in the fall of 2003 . The project requires the sc oo s to o ow an assessment schedule related to program improvement. Because of lack of movement in student achievement in literacy, three schools on school improvement decided to move from the Success for All program to the research-based instruction recommended in Reading First. FY 2003-04 August - December 2003 Response to the Literacy Program Evaluation The Elementary Literacy Department reviewed the literacy program evaluation report developed by Dr. Ross and developed a plan to continue program evaluation in the future which included the following:  Continue the use of focus groups for each of the professional development programs (ELLA, Effective Literacy, Reading Recovery, Literacy Coaches, Success for All) and develop a table of the most and least effective elements. The information from the focus groups will then be used to modify the District's professional development plan.  ( Compare student data from the CRT and District assessments in each school to compare the academic achievement of African-American students with others as related to the instructional program and provide specific professional development based on the identified needs of the students. ...  EXHIBIT ID The staff also reviewed the section of the report related to the most effective and least effective elements of each staff development offered by the District. The following actions were taken to address the weaknesses of the professional development:  Provided additional guided reading materials to all schools to support small group instruction to ensure equitable instruction for all students.  Provided a diverse collection of books to low performing schools to ensure that a variety of texts is available for independent reading.  Modified the testing schedule ( except in Reading Excellence and Reading First schools) to accommodate the need for a more streamlined assessment plan. Literacy Achievement Data Review Dr. Ed Williams met with the Elementary Literacy Department regarding the 2003 Primary Literacy Benchmark Exam with attention to the academic achievement of African American students as compared to other students. Schools most in need were identified and assigned to specific Literacy Specialists who had the task of reviewing the testing data more closely with the assigned schools. The Elementary Literacy Department employed the services of a consultant to discuss with the Literacy Specialists the most effective approach to use with the schools in examinin their data and using it to make ro am modifications or changes. After the consultant's visit, the staff developed a p an or working with the schools. Assistance provided to the schools was varied based on the needs of the school but included inservice on the Primary Benchmark Exam and data analysis. In some schools, the principal and staff had already examined the data and outside assistance was not requested. Results of the data review confirmed that the professional development provided by the Elementary Literacy Department should include heavy emphasis on content ar~a reading.a.nd...writing. In addition to the professional de~being o ere on an ongoing basis to teachers grades 2-4, the Elementary Literacy Department and the Social Studies Department began working collaboratively to provide the training, resources, and materials for 5th grade teachers to integrate reading and social studies instruction. Three training sessions were held in January 2004 to model for teachers how to integrate the two areas. LRSD Reading First Project Schools The Reading First Project Schools have been visited several times during the year (2003-04) by the LSRD Reading First Coordinator, District Literacy Specialists, and the ADE Reading First Technical Assistant. The purpose of the visits is to provide assistance and to monitor the instructional program of the schools. Monitoring was done using a structured observation protocol and assistance was provided to schools in various ways such as the following:  Classroom demonstrations  Classroom observations with post observation conference  Colleague visits to exemplary classrooms  Sessions for problem-solving various aspects of the instructional program L 3 The Reading First Literacy Coaches and classroom teachers administered assessments in addition to those required by the district. In the fall of 2003 kindergarten students were given tl:Je DIBELS letter identification\nfirst grade students were given the letter identification and phoneme segmentation tests\nand the second and third grade students were given the oral reading fluency test. The coaches and classroom teachers used this information to determine students in need of intervention, .and intervention plans were developed for each school. Progress monitoring was conducted on those students considered at risk or some risk in order to evaluate the effectiveness of the interventions and to make needed changes. In January 2004 kindergarten students were given the DIBELS letter identification and phoneme segmentation\nfirst grade students were given the DIBELS phoneme segmentation and oral reading~ -, fluency test\nand second and third grade students were given the DIBELS oral reading fluency test. IV\"/ The Developmental Spelling test was also administered to K-3 students in January 2004. / The Literacy Coaches entered all of the LSRD Reading First schools' data and intervention plans into the Arkansas Reading First Data Bank. Pat Busbea and Renee Dawson, Reading First Technical Assistants monitored the data input and the development and implementation of the intervention plans. Because the Reading First Schools are predominantly African American, particular attention is being given to how the students are responding to the intervention and technical assistance is provided to schools when the data indicates it is needed. Professional Development Specialized Training Based on examination of CRT, DRA and Observation Survey data, as well as teacher observation, it was determined that support and services were needed in the following areas of literacy in the lowperforming schools: phonemic awareness/phonics, spelling, oral language, and reading comprehension. Both local and nationally recognized experts in these areas of literacy were contracted to provide l/,W-,e,1.w -\"\"\" professional development to teachers of PreK through Grade 5. ~ Ongoing Professional Development Ongoing professional development in literacy instruction is made available to all PreK - Grade 5 teachers. This professional development, a component of the State Smart Start Initiative, includes: Early Literacy Learning in Arkansas (ELLA) for grades K-2 Effective Literacy for grades 2-4 The LRSD Effective Literacy 5 for grade 5 Pre Early Literacy Learning in Arkansas (PreELLA) Pre-Kindergarten. Benchmark Preparation In response to requests from principals of the identified schools, District literacy specialists provided State Benchmark Exam preparation training to the teachers of grades 3-5 focused on the areas of \"Writing On Demand\" and \"Constructed Response\". I 11 Technical Assistance Technical Assistance in Literacy was provided to classroom teachers at the Elementary Schools identified for School Improvement. The focus and the intensity of the assistance were based on the particular needs of each teacher related to instruction during the 2  hour Literacy Block - Reading Workshop, Writing Workshop and Word Study. Reading Specialists visited each classroom in need of assistance to meet with the teacher. The specialist and teacher identified the specific needs from the following areas: Physical Setting/Context for Instruction Explicit Phonics/Spelling/Word Study Literature Circles/Literature Discussion Groups Guided Reading Instruction Shared Reading Shared Writing Strategy-Based Mini Lessons Literacy Corners Teacher Read Aloud Writing Workshop Reading Workshop Independent Reading Benchmark Prep The specialists then addressed the areas identified, including: setting up Literacy Corners, rearranging classrooms, organizing and categorizing reading materials, teaching students in both whole and small group, modeling instructional approaches, demonstrating the use of materials, assessing students and developing instructional plans. Professional books, independent reading books and sets of books for guided reading, as well as organizational materials and center supplies are also provided. 4 C ao.c 1--y:,s Approximately 20 of the schools have employed literacy coaches to help support and accelerate change in literacy instruction to improve the achievement of all students in the area ofliteracy. !y 2001-2002 Program Modifications Based on Informal Program Evaluation Secondary Literacy 1. Teachers attended after school meetings with director to examine data and conduct analysis of scores of ACTAAP tests. 2. English faculty of each school spent a day together with English director and building principal in session devoted to best practices for improvement ofliteracy program. January - March 2002. 3. All building assistant principals at middle school were inserviced by director in literacy program in order to provide for more consistent supervision and coordination by including all administrators in literacy program. 4. Monthly collaboration sessions were held at all middle schools, taking turns hosting, with dedicated topics related to modifying literacy program and practices. 5. Recognizing that secondary teachers have never been trained in the teaching of reading, Dee Bench, consultant from Denver Coalition of Business and Education was employed to lead staff development during summer of '02 for teachers to modify reading strategies and instruction. Four weeks of training took place with achers (approximate! 75 all four core subjects in attendance. This summer inservice was a modification to include all cross curricular teachers in literacy program. 2002-2003 I. Teachers met with director to assist in production of curriculum for writing in order to be able to consistently deliver quality program elements. Evaluation of current practice and -focus on op.timuro results _were goals. Spring - Summer '02. New Writing Curriculum was put into use 02-03. Teachers were inserviced school by school during preschool work days on use of new curriculum. Committee of teachers for curriculum development: Brenda Bankston, Mabelvale Middle School Barbara Brandon, Southwest Middle School Lisa Lewis, Pulaski Heights Middle School Sarah Schutte, Cloverdale Middle School Alison Hargis, Central High School Dr. Rhonda Fowler, Central High School Emily Lewis, Parkview High School Carol Carter, Hall High School Peggy Thompson, Fair High School Sandra Nichols, McClellan High School Karen Shofner, McClellan High School 2. Director met with building principals during early morning sessions to introduce new curriculum for purposes of effectively evaluating classroom mstruction and to provide basis for collaborative program evaluation. Fall '02. 3. Analysis of data from all tests and sessions with individual schools to modify areas of emphasis according to areas of need. It was discovered that our students do well on the ...  EXHIBIT l E. mechanics and usage areas..whi)e the writing in content areas i eaker. Strategies were developed to practice and teach these skills. 4. Practice kits were developed by the English office and distributed to every middle school teacher for use in modification ofliteracy program in terms oftest preparation. 5. Consultation with outside expert in reading comprehension for older readers to evaluate next steps and current status oflowest achieving students. Summer '02- '03. (Need for literacy coaches in high school was determined and, as a result, three are now in place at three lowest performing high schools , based on ACT AAP.) 6. Teachers met during summer 2003 to evaluate and modify urriculum producing an amending docwnent. Survey given to all English teachers prior to meeting and results discussed and useful for changes made. Committee to revise English Curriculwn: Wes Zeigler, Southwest Middle School Lisa Lewis, Pulaski Heights Middle School Billie Wallace, Parkview High School Beverly Maddox, Henderson Middle School Peggy Thompson, Fair High School Louisa Rook, Cloverdale Middle School Carol Carter, Hall High School Joan Bender, ALC Jennifer Moore, Forest Heights Middle School Alison Hargis, Central High School Cherry Robinson, McClellan High School 7. ESL Supervisor and director met to discuss and evaluate materials as they relate to program's effectiveness for ESL and low-level learners. Materials were purchased for these students as a result. Summer '03. 8. Consultant from Denver Coalition returned for one week of further training in reading instruction strategies for secondary students. 2003-2004 1. Based on being placed on School Improvement list, Associate Superintendent and director met to discuss literacy program at low performing middle school and to write plan for improvement following detailed audit. 2. Director has met with middle school principals and high school principals separately to discuss progress and evaluate future steps for increasing effectiveness of program and greater achievement oflower-achieving students .. September '03. 3. Personnel involved with audit of middle school met with building principal and vice principal to evaluate literacy program and discuss focus for improving student achievement through literacy program. 4. Bi-Monthly meetings to evaluate programs and problems and collaborate on strategies for improvement held with director and high school literacy coaches. Five meetings held, August - October '03. 5. Session was held for disaggregating data - school by school and teacher by teacher - for recent performances on SAT 9 and ACT AAP to evaluate successes and areas and students and teachers needing improvement for high schools. August - September '03. 6. Meeting with department chairs and director to disaggregate data for middle school to evaluate successes and denote areas needing improvement in program. Sept. '03. }  SREB consultant meeting with literacy coaches to evaluate effectiveness oftest ( _ preparation strategies and plan for improvements. Sept. '03. 8. In response to data, sessions have been held at most schools with some or all of faculty in open-ended responses. Teachers have made many modifications to classroom instru~ion based on the experiential sessions involving reading, writing, and scoring with a rubric. 9. Implem~tation ofreading intervention for lowest performing ninth and eighth graders at three high schools and two middle schools began. One middle school uses same intervention for sixth and seventh as well. 10. Information and evaluation session held February 04 for all building principals and key administrators on reading intervention with proposals for expansion of program in 04-05. 11. All middle schools have committed to a day long inservice for their English teachers to review workshop structure for literacy program. April - May 04. On-going f' 1. ~r and Middle School Specialist meet often to discuss and evaluate progress, problems, and to set trainings, meetings, and interventions to correct and further progress. Attention to both lowest achievers and highest achievers is focus of discussions. Calendars are aligned and coordinated at these meetings. 2. Director and Middle School Specialist meet after school visits to evaluate implementation of literacy program strategies and content and to determine plans for improvement, especially as it relates to lower-achieving students. Weekly, at least. 3. Director communicates often and as requested to address individual problems in buildings with principals and teachers. 4. Middle School Specialist works intensely with new teachers to improve implementation of curriculum and literacy program. 5. Continue to provide training in preparing teachers in ACT AAP open-ended responses. 6. Middle School Specialist working closely with social studies department in providing literacy best practice training to assist in reading in social studies content.\n7. Participation in faculty meetings by director and specialist to modify program implementation across curriculum. ~-.. 8. Increase efforts to provide literacy coaches in all secondary schools. 9. Create, distribute and compile data from a survey evaluating the effectiveness of the literacy coaches. (In May 04 set date for survey June 04) I 0. Develop an action plan for providing specific inservices for hi gh school English teachers Spring 2004. 11 . Department Chairs meet monthly to discuss hurdles, issues, celebrations, and to communicate openly about the literacy programs. These meetings are separate for middle school and high school. These meetings serve as a means of communicating curriculum items, special events, new developments, and reminders to all English teachers from the district office as well as collaboration. Secondary Literacy Evaluation Team January 16, 2004 Suzi Davis, Chair Program Modifications as a Result of Analysis of the CREP Report  Continue to provide training to whole faculties in ACT AAP open-ended responses and rubric scoring. January, February, March, 2004  continue cross-curricular unit development and training in workshops  Communicate with principals on the need for intense support for the literacy program. January, 2004 ~ . Increase efforts to provide literacy coaches for all secondary schools / Create, distribute and compile data from a survey evaluating the effectiveness of the literacy coaches. A date will be set in May for a June meeting to discuss the results of this survey.  All eight middle schools have committed to a day long inservice for their English teachers to review the Read/Write Workshop structure. During this inservice, plans will be made for collaborations among schools for next year. April, 2004 ( Develop an action plan for providing specific inservices for high school English teachers. Spring 2004 Jl/4 i ct -t IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL RECEIVED MAR 1 1: 2004 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTER VEN ORS INTER VEN ORS LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT COMPLIANCE REPORT Plaintiff Little Rock School District (\"LRSD\") for its Compliance Report states: 1. On September 13, 2002, the District Court issued its Order finding that the LRSD had substantially complied with all areas of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan (\"Revised Plan\"), with the exception of Revised Plan  2.7 .1. The Court's Order set forth a detailed Compliance Remedy as to Revised Plan  2. 7 .1 . 2. On October 10, 2002, the LRSD's Board of Directors (\"Board\") adopted a Compliance Plan designed to meet the requirements of the Court's Compliance Remedy. The LRSD filed the Compliance Plan with the Court on March 14, 2003, as Exhibit A to Plaintiffs Notice of Filing Program Evaluations Required By Paragraph C of the Court's Compliance Remedy. 3. Joshua initially raised concerns about the Board-approved Compliance Plan. The LRSD addressed these concerns in an October 25, 2002 letter to counsel for Joshua, attached hereto Page 1 of 6 as Exhibit A. Joshua invoked the \"Process for Raising Compliance Issues\" set for in Revised Plan  8.2, and the Joshua and the LRSD met with Ms. Ann Marshall to facilitate an agreement. The last meeting was February 28, 2003. At that meeting, the LRSD agreed to provide Joshua several documents. The last of these was mailed to Joshua on March 6, 2003. The parties never reached any agreement related to Joshua's concerns about the Board-approved Compliance Plan. Joshua waived any objections to the Board-approved Compliance Plan by failing to present them to the Court as required by Paragraph \"D\" of the Compliance Remedy. 4. The Board-approved Compliance Plan interpreted Paragraphs \"A\" and \"B\" of the Compliance Remedy as requiring the LRSD to: (1) continue to administer student assessments through the first semester of 2003-04\n(2) develop written procedures for evaluating the programs implemented pursuant to Revised Plan  2.7 to determine their effectiveness in improving the academic achievement of African-American students\n(3) maintain written records of(a) the criteria used to evaluate each program, (b) the results of the annual student assessments, including whether an informal program evaluation resulted in program modifications or the elimination of any programs, and (c) the names of the administrators who were involved with the evaluation of each program, as well as at least a grade level description of any teachers who were involved in the evaluation process\nand ( 4) prepare a comprehensive program evaluation of each academic program implemented pursuant to Revised Plan  2.7 to determine its effectiveness in improving the academic achievement of African-American students and to decide whether to modify or replace the program. See Compliance Plan, p. 3. 5. Continue to administer student assessments through the first semester of 2003- 04. Page 2 of 6 plan. To meet this requirement, the LRSD implemented the 2002-03 Board-approved assessment 6. Develop written procedures for evaluating the programs implemented pursuant to 2. 7 to determine their effectiveness in improving the academic achievement of African-American students. The Board adopted regulation IL-Rl when it approved the Compliance Plan. Regulation ILRl set forth the written procedures for evaluating the  2. 7 programs. 7. Maintain written records of (a) the criteria used to evaluate each program\n(b) the results of the annual student assessments, including whether an informal program evaluation resulted in program modifications or the elimination of any programs\nand (c) the names of the administrators who were involved with the evaluation of each program, as well as at least a grade level description of any teachers who were involved in the evaluation process. Regulation IL-Rl outlined the criteria to be used to evaluate each program. As to the results of annual student assessments, the LRSD continues to maintain a computer database with the results of annual students assessments administered pursuant to the Board-approved assessment plan. Exhibit B attached hereto identified the members of each team. Exhibits C, D and E document informal modifications of the mathematics, elementary literacy and secondary literacy programs, respectively. 8. Prepare a comprehensive program evaluation of each academic program implemented pursuant to 2.7 to determine its effectiveness in improving the academic achievement of African-American students and to decide whether to modify or replace the program. The LRSD contracted with Dr. Steve Ross, an expert approved by Joshua, to prepare comprehensive evaluations of the District's elementary and secondary literacy programs. These evaluations, combined in a single report, were completed and approved by the Board in November of2003 and are attached hereto as Exhibit F. Dr. Don Wold, a program evaluator funded through Page 3 of 6 a National Science Foundation (\"NSF\") grant\nDennis Glasgow, Interim Associate Superintendent for Curriculum and Instruction\nand Vanessa Cleaver, Director of the NSF Grant, authored the comprehensive mathematics and science evaluation. The comprehensive mathematics and science evaluation was completed and approved by the Board in December 2003 and is attached hereto as Exhibit G. 9. The LRSD substantially complied with the Revised Plan and the Court's Compliance Remedy by implementation of the Board-approved Compliance Plan. 10. By letter dated January 12, 2004, copies of the comprehensive evaluations were provided to counsel for the Joshua Intervenors, and counsel was asked to advise the District of any \"questions or concerns\" about these evaluations. In a fax dated March 8, 2004, counsel for the Joshua Intervenors wrote: I have reviewed your evaluations and find that they are grossly inadequate and incomplete. In addition to that I am still awaiting the evaluations of the other remaining programs which were contemplated by our agreement. Because we have already invoked the process required by the court, I am putting ODM on notice of our position. The LRSD denies that it agreed to prepare evaluations other than those described in the Boardapproved Compliance Plan. WHEREFORE, the LRSD submits the program evaluations as required by paragraphs \"A\" and \"B\" of the Court's Compliance Remedy. The LRSD prays that the Court find that the LRSD has substantially complied with Revised Plan  2. 7.1, as specified in the Compliance Remedy\nthat the LRSD is unitary with regard to all aspects of school operations\nand that it be released from all further supervision and monitoring of its desegregation efforts. Respectfully Submitted, Page 4 of 6 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK Christopher Heller (#81083) 2000 Regions Center 400 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 (501) 376- Page 5 of 6 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing has been served on the following people by depositing a copy of same in the United States mail on March 12, 2004: Mr. John W. Walker JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1 723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Sam Jones Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 2200 Nations Bank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON \u0026amp; JONES, P.A. 425 W. Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201-3472 Judge J. Thomas Ray U. S. District Courthouse 600 West Capitol A venue, Suite 149 Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Ann Marshall Desegregation Monitor 1 Union National Plaza 124 W. Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Tim Gauger Mr. Mark A. Hagemeier Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Clayton Blackstock Mr. Mark Burnett 1010 W. Third Street , Little Rock, AR 72201 Page 6 of 6 HEJlSCHEL H. FklDAY (1,22-1\"') WILLIAM H. SlTTTON. P.A. BYRON M. EISEMAN, JR.., P.A. JOE D. BELL P.A. JAMES A. BlTTTI.Y, P.A. PREDERJCX. S. UISEltY, P.A. OSCAI. E. DAVIS. Jk., P.A. JAMES C. CLARI.. JR.., P.A. THOMAS P. LEGOETT. P.A. JOHN DEWEY WATSON, P.A. PAUL 8 . BENHAM Ill, P.A. LADY W. BUU.S, P.A. A. WYCK.LIPF NISBET, JIL, P.A. JAMES EDWAJlD HAll.lS, P.A. J. PHIWP MALCOM, P.A. JAMES M. SIMPSON, P.A. JAMES M. SAXTON, P.A. J. SHEPHERD RUSSELL Ill , P.A. DONALD H. BACON, P.A. WILL.JAM THOMAS BAXTER. P.A. aJOLUD D. TAYLOI.. P.A. JOSEPH 8 . HUIST, JI. .. , P.A. ELIZABETH ROBBEN MUllAY, P.A. CHRJSTOPHER HELLEIL P.A. LAURA HENSLEY SMITH. P.A. ROBERTS. SHAFER. P.A. WILLIAM M. GRIFFIN Ill. P.A. MICHAELS. MOOllE, P.A. DIANE S. MACXEY. P.A. WALTER M. EBEL Ill. P.A. UVIN A. CR.ASS. P.A. WILLIAM A. WADDELL JL, P.A. SCOTT J. LANCASTER. P.A. I.OBERT B. BEACH. Jlt., P.A. J. LEE BROWN. P.A. JAMES C. BAKER. JR., P.A. H.ARJlY A. LIGHT. P.A. SCOTT H. TUCK.ER. P.A. GUY ALTON WADE. P.A. PRICE C. GAkDNER.. P.A. TONIA P. JONES. P.A. DAVID D. WILSON, P.A. JEFfR.EY H. MOORE. P.A. DAVID M. GR.AF, P.A. ( By Hand Delivery ) Mr. John W. Walker John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell Law Firm Plaza West Building 415 N. McKinley, Suite 465 Little Rock, Arkansas 72205 FRIDAY ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK ATTORNEYS AT LAW A LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP www .frldayfirm.com 2000 REGIONS CENTER 400 WEST CAPITOL LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201-3493 TELEPHONE 501-376-2011 FAX 501-376-2147 3425 NORTH FUTRALL DRIVE, SUITE 103 FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS 72703\u0026lt;'811 TELEPHONE 479-GUS.2011 FAX \"79-GU52147 208 NORTH FIFTH STREET BLYTHEVILLE, ARKANSAS 72315 TELEPHONE 870.782 28U8 FAX 870-.782 2918 October 25, 2002 Mr. Sam Jones Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 2200 Bank of America Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 ( By Hand Delivery) Ms. Ann Marshall Desegregation Monitor 1 Union National Plaza 124 W. Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 RE: Compliance Remedy Dear Counsel and Ms. Marshall: CAJlL.A GUNNELS SPAINHOUR. P.A. JOHN C. FENDLEY, Jlt... P.A. JONANN ELIZABETH CONIGLIO, P.A. It.. CHRJSTOPHER LAWSON. P.A. FR.AN C. HICKMAN, P.A. BETTY J. DEMORY, P.A. LYNDA M. JOHNSON, P.A. JAMES W. SMITH. P.A. CLIFFORD W. PLUNKETT. P.A. DANIELL. HER.JUNGTON, P.A. MAI.VIN L CHILDERS K. COLEMAN WESTBROOl... JR. ALLISON J. CORNWELL ELLEN M. OWENS JASON 8 . HENDREN BRUCE 8 . TIDWELL MICKA.ELE. ~EY KELLY MURPHY MCQUEEN JOSEPH P. MCOY ALEXANDRA A. lf'll.AH JAY T. TAYLOR MAJlTIN A. ~TEN Mr. Steve Jones BRYAN W. DUE.E JOSEPH G. NICHOLS ROBEJ.T T. SMITH RY AN A. BOWMAN TIMOTIIY C. EZELL T. MICHELLE ATOR UJ..EN S. KALBERT SARAH M. COTTON PHlUP B. MONTGOMERY I.RJSTEN S. l.JGGJNS Al...A}r,I G. BIYAN LINDSEY MITCHAM SLOAN I.HA YY AM M. E.DDl'NGS JOKN f . PEISEJUCH AMANDA CAPPS ROSE BJ.ANDON J. HAR.JUSON orcowsv.. B.S. a.All WJWAM L TEllY WlWAM L PATTON, JR. H. T. LAIZELE..l.E. P.A. JOHN C. EOtOLS, P.A. A.D. MCAUJSTU. JOHN C. FENDLEY, JR. LITTLE ROCK TEL 501J70.U2J FAX S012'4SS41 fenclltyQfec.net Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones, P.A. 425 W. Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Dennis Hanson Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 In our letter dated October 11, 2002, we asked the parties to specifically identify in writing any perceived deficiency in the Board-approved Compliance Plan on or before Monday, October 21, 2002. No responses were received on or before that date. However, Mr. Pressman called on October 21, 2002, and advised that Joshua would rely on the comments contained in Mr. Walker's October 10, 2002, facsimile. On October 24, 2002, additional comments were received from Mr. Walker. All of Mr. Walker's comments will be addressed in turn. EXHIBIT A ' All Counsel and Ms. Marshall October 25, 2002 Page2 October 10, 2002 Facsimile 1. More consideration is needed of the programs to be identified as \"implementat[ ed] pursuant to Section 2.7 ... \", which are to be subjected to \"comprehensive program evaluation ... \" Your document at page 7 identifies three areas. We note the absence of specific reference and detail regarding interventions/ \"scaffolding\" - areas of vital importance given the achievement patterns of African-American students. We note also that the LRSD compliance report cited many more programs as designed to fulfill Section 2. 7. Mr. Pressman clarified this concern during our October 21, 2002 telephone conversation. Mr. Pressman explained that Joshua was concerned that interventions designed to assist low achieving students, for example SAIPs, were not being fully implemented and wanted some assurance that the comprehensive program evaluations would assess implementation of these programs. LRSD RESPONSE: On October 24, 2002, the Board approved the Division oflnstruction's \"Plan to Support Low-Performing Schools,\" a copy of which is enclosed for your review. Under that plan, the LRSD will conduct curriculum, instruction and classroom management audits at low performing schools. Data gathered through these audits and other monitoring under the plan may be used by a program evaluation team to identify possible causes of poor performance, including poor implementation of interventions such as SAIPs. The LRSD lacks the resources to implement this plan at every school. Approximately 10 schools will receive the full compliment of services outlined in the plan. Those 10 schools will be identified based on the priority system set forth in the plan. 2. In a discussion prior to his testimony in the hearing [before] Judge Wilson, we understood Dr. Ross to indicate that the existing evaluation of the PreK-2 literacy program was not adequate. The notation on page 4 of your document of the changed use of the Observation Survey and the DRA relates to part of the concerns he expressed. This undermines the LRSD argument (page 11) that the existing evaluation, upon Board approval, will satisfy a part of the Court's remedy. LRSD RESPONSE: As the LRSD understands this statement, Joshua objects to the LRSD considering the PreK-2 literacy evaluation to have been completed pursuant to Paragraph C of the Compliance Remedy. Attached are the comments received by the LRSD from Dr. Ross related to that evaluation. As can be seen, Dr. Ross did not advise the LRSD that the evaluation was \"inadequate.\" Moreover, it does not make sense for the LRSD to expend resources to have this evaluation \"completed\" by an outside expert while it also prepares a new, comprehensive evaluation of the same program with the assistance of an outside expert. All Counsel and Ms. Marshall October 25, 2002 Page3 3. The LRSD discussion about satisfying the court's order regarding the evaluations mentioned at page 148 of the compliance report does not seem to take account of the material provided, which describes an adequate evaluation. LRSD RESPONSE: As the LRSD understands this statement, Joshua objects to the LRSD not completing the evaluations identified on page 148 of the Final Compliance Report in a manner consistent with IL-Rl. As the LRSD understands Paragraph C of the Compliance Remedy, the District Court simply wants the LRSD to do what it said it did and complete the evaluations identified on page 148 of the Final Compliance Report. That is what the LRSD intends to do. It is true that those evaluations, even after being completed, may not be model program evaluations as envisioned by IL-Rl. The LRSD decided, however, that the most prudent use of its limited resources would be to focus on the new, comprehensive evaluations of programs designed to improve African-American achievement. 4. We question the period of implementation of a remedy which the court has identified and, therefore, the LRSD schedule. LRSD RESPONSE: The LRSD is willing to agree that any agreement between the LRSD and Joshua related to implementation of the Compliance Remedy will not prejudice Joshua's appeal of the District Court's September 13, 2002, Memorandum Opinion. October 24, 2002 Facsimile 1. In using historical student assignment results, attention should be given to the quality of the data. In the past, LRSD has used results on the [D]RA and the Observation Survey in ways not consistent with the purposes of those instruments. In addition, because teachers provided scores for their own students, the past use made of the data was in conflict with the district's recognition in the newly enacted Regulation IL-RI that \"Conflict of Interest\" must be avoided. LRSD RESPONSE: Paragraph A of the Compliance Remedy requires the LRSD to use all available data in its evaluations. It will be the responsibility of the evaluation team to weigh the reliability and validity of the available data. The Arkansas Department of Education and national organizations with expertise in early literacy recommend the use of the DRA and Observation Surveys. The primary purpose of those assessments is to determine whether students are learning the essential components of the reading curriculum. As to the integrity of the data from those assessments, the LRSD monitored student scores year-to-year to discourage teachers from inflating scores in an effort to show improvement. Moreover, the ultimate success of the LRSD's early literacy program will All Counsel and Ms. Marshall October 25, 2002 Page4 be judged by performance on the State's Benchmark examinations, rather than the DRA and Observation SUIVeys. 2. We are concerned about the manner in which the regulation describes the \"team\" process for preparing evaluations, again in the context of\"conflict of interest.\" In order to insure that \"conflict of interest\" is avoided, the \"external consultant\" needs to write the report and control the -context of the analysis. Paragraphs 3, 5 and 6 of the ''Program Evaluation Procedures\" do not guarantee that the external expert will have these roles. Of course, if reports were prepared in the manner which we describe, there would be no bar to LRSD staff preparing comments to the Board with a differing interpretation of the evaluation results. LRSD RESPONSE: The LRSD rejects the implication that LRSD personnel cannot be trusted to write an honest program evaluation. The LRSD's commitment to improving student achievement is second to none. To fulfill that commitment, it is in the LRSD's best interest to effectively evaluate its programs. The success of the programs and program evaluations will ultimately be measured by the State's Benchmark evaluations. All evaluation team members will be actively involved in the evaluation process and are expected to provide a check against the self-interest of any one team member. The evaluation team will decide who writes the report based on the expertise of team members. The outside expert will be asked to take to the Superintendent any concerns about the evaluation not being addressed by the evaluation team. The outside expert will also be asked to be present when the evaluation is presented to the Board so that the Board can be advised of any concerns the outside expert may have about the final evaluation. 3. We continue to be concerned about the global, general manner in which the content of planned evaluations is described (page 7 of the document, first paragraph). For example, the Board has adopted a policy and two regulations dealing with remediation for students whose performance is below par. Studying the actual implementation of these standards (in all or a representative sample of schools) is of vital importance to the Intervenor class because class members are so much more likely than other students to exhibit unsatisfactory performance on the Benchmark and Stanford Achievement Tests. A satisfactory description by the School Board of the evaluations which it requires the staff to undertake should make clear that the actual implementation of remediation activities in district schools is to receive careful consideration. This is surely an important contextual factor (see \"Accuracy Standards,\" para. 2). LRSD RESPONSE: As the LRSD understands this comment, it is a restatement of the first number paragraph in Mr. Walker's October 10, 2002 facsimile, and the LRSD hereby incorporates its response thereto. All Counsel and Ms. Marshall October 25, 2002 Page 5 4. We understand from the Plan that the LRSD plans evaluations of programs deemed to be particularly directed to achievement of African-American students for the indefinite term, not simply for the period necessary to satisfy the court. We would like to receive the Board's assurance that this is the case. LRSD RESPONSE: The Board's approval ofIL-Rl was not limited to the term of the Compliance Remedy, and at this time, the Board anticipates continuing to evaluate programs pursuant to Policy IL after the term of the Compliance Remedy. Conclusion The LRSD hopes that it has been able to address all of Joshua's concerns. If any party has any questions about the LRSD's responses to Joshua's comments, we ask that those be submitted in writing, and the LRSD will promptly provide a written response. If Joshua continues to have concerns about the LRSD's Compliance Plan, Joshua should consider this the LRSD's written response to alleged noncompliance in accordance with Revised Plan 8. Pursuant to Revised Plan 8.2.4, Joshua has 15 days ofreceipt of this letter to submit the issue to ODM for facilitation of an agreement. Thank you for your cooperation. Sincerely, cc: Dr. Ken James (via hand-delivery) PROGRAM EVALUATION TEAMS Elementary Literacy Krista Underwood, Director of Early Childhood and Elementary Literacy-Team Leader Pat Busbea, Literacy Specialist Judy Teeter, Literacy Specialist Judy Milam,, Literacy Specialist Melinda Crone, Literacy Specialist Ann Freeman, Literacy Specialist Dr. Ed Williams, statistician Ken Savage (technician) Dr. Steve Ross, External Program Evaluator Secondary Literacy Suzi Davis-Director of Secondary English, Team Leader Sarah Schutte, Middle School Literacy Specialist Dr. Karen Broadnax, Supervisor of ESL Eunice Smith, Supervisor, Special Education Dr. Mona Briggs, Safe Schools Grant Dr. Ed Williams, statistician Ken Savage (technician) Dr. Steve Ross, External Program Evaluator Mathematics and Science Vanessa Cleaver-Team Leader Dennis Glasgow, Interim Associate Superintendent for Curriculum and Instruction Marcelline Carr Beth Clifford Annita Paul Dr. Ed Williams, statistician Ken Savage (technician) Dr. Don Wold, NSF Program Evaluator Dr. Steve Ross, External Program Evaluator ..  EXHIBIT I B Program Modifications Based on Informal Program Evaluation Elementary Mathematics 2001-02  An item analysis of 4th Grade Benchmark Data for 2000-01 reveals that students perform lowest on the geometry strand. (Note-The State Math Framework and NCTM National Standards for Mathematics contain 5 strands: number sense, geometry, probability and statistics, algebra, and measurement.) The analysis of data from the Benchmark Exam consisted of identifying the strand of each item, ranking the items from highest to lowest, and looking for trends in the data.  Program modifications made based on the low performance on geometry items was:  Train teachers to do item analyses for their own schools.  Work with teachers to discern reasons why students struggled with the specific geometry items (the released items were available for review).  Develop strategies for increasing the focus on geometry in the elementary mathematics curriculum.  School by school analysis of 4th Grade Benchmark Data for 2000-01 (and prior years) revealed different levels of achievement by schools that were demographically similar. Classroom observations in these schools by elementary math/science lead teachers confirmed that the level of implementation of the elementary mathematics curriculum was different from school to school. Schools with a higher level of implementation were having higher student achievement than schools who were not implementing the curriculum at that high level.  A program modification made based on uneven achievement at similar schools was to have principals identify a lead person in their schools to receive intensive and sustained training to serve as a \"coach\" for other teachers (See list of Math Support Personnel for LRSD).  Sara Hogg, UALR Mathematics Specialist, was utilized to provide monthly \"coaches\" training so that additional implementation support would be available at each school. A variety of types of training has been provided by Ms. Hogg, much of it directed at greater knowledge of strategies for implementing our elementary mathematics curriculum.  Another program modification made ac\na result of uneven achievement among schools was to begin a process of changing the way professional development for teachers is structured. In the past most professional development for elementary mathematics has been district-led (e.g., all third grade teachers go to a district-led training on the 3rd grade mathematics curriculum). The modification has been to shift more focus on site-based professional development. The \"Lesson Study\" and \"Study Group\" approach was begun with elementary mathematics teachers to allow them more responsibility and accountability for their own training needs. ~ EXHIBIT l~ 2002-03      The same item analysis was completed for 2001-02 4th grade Benchmark Data . Results ofthis analysis showed that students had gained in the area of geometry . The lowest strands were probability and statistics, measurement, and algebra. Staff and teachers reviewed the LRSD elementary mathematics curriculum to determine if there was a correlation between extend to strand coverage in the curriculum and student performance on those strands on the Benchmark Exam. The curriculum analysis revealed that there were some gaps in the curriculum that likely resulted in low performance on certain items on the exam. Staff and teachers worked over the summer of 2003 use the Benchmark data to determine the \"big ideas\" or concepts students need to have a deep understanding about in grades K-5. Using several years worth of data, grade level teams of teachers in grades 1-4 (see list of teachers who worked on curriculum revision) revised the mathematics standards and benchmarks according to the five strands listed in NCTM Standards and the State Framework. Kindergarten and fifth grade will do similar work during the summer of 2004. Curriculum resources in grades 1-4 were aligned to those standards assessed most frequently on the exam. Supplemental curriculum resources were identified from several sources for use to broaden the scope of the curriculum at certain grade levels. Internet resources, Marilyn Burns and Associates materials, and other materials were identified and compiled into a notebook for use by teachers.  Bench.mark results show that district students generally perform less well on the open-response test items compared to the multiple choice items.  Program modifications based on this data were:  Developed packets of open-response items for teachers to use with students.  Trained teachers to score open-response items using a rubric.  Developed and administered District-developed end-of-quarter or end-ofsemester exams that included open-response items.  4th grade Literacy and Mathematics Benchmark Results over a period of three years caused some schools to be given \"School Improvement\" status by the Arkansas Department of Education (ADE). Schools in which the total population or one or more sub-populations (white, African-American, Hispanic, Limited English Proficient, Low Socioeconomic Status, and Special Education) did not meet Adequate Yearly Progress as defined by ADE were sanctioned with Year 1, Year 2, or Year 3 School Improvement Status.  A thorough and detailed School Support Audit was done for schools in Year 2 or Year 3 School Improvement. (An attachment explains the school audit process). The schools that were audited were Fair Park, Baseline, Mabelvale Elementary, Wakefield, and Southwest Middle School).  A variety of program modifications were made in schools on School Improvement as a result of the audit findings.  One major common finding from the audits was that effective questions strategies were not being routinely used in the audited schools. The modification made was to bring in an expert on questioning strategies (Dr. Lee Hannel- author of Highly Effective Questioning: Developing the Seven Steps of Critical Thinking) to lead a workshop for all LRSD principals. 2003-04  All grade level teachers were trained in the use of these new curriculum resources that were developed by the math staff and teachers during the August, 2003, preschool conference.  Item analyses of the 4th Grade Benchmark Exam showed that the statistics and probability strand was the lowest area for students.  A program modification made was to strengthen concept development in probability by added a replacement unit on probability from Marilyn Burns's materials. Twenty-six primary teachers and coaches and twenty-five intermediate teachers and coaches participated in full-day training on the Marilyn Burns materials.  Three elementary schools on School Improvement Status collaborate to bring in Dr. Hannel to provide training for all teachers in the schools.  Dr. Hannel provided full day training for all elementary principals.  21 of 24 principals responded that they were interested in having the questioning strategies training for all faculty in their schools.  Additional schools received School Support Audits-Chicot, Bale, Mitchell.  Program Modifications made by selected schools were to hire math coaches to assist with professional development and training related to implementation of the elementary mathematics curriculum.  Uneven achievement among schools was evident in the results of the 2002-03 4th Grade Benchmark Exam.  A Program Modification strategy used was to hire Dr. Linda Griffith to check the alignment of the mathematics curriculum, grades K-8, to the State Framework. The results of this alignment will include recommendations for improving the alignment in the curriculum. Program Modifications Based on Informal Program Evaluation Secondary Mathematics 2001-02  Item analyses of 61\\ 8th , Algebra I, and Geometry Benchmark Data for 2001-02  Continued District-wide end-of-quarter tests for Algebra I - Pre-Calculus  District-wide end-of-module tests for grades 6-8  TI-83 plus calculator training provided for all secondary math teachers  Full implementation of high quality standards-based instruction/materials in math for all students in grades K-12  District leveraged support of professional development for all math teachers by providing funds to pay substitute teachers and stipends for teachers receiving trainings  Lead teachers continued to provide technical assistance inside and outside the classroom by conducting professional development workshops and classroom observations\n Continued partnership with University of Arkansas at Little Rock (UALR) to develop and offer graduate courses based on the needs of the District. The following course was developed and offered during the 2001-02 SY: o Strategies for Teaching Geometry  Developed and distributed pacing guides for secondary mathematics and courses to address the issue of student mobility within the District  High school mathematics courses (Algebra I - Precalculus) were revised to reflect a closer alignment with the national and state standards and frameworks\n The SMART (Summer Mathematics Advanced Readiness Training) program is an academic student support program for students who will be enrolled in Algebra I the upcoming fall semester. Project THRIVE, the follow-up component of SMART, is a Saturday academy for students currently enrolled in Algebra I. These programs are aligned with the State Goals for Algebra I. Algebra I EOC results of students who participate in these programs are compared with the overall District results o SMART /Project THRIVE served more than 200 students in Algebra  The agendas for horizontal team meetings ( each grade/subject level 6th grade - Calculus) are developed around the results of the benchmark exams. Teachers concentrate on areas of weakness for students and work on modifications in instructional strategies to improve those areas. In addition, trends and patterns are studied to measure the impact of instructional practices in the classroom.  Implemented instruction in Algebra I through Riverdeep software in all high schools 2002-03  Changed format of pre-school conference meeting to involve more teachers doing presentations on standards-based activities\n Purchased Texas Instruments APPs Suite for Algebra I for all middle and high schools\n Provided training from College Board Pacesetter for Algebra I - Pre-calculus teachers - over 80% of secondary math teachers were trained  Continued District-wide end-of-quarter test for 6th grade - Calculus\n Continued to provide professional development for all secondary math teachers on topics including: o Riverdeep Interactive Software o TI-83 plus calculators o UALR Graduate Courses  Strategies for Teaching Algebra  Integrating the Graphing Calculator  Revised and enacted procedures for ensuring that students who are Limited English Proficient (LEP) achieve the curriculum content standards and benchmarks established by the State of Arkansas and LRSD\n Continued to implement high-quality standards-based instruction for grades 6-12 mathematics\n Continued to hold monthly vertical team meetings for secondary math teachers  Held horizontal team meetings ( one per semester) for each secondary math course\n2003-04  Classroom sets of graphing calculators provided for all Algebra I - Calculus teachers\n Offered UALR graduate course on Using Handheld Technology to Enhance the Mathematics Classroom - used the TI-Navigator system\n Continued vertical and horizontal team meetings including 6th -8th  Workshop by Dr. Linda Griffith for calculus teachers on integrating calculator to teach calculus\n Continued end-of-quarter tests\n 6th -8th grade curriculum revised to reflect a closer alignment with the national and state standards and frameworks\nMarcelline Carr and Vanessa Cleaver FY 2002-03 Actions of the LRSD Elementary Literacy Department related to Literacy Program Evaluation The LRSD Elementary Literacy Department continued to provide professional development (ELLA, EFFECTIVE LITERACY, Reading Recovery) to all LRSD schools to support implementation of the LRSD Pre-K-3 Literacy Plan. The Elementary Literacy Department examined the Spring 2002 CRT Literacy data to identify the schools most in need of assistance in the area ofliteracy with particular attention to the academic achievement of African American students and their needs. The data indicated that the writing program was the weak component of the literacy instructional program. The Elementary Literacy Department provided staff development related to writing instruction, and the writing programs in schools were modified to include \"best practices.\" The Spring 2003 CRT Literacy data from several schools reflected the schools' efforts to improve their students' academic achievement in writing. The District used the assessment data to also provide the low performing schools with the opportunity to participate in the LRSD Reading First Project. The project, which is federally funded, provides significant funding to schools to implement research-based instructional strategies. Twelve schools chose to participate in the project to begin in the fall of 2003 . The project requires the schools to follow an assessment schedule related to program improvement. Because of lack of movement in student achievement in literacy, three schools on school improvement decided to move from the Success for All program to the research-based instruction recommended in Reading First. FY 2003-04 August - December 2003 Response to the Literacy Program Evaluation The Elementary Literacy Department reviewed the literacy program evaluation report developed by Dr. Ross and developed a plan to continue program evaluation in the future which included the following:  Continue the use of focus groups for each of the professional development programs (ELLA, Effective Literacy, Reading Recovery, Literacy Coaches, Success for All) and develop a table of the most and least effective elements. The information from the focus groups will then be used to modify the District's professional development plan.  Compare student data from the CRT and District assessments in each school to compare the academic achievement of African-American students with others as related to the instructional program and provide specific professional development based on the identified needs of the students. ..  EXHIBIT ID The staff also reviewed the section of the report related to the most effective and least effective elements of each staff development offered by the District. The following actions were taken to address the weaknesses of the professional development:  Provided additional guided reading materials to all schools to support small group instruction to ensure equitable instruction for all students.  Provided a diverse collection of books to low performing schools to ensure that a variety of texts is available for independent reading.  Modified the testing schedule ( except in Reading Excellence and Reading First schools) to accommodate the need for a more streamlined assessment plan. Literacy Achievement Data Review Dr. Ed Williams met with the Elementary Literacy Department regarding the 2003 Primary Literacy Benchmark Exam with attention to the academic achievement of African American students as compared to other students. Schools most in need were identified and assigned to specific Literacy Specialists who had the task of reviewing the testing data more closely with the assigned schools. The Elementary Literacy Department employed the services of a consultant to discuss with the Literacy Specialists the most effective approach to use with the schools in examining their data and using it to make program modifications or changes. After the consultant's visit, the staff developed a plan for working with the schools. Assistance provided to the schools was varied based on the needs of the school but included inservice on the Primary Benchmark Exam and data analysis. In some schools, the principal and staff had already examined the data and outside assistance was not requested. Results of the data review confirmed that the professional development provided by the Elementary Literacy Department should include heavy emphasis on content area reading and writing. In addition to the professional development being offered on an ongoing basis to teachers grades 2-4, the Elementary Literacy Department and the Social Studies Department began working collaboratively to provide the training, resources, and materials for 5th grade teachers to integrate reading and social studies instruction. Three training sessions were held in January 2004 to model for teachers how to integrate the two areas. LRSD Reading First Project Schools The Reading First Project Schools have been visited several times during the year (2003-04) by the LSRD Reading First Coordinator, District Literacy Specialists, and the ADE Reading First Technical Assistant. The purpose of the visits is to provide assistance and to monitor the instructional program of the schools. Monitoring was done using a structured observation protocol and assistance was provided to schools in various ways such as the following:  Classroom demonstrations  Classroom observations with post observation conference  Colleague visits to exemplary classrooms  Sessions for problem-solving various aspects of the instructional program L 3 The Reading First Literacy Coaches and classroom teachers administered assessments in addition to those required by the district. In the fall of 2003 kindergarten students were given the DIBELS letter identification\nfirst grade students were given the letter identification and phoneme segmentation tests\nand the second and third grade students were given the oral reading fluency test. The coaches and classroom teachers used this information to determine students in need of intervention, and intervention plans were developed for each school. Progress monitoring was conducted on those students considered at risk or some risk in order to evaluate the effectiveness of the interventions and to make needed changes. In January 2004 kindergarten students were given the DIBELS letter identification and phoneme segmentation\nfirst grade students were given the DIBELS phoneme segmentation and oral reading fluency test\nand second and third grade students were given the DIBELS oral reading fluency test. The Developmental Spelling test was also administered to K-3 students in January 2004. The Literacy Coaches entered all of the LSRD Reading First schools' data and intervention plans into the Arkansas Reading First Data Bank. Pat Busbea and Renee Dawson, Reading First Technical Assistants monitored the data input and the development and implementation of the intervention plans. Because the Reading First Schools are predominantly African American, particular attention is being given to how the students are responding to the intervention and technical assistance is provided to schools wh\u0026lt;\nn the data indicates it is needed. Professional Development Specialized Training Based on examination of CRT, DRA and Observation Survey data, as well as teacher observation, it was determined that support and services were needed in the following areas of literacy in the lowperforming schools: phonemic awareness/phonics, spelling, oral language, and reading comprehension. Both local and nationally recognized experts in these areas of literacy were contracted to provide professional development to teachers of PreK through Grade 5. Ongoing Professional Development Ongoing professional development in literacy instruction is made available to all PreK - Grade 5 teachers. This professional development, a component of the State Smart Start Initiative, includes: Early Literacy Leaming in Arkansas (ELLA) for grades K-2 Effective Literacy for grades 2-4 The LRSD Effective Literacy 5 for grade 5 Pre Early Literacy Leaming in Arkansas (PreELLA) Pre-Kindergarten. Benchmark Preparation In response to requests from principals of the identified schools, District literacy specialists provided State Benchmark Exam preparation training to the teachers of grades 3-5 focused on the areas of \"Writing On Demand\" and \"Constructed Response\". Technical Assistance Technical Assistance in Literacy was provided to classroom teachers at the Elementary Schools identified for School Improvement. The focus and the intensity of the assistance were based on the particular needs of each teacher related to instruction during the 2  hour Literacy Block - Reading Workshop, Writing Workshop and Word Study. Reading Specialists visited each classroom in need of assistance to meet with the teacher. The specialist and teacher identified the specific needs from the following areas: Physical Setting/Context for Instruction Explicit Phonics/Spelling/Word Study Literature Circles/Literature Discussion Groups Guided Reading Instruction Shared Reading Shared Writing Strategy-Based Mini Lessons Literacy Comers Teacher Read Aloud Writing Workshop Reading Workshop Independent Reading Benchmark Prep The specialists then addressed the areas identified, including: setting up Literacy Comers, rearranging classrooms, organizing and categorizing reading materials, teaching students in both whole and small group, modeling instructional approaches, demonstrating the use of materials, assessing students and developing instructional plans. Professional books, independent reading books and sets of books for guided reading, as well as organizational materials and center supplies are also provided. Approximately 20 of the schools have employed literacy coaches to help support and accelerate change in literacy instruction to improve the achievement of all students in the area of literacy. 4 2001-2002 Program Modifications Based on Informal Program Evaluation Secondary Literacy 1. Teachers attended after school meetings with director to examine data and conduct analysis of scores of ACT AAP tests. 2. English faculty of each school spent a day together with English director and building principal in session devoted to best practices for improvement ofliteracy program. January - March 2002. 3. All building assistant principals at middle school were inserviced by director in literacy program in order to provide for more consistent supervision and coordination by including all administrators in literacy program. 4. Monthly collaboration sessions were held at all middle schools, talcing turns hosting, with dedicated topics related to modifying literacy program and practices. 5. Recognizing that secondary teachers have never been trained in the teaching of reading, Dee Bench, consultant from Denver Coalition of Business and Education was employed to lead staff development during summer of '02 for teachers to modify reading strategies and instruction. Four weeks of training took place with teachers (approximately 75) from all four core subjects in attendance. This summer inservice was a modification to include all cross curricular teachers in literacy program. 2002-2003 1. Teachers met with director to assist in production of curriculum for writing in order to be able to consistently deliver quality program elements. Evaluation of current practice and focus on optimum results were goals. Spring - Summer '02. New Writing Curriculum was put into use 02-03. Teachers were inserviced school by school during preschool work days on use of new curriculum. Committee of teachers for curriculum development: Brenda Bankston, Mabelvale Middle School Barbara Brandon, Southwest Middle School Lisa Lewis, Pulaski Heights Middle School Sarah Schutte, Cloverdale Middle School Alison Hargis, Central High School Dr. Rhonda Fowler, Central High School Emily Lewis, Parkview High School Carol Carter, Hall High School Peggy Thompson, Fair High School Sandra Nichols, McClellan High School Karen Shofner, McClellan High School 2. Director met with building principals during early morning sessions to introduce new curriculum for purposes of effectively evaluating classroom instruction and to provide basis for collaborative program evaluation. Fall '02. 3. Analysis of data from all tests and sessions with individual schools to modify areas of emphasis according to areas of need. It was discovered that our students do well on the ~  EXHIBIT f f_ mechanics and usage areas while the writing in content areas is weaker. Strategies were developed to practice and teach these skills. 4. Practice kits were developed by the English office and distributed to every middle school teacher for use in modification of literacy program in terms of test preparation. 5. Consultation with outside expert in reading comprehension for older readers to evaluate next steps and current status oflowest achieving students. Summer '02- '03. (Need for literacy coaches in high school was determined and, as a result, three are now in place at three lowest performing high schools, based on ACTAAP.) 6. Teachers met during summer 2003 to evaluate and modify urriculum producing an amending document. Survey given to all English teachers prior to meeting and results discussed and useful for changes made. Committee to revise English Curriculum: Wes Zeigler, Southwest Middle School Lisa Lewis, Pulaski Heights Middle School Billie Wallace, Parkview High School Beverly Maddox, Henderson Middle School Peggy Thompson, Fair High School Louisa Rook, Cloverdale Middle School Carol Carter, Hall High School Joan Bender, ALC Jennifer Moore, Forest Heights Middle School Alison Hargis, Central High School Cherry Robinson, McClellan High School 7. ESL Supervisor and director met to discuss and evaluate materials as they relate to program's effectiveness for ESL and low-level learners. Materials were purchased for these students as a result. Summer '03. 8. Consultant from Denver Coalition returned for one week of further training in reading instruction strategies for secondary students. 2003-2004 1. Based on being placed on School Improvement list, Associate Superintendent and director met to discuss literacy program at low performing middle school and to write plan for improvement following detailed audit. 2. Director has met with middle school principals and high school principals separately to discuss progress and evaluate future steps for increasing effectiveness of program and greater achievement of lower-achieving students.. September '03. 3. Personnel involved with audit of middle school met with building principal and vice principal to evaluate literacy program and discuss focus for improving student achievement through literacy program. 4. Bi-Monthly meetings to evaluate programs and problems and collaborate on strategies for improvement held with director and high school literacy coaches. Five meetings held, August - October '03. 5. Session was held for disaggregating data - school by school and teacher by teacher - for recent performances on SAT 9 and ACT AAP to evaluate successes and areas and students and teachers needing improvement for high schools. August - September '03 . 6. Meeting with department chairs and director to disaggregate data for middle school to evaluate successes and denote areas needing improvement in program. Sept. '03. 7. SREB consultant meeting with literacy coaches to evaluate effectiveness oftest preparation strategies and plan for improvements. Sept. '03. 8. In response to data, sessions have been held at most schools with some or all of faculty in open-ended responses. Teachers have made many modifications to classroom instruction based on the experiential sessions involving reading, writing, and scoring with a rubric. 9. Implem~tation of reading intervention for lowest performing ninth and eighth graders at three high schools and two middle schools began. One middle school uses same intervention for sixth and seventh as well. 10. Information and evaluation session held February 04 for all building principals and key administrators on reading intervention with proposals for expansion of program in 04-05. 11. All middle schools have committed to a day long inservice for their English teachers to review workshop structure for literacy program. April- May 04. On-going 1. Director and Middle School Specialist meet often to discuss and evaluate progress, problems, and to set trainings, meetings, and interventions to correct and further progress. Attention to both lowest achievers and highest achievers is focus of discussions. Calendars are aligned and coordinated at these meetings. 2. Director and Middle School Specialist meet after school visits to evaluate implementation of literacy program strategies and content and to determine plans for improvement, especially as it relates to lower-achieving students. Weekly, at least. 3. Director communicates often and as requested to address individual problems in buildings with principals and teachers. 4. Middle School Specialist works intensely with new teachers to improve implementation of curriculum and literacy program. 5. Continue to provide training in preparing teachers in ACTAAP open-ended responses. 6. Middle School Specialist working closely with social studies department in providing literacy best practice training to assist in reading in social studies content. 7. Participation in faculty meetings by director and specialist to modify program implementation across curriculum. 8. Increase efforts to provide literacy coaches in all secondary schools. 9. Create, distribute and compile data from a survey evaluating the effectiveness of the literacy coaches. (In May 04 set date for survey June 04) 10. Develop an action plan for providing specific inservices for high school English teachers Spring 2004. 11 . Department Chairs meet monthly to discuss hurdles, issues, celebrations, and to communicate openly about the literacy programs. These meetings are separate for middle school and high school. These meetings serve as a means of communicating curriculum items, special events, new developments, and reminders to all English teachers from the district office as well as collaboration. Secondary Literacy Evaluation Team January 16, 2004 Suzi Davis, Chair Prograqi Modifications as a Result of Analysis of the CREP Report  Continue to provide training to whole faculties in ACT AAP open-ended responses and rubric scoring. January, February, March, 2004  Continue cross-curricular unit development and training in workshops  Communicate with principals on the need for intense support for the literacy program. January,2004  Increase efforts to provide literacy coaches for all secondary schools  Create, distribute and compile data from a survey evaluating the effectiveness of the literacy coaches. A date will be set in May for a June meeting to discuss the results of this survey.  All eight middle schools have committed to a day long inservice for their English teachers to review the Read/Write Workshop structure. During this inservice, plans will be made for collaborations among schools for next year. April, 2004  Develop an action plan for providing specific inservices for high school English teachers. Spring 2004 CREP Center for Research in Educational Por~ LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT LITERACY PROGRAM EVALUATION Steven M. Ross John Nunnery Lana Smith Aaron McDonald Allan Sterb1nsky Center for Research In Educational Policy Un1vers1ty of Memphis 325 Browning Hall Memphis, TN 38152 Toll Free: 1-866-670-6147 November 2003 ~  EXHIBIT I E Little Rock School District Literacy Program Evaluation Executive Summary The present report provides the results from a study of the different literacy programs used in the Little Rock School District (LRSD). After expending substantial effort and resources to improve the reacting ability of students in the district, administrators at LRSD wanted to examine the effectiveness of the clifferent programs used within the district for literacy instruction. To facilitate this examination, the Center for Research in Educational Policy (CREP) at The University of Memphis was employed to provide an independent, third party evaluation. The evaluation methodology and data analysis were oriented around the following research questions: 1. What are teacher perceptions of and reactions to the different literacy programs? 2. After controlling for gender, eligibility for free or reduced-price lunch, and prior achievement, clid African American students exhibit similar levels of academic achievement as other students? 3. What proportion of the variance in 2003 literacy achievement was uniquely attributable to whether students were African American? 4. What was the trend in the achievement of African American students on the Literacy Benchmark examination from 2001 to 2003? 5. Were differences in achievement gains between African American students and other students similar at different grade levels and for clifferent test instruments? 6. Was there a relationship between the literacy program implemented at the elementary schools, school composition variables (i.e., school poverty and percentage of African American students enrolled), and the achievement of African American students? Method The evaluation design was based on both quantitative student achievement data as well as qualitative data from K-12 faculty members who are responsible for literacy instruction. The primary data sources were (a) a questionnaire completed by teachers, (b) focus groups conducted with faculty members representing different literacy programs in the district, and (c) student achievement data including the Literacy Benchmark scale score, SAT-9 Reading subscale score, and the SAT-9 Language subscale score. During the 2002-2003 school year, two CREP researchers conducted seven focus groups at the Neighborhood Resource Center using a structured interview guide. Each focus group was approximately one-hour in duration. Teachers signed a permission form to be interviewed and were given assurance that their comments would be confidential and anonymous. The sessions were audiotape-recorded and supplemented with the researchers' hand-written notes. The Literacy Program Teacher Questionnaires were printed and shipped to LRSD personnel. The district staff members clisseminated the questionnaires to the individual schools along with instructions for completing and returning the forms to the district. After the district staff received the completed forms, they were sent to CREP for analysis. Similarly, district Pagel of 47 personnel assembled the student achievement data into an electronic format. The data files were then sent to CREP researchers for analysis. The focus group and surveys were analyzed thematically and descriptively, respectively. A synthesis was then developed to highlight findings by literacy program and grade level (e.g., elementary and secondary) as provided by the district. The achievement methodology and analysis is discussed in the achievement section below. Results Teacher Focus Groups and Literacy Program Teacher Questionnaire A synthesis of themes and related findings from the seven focus groups and teacher questionnaire is provided in \"bulleted\" format for a concise overview. The reader is encouraged to examine the full report for detailed findings. Most Effective Program Elements (Elementary)  Professional development (PD) when received  New materials  Emergent literacy/readiness skills for Kindergarten  Positive impact on student writing  Literacy Coaches (in RR program)  Providing instruction at students' level Most Effective Program Elements (Secondary)  Positive Impact on student writing  Paired reading (instructional strategy)  Portfolios and interactive journals Least Effective Program Elements (Elementary)  Inconsistent implementation across and within schools  Texts not aligned with SAT-9  Some leveled texts and vocabulary are not appropriate  Transient student population is problematic  Parent/community involvement is not at desired levels Least Effective Program Elements (Secondary)  Gaps in training that is offered to teachers  Lack of consistency in literacy instruction and programs (across and within schools)  Lack of teacher support from non-literacy subject areas  Parent/community involvement is not at desired levels Teacher support for the Programs (Elementary)  Level of support varies across schools (and within schools) Page 2 of 47  Support for ELLA and Effective Literacy is high because the\n- fit well with what teachers were already doing or moving toward anyway  SFA is most polarized (love or hate the program) Teacher support (Secondary)  Generally positive attitudes, but not much support from non-literacy teachers District support (Elementary)  Lack of consistency for teachers to attend training (substitutes\navailability of training)  District provides materials, but could also use teacher aides in the classroom District support (Secondary)  Literacy coaches would be beneficial  Need to use district time set aside for inservices to plan a more comprehensive literacy approach Professional Development (Elementary)  Quality of professional development received has been mixed, but teachers are generally positive  Literacy Coach (providing leadership and training) has been beneficial  General consensus that there is a lack of ongoing training (or opportunity to attend recommended/mandated number of days) Professional Development (Secondary)  Quality of professional development received has been mixed  Would like more training  Teachers do not see training sessions as tying together. Not sure what \"big picture\" literacy plan is Classroom Changes (Elementary)  Positive impact on Kindergarten students  More emphasis on student writing  Students are learning reading strategies  There has been some return to traditional instructional practices Classroom Changes (Secondary)  More cooperative learning (with mixed results)  Special Education teachers assist students in classes (instead of pullout program) Impact on Students (Elementary)  Learned better cooperation skills  Increased confidence in reading  Students are learning reading strategies Page 3 of 47 Impact on Students (Secondary)  There is some increased motivation to read  Assessments and leveled readers are creating more success and confidence for students  Students are writing more often Impact on Teachers (Elementary)  Negative impact on time and stamina  Additional instructional strategies and materials have been beneficial  Increased sharing of ideas Impact on Teachers (Secondary)  Increased sharing of strategies  Focus on bringing lower performing students to proficiency level  High school teachers had lower levels of agreement on all survey items (comparatively) Student Achievement Data The primary purpose of research focus was to examine the achievement of African American students in reading and language arts in the Little Rock School District. The five achievement oriented research questions (#2 - #5 above) were used to guide the methodology and analyses. Methodology Subjects of the study included all students enrolled in grades 3 to 11 in the Little Rock School District during the 2002-2003 school year for whom 2003 Literacy Benchmark or 2003 SAT-9 scores were available. This included a total of 11,934 students, of whom 23.4% were Caucasian, 68.2% were African-American, and 48.5% were certified as eligible for free or reduced-price lunch. Three measures were used to assess literacy: the Literacy Benchmark scale score (Grades 4, 6, and 8), and the SAT-9 Reading subscale score, and SAT-9 Language subscale score (both Grades 5, 7, and 10). Analyses District-wide achievement effects. The basic analytic model used to gauge district-wide achievement effects was a 2 (free lunch status) X 2 (gender) X 2 (African-American, nonAfrican American) analysis of variance (ANOVA). This basic model was adapted to each grade level to reflect: (a) the availability of achievement data from the prior year, in which case a 2 X 2 X 2 analysis of covariance (ANCOV A) was used\n(b) the specific 2003 outcome data that were available at each grade level (either Literacy Benchmark scores or SAT9 scores)\nand (c) the number of outcome variables. School composition and program effects. For elementary schools, information was available regarding specific literacy programs being implemented in the schools. For 5th grade, a two level hierarchical linear model (HLM) was performed to examine relationships between Page 4 of 47 school composition factors (aggregate poverty, mean achievement at pretest. and percentage African American enrollment), school literacy programs, and student achievement. Longitudinal cohort performance on Benchmark Examinations. For fourth and eighth grades, three consecutive years of Literacy Benchmark Performance Level data were available. The percentage of African American students scoring in Below Basic, Basic, Proficient. and Advanced categories was computed for each year from 2001 to 2003 to provide a basis for examining overall trends in performance across time. Elementary Level Results Below, conclusions and results based on analyses performed on fourth and fifth grade data are presented by research question. After controlling for gender, eligibility for free or reduced-price lunch, and prior achievement, did African American students exhibit similar levels of academic achievement as other students?  African American students had substantially lower absolute performance than did other students.  The academic gains on literacy tests were lower for African American students than for other students. What proportion of the variance in 2003 literacy achievement was uniquely attributable to whether students were African American?  Although there was a significant relationship between African American status and student achievement, the proportion of variance in academic performance attributable to African American status was very low-4.6% for fourth grade, and 5.7% for fifth grade. What was the trend in the achievement of African American students on the Literacy Benchmark examination from 2001 to 2003?  The performance of African American fourth grade students on the Benchmark Literacy examination improved dramatically between 2001 and 2003, with nearly half performing at a \"Below Basic\" level in 2001, compared to only one-fifth in 2003. Was there a relationship between the literacy program implemented at the school, school composition variables, and the achievement of African American students?  No significant relationship was observed between the type of literacy program implemented and the achievement of African American students.  The percentage of African American students enrolled in a school did not predict overall achievement or the achievement of African American students.  School poverty, as measured by the percentage of students eligible for free or reduced-price lunch, had a negative effect on the achievement gains of students. Page 5 of 47 Secondary Level Results The secondary conclusions and results by research question are as follows: After controlling for gender, eligibility for free or reduced-price lunch, and prior achievement. did African American students exhibit similar levels of academic achievement as other students?  The absolute level of achievement of African American students was substantially lower than that of other students of similar gender and free lunch eligibility status.  Generally, the gains in academic achievement of African American students were similar to those of other students in grades 6 to 11. What proportion of the variance in 2003 literacy achievement was uniquely attributable to whether students were African American?  When data on prior achievement were available, the proportion of variance in 2003 achievement attributable to African American status was quite low at the secondary level, ranging from 0% to 5%. What was the trend in the achievement of African American students on the Literacy Benchmark examination from 2001 to 2003?  The performance of African American 8th graders on the Literacy Benchmark exam improved substantially and consistently between 2001 and 2003, with the percentage scoring \"Below Basic\" dropping from 48.5% to 34.5%, and the percentage scoring \"Proficient\" increasing from 14.9% to 23.9%. Were differences in achievement gains between African American students and other students similar at different grade levels and for different test instruments?  From the 5th to the 8th grade cohort, the achievement gains of African American students became more similar to those of other students, and for some subgroups surpassed those of other students in 8th grade.  The gap in achievement gains was greater on the SAT9 than on the Literacy Benchmark examination. Presumably, the Literacy Benchmark examination is more closely aligned to the mandated curriculum than is the SAT9, which is intentionally designed to be insensitive to curricular differences. Summary and Conclusions The Little Rock School District is commended for the emphasis given to increasing literacy in all schools in the district and not just those in the lowest performing strata. The state and local initiatives in literacy for early learners, including ELLA and Effective Literacy, are well grounded in current research of best practice. In addition, the Reading Recovery and Success for All models are among the best researched and proven programs in the nation for lower-performing students. Impressions from interviews and survey data, however, are that Page 6 of 47 these programs are often perceived as separate and discrete entities instead of integral to a district comprehensive literacy program. Teachers describe themselves or their schools as \"doing\" ELLA or Success for All and only the certified tutors 'doing\"' Reading Recovery. Middle and high school teachers' comments seemed to indicate that they also did not perceive themselves as being involved in a literacy plan beyond the traditional roles they have had as English teachers. Thus, it is recommended that the district's plan, or \"big picture\" of literacy, be developed and presented to teachers in a format that communicates how each program. school. grade level, and teacher contributes to and accomplishes literacy goals. The professional development in basic literacy has been well received and represents an enormous accomplishment for the district. Management and delivery of the professional development, however, needs to be made more consistent and available to teachers. The primary concerns voiced by teachers were scheduling problems, inadequate space and availability of training for the numbers of teachers needing to be trained, retraining for teachers who change grade levels, training for new teachers, and obtaining qualified substitutes for teachers while they attend training. The impressions of professional development communicated by upper grade teachers and those who were not implementing special \"programs\" were that professional development has been minimal, targeted to current \"hot\" topics (e.g., portfolios), and inconsistent in quality. Teachers' perceptions of the impact of literacy programs were extremely mixed. Writing and composition were literacy areas that all teachers agreed had been emphasized and improved in their schools and classrooms as a consequence of literacy initiatives in the district. Some of the positive comments relative to ELLA had more to do with the materials teachers had received as a part of the training than the new ideas they had been provided. During the focus groups, the most impressive level of agreement that teachers voiced was by teachers who had Reading Recovery teachers as Literacy Coaches in their schools. The concept of highly trained Literacy Coaches being placed in and available to all elementary schools is a national issue presently and it is recommended that the district find ways to support this concept not only in elementary schools with large at-risk populations, but in all schools in the district. Regarding student achievement, substantial differences exist in the overall achievement of African American students and other students in LRSD. However, the differences in academic gains tend to be smaller at higher grade levels. The three-year trend in Literacy Benchmark scores shows substantial, sustained improvement in the academic achievement of African American students between 2001 and 2003. African American status of the student, as well as the percentage of African American students enrolled in a school, explain only small amounts of variance in student outcomes compared to prior achievement. No\nThis project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resources.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n "},{"id":"fhm_floh_wotitzky","title":"Leo Wotitzky / interviewed by David Seth Walker","collection_id":"fhm_floh","collection_title":"Florida Civil Rights Oral Histories","dcterms_contributor":["Walker, David Seth","University of South Florida Libraries. Florida Studies Center. Oral History Program"],"dcterms_spatial":["United States, Florida, 28.75054, -82.5001"],"dcterms_creator":["Wotitzky, Leo, 1924-"],"dc_date":["2004-03-08"],"dcterms_description":["Leo Wotitzky, attorney and former member of the Florida House of Representatives (1938-1950), discusses his political career and his role in school desegregation, particularly the Virgil Hawkins case to integrate the University of Florida law school. While in the House, Wotitzky was chairman of the House Education Committee.","Interview conducted March 8, 2001."],"dc_format":["audio/mp4","application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":null,"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":null,"dcterms_subject":["Civil rights--Florida--Cases","Civil rights workers--Interviews","Civil rights workers--Florida","College integration--Florida--Interviews","Florida--Politics and government"],"dcterms_title":["Leo Wotitzky / interviewed by David Seth Walker"],"dcterms_type":["Sound","Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["University of South Florida. Tampa Library"],"edm_is_shown_by":["http://digital.lib.usf.edu/ohpi/?doi=F55-00019\u0026packageid=SFS0022276"],"edm_is_shown_at":["http://digital.lib.usf.edu/SFS0022276/00001"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["transcripts","oral histories (literary works)","sound recordings"],"dcterms_extent":["1 sound file (29 min.) : digital, MPEG4 file + transcript"],"dlg_subject_personal":["Wotitzky, Leo, 1924-"],"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1777","title":"Court filings concerning Little Rock School District (LRSD) compliance report and motion for withdrawal and substitution of counsel.","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":["United States. District Court (Arkansas: Eastern District)"],"dc_date":["2004-03-02/2004-03-16"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--21st century","Education--Arkansas","School districts","Little Rock School District","Joshua intervenors","School integration","Office of Desegregation Monitoring (Little Rock, Ark.)","African Americans--Education","Teachers","Education--Evaluation","School discipline","Discrimination in school discipline","Student activities","Transportation","School improvement programs","Students"],"dcterms_title":["Court filings concerning Little Rock School District (LRSD) compliance report and motion for withdrawal and substitution of counsel."],"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/1777"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Available for use in research, teaching, and private study. Any other use requires permission from the Butler Center."],"dcterms_medium":["judicial records"],"dcterms_extent":["82 page scan, typed"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\u003c?xml version=\"1.0\" encoding=\"utf-8\"?\u003e\n\u003citems type=\"array\"\u003e  \u003citem\u003e   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\u003cdcterms_description type=\"array\"\u003e   \n\n\u003cdcterms_description\u003eCourt of Appeals, ruling; District Court, letter-order; District Court, order; District Court, Little Rock School District (LRSD) compliance report; District Court, motion to withdraw as counsel and for substitution of counsel    This transcript was create using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.    United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT Nos. 02-3867EA, 03-l 147EA Little Rock School District, Appellee, V. * * * * * * * RECEIVED f.;_'.J -J 2004 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING Alexa Armstrong; Karlos Armstrong; * On Appeal from the United Khayyam Davis; Alvin Hudson, Tatia * States District Court Hudson, Lorene Joshua; Leslie Joshua; * for the Eastern District Stacy Joshua; Wayne Joshua; Sarah * of Arkansas. Facen; Derrick Miles; Janice Miles; * John M. Miles; NAACP; Joyce Person; * Brian Taylor; Hilton Taylor; Parsha * Taylor; Robert Willingham; and * Tonya Willingham, * * Appellants. * Submitted: September 11, 2003 Filed: March 2, 2004 Before WOLLMAN, HEANEY, and RICHARD S. ARNOLD, Circuit Judges. RICHARD S. ARNOLD, Circuit Judge. ----- - -------- - I ' I I I ! I This case consolidates two appeals, both arising from the Little Rock School District's request for unitary status. First, the Joshua Intervenors 1 appeal from the District Court's2 denial of their Motion for Recusal of District Judge and Vacating of Orders, Rulings, and Judgments. We review a district court's denial of recusal for abuse of discretion. See In re Hale, 980 F.2d 1176, 1178 (8th Cir. 1992); United States v. Walker, 920 F.2d 513, 516 (8th Cir. 1990). We conclude that Judge Wilson's representation of Judge Henry Woods at a much earlier stage of the case, and on far different issues, did not involve the same \"matter in controversy\" for purposes of 28 U.S.C.  455(b )(2); thus, we affirm the denial of the Joshua Intervenors' Motion for Recusal. The Joshua Intervenors also appeal from the District Court's judgment granting the Little Rock School District (LRSD) partial unitary status. The Joshua Intervenors assert: ( 1) that the District Court erred by not requiring and considering additional reports from the Office of Desegregation Monitoring (ODM); and (2) that the District Court's finding of substantial compliance with the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan was erroneous. We hold that the District Court did not err by failing to require new written reports from the ODM, and that the District Court's findings of fact are not clearly erroneous; thus, we affirm the grant of partial unitary status. Because the facts relevant to each issue on appeal are different, we address them separately. In Part I, we address the issue of disqualification. In Part II, we address whether the District Court should have required new written reports from the 1This group of school children and parents are, as a practical matter, the plaintiffs in the case at its present juncture. The Little Rock School District, which actually initiated the case in 1982, is effectively the defendant for purposes of this appeal. 2The Honorable William R. Wilson, Jr., United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas. -2- - ODM. Finally, in Part III, we address whether the District Court erred in finding that LRSD substantially complied with the Revised Plan in most respects. I. This litigation began in 1982 and has been in and out of this Court and the District Court several times - it is complex to say the least. We briefly highlight the events relevant to the issue of the disqualification of Judge Wilson. In 1987, LRSD and the Joshua Intervenors sought to disqualify Judge Henry Woods,3 who was then presiding over the case. The parties asserted as grounds for disqualification that during Judge Woods's private law practice, one of his partners had represented parties who participated as amici curiae in a related case, and that Judge Woods's impartiality was called into question by his comments at a meeting with students. Judge Wilson, then in private practice, represented Judge Woods for the limited purpose of the mandamus proceedings, defending Judge Woods's decision not to recuse himself. 4 In the current proceeding, begun by LRSD's motion that it be released from court supervision, the Joshua Intervenors sought the recusal of Judge Wilson under 28 U.S .C.  455(b)(2), which requires a judge to disqualify himself \"where in private practice he served as lawyer in the matter in controversy.\" After Judge Wilson entered an order on September 13, 2002, granting LRSD partial unitary status, the 3The Little Rock School District sought a writ of mandamus asking this Court to disqualify Judge Woods, and the Joshua Intervenors appealed a judgment entered by Judge Woods, asserting, among other things, that the judge should be disqualified. 4This Court found that Judge Woods was not disqualified. Little Rock Sch. Dist. v. Pulaski County Special Sch. Dist. No. 1, 839 F .2d 1296 (8th Cir. 1988); Little Rock Sch. Dist. v. Pulaski County Special Sch. Dist. No. 1, 833 F.2d 112 (8th Cir. 1987). -3- 4t Intervenors filed a Motion for a Hearing Regarding the Relevance of28 U.S.C.  455 to the Present Proceedings. Judge Wilson denied this motion on October 29, 2002. Little Rock Sch. Dist. v. Pulaski County Special Sch. Dist. No. 1, 2002 WL 31465311 (E.D. Ark. 2002). Thereafter, on November 25, 2002, the Joshua Intervenors moved for disqualification of Judge Wilson. Judge Wilson denied this motion because, among other reasons, he had never served, in his view, as a lawyer in the \"matter in controversy.\" Little Rock Sch. Dist. v. Pulaski County Special Sch. Dist. No. 1, No. 4:82CV00866 (E.D. Ark. Dec. 20, 2002). The Joshua Intervenors appeal. We must determine whether Judge Wilson's representation of Judge Woods in the mandamus proceeding in 1987 involved the same \"matter in controversy\" as the present questions before us for purposes of 28 U.S.C.  455(b )(2). Because the mandamus proceeding did not touch upon the merits of the case, we conclude that it was not a part of the same \"matter in controversy.\" The Joshua Intervenors contend that Judge Wilson's participation was part of the same matter in controversy because it was part of a single case. The language chosen by Congress, \"matter in controversy,\" is not defined by the statute. However, Congress easily could have substituted the word \"case\" for the words \"matter in controversy,\" but did not do so. This deliberate choice by Congress demonstrates an intent that the words \"matter in controversy\" mean something other than what we commonly refer to as a \"case.\" In fact, Congress used the words \"proceeding,\" \"case in controversy,\" and \"subject matter in controversy\" in various other subsections of  455(b) to describe situations where a judge must disqualify himself. Thus, we must assume that Congress ascribed a particular meaning to the words \"matter in controversy,\" and we must try to discern that meaning. We note that Judge Wilson represented Judge Woods at the mandamus proceedings, which were given a separate docket number from the rest of the case in this Court. This circumstance, though relevant, is not enough in itself to enable us -4- - to conclude that the disqualification proceeding was not the same \"matter in controversy\" as the present appeal. As we have indicated, the phrase \"matter in controversy\" must mean something other than the word \"case,\" and so we do not rely on this technical distinction. Instead, we look to the substance of the issues argued and decided in the two proceedings. In Little Rock Sch. Dist. v. Pulaski County Special Sch. Dist. No. 1, 839 F.2d 1296 (8th Cir. 1988), we discussed, but did not decide, whether a matter in controversy could extend beyond a single case. Even if a matter in controversy could be more extensive than a single case, we concluded that the facts before us did not support such a conclusion because the cases involved, \"to a large extent, different issues and different remedies.\" Id. at 1302. We think this reasoning is useful in determining whether a matter in controversy may be less extensive than a case. Judge Wilson's representation of Judge Woods was restricted solely to the issue ofrecusal and did not go to the merits of the case. Judge Wilson was involved in the case solely for the mandamus proceedings and, in the course of his representation, never addressed the merits of the case or expressed any opinion about them. The issues before Judge Wilson in the present matter are wholly unrelated to his prior representation of Judge Woods. Although the case law is slim in this area, we find support for our position in In re Apex Oil Co., 981 F.2d 302 (8th Cir. 1992). In Apex Oil. Judge Loken found his recusal unnecessary where he and his former law firm were previously involved with plaintiffs' claim for damages from an oil spill and where, later, his law firm filed claims on behalf of plaintiffs in Apex Oil's bankruptcy proceedings. Id. at 304-05. The question was whether the plaintiffs' claim for damages constituted the same matter in controversy as the later claims in bankruptcy when both resulted from the same oil spill. Id. at 303. Although acknowledging that bankruptcy proceedings are atypical because they are conducted under an umbrella proceeding, Judge Loken -5- - ------ - - - --- --- ----------------- - concluded that the cases were not \"sufficiently related\" so as to constitute the same matter in controversy. Id. at 304. Applying this analysis to our situation, we conclude that there is not a sufficient relationship between the recusal proceedings with respect to Judge Woods and the issues now before us on the merits to make them the same \"matter in controversy.\" Nor do we think that any impartial observer could reasonably think that Judge Wilson's impartiality should be called into question. Not only was his prior representation of Judge Woods wholly distinct; the issues before the Judge in the current proceeding involved the current version of the parties' agreement to settle the underlying case, an agreement that was never before Judge Woods, and that was not even in existence until long after he voluntarily relinquished the case. II. As we have noted, this appeal arises from an interdistrict desegregation case filed by LRSD in 1982. As part of that case, the parties agreed to a settlement plan in 1989. However, as time passed, portions of that plan proved unworkable, and the parties agreed to the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. This plan was approved by the District Court and this Court. On March 15, 2001, LRSD asked the District Court to declare it unitary under  11 of the Revised Plan. On July 25, 2001, the Joshua Intervenors filed an opposition to this request. The opposition, App. of Appellants 185-86, made the following argument, among many others: The Joshua Intervenors believe further that the court must have before it a written response to the district's plan or other written analysis regarding that plan from the Court's Office of Desegregation Monitoring (ODM) before the Court can issue a final opinion regarding the matter. Otherwise, any assessment by the Court would be -6- incomplete and not keeping with the expectations of the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals when it required the establishment of the ODM to assist the Court in determining and effectuating desegregation compliance. This opposition was filed while the case was still before Chief Judge Wright (who had taken the case after Judge Woods had removed himself from it). She then conducted five and one-half days of evidentiary hearings, ending on November 20, 2001. On January 3, 2002, Chief Judge Wright withdrew from the case, and it was reassigned to Judge Wilson. He held three additional days of evidentiary hearings on July 22, 23 , and 24, 2002. The Joshua Intervenors' second major argument on appeal is that the District Court erred in making findings and entering judgment without directing ODM to prepare additional monitoring reports on LRSD's compliance with the Revised Plan. The Joshua Intervenors point out that the ODM was created in the first place at the direction of this Court. See Little Rock Sch. Dist. v. Pulaski County Special Sch. Dist. No. 1, 921 F.2d 1371, 1388 (8th Cir. 1990). The District Court had before it some relevant materials from the ODM: a report on LRSD's preparations for implementation of the Revised Plan, filed August 11, 1999, and a report of disciplinary sanctions in the Little Rock School District, filed on June 14, 2000. As to the first report, the Court observed that it \"indicated that, overall, LRSD was doing a satisfactory job of implementing the Revised Plan.\" Little Rock Sch. Dist. v. Pulaski County Special Sch. Dist. No. 1, 237 F. Supp. 2d 988, 1048 (E.D. Ark. 2002). The District Court did not view the second report as having much value. The Joshua Intervenors argue that the District Court should have had the ODM prepare an additional report or reports before making any findings . They point out that \"ODM had gained considerable expertise, preparing at least 49 reports.\" Brief for Appellants 39. -7- In response, LRSD argues that this point was not properly raised in the District Court. Certainly it is true that the Court never entered a written order expressly disposing of the request that additional monitoring reports be prepared. Before the case was transferred to Judge Wilson, however, Chief Judge Wright effectively denied the Intervenors' request, saying: And of course, you are free, Mr. Walker, to call the Office of Desegregation Monitoring as witnesses, as well, I mean, those people as witnesses to the extent you think they have knowledge on the matters at issue. And furthermore, and I talked information with Ms. Marshall [the head of ODM] about this, I don't mind Ms. Marshall telling you, sharing with you the information that she has, but if she does that I want her to share it with everyone else too. Tr. of June 29,2001 , 27-28. The Joshua Intervenors, in response to this invitation or otherwise, did not call anybody from the ODM as a witness. As we have noted, the request that additional monitoring reports be required was not the subject of a separate motion, but rather a matter mentioned, almost in passing, in a pleading filed by the Joshua Intervenors. App. of Appellants 185-86. As far as we can tell, the request was never renewed on the record, either in writing or in open Court, during the days of evidentiary hearings conducted by Judge Wilson, or in any other manner. We nevertheless assume for present purposes that the point is properly before us, and we hold that it is without merit. The ODM, as the Joshua Intervenors point out, was created at the direction of this Court, at the time of our initial approval of the settlement agreement, but the ODM was to be under the supervision of the District Court and to act as an arm of that Court in ensuring that the settlement agreement was followed. It was and remains the job of the District Court, in its discretion, to determine how the ODM should be used. A choice to rely on the existing materials prepared by the ODM, and to eschew the preparation of -8- ---- - - - - ------------~ additional reports, is certainly not an abuse of discretion. Two further points are important. First, the Joshua Intervenors could have, but did not, call someone from the ODM to testify. Second, no offer of proof was made. We do not know what OD M's position would have been if it had been asked. In this situation, it is simply impossible to say that the decision not to request the production of additional papers had any effect on the outcome of this case. III. The Revised Plan \"supersede[s] and extinguish[es] all prior agreements and orders\" in the case, with limited exceptions. App. of Appellants 87. Unlike the previous settlement agreement, the Revised Plan contains a specific procedure by which LRSD can attain unitary status. Section 11 of the Revised Plan provides: At the conclusion of the 2000-01 school year, the district court shall enter an order releasing LRSD from court supervision and finding the LRSD unitary with regard to all aspects of school operations provided that LRSD has substantially complied with its obligations set forth in this Revised Plan. In anticipation of release, LRSD shall issue a report on March 15, 2001 indicating the state ofLRSD's compliance with the Revised Plan. Any party challenging LRSD's compliance bears the burden of proof. Ifno party challenges LRSD's compliance, the above-described order shall be entered without further proceedings. App. of Appellants 110. Although not required by  11 of the Revised Plan, one year before the final report required by  11 was due, LRSD filed an interim report to demonstrate its progress toward compliance. App. of Appellee 71. On March 15, 2001 , as required by the Revised Plan, LRSD filed its final report, which supplemented and updated the -9- information provided in the interim report. App. of Appellee 245 . The Joshua Intervenors filed objections to this report on June 25, 2001 , challenging LRSD's substantial compliance with various sections of the Revised Plan. App. of Appellants 185. After holding evidentiary hearings on the Joshua Intervenors' objections, the District Court issued an order granting LRSD partial unitary status. See Little Rock Sch. Dist., 237 F. Supp. 2d 1086. The District Court denied LRSD unitary status under  2. 7 .1 of the Revised Plan, requiring LRSD to assess annually the academic programs promulgated under 2. 7. Id. at 1081-82. LRSD has not cross-appealed the District Court's ruling on  2. 7 .1, and it is not before us. This issue remains pending in the District Court. On appeal, the Joshua Intervenors argue that the District Court erred in granting partial unitary status to LRSD. Specifically, the Joshua Intervenors challenge the District Court's finding of substantial compliance with the following sections: (1)  2.1, Good Faith; (2)  2.5-2.5.4, Student Discipline; (3)  2.6, Extracurricular Activities; and (4)  2.6-2.6.2, Advanced Placement Classes. We review the District Court's findings of fact for clear error. See Nash Finch Co. v. Rubloff Hastings, L.L.C., 341 F.3d 846, 850 (8th Cir. 2003). Thus, we must affirm unless the findings are, in our opinion, clearly erroneous, which means that we must have a \"definite and firm conviction\" that the District Court was mistaken. Ibid. If \"there are two permissible views of the evidence, the factfinder's choice between them cannot be clearly erroneous.\" Id. at 851 ( quoting Anderson v. City of Bessemer City, 470 US. 564, 574 (1985)). We also note that the Joshua Intervenors bear the burden of proof. Under 11 of the Revised Plan, \"[a]ny party who challenges the Little Rock School District's compliance bears the burden of proof.\" App. of Appellants 110. Section 11 of the -10- - Revised Plan also compelled the District Court to enter an order granting unitary status to LRSD unless the Joshua Intervenors met this burden. Ibid. We hold that the District Court did not clearly err in finding that the Joshua Intervenors had not met their burden with respect to the four subject-matter areas on appeal. Thus, we affirm. A. The Joshua Intervenors appeal from the District Court's judgment granting LRSD unitary status under 2.1 of the Revised Plan, which provides: LRSD shall in good faith exercise its best efforts to comply with the Constitution, to remedy the effects of past discrimination by LRSD against African-American students, to ensure that no person is discriminated against on the basis of race, color or ethnicity in the operation of the LRSD and to provide an equal educational opportunity for all students attending LRSD schools. App. of Appellants 88. This section places an independent duty on LRSD to exercise its \"best efforts\" and to act in \"good faith\" in attempting to remedy the effects of discrimination. The Joshua Intervenors argue that LRSD did not act in good faith. As evidence, they allege that Central High School is still functionally segregated, although the building itself has been integrated. See Brief for Appellants 44-46. Specifically, the Joshua Intervenors argue that the advanced-placement program segregates students into different classrooms, which are the functional equivalent of different schools. Ibid. Moreover, they assert that the teachers are assigned to advanced-placement courses in a racially segregated manner-white teachers teaching advanced-placement classes and African-American teachers teaching regular -11- -------- - classes. Ibid. The Joshua Intervenors also suggest that segregation seeps outside of the classroom and into extracurricular activities. Ibid. The obligation of good faith under 2.1 of the Revised Plan is separate from, and independent of, other affirmative obligations undertaken by LRSD pursuant to  2 of the Revised Plan. Thus, it is possible for LRSD to have acted in good faith, meeting its obligation under  2.1 , even though it did not meet other affirmative obligations imposed by the Revised Plan. After the Revised Plan was adopted, the Little Rock School Board enacted fifteen different policies related to its obligation of good faith and took steps to ensure that all administrators and teachers were aware of these new policies. LRSD also hired Dr. Terrence Roberts, Tr. of July 24, 2002, at 615-16, and Dr. Steven Ross, Tr. of July 23, 2002, at 539, as desegregation experts. Dr. Roberts testified that he had been actively involved in reviewing policies and procedures. Tr. of July 24, 2002, at 619-20. He also testified that he had developed training programs for teachers and other staff members. Ibid. Dr. Roberts testified that he told the Board that LRSD had directed much energy and effort toward meeting all the criteria in the Revised Plan and that LRSD had the potential for being a model school district for the nation. Id. at 647. Dr. Roberts criticized LRSD for having a \"compliance mentality\" because some individuals were interested only in meeting the requirements of the Revised Plan. Id. at 630-31. However, as explained by the District Court, compliance was exactly the issue at hand. LRSD was under constant scrutiny and had to be very careful that it met its obligations. Little Rock Sch. Dist., 237 F. Supp. 2d at 1045. Under 8.2 of the Revised Plan, a detailed procedure for addressing compliance issues was established whereby the parties would attempt to solve compliance issues before submitting them to the District Court for resolution. The Board paid the Joshua Intervenors to monitor LRSD's compliance with the Revised Plan. During the term of the Revised Plan, the Joshua Intervenors raised only five compliance issues, which -12- ---------- - ----------- ~ - were all resolved without resorting to the District Court. App. of Appellee 415. None of the issues raised in opposition to the final report was previously raised by the Joshua Intervenors. The District Court found that the purpose of the dispute mechanism under 8.2 was to avoid any surprises when LRSD filed the final report, and that LRSD reasonably relied on the Joshua Intervenors to raise any problems in a timely fashion. Little Rock Sch. Dist., 237 F. Supp. 2d at 1043. The District Court also found that the interim report placed the Joshua Intervenors on notice of all the problems, but they did not respond. Ibid. Although  11 does not require that any objections be previously raised under 8.2, the District Court found that Intervenors' failure to raise these issues was a factor to consider in deciding whether LRSD substantially complied with the Revised Plan. Id. at 1043-44. For the reasons stated above, we find no clear error in the District Court's finding of substantial compliance with 2.1 of the Revised Plan. B. The Joshua Intervenors also appeal from the District Court's judgment granting LRSD unitary status under  2.5-2.5.4, relating to student discipline. Although  2.5.1-2.5.4 impose specific obligations with regard to discipline, the Joshua Intervenors assert in particular that LRSD did not meet its obligation under  2.5, which provides: LRSD shall implement programs, policies and/or procedures designed to ensure that there is no racial discrimination with regard to student discipline. App. of Appellants 90. This section requires LRSD to create and implement programs and policies designed to eliminate discriminatory practices from student -13- ___________ _ ___ __________ _. discipline. It does not require, however, that LRSD in fact absolutely eliminate racial disparity from student discipline. The Joshua Intervenors argue that the District Court improperly found that LRSD had substantially complied with  2.5 because the Court misconstrued the meaning of the words \"to ensure.\" Brief for Appellants 40. Interpretation of the Revised Plan is a question of law, which we review de novo, and we hold that the District Court did not err in construing the obligation imposed by 2.5. The Joshua Intervenors argue that \"to ensure\" means to make sure that racial discrimination does not occur. Ibid. If \"to ensure\" were the only operative phrase in the provision, the argument might be well taken. But 2.5 does not require LRSD to ensure anything. It merely requires that LRSD \"implement programs, policies, and/or procedures designed to ensure .. .. \" (Emphasis ours.) The thrust of the provision is that certain programs with the purpose of ensuring that there is no racial discrimination with regard to student discipline be instituted. This does not mean that the programs must be perfectly efficacious. In addition, the object is to eradicate discrimination, which is not necessarily the same thing as disparity. Racial disparity may exist without discrimination. Discrimination, of course, can cause disparity, but it is not the only possible cause. Disparity in discipline is a nation-wide problem. The District Court cited something called \"total suspension index.\" The total suspension index demonstrates disparity in discipline and is calculated by dividing the percentage of AfricanAmerican students expelled or suspended by the percentage of African-American students in the population, and comparing this number with that for white students. The District Court found that LRSD's suspension index was between 1.25 - 1.31 for the years 1997-2001. Little Rock Sch. Dist., 237 F. Supp. 2d at 1054. In other words, to take 1997 as an example, African-American students were 1.25 times as likely, so to speak, to be disciplined or suspended than white students. The national -14- -------- - ---- --- ----------~ index for 1998 was 2.24, and the Arkansas index was 2.16. The District Court specifically found that the Joshua Intervenors did not meet their burden of proving that disproportionate discipline imposed on African-American students was the result of discrimination. Little Rock Sch. Dist., 237 F. Supp. 2d at 1057. This finding is not clearly erroneous. LRSD enacted several policies to implement its obligations regarding student discipline and created a Compliance Plan, which outlined how LRSD planned to implement the Revised Plan and who bore responsibility for such implementation. Under the Compliance Plan, Junious Babbs was responsible for monitoring student discipline. An ombudsman, James Washington, was appointed pursuant to 2.5.3 to ensure that students were treated fairly throughout the discipline process. The ombudsman was charged with shepherding students through the discipline process, including making students aware of the rules, acting as an advocate for students involved in the disciplinary process, and investigating parental and student complaints of discrimination. The interim and final reports issued by LRSD focused on the decrease in overall suspensions and expulsions, due in part to programs developed by LRSD, such as behavior modification programs and alternative learning centers. App. of Appellee 85-87, 273-74. Although the reduction in suspensions for African-American students was not so large as that of white students, the District Court found that the proportion of suspensions received by African-American students remained the same. Little Rock Sch. Dist., 237 F. Supp. 2d at 1051. Neither the interim report nor the final report focused on the fact that racial disparity existed among the students who received suspensions or expulsions, and the District Court found that LR.SD could have sorted the data in such a way as to give a more meaningful analysis. Id. at 1051-52. However, the District Court found that the Joshua Intervenors had access to the raw data and never raised the issue. Id. at 1052. -15- ------ - - - More specifically, the District Court found that the reports did not mislead the Joshua Intervenors. Ibid. The ODM produced a Report on Disciplinary Sanctions in LRSD, which showed that African-American students received a disproportionate number of suspensions and expulsions. However, the District Court specificaHy found that this report was not intended to address the effectiveness of any programs that were instituted to address fairness in discipline. Id. at 1052-53. The District Court also noted that the report suggested that factors outside of the schools might affect which students receive discipline, such as home environment, family values, and whether the home is a single-parent home. Id. at 1052. The report did not contain a specific analysis of the facts of each suspension or expulsion to help determine whether discrimination occurred. Id. at 1052-53. However, the report did conclude that the racial disparity meant that LRSD \"has certainly not eliminated nor even abated racial discrimination in suspensions . . .. \" Id. at 1053 ( quoting Report on Disciplinary Sanctions in LRSD, June 14, 2000). The District Court rejected this conclusion as speculative because it was based on raw statistics. Ibid. Dr. Linda Watson, the Assistant Superintendent for Student Hearings, was responsible for monitoring compliance with the Student Handbook. She reviewed every long-term suspension or expulsion and all appeals from short-term suspensions. Tr. of Nov. 19, 2001, 36-37. If the procedures of the Student Handbook were not followed, Dr. Watson overturned the punishment and removed it from the records. Ibid. Although Dr. Watson acknowledged that African-American students were more frequently suspended than white students, she believed this was due to the fact that they more frequently engaged in conduct prohibited by the Student Handbook. Id. at 83-84. She also testified that she believed this was due primarily to socioeconomic factors. (Some of these factors may be caused by or related to racial discrimination, but they are not the fault of the present administration of LRSD.) The District Court -16- - specifically found that the testimony of all the administrators involved in the disciplinary process was credible. Little Rock Sch. Dist., 23 7 F. Supp. 2d at 1050. For these reasons, we find no clear error in the District Court's finding of substantial compliance with 2.5 of the Revised Plan. C. The Joshua Intervenors also appeal from the District Court's judgment granting LRSD unitary status under  2.6 and 2.6.3, relating to extracurricular activities. Although  2.6.3 imposes a specific obligation with regard to transportation for extracurricular activities, the Joshua Intervenors assert that LRSD did not meet its obligation under  2.6, which provides: LRSD shall implement programs, policies and/or procedures designed to promote participation and to ensure that there are no barriers to participation by qualified African-Americans in extracurricular activities . . .. App. of Appellants 90-91. The Joshua Intervenors argue that racial discrimination occurred in extracurricular activities, evidenced by the fact that many extracurricular activities did not have a proportionate share of African-American participants. Brief for Appellants 46. Certain activities' participants, such as tennis, swimming, quiz bowl, mock trial, and cheer leading, were predominantly white. The Joshua Intervenors also assert that there were barriers to participation, including costs of participation and lack of transportation. The Joshua Intervenors argue that racial disparities in extracurricular activities are the result of discrimination. However, as noted by the District Court, nothing in -17- - ------- - - - ------ ------~ -  2.6 of the Revised Plan required LRSD to impose quotas on extracurricular activities. Little Rock Sch. Dist., 237 F. Supp. 2d at 1058. LRSD undertook to promote the participation of African-American students and to eliminate barriers to participation. As we noted above with respect to 2.5, this provision does not make LRSD an insurer. It requires only that the District \"implement programs, policies and/or procedures designed to promote participation and to ensure,\" et cetera. (Emphasis ours.) The final report noted a marked increase m African-American students' participation in extracurricular activities following the enactment of the new policies. App. of Appellee 276-77. The final report also demonstrated that LRSD attempted to eliminate barriers to participation by having buses transport students to and from extracurricular activities. Id. at 278. Although the record does not establish which students took advantage of the extra buses, the final report stated that \"no extracurricular activity transportation request made by an eligible student has been denied.\" Ibid. As noted by the District Court, the Joshua Intervenors bore the burden of proof on this issue, and they did not provide a single witness to testify that African-American students were unable to participate because of a lack of transportation. Little Rock Sch. Dist., 237 F. Supp. 2d at 1059. The Joshua Intervenors also assert that the costs of certain activities create a barrier to participation. Although there are costs associated with certain activities, Dr. Marian Lacey, Assistant Superintendent of Secondary Schools, testified that each school had a discretionary fund which could be used to help students pay the costs of extracurricular activities. Tr. of July 24, 2002, 775-76. The District Court also found that the Joshua Intervenors presented no testimony that any student was denied an opportunity to participate because of costs. Little Rock Sch. Dist. , 23 7 F. Supp. 2d at 1059-60. -18- The Joshua Intervenors asserted that certain schools, which were primarily African-American, did not have the same extracurricular activities as other schools, and that this violated LRSD's duty to promote participation. However, the District Court found that each school determined which extracurricular activities to offer on the basis of student interest, and if enough interest existed, each school offered a stipend to sponsors of those activ'ities. Id. at 1060. The District Court concluded that certain activities were missing at certain schools not because of discrimination but instead because of lack of student interest. Ibid. The Joshua Intervenors presented several students' testimony to support their assertion that African-American students were not encouraged to participate or were prevented from participating in extracurricular activities. The District Court did not find this testimony impressive. Id. at 1061. Questions of credibility and inferences to be drawn from facts must generally be left to the trial court. The Joshua Intervenors bore the burden of proving that LRSD was not implementing programs, policies, or procedures designed to promote participation and ensure there were no barriers to participation by qualified African-Americans in extracurricular activities. We hold that the District Court did not err in determining that the Joshua Intervenors failed to meet this burden. D. The Joshua Intervenors also appeal from the District Court's order granting LRSD unitary status under 2.6-2.6.2, relating to advanced-placement classes and honors programs. While  2.6.1 and 2.6.2 impose specific duties on LRSD to provide training programs for teachers to identify and encourage qualified African-American students to participate in advanced-placement programs and to assist African-American students in being successful in advanced-placement -19- - programs, the Intervenors do not complain that these specific provisions were violated. Instead, they focus on 2.6, which imposes a more general duty: LRSD shall implement programs, policies and/or procedures designed to promote participation and to ensure there are no barriers to participation by qualified African-Americans in . . . advanced placement courses, honors and enriched courses and the gifted and talented program. App. of Appellants 90-91. The phraseology of this provision is similar to others discussed above. The Joshua Intervenors assert that the District Court erred in finding no barriers to participation in advanced-placement courses. The low number of AfricanAmerican teachers assigned to advanced-placement courses, they say, is a barrier to participation. Brief for Appellants 43-44. The Joshua Intervenors rely primarily on the testimony of Dr. Michael Faucette, an English teacher at Central High School. Dr. Faucette testified that although there were eight African-American teachers and eight white teachers in Central High's English Department, African-American teachers taught only a few of the advanced-placement sections. Tr. of July 22, 2002, 176-80. Dr. Faucette, an African-American teacher, did not teach any of the advanced-placement sections. Id. at 177. The Little Rock School District Board created a regulation setting forth criteria to help teachers identify African-American students for participation in advanced-placement courses. Although this was one factor used in identifying students for participation in advanced-placement courses, enrollment was still open to any student who showed the proper level of motivation and commitment. App. of Appellee 279. Teachers were then required to monitor performance and behavior to ensure that students placed in those courses would remain there. -20- LRSD studied methods to increase enrollment in advanced-placement courses and determined that pre-advanced-placement courses were necessary to prepare students better and earlier. LRSD implemented pre-advanced-placement courses for sixth and seventh-grade students. These programs have been highly successful, and the District Court found that as a result of these programs, LRSD has added over 600 African-American students to its advanced-placement courses for juniors and seniors. Little Rock Sch. Dist., 237 F. Supp. 2d at 1063. LRSD has also implemented the SMART Program, a summer program designed to teach algebra to students to prepare them for algebra in the eighth grade. App. of Appellee 112. The District Court found that during the term of the Revised Plan, at least 95% of the students attending the SMART Program were African-American. Little Rock Sch. Dist., 237 F. Supp. 2d at 1063. Evaluations of the SMART Program determined that it was a success. Tr. of July 24, 2002, 678. LRSD also instituted a \"Teachers of Color\" program to increase the number of African-American advanced-placement teachers. Id. at 671 . The principal at each middle school and high school determined who would be assigned to teach each class. However, the principals were constrained by the collective- bargaining agreement, which required consideration of a teacher's experience and seniority. Tr. of July 22, 2002, 90. An advanced-placement teacher also needed to be qualified through the state. Although Dr. Faucette testified about the racial composition of advanced-placement teachers in Central High School's English Department, he did now know about other advanced-placement sections at Central High School. Little Rock Sch. Dist., 237 F. Supp. 2d at 1065. The District Court found Dr. Faucette's testimony unreliable. Ibid. The Joshua Intervenors also point to racial disparity in the Hall High School University Studies program, a program developed in conjunction with the University of Arkansas at Little Rock that provided an opportunity for students to earn college -21- credit for classes taken at Hall High School. Admission requirements were developed by the University of Arkansas. Tr. of July 24, 2002, 727-28. In order to receive college credit for the courses, students were required to pay tuition of approximately $150 per course. Tr. of July 22, 2002, 114. The Joshua Intervenors assert that the tuition payments created a barrier to participation for African-American students. Brief for Appellants 42-43. The District Court found that during the 1999-2000 school year, 58% of the students participating in Hall High School's University Studies Program were African-American, while African-American students comprised 71 % of all students at Hall High School. Little Rock Sch. Dist. , 237 F. Supp. 2d at 1066. During 2000-2001, only 35% of the students in the University Studies program were African-American, while African-American students comprised 72% of all students at Hall High School. Ibid. However, the Court found that the Joshua Intervenors presented no evidence that any student was denied admission to the University Studies Program because of inability to pay. Ibid. Testimony also indicates that the school solicited a donation to cover the cost for at least one African-American student who wished to participate but was unable to pay. Tr. of July 24, 2002, 802. For these reasons, we hold that the District Court did not err in finding that LRSD substantially complied with its obligations under  2.6 of the Revised Plan. * * * * * * The judgment is affirmed. It goes without saying, but we say it anyway, that LRSD remains fully subject to the Constitution and all other applicable laws, and that these obligations are enforceable by appropriate legal action. -22- I I I I I I I I I I I - HEANEY, Circuit Judge, concurring. I concur in every aspect of the majority's opinion except insofar as it holds that the LRSD has implemented \"programs, policies and/or procedures designed to ensure that there is no racial discrimination with regard to student discipline,\" as required by section 2.5 of the Revised Plan. In my view, the LRSD has failed to meet this obligation. It is true that the LRSD has implemented several programs with regard to student discipline: the LRSD provided every student, parent, teacher, and administrator with a copy of the Student Handbook; the LRSD trained students, teachers, and administrators on provisions in the Handbook; the LRSD created the position of Ombudsman to investigate student complaints of race-based mistreatment in student discipline; Dr. Linda Watson, the Assistant Superintendent who was responsible for implementing section 2.5 of the Revised Plan, reviewed every longterm suspension and expulsion, and any short-term suspensions that were appealed; Dr. Watson prepared and reviewed quarterly Discipline Management Reports from each school, used these reports to identify problems, and met with the schools' administrators to discuss solutions; the LRSD established alternative learning environments to allow students with behavioral problems to remain in school; the LRSD offered training in classroom management and effective discipline; and the LRSD followed a progressive discipline approach by imposing lesser sanctions before suspending students. It is also true that the LRSD has reduced the total number of disciplinary sanctions of students during the time of the Revised Plan from 5 ,3 12 total sanctions in 1998, to 5,080 total sanctions in 2001.5 During that same period, however, the 5 All 1998 statistics are from the LRSD' s 1998-1999 Annual Disciplinary Management Report (Ct. Ex. CX679) and the 2001 statistics are from the LRSD's -23- ----- - - - -------------- - number ofblack students receiving disciplinary sanctions actually increased. During the 1998-99 school year, there were 4,470 disciplinary sanctions of black students compared to 842 disciplinary sanctions of white students. Put another way, in the first year of the Revised Plan, 65% of the student population in the LRSD was black, while 84% of the disciplinary sanctions were ofblack students. By 2001, the year the LRSD sought unitary status, the disparity was even greater. In the 2000-01 school year, there were 4,534 disciplinary sanctions of black students compared to 546 disciplinary sanctions of white students. In other words, black students consisted of 68% of the student population, but accounted for 89% of the disciplinary sanctions. Therefore, from 1998 to 2001, disciplinary sanctions ofblack students increased from 84% to 89%. It is undisputed that the programs instituted by the LRSD to address disciplinary issues have had no positive impact on the racial disparity of student discipline in the district. If you compare the discipline statistics in the individual high schools for the same period they track in very similar ways with almost all of the schools experiencing an increase in disparity. It is worth noting, however, that Parkview High School, the most integrated high school in the district, has the lowest racial disparity in student discipline in the district. In 1998-99, Parkview's student population was 51 % black and the percentage of disciplinary sanctions of black students was 49%. In 2000-01, Parkview' s black student population was still 51 %, but the percentage of disciplinary sanctions of black students rose to 66%. Even at 66%, however, Parkview still had the lowest disparity in student discipline in the district that year. I agree that the Revised Plan does not require the LRSD to absolutely eliminate racial disparity from student discipline. The majority and the district court, however, rely heavily on the fact that section 2.5 requires the LRSD to implement programs 2000-2001 Annual Disciplinary Management Report (Ct. Ex. CX681). -24-  - ------ --- - - ----- - ------ \"designed to ensure\" that there is no racial discrimination in student discipline. The implication is that because the LRSD implemented programs which would effect student discipline, the actual impact of those programs does not matter. I disagree. It is not enough for the LRSD to list the programs it implemented to address the disparity in student discipline, when the result of those programs was an increase in the racial disparity in student discipline. The mere implementation of programs, no matter how many or how impressive sounding, that have virtually no impact on the racial disparity in student discipline is not enough to meet the district's obligations under the Revised Plan. This lack of impact on the disparity in discipline is really no surprise when you review the testimony of Dr. Watson. Dr. Watson testified that: she was never instructed that there needed to be a reduction in the racial impact of suspensions in the district; she never prepared a monitoring report with regard to disparities in discipline; she did not prepare any reports which track whether certain teachers or administrators have a pattern of disciplinary actions based on race; nor did she recommend any programs to address the continued disparate impact of discipline. (Nov. 19, 2001, Unitary Status Hr' g Tr. at 25-163 .) Dr. Watson also testified that the percentage of black students being suspended did not decrease, that disparate patterns of discipline still exist based on race, that there are no plans to reduce the disparate impact of student discipline in the district, and that the LRSD is not even looking at student discipline based on race. (Id.) The majority, and the district court, seem to take solace in the fact that racial disparity in student discipline is a national problem. According to the district court, in 1998, the national \"total suspension index\" was 2.24 and the Arkansas \"total suspension index\" was 2.16, whereas the LRSD's \"total suspension index\" remained constant at 1.26 from 1997-2000. Little Rock Sch. Dist. v. Pulaski County Special Sch. Dist. No. 1, 237 F.Supp. 2d 988, 1054 (E.D. Ark. 2002). The majority and the district court consider the fact that the LRSD' s index is lower than that of the nation -25- ------- - - - - -- ~ - and the state significant, and the fact that the LRSD' s index did not change over the period of the Revised Plan insignificant. I disagree. The Revised Plan said nothing about the LRSD's racial disparity in student discipline in comparison to the state or the nation. The Revised Plan did, however, require the LRSD to implement programs designed to ensure that the racial disparity in student discipline in the district would decrease. This, they failed to do. The majority and the district court also assert that Joshua did not meet its burden in proving that the racial disparity in student discipline was the result of discrimination. This was not Joshua's burden. According to section 11 of the Revised Plan, Joshua bears the burden of proving that the LRSD failed to comply with its obligations as set forth in the plan. Joshua met this burden by showing that the programs the LRSD implemented to address the racial disparity in discipline were ineffective. As I read the Revised Plan, it was the LRSD's obligation to determine whether the continued disparity in discipline was the result of racial discrimination or merely socioeconomic factors as suggested by Dr. Watson. Here again, the LRSD failed to meet its obligation and rested merely on the fact that it implemented programs. Programs that, in the end, had no effect on the racial disparity in student discipline. It is true that Joshua could have done more to raise concerns about the failure of the LRSD's programs earlier, but this does not remove all responsibility from the LRSD. The statistics compiled and reports filed by the LRSD lack valuable data. I have found no useful statistics on recidivism among students to determine how many students, and of what race, are receiving multiple disciplinary sanctions. The record does not contain statistics that separate offenses involving the discretionary judgment of staff from objective offenses. The record lacks any reports which show whether there is a correlation between the race of the teacher administering the discipline and the race of the student receiving it, or whether certain teachers have a higher rate of discipline than others. Dr. Watson testified that she was able to access some of this -26- --------- --- - - ----------~ information and that she knew which schools had high rates of disciplinary sanctions and which teachers issued more suspensions than others, but I cannot agree that her personal, undocumented knowledge was sufficient to meet the court's mandate that the district implement programs, policies, and procedures designed to ensure that there is no racial discrimination with respect to student discipline. Absent the necessary records, there is no way the district court, or this court, can reach an informed conclusion as to whether blacks are disciplined more frequently for legitimate reasons or because they are judged by different standards than white students, at least by some teachers. I would remand this case to the district court on the disciplinary issue, along with the issue of student achievement retained by the district court, to require the district to comply with our original mandate. -27- March 9, 2004 LETTER-ORDER Mr. Christopher Heller Mr. Clay Fendley 400 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 400 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Richard W. Froachell 11800 Pleasant !Ridge Road Little Rock, AR 72222 Mr. John Walker Mr. Samuel Jones, Ill 200 West Capitol, Suite 2200 Little Rock, AR 72201 172 . is Hansen Mr. Stephen W. Jones 1 Ce r Street, Suite 1200 425 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 3400 L le Rock, AR 72201 little Rock, AR 72201 Re: Dear Counsel: 4:82CV00866 Q As you know the September 11 , 20 emorandum Order requires that the LRSD file a Compliance Report which documents its compliance with the obligc1tions under  2. 7. 1 on or before the 15th of this month. Then, Joshua, or any other party, has thirty days {until April 15, 2004) within which to file objections to LRSD report. This mis:;ive is simply to notify all counsel that a request for any extension will likely be denied. If there are objections, they will be heard on April 26 and 27, 2004. cc: Original: The Honorable Thomas Ray Ms. Ann Marshall, ODM Cordially, Wm. A. Wilson, Jr. Mr. James W. McCormack, Clerk March 5, 2004 ------ - - --- --------- --- RECEIVED 4t MAR 11 2004 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING FAX COVER SHEET UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKAlVSAS Telephone 501-604-5140 Fax Number 501-604-5149 DATE: J .. I ) .. otj FAX NO.: There are Z-pages, including this Cover Sheet, bein1~ sent by this facsimile transmission. MESSAGE SENT BY: A;~~~ Office of Judge Wm. ll W~Jr. U. S. District Coun 600 West Capitol, Room 423 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Direct Phone Numbers: Matt Morgan, LRSD Law Clerk Janet Pulliarn, Law Clerk (odd case numbers) Caf'oline Curry, (even case numbers) Macy Johnson, Courtroom Deputy Ch.-ista Newburg, Court Reporter 604-5141 604-5142 604-5148 604-5144 604-5145 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS LITTLE ROCK DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. No. 4:82CV00866 WRW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICTNO.1,ETAL. RECEIVED {i,,, h'trWJt-lf/t1 {/) h /J.o/ MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. MAR 1 ' 2004 KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. GREG BOLLEN, JAMES BOLDEN, OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORlNG MARTHA WHATLEY AND SUE ANN WHISKER ORDER u.fo1\\kif J?uRT EASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS MAR 1 12004 JAM5S W McCORMACK, CLERK ~y: -----D=-=E=p....,_C ~LE_ A _K PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS 1. I have received a copy of Mr. Walker's March 10, 2004 letter to Ms. Ann S. Marshall. A copy of the letter is attached to this Order. The letter appears to be an anticipatory objection to a report that has not been filed; and a request for \"facilitation\" by Ms. Marshall as the Director of the ODM. ,, .. . 2. When the LRSD report is filed, in the next few days, if Joshua perceives deficiencies in it, I would anticipate that, at that time, appropriate objections would be made, which might or might not include the points mentioned in the March 10 letter. 3. I note parenthetically that the meeting in Ms. Marshall's office, referenced in the first paragraph of the March 10 letter, does not give a date of the meeting, and does not mention what compliance issues were discussed, nor does it identify the \"numerous areas of disagreement.\" Any objections filed after the LRSD report is in existence should be shot through with specificity and precision. \"'.;.,?.' 6 '\\~'\u0026lt;{).1-t \u0026lt; -~j 1  .. 4. Any suggestion of \"facilitating\" at this point, if there is such a suggestion to be read into the letter, is late -- far too late. I am going to take the LRSD report, the objections, if any, by Joshua, and decide the issues presented on April 27, or soon thereafter. 5. Consistent with the specific directions given to the ODM, I would expect that office to file a report on the progress under 2.7.1. soon, so that the parties will have ample time to study it, and determine whether they want to rely on it at the April 26 - 27 hearing, or want to object to it or parts of it. 6. As I think can be discerned from the above, I expect reports and objections from the parties and the ODM to be timely filed , so that we can wrap the matter up during the April hearing. To this end, I invite your keen attention to my letter dated March 9, 2004. I point out that this letter contains directives, not goals or suggestions. IT IS SO ORDERED this / [71f day of March, 2004. WM. R. WILSON, JR. / i / I . I ,I.e JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. ATI'ORNEY kr LAW 1723 BROADWAY LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72206 TELEPHONE (501) 374-3758 _FAX (501) 374-4187 JOHN W. WALKER SHAWN CHILDS OF COUNSEL ROBERT McHENRY, P.A. Ms. Ann S. Marshall, Monitor Office of Desegregation monitoring 124 West Capital, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Via Facsimile - 371-0100 March 10, 2004 Re: Little Rock School District Dear Ms. Marshall: DONNAJ. McHENRY 8210 HENDERSON ROAD LITTLE ROCK, AllKANsAS 72210 PHONE: {501) 372-3425  FAX (501) 372-3428 EMAIL: mchenryd@swbell.net Now that we have the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals decision, it is very clear that the court is concerned, as we are, about improving the academic achievement of African American students. Our beliefis that all of the components of the Plan were intended to work 'hand in glove' to that end. When we last met with your office after having invoked the process set forth in the Plan regarding compliance issues, there were numerous areas of disagreement with respect to the District's obligations. Those areas have not been resolved. Moreover, we did not reach agreements on whether all programs as set forth in the March 15, 2001 Compliance Report were to be evaluated or which ones indeed were to be evaluated. Little Rock took the position that it would only evaluate literacy and math. We resisted that position then and we do so now because such limitation does not address the very purposes of the evaluations in the first place. Dr. Bonnie Lesley and Chris Heller were the District's representatives at the conference with you. Joy Springer, Bob Pressman and I (for a short while) represented Joshua. Since Dr. Lesley has left the District we have had no further contact with anyone from the District for the purpose offollowup discussions regarding the subject. On or about January 15, 2004, I received two lengthy reports from the District entitled: 1) Little Rock Literacy Program Evaluation; and 2) An Evaluation of Mathematics \u0026amp; Science Programs in the Little Rock School District from 1998 to 2003. They were sent without explanation or an invitation for discussion. Mr. Heller was aware that we had invoked the process outlined in the Plan and that apparently your office was awaiting more responses from LRSD before having more followup meeting between Joshua and Little Rock. We have received the updates you have sent the parties as you have monitored LRSD's program evaluation. 1 We have now completed our initial review and discussion regarding those evaluations and find not only do they fail to address all of the programs that we negotiated to be evaluated but, that inter alia, the evaluations are keyed to ''No Child Left Behind\" mandates or State accountability mandates. They appear to be less keyed to the explicit outcome objectives of the plan or to the evaluation processes the district adopted in its compliance plan and regulations. While Mr. Heller has contended that there are no outcome requirements of the plan, it was certainly a promised expectation that programs would be altered, modified, and improved upon their inadequacies and then nonworking programs which failed to remediate achievement disparity would be eliminated and replaced. The objective we expect is t hat achievement of black school children will be not less than 90% of the achievement of white school children. I believe that the program evaluations that have been presented miss their mark on many counts, some of which I now bring to your attention as the process facilitator with a notation that these comments are also being delivered to Mr. Heller for the District's use. These evaluations address only literacy, math and science which certainly are not all the programs that are related to improving and remediating the academic achievement of African American students. I call your attention to the Court's Order of September 13, 2002, page 168. I am also informing Judge Wilson of our serious concerns regarding the deficiencies of the program evaluations. Our list is not comprehensive because we need to 1) thoroughly review the evaluations, 2) have discussions via the process and the study itself and 3) have more information regarding the District's intentions. 1) Joshua remains concerned about the lack of achievement for African American students at virtually all grade levels. 2) The literacy report does not identify any significant relationship or correlation between the literacy programs implemented by LRSD and the achievement of African American students. 3) Neither the literacy report nor the math/science report addressed African American student achievement by grade level, achievement by school or specific remediation mastery by student, grade level or school. None of the curricular programs in the study had a significant impact on student achievement in 5th grade, for example. 4) The literacy report (page 45) makes the 'surprising' notation that substantial differences exist in the overall achievement of African American students and other students in the Little Rock School District. This conclusion is, in large part, what this action is intended to correct. Joshua interprets that notation to mean that the programs that have been utilized have not successfully addressed African American student achievement nor have they been modified or replaced by others which promise greater success. It surely cannot mean that the objective is impossible to attain. 2 5) The control groups utilized for the literacy report raise another concern. In this report, a significant number of the students, almost half of them, in the District appear to be eliminated from the study. 6) The literacy report contains formative information through a few teacher focus groups, however, this data is not inclusive of the total teacher population responsible for remediation of African American student achievement. Therefore, Joshua must conclude that such information is skewed at best. 7) Joshua recalls the representations of Dr. Bonnie Lesley during her court testimony that the achievement gap in grades K-2 had been eliminated according to her DRA assessments during the 2001-2002 school year. The 2003 literacy evaluation submitted by the District now contradicts her findings in that approximately half of the African American students during 2002-2003 in 4th grade were performing Below Basic. Those second grade students would appear to be the 4th graders now performing below basic. Surely there are sufficient data to prepare an evaluation of literacy in these grades (K-2) and for the District to be able to track their individual performances through Dr. Lesley's data. I read that the Court's Order, Page 170, paragraph A, contemplates the use ofthis data, i.e., \"LRSD now has over three years of testing data ..... \" 8) Joshua remains concerned regarding the District's ability to accurately record, collect, retain and retrieve student achievement data. 9) There is no discussion regarding the. participation of African American students in Pre-AP and AP courses which were allegedly instituted to address African American achievement. Nor is there any evaluation of the District's tutoring programs or other programs aimed at improving African American performance. I 0) The report indicates that African American students had substantially lower absolute performance than did other students. The academic gains on literary tests were lower for African American students than for other students. The evaluations do not compare the achievement of Benchmark exams of 4th or 8th grade students for 2001 or 2002 scoring Below Basic in successive years. Moreover, the SAT 9 test results for higher grade students reflect a need for more information. 11) The District was inconsistent in providing the necessary support for teachers to attend necessary literacy training (Reading Recovery, Effective Literary and ELLA).  12) The evaluation reports discussed professional development in literacy and mathematics while ignoring the three major professional development commitments in the March 15, 2001 compliance report. 3 The foregoing list is merely suggestive; it is not exhaustive. Because of your designated role, I am requesting that Judge Wtlson involve your office in preparing a comprehensive monitoring report of the District's compliance with its student achievement commitments by use of the evaluation process. That I believe was a role envisioned for ODM by both the Court Of Appeals and by the District Court as well. I will be filing the necessary papers to that end, but in the meantime would you ldndly advise me as to the status of our having already invoked the process set forth by the plan. JWW:js cc: Honorable Judge William R. Wilson Mr. Chris Heller Mr. Robert Pressman All Other Counsel Sincerely, ,.. / ,,. -- / _ -,  I , --\": /_.,,  ,:1,: - . i ? / // c . ~ V\"'--'\"'--c/r .. \u0026gt;-i,-v L-\\... ((__, \\ ,, . ~f-  I \\ ,__.,, fohn W. Walker  4 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DMSION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL RECEIVED MAR 1 :; 2004 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTER VEN ORS INTER VEN ORS LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT COMPLIANCE REPORT Plaintiff Little Rock School District (\"LRSD\") for its Compliance Report states: 1. On September 13, 2002, the District Court issued its Order finding that the LRSD had substantially complied with all areas of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan (\"Revised Plan\"), with the exception of Revised Plan  2. 7. 1. The Court's Order set forth a detailed Compliance Remedy as to Revised Plan  2. 7 .1. 2. On October 10, 2002, the LRSD' s Board of Directors (\"Board\") adopted a Compliance Plan designed to meet the requirements of the Court's Compliance Remedy. The LRSD filed the Compliance Plan with the Court on March 14, 2003, as Exhibit A to Plaintiffs Notice of Filing Program Evaluations Required By Paragraph C of the Court's Compliance Remedy. 3. Joshua initially raised concerns about the Board-approved Compliance Plan. The LRSD addressed these concerns in an October 25, 2002 letter to counsel for Joshua, attached hereto Page 1 of 6 as Exhibit A. Joshua invoked the \"Process for Raising Compliance Issues\" set for in Revised Plan  8.2, and the Joshua and the LRSD met with Ms. Ann Marshall to facilitate an agreement. The last meeting was February 28, 2003 . At that meeting, the LRSD agreed to provide Joshua several documents. The last of these was mailed to Joshua on March 6, 2003. The parties never reached any agreement related to Joshua's concerns about the Board-approved Compliance Plan. Joshua waived any objections to the Board-approved Compliance Plan by failing to present them to the Court as required by Paragraph \"D\" of the Compliance Remedy. 4. The Board-approved Compliance Plan interpreted Paragraphs \"A\" and \"B\" of the Compliance Remedy as requiring the LRSD to: (1) continue to administer student assessments through the first semester of 2003-04; (2) develop written procedures for evaluating the programs implemented pursuant to Revised Plan  2.7 to determine their effectiveness in improving the academic achievement of African-American students; (3) maintain written records of (a) the criteria used to evaluate each program, (b) the results of the annual student assessments, including whether an informal program evaluation resulted in program modifications or the elimination of any programs, and (c) the names of the administrators who were involved with the evaluation of each program, as well as at least a grade level description of any teachers who were involved in the evaluation process; and ( 4) prepare a comprehensive program evaluation of each academic program implemented pursuant to Revised Plan  2. 7 to determine its effectiveness in improving the academic achievement of African-American students and to decide whether to modify or replace the program. See Compliance Plan, p. 3. 5. Continue to administer student assessments through the first semester of 2003- 04. Page 2 of 6 plan. To meet this requirement, the LRSD implemented the 2002-03 Board-approved assessment 6. Develop written procedures for evaluating the programs implemented pursuant to 2. 7 to determine their effectiveness in improving the academic achievement of African-American students. The Board adopted regulation IL-RI when it approved the Compliance Plan. Regulation ILRl set forth the written procedures for evaluating the 2.7 programs. 7. Maintain written records of (a) the criteria used to evaluate each program; (b) the results of the annual student assessments, including whether an informal program evaluation resulted in program modifications or the elimination of any programs; and (c) the names of the administrators who were involved with the evaluation of each program, as well as at least a grade level description of any teachers who were involved in the evaluation process. Regulation IL-Rl outlined the criteria to be used to evaluate each program. As to the results of annual student assessments, the LRSD continues to maintain a computer database with the results - of annual students assessments administered pursuant to the Board-approved assessment plan. Exhibit B attached hereto identified the members of each team. Exhibits C, D and E document informal modifications of the mathematics, elementary literacy and secondary literacy programs, respectively. 8. Prepare a comprehensive program evaluation of each academic program implemented pursuant to  2. 7 to determine its effectiveness in improving the academic achievement of African-American students and to decide whether to modify or replace the program. The LRSD contracted with Dr. Steve Ross, an expert approved by Joshua, to prepare comprehensive evaluations of the District 's elementary and secondary literacy programs. These evaluations, combined in a single report, were completed and approved by the Board in November of 2003 and are attached hereto as Exhibit F. Dr. Don Wold, a program evaluator funded through Page 3 of 6 a National Science Foundation (\"NSF\") grant; Dennis Glasgow, Interim Associate Superintendent for Curriculum and Instruction; and Vanessa Cleaver, Director of the NSF Grant, authored the comprehensive mathematics and science evaluation. The comprehensive mathematics and science evaluation was completed and approved by the Board in December 2003 and is attached hereto as Exhibit G. 9. The LRSD substantially complied with the Revised Plan and the Court's Compliance Remedy by implementation of the Board-approved Compliance Plan. 10. By letter dated January 12, 2004, copies of the comprehensive evaluations were provided to counsel for the Joshua Intervenors, and counsel was asked to advise the District of any \"questions or concerns\" about these evaluations. In a fax dated March 8, 2004, counsel for the Joshua Intervenors wrote: I have reviewed your evaluations and find that they are grossly inadequate and incomplete. In addition to that I am still awaiting the evaluations of the other remaining programs which were contemplated by our agreement. Because we have already invoked the process required by the court, I am putting ODM on notice of our position. The LRSD denies that it agreed to prepare evaluations other than those described in the Boardapproved Compliance Plan. WHEREFORE, the LRSD submits the program evaluations as required by paragraphs \"A\" and \"B\" of the Court's Compliance Remedy. The LRSD prays that the Court find that the LRSD has substantially complied with Revised Plan  2. 7 .1, as specified in the Compliance Remedy; that the LRSD is unitary with regard to all aspects of school operations; and that it be released from all further supervision and monitoring of its desegregation efforts. Respectfully Submitted, Page 4 of 6 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK Christopher Heller (#81083) 2000 Regions Center 400 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 (501) 376- Page 5 of 6 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing has been served on the following people by depositing a copy of same in the United States mail on March 12, 2004: Mr. John W. Walker JOHNW. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Sam Jones Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 2200 Nations Banlc Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON \u0026amp; JONES, P.A. 425 W. Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201-3472 Judge J. Thomas Ray U. S. District Courthouse 600 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 149 Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Ann Marshall Desegregation Monitor 1 Union National Plaza 124 W. Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Tim Gauger Mr. Mark A. Hagemeier Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Clayton Blackstock Mr. Mark Burnett 1010 W. Third Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Page 6 of 6 HERSCHEL H. Fa.lDAY (lf7219'4) WIWAM K. Stn\"TON, P.A. BYJ.ON M. EISEMA)(, JL. P.A. ,o~ D. BELL r .A. J~ UTTI.Y, P.A. PU S. UI.SER.Y, P.A. O AVIS. JL. P.A. JAM . LARX.. JL, P.A. THOMAS P. LEGGETT, P.A. JOHN DEWEY WATSON, P.A. PAUL 8 . BENHAM Ill, P.A. LA,IJ.Y W. BUIX.S, P.A. A. WYCKl.lPP NISBET, JR.., P.A. JA.Mf.S EDWAJtD HAJt.11S, P.A. J. PKIWP MALCOM. P.A. JAMES M. SIMPSON, P.A. JAMES M. SAXTON, P.A. J. SKEPHEltD 1.USSEU 111. P.A. DONALD H. BACON, P.A. WIWAM THOMAS BAXTER. f\".A. IJCHAJlD D. TA YLOll. P.A. JOSEPH 8 . HUUT, JL, P.A. ELIZABETH ROBBEN MUUAY, P.A. CHRJSTOPHER KELLER.. P.A. LAUR.A HENSLEY SMITH. P.A. ROBERTS. SHAPER.. P.A. WILLIAM M. GRIFFIN Ill. P.A. MICHAELS. MOORE. P.A. DIANE S. MAO.EV, P.A. WALTER M. EBEL 111. P.A. UVIN A. CRASS, P.A. WtU.IAM A. WADDELL JJL, P.A. SCOTT J. LA}ICA.STER.. P.A. I.OBERT B. BEACH. JR.., P.A. J. LEE Bl.OWN. P.A. JAMES C. BAUR.. Ul.. P.A. HAJUt.Y A. LIOKT. P.A. SCOTT H. TUCKER. P.A. GUY ALTON WADE. P.A. PR.ICE C. GARDNER.. P.A. TONIA P. JONES, P.A. DAVID 0 . WIUON. P.A. JEFPR.EY H. MOOR.E, P.A. DAVID M. GR.AF, P.A. ( By Hand Delivery) Mr. John W. Walker John W. Walker, P.A. 1 723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell Law Firm Plaza West Building 415 N. McKinley, Suite 465 Little Rock, Arkansas 72205 FRIDAY ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK ATTORNEYS AT LAW A LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP WNW.frldayfirm.com 2000 REGIONS CENTER 400 WEST CAPITOL LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201-3493 TELEPHONE 501376-2011 FAX 501-376-2147 3425 NORTH FUTRALL DRIVE, SUITE 103 FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS 72703,.C811 TELEPHONE 47$-.895-2011 FAX .C7$-.H521'7 208 NORTH FIFTH STREET BLYTHEVILLE, ARKANSAS 72315 TELEPHONE 170.7822198 FAX 170.782, 2911 October 25, 2002 Mr. Sam Jones Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 2200 Bank of America Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 ( By Hand Delivery ) Ms. Ann Marshall Desegregation Monitor 1 Union National Plaza 124 W. Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 RE: Compliance Remedy Dear Counsel and Ms. Marshall: CAJlLA Gl.JN'NELS SPAINHOUR. P.A. JOKN C. FDIDLEY. Jk., P.A. JOHANN ELIZABETH CONIGLIO, P.A. R. CHIUSTOPKER LAWSON, P.A. FRANC. HICK.MAH. P.A. BETTY J. DEMOkY, P.A. LYNDA M. JOHNSON. P.A. JAMES W. SMJTtl P.A. CLIFFORD W. PLUNKETT. P.A. DA.NIEL L. HEJUUNGTOH, P.A. MAI.VIN L CHILDEJt.S K. COLEMAN WESTBROOK. JR. ALLISON J. COI.HWELL ELLEN M. OWENS JASON 8 . HENDREN BRUCE B. TIDWELL MICHAEL E. K.A.JtN'EY KELLY MUI.PHY MCQUEDI JOSEPH P. MCUY ALEXANDR.A A. IPR.AH JAY T. TAYLOR MA.Jl TIN A. KASTEN Mr. Steve Jones BRYAN W. OUX.E JOSEPH G. HlCHOU ROBEJ.T T. SMITH I.YAN A. BOWMAN TIMOTifY C. EZELL T. MICHELLE ATOR LU.ENS. HALBERT SAi.AH M. COTTON PHILIP 8 . MONTGOMERY C.IJSTEH S. RJGGIHS ALAN G. BRYAN LINDSEY WITCH.AM SLOAN lKAYYAM M. EDDJ'NGS JOKN F. PEISUJCH AMANDA CAPPS ROSE BR.ANDON J. ttA.R.RJSON orCOUNsu D.S. a..u..r. WIWAMLTEUY WlWAM L PATTON. JR.. tl T. LARZELU.E. P.A. JOHN C. EOfOLS. P.A. A.D. MCAUJSTER JOHN C. FENDLEY, JR. LITTLE ROCK TEL 501J70.JS2l FAX 50124'5$41 f  ndleyOf c . net Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones, P.A. 425 W. Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Dennis Hanson Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 In our letter dated October 11, 2002, we asked the parties to specifically identify in writing any perceived deficiency in the Board-approved Compliance Plan on or before Monday, October 21, 2002. No responses were received on or before that date. However, Mr. Pressman called on October 21, 2002, and advised that Joshua would rely on the comments contained in Mr. Walker's October 10, 2002, facsimile. On October 24, 2002, additional comments were received from Mr. Walker. All of Mr. Walker's comments will be addressed in turn. EXHIBIT A I All Counsel and Ms. Marshall October 25, 2002 Page2 October 10, 2002 Facsimile 1. More consideration is needed of the programs to be identified as \"implementat[ ed] pursuant to Section 2.7 ... \", which are to be subjected to \"comprehensive program evaluation . .. \" Your document at page 7 identifies three areas. We note the absence of specific reference and detail regarding interventions/ \"scaffolding\" - areas of vital importance given the achievement patterns of African-Amen.can students. We note also that the LRSD compliance report cited many more programs as designed to fulfill Section 2.7. Mr. Pressman clarified this concern during our October 21, 2002 telephone conversation. Mr. Pressman explained that Joshua was concerned that interventions designed to assist low achieving students, for example SAIPs, were not being fully implemented and wanted some assurance that the comprehensive program evaluations would assess implementation of these programs. LRSD RESPONSE: On October 24, 2002, the Board approved the Division of Instruction's \"Plan to Support Low-Performing Schools,\" a copy of which is enclosed for your review. Under that plan, the LRSD will conduct curriculum, instruction and classroom management audits at low performing schools. Data gathered through these audits and other monitoring under the plan may be used by a program evaluation team to identify possible causes of poor performance, including poor implementation of interventions such as SAIPs. The LRSD lacks the resources to implement this plan at every school. Approximately 10 schools will receive the full compliment of services outlined in the plan. Those 10 schools will be identified based on the priority system set forth in the plan. 2. In a discussion prior to his testimony in the hearing [before] Judge Wilson, we understood Dr. Ross to indicate that the existing evaluation of the PreK-2 literacy program was not adequate. The notation on page 4 of your document of the changed use of the Observation Survey and the DRA relates to part of the concerns he expressed. This undermines the LRSD argument (page 11) that the existing evaluation, upon Board approval, will satisfy a part of the Court's remedy. LRSD RESPONSE: As the LRSD understands this statement, Joshua objects to the LRSD considering the PreK-2 literacy evaluation to have been completed pursuant to Paragraph C of the Compliance Remedy. Attached are the comments received by the LRSD from Dr. Ross related to that evaluation. As can be seen, Dr. Ross did not advise the LRSD that the evaluation was \"inadequate.\" Moreover, it does not make sense for the LRSD to expend resources to have this evaluation \"completed\" by an outside expert while it also prepares a new, comprehensive evaluation of the same program with the assistance of an outside expert. All Counsel and Ms. Marshall October 25, 2002 Page 3 3. The LRSD discussion about satisfying the court's order regarding the evaluations mentioned at page 148 of the compliance report does not seem to take account of the material provided, which describes an adequate evaluation. LRSD RESPONSE: As the LRSD understands this statement, Joshua objects to the LRSD not completing the evaluations identified on page 148 of the Final Compliance Report in a manner consistent with IL-RI. As the LRSD understands Paragraph C of the Compliance Remedy, the District Court simply wants the LRSD to do what it said it did and complete the evaluations identified on page 148 of the Final Compliance Report. That is what the LRSD intends to do. It is true that those evaluations, even after being completed, may not be model program evaluations as envisioned by IL-RI. The LRSD decided, however, that the most prudent use of its limited resources would be to focus on the new, comprehensive evaluations of programs designed to improve African-American achievement. 4. We question the period of implementation of a remedy which the court has identified and, therefore, the LRSD schedule. LRSD RESPONSE: The LRSD is willing to agree that any agreement between the LRSD and Joshua related to implementation of the Compliance Remedy will not prejudice Joshua's appeal of the District Court's September 13, 2002, Memorandum Opinion. October 24, 2002 Facsimile 1. In using historical student assignment results, attention should be given to the quality of the data. In the past, LRSD has used results on the [D]RA and the Observation Survey in ways not consistent with the purposes of those instruments. In addition, because teachers provided scores for their own students, the past use made of the data was in conflict with the district's recognition in the newly enacted Regulation IL-RI that \"Conflict of Interest\" must be avoided. LRSD RESPONSE: Paragraph A of the Compliance Remedy requires the LRSD to use all available data in its evaluations. It will be the responsibility of the evaluation team to weigh the reliability and validity of the available data. The Arkansas Department of Education and national organizations with expertise in early literacy recommend the use of the DRA and Observation Surveys. The primary purpose of those assessments is to determine whether students are learning the essential components of the reading curriculum. As to the integrity of the data from those assessments, the LRSD monitored student scores year-to-year to discourage teachers from inflating scores in an effort to show improvement. Moreover, the ultimate success of the LRSD's early literacy program will - --- - - - ------ - ------ All Counsel and Ms. Marshall October 25, 2002 Page4 be judged by performance on the State's Benchmark examinations, rather than the DRA and Observation Surveys. 2. We are concerned about the manner in which the regulation describes the \"team\" process for preparing evaluations, again in the context of\"conflict of interest.\" In order to insure that \"conflict of interest\" is avoided, the \"external consultant\" needs to write the report and control the -context of the analysis. Paragraphs 3, 5 and 6 of the \"Program Evaluation Procedures\" do not guarantee that the external expert will have these roles. Of course, if reports were prepared in the manner which we describe, there would be no bar to LRSD staff preparing comments to the Board with a differing interpretation of the evaluation results. LRSD RESPONSE: The LRSD rejects the implication that LRSD personnel cannot be trusted to write an honest program evaluation. The LRSD's commitment to improving student achievement is second to none. To fulfill that commitment, it is in the LRSD's best interest to effectively evaluate its programs. The success of the programs and program evaluations will ultimately be measured by the State's Benchmark evaluations. All evaluation team members will be actively involved in the evaluation process and are expected to provide a check against the self-interest of any one team member. The evaluation team will decide who writes the report based on the expertise of team members. The outside expert will be asked to take to the Superintendent any concerns about the evaluation not being addressed by the evaluation team. The outside expert will also be asked to be present when the evaluation is presented to the Board so that the Board can be advised of any concerns the outside expert may have about the final evaluation. 3. We continue to be concerned about the global, general manner in which the content of planned evaluations is described (page 7 of the document, first paragraph). For example, the Board has adopted a policy and two regulations dealing with remediation for students whose performance is below par. Studying the actual implementation of these standards (in all or a representative sample of schools) is of vital importance to the Intervenor class because class members are so much more likely than other students to exhibit unsatisfactory performance on the Benchmark and Stanford Achievement Tests. A satisfactory description by the School Board of the evaluations which it requires the staff to undertake should make clear that the actual implementation of remediation activities in district schools is to receive careful consideration. This is surely an important contextual factor (see \"Accuracy Standards,\" para. 2). LRSD RESPONSE: As the LRSD understands this comment, it is a restatement of the first number paragraph in Mr. Walker's October 10, 2002 facsimile, and the LRSD hereby incorporates its response thereto. ------ All Counsel and Ms. Marshall October 25, 2002 Page 5 4. We understand from the Plan that the LRSD plans evaluations of programs deemed to be particularly directed to achievement of African-American students for the indefinite term, not simply for the period necessary to satisfy the court. We would like to receive the Board's assurance that this is the case. LRSD RESPONSE: The Board's approval ofIL-Rl was not limited to the term of the Compliance Remedy, and at this time, the Board anticipates continuing to evaluate programs pursuant to Policy IL after the term of the Compliance Remedy. Conclusion The LRSD hopes that it has been able to address all ofJoshua's concerns. Ifany party has any questions about the LRSD's responses to Joshua's comments, we ask that those be submitted in writing, and the LRSD will promptly provide a written response. If Joshua continues to have concerns about the LRSD's Compliance Plan, Joshua should consider this the LRSD's written response to alleged noncompliance in accordance with Revised Plan 8. Pursuant to Revised Plan 8.2.4, Joshua has 15 days ofreceipt of this letter to submit the issue to ODM for facilitation of an agreement. Thank you for your cooperation. Sincerely, cc: Dr. Ken James (via hand-delivery) PROGRAM EVALUATION TEAMS Elementary Literacy Krista Underwood, Director of Early Childhood and Elementary Literacy-Team Leader Pat Busbea, Literacy Specialist Judy Teeter, Literacy Specialist Judy Milam,;Literacy Specialist Melinda Crone, Literacy Specialist Ann Freeman, Literacy Specialist Dr. Ed Williams, statistician Ken Savage (technician) Dr. Steve Ross, External Program Evaluator Secondary Literacy Suzi Davis-Director of Secondary English, Team Leader Sarah Schutte, Middle School Literacy Specialist Dr. Karen Broadnax, Supervisor of ESL Eunice Smith, Supervisor, Special Education Dr. Mona Briggs, Safe Schools Grant Dr. Ed Williams, statistician Ken Savage (technician) Dr. Steve Ross, External Program Evaluator Mathematics and Science Vanessa Cleaver-Team Leader Dennis Glasgow, Interim Associate Superintendent for Curriculum and Instruction Marcelline Carr Beth Clifford Annita Paul Dr. Ed Williams, statistician Ken Savage (technician) Dr. Don Wold, NSF Program Evaluator Dr. Steve Ross, External Program Evaluator ~  EXH 18 IT I B - ---- - ------ - - --- - I I I I I I I I I I I Program Modifications Based on Informal Program Evaluation Elementary Mathematics 2001-02  An item analysis of 4th Grade Benchmark Data for 2000-01 reveals that students perform lowest on the geometry strand. (Note-The State Math Framework and NCTM National Standards for Mathematics contain 5 strands: number sense, geometry, probability and statistics, algebra, and measurement.) The analysis of data from the Benchmark Exam consisted of identifying the strand of each item, ranking the items from highest to lowest, and looking for trends in the data.  Program modifications made based on the low performance on geometry items was:  Train teachers to do item analyses for their own schools.  Work with teachers to discern reasons why students struggled with the specific geometry items (the released items were available for review).  Develop strategies for increasing the focus on geometry in the elementary mathematics curriculum.  School by school analysis of 4th Grade Benchmark Data for 2000-01 (and prior years) revealed different levels of achievement by schools that were demographically similar. Classroom observations in these schools by elementary math/science lead teachers confirmed that the level of implementation of the elementary mathematics curriculum was different from school to school. Schools with a higher level of implementation were having higher student achievement than schools who were not implementing the curriculum at that high level.  A program modification made based on uneven achievement at similar schools was to have principals identify a lead person in their schools to receive intensive and sustained training to serve as a \"coach\" for other teachers (See list of Math Support Personnel for LRSD).  Sara Hogg, UALR Mathematics Specialist, was utilized to provide monthly \"coaches\" training so that additional implementation support would be available at each school. A variety of types of training has been provided by Ms. Hogg, much of it directed at greater knowledge of strategies for implementing our elementary mathematics curriculum.  Another program modification made as a result of uneven achievement among schools was to begin a process of changing the way professional development for teachers is structured. In the past most professional development for elementary mathematics has been district-led (e.g., all third grade teachers go to a district-led training on the 3rd grade mathematics curriculum). The modification has been to shift more focus on site-based professional development. The \"Lesson Study\" and \"Study Group\" approach was begun with elementary mathematics teachers to allow them more responsibility and accountability for their own training needs. 2002-03      The same item analysis was completed for 2001-02 4th grade Benchmark Data . Results of this analysis showed that students had gained in the area of geometry . The lowest strands were probability and statistics, measurement, and algebra. Staff and teachers reviewed the LRSD elementary mathematics curriculum to determine if there was a correlation between extend to strand coverage in the curriculum and student performance on those strands on the Benchmark Exam. The curriculum analysis revealed that there were some gaps in the curriculum that likely resulted in low performance on certain items on the exam. Staff and teachers worked over the summer of 2003 use the Benchmark data to determine the \"big ideas\" or concepts students need to have a deep understanding about in grades K-5. Using several years worth of data, grade level teams of teachers in grades 1-4 (see list of teachers who worked on curriculum revision) revised the mathematics standards and benchmarks according to the five strands listed in NCTM Standards and the State Framework. Kindergarten and fifth grade will do similar work during the summer of 2004. Curriculum resources in grades 1-4 were aligned to those standards assessed most frequently on the exam. Supplemental curriculum resources were identified from several sources for use to broaden the scope of the curriculum at certain grade levels. Internet resources, Marilyn Burns and Associates materials, and other materials were identified and compiled into a notebook for use by teachers.  Benchmark results show that district students generally perform less well on the open-response test items compared to the multiple choice items.  Program modifications based on this data were:  Developed packets of open-response items for teachers to use with students.  Trained teachers to score open-response items using a rubric.  Developed and administered District-developed end-of-quarter or end-ofsemester exams that included open-response items.  4th grade Literacy and Mathematics Benchmark Results over a period of three years caused some schools to be given \"School Improvement\" status by the Arkansas Department of Education (ADE). Schools in which the total population or one or more sub-populations (white, African-American, Hispanic, Limited English Proficient, Low Socioeconomic Status, and Special Education) did not meet Adequate Yearly Progress as defined by ADE were sanctioned with Year 1, Year 2, or Year 3 School Improvement Status.  A thorough and detailed School Support Audit was done for schools in Year 2 or Year 3 School Improvement. (An attachment explains the school audit process). The schools that were audited were Fair Park, Baseline, Mabelvale Elementary, Wakefield, and Southwest Middle School).  A variety of program modifications were made in schools on School Improvement as a result of the audit findings .  One major common finding from the audits was that effective questions strategies were not being routinely used in the audited schools. The modification made was to bring in an expert on questioning strategies (Dr. Lee Hannel-author of Highly - -------- --- --- Effective Questioning: Developing the Seven Steps of Critical Thinking) to lead a workshop for all LRSD principals. 2003-04  All grade level teachers were trained in the use of these new curriculum resources that were developed by the math staff and teachers during the August, 2003 , preschool conference.  Item analyses of the 4th Grade Benchmark Exam showed that the statistics and probability strand was the lowest area for students.  A program modification made was to strengthen concept development in probability by added a replacement unit on probability from Marilyn Burns' s materials. Twenty-six primary teachers and coaches and twenty-five intermediate teachers and coaches participated in full-day training on the Marilyn Burns materials.  Three elementary schools on School hnprovement Status collaborate to bring in Dr. Hannel to provide training for all teachers in the schools.  Dr. Hannel provided full day training for all elementary principals.  21 of 24 principals responded that they were interested in having the questioning strategies training for all faculty in their schools.  Additional schools received School Support Audits-Chicot, Bale, Mitchell.  Program Modifications made by selected schools were to hire math coaches to assist with professional development and training related to implementation of the elementary mathematics curriculum.  Uneven achievement among schools was evident in the results of the 2002-03 4th Grade Benchmark Exam.  A Program Modification strategy used was to hire Dr. Linda Griffith to check the alignment of the mathematics curriculum, grades K-8, to the State Framework. The results of this alignment will include recommendations for improving the alignment in the curriculum. Program Modifications Based on Informal Program Evaluation Secondary Mathematics 2001-02              Item analyses of 6th , 8th , Algebra Land Geometry Benchmark Data for 2001-02 Continued District-wide end-of-quarter tests for Algebra I - Pre-Calculus District-wide end-of-module tests for grades 6-8 TI-83 plus calculator training provided for all secondary math teachers Full implementation of high quality standards-based instruction/materials in math for all students in grades K-12 District leveraged support of professional development for all math teachers by providing funds to pay substitute teachers and stipends for teachers receiving trainings Lead teachers continued to provide technical assistance inside and outside the classroom by conducting professional development workshops and classroom observations; Continued partnership with University of Arkansas at Little Rock (UALR.) to develop and offer graduate courses based on the needs of the District. The following course was developed and offered during the 2001-02 SY: o Strategies for Teaching Geometry Developed and distributed pacing guides for secondary mathematics and courses to address the issue of student mobility within the District High school mathematics courses (Algebra I - Precalculus) were revised to reflect a closer alignment with the national and state standards and :frameworks; The SMART (Summer Mathematics Advanced Readiness Training) program is an academic student support program for students who will be enrolled in Algebra I the upcoming fall semester. Project THRIVE, the follow-up component of SMART, is a Saturday academy for students currently enrolled in Algebra I. These programs are aligned with the State Goals for Algebra I. Algebra I EOC results of students who participate in these programs are compared with the overall District results o SMART /Project THRIVE served more than 200 students in Algebra The agendas for horizontal team meetings (each grade/subject level 6th gradeCalculus) are developed around the results of the benchmark exams. Teachers concentrate on areas of weakness for students and work on modifications in instructional strategies to improve those areas. In addition, trends and patterns are studied to measure the impact of instructional practices in the classroom. Implemented instruction in Algebra I through Riverdeep software in all high schools 2002-03  Changed format of pre-school conference meeting to involve more teachers doing presentations on standards-based activities;  Purchased Texas Instruments APPs Suite for Algebra I for all middle and high schools; - - --- - ------ ----- - -    -  : ..   Provided training from College Board Pacesetter for Algebra I - Pre-calculus teachers - over 80% of secondary math teachers were trained  Continued District-wide end-of-quarter test for 6th grade - Calculus;  Continued to provide professional development for all secondary math teachers on topics including: o Riverdeep Interactive Software o TI-83 plus calculators o UALR Graduate Courses  Strategies for Teaching Algebra  Integrating the Graphing Calculator  Revised and enacted procedures for ensuring that students who are Limited English Proficient (LEP) achieve the curriculum content standards and benchmarks established by the State of Arkansas and LRSD;  Continued to implement high-quality standards-based instruction for grades 6-12 mathematics;  Continued to hold monthly vertical team meetings for secondary math teachers  Held horizontal team meetings (one per semester) for each secondary math course; 2003-04  Classroom sets of graphing calculators provided for all Algebra I- Calculus teachers;  Offered UALR graduate course on Using Handheld Technology to Enhance the Mathematics Classroom- used the TI-Navigator system;  Continued vertical and horizontal team meetings including 6th -8th  Workshop by Dr. Linda Griffith for calculus teachers on integrating calculator to teach calculus;  Continued end-of-quarter tests;  6th -8th grade curriculum revised to reflect a closer alignment with the national and state standards and frameworks; Marcelline Carr and Vanessa Cleaver FY 2002-03 Actions of the LRSD Elementary Literacy Department related to Literacy Program Evaluation The LRSD Elementary Literacy Department continued to provide professional development (ELLA, EFFECTIVE LITERACY, Reading Recovery) to all LRSD schools to support implementation of the LRSD Pre-K-3 Literacy Plan. The Elementary Literacy Department examined the Spring 2002 CRT Literacy data to identify the schools most in need of assistance in the area ofliteracy with particular attention to the academic achievement of African American students and their needs. The data indicated that the writing program was the weak component of the literacy instructional program. The Elementary Literacy Department provided staff development related to writing instruction, and the writing programs in schools were modified to include \"best practices.\" The Spring 2003 CRT Literacy data from several schools reflected the schools' efforts to improve their students' academic achievement in writing. The District used the assessment data to also provide the low performing schools with the opportunity to participate in the LRSD Reading First Project. The project, which is federally funded, provides significant funding to schools to implement research-based instructional strategies. Twelve schools chose to participate in the project to begin in the fall of 2003 . The project requires the schools to follow an assessment schedule related to program improvement. Because of lack of movement in student achievement in literacy, three schools on school improvement decided to move from the Success for All program to the research-based instruction recommended in Reading First. FY 2003-04 August - December 2003 Response to the Literacy Program Evaluation The Elementary Literacy Department reviewed the literacy program evaluation report developed by Dr. Ross and developed a plan to continue program evaluation in the future which included the following:   Continue the use of focus groups for each of the professional development programs (ELLA, Effective Literacy, Reading Recovery, Literacy Coaches, Success for All) and develop a table of the most and least effective elements. The information from the focus groups will then be used to modify the District's professional development plan. Compare student data from the CRT and District assessments in each school to compare the academic achievement of African-American students with others as related to the instructional program and provide specific professional development based on the identified needs of the students. ...  EXHIBIT ID The staff also reviewed the section of the report related to the most effective and least effective elements of each staff development offered by the District. The following actions were taken to address the weaknesses of the professional development:  Provided additional guided reading materials to all schools to support small group instruction to ensure equitable instruction for all students.  Provided a diverse collection of books to low perfonning schools to ensure that a variety of texts is available for independent reading.  Modified the testing schedule ( except in Reading Excellence and Reading First schools) to accommodate the need for a more streamlined assessment plan. Literacy Achievement Data Review Dr. Ed Williams met with the Elementary Literacy Department regarding the 2003 Primary Literacy Benchmark Exam with attention to the academic achievement of African American students as compared to other students. Schools most in need were identified and assigned to specific Literacy Specialists who had the task of reviewing the testing data more closely with the assigned schools. The Elementary Literacy Department employed the services of a consultant to discuss with the Literacy Specialists the most effective approach to use with the schools in examining their data and using it to make program modifications or changes. After the consultant's visit, the staff developed a plan for working with the schools. Assistance provided to the schools was varied based on the needs of the school but included inservice on the Primary Benchmark Exam and data analysis. In some schools, the principal and staff had already examined the data and outside assistance was not requested. Results of the data review confirmed that the professional development provided by the Elementary Literacy Department should include heavy emphasis on content area reading and writing. In addition to the professional development being offered on an ongoing basis to teachers grades 2-4, the Elementary Literacy Department and the Social Studies Department began working collaboratively to provide the training, resources, and materials for 5th grade teachers to integrate reading and social studies instruction. Three training sessions were held in January 2004 to model for teachers how to integrate the two areas. LRSD Reading First Project Schools The Reading First Project Schools have been visited several times during the year (2003-04) by the LSRD Reading First Coordinator, District Literacy Specialists, and the ADE Reading First Technical Assistant. The purpose of the visits is to provide assistance and to monitor the instructional program of the schools. Monitoring was done using a structured observation protocol and assistance was provided to schools in various ways such as the following:  Classroom demonstrations  Classroom observations with post observation conference  Colleague visits to exemplary classrooms  Sessions for problem-solving various aspects of the instructional program L 3 - The Reading First Literacy Coaches and classroom teachers administered assessments in addition to those required by the district. In the fall of 2003 kindergarten students were given the DIBELS letter identification; first grade students were given the letter identification and phoneme segmentation tests; and the second and third grade students were given the oral reading fluency test. The coaches and classroom teachers used this information to determine students in need of intervention, and intervention plans were developed for each school. Progress monitoring was conducted on those students considered at risk or some risk in order to evaluate the effectiveness of the interventions and to make needed changes. In January 2004 kindergarten students were given the DIBELS letter identification and phoneme segmentation; first grade students were given the DIBELS phoneme segmentation and oral reading fluency test; and second and third grade students were given the DIBELS oral reading fluency test. The Developmental Spelling test was also administered to K-3 students in January 2004. The Literacy Coaches entered all of the LSRD Reading First schools' data and intervention plans into the Arkansas Reading First Data Bank. Pat Busbea and Renee Dawson, Reading First Technical Assistants monitored the data input and the development and implementation of the intervention plans. Because the Reading First Schools are predominantly African American, particular attention is being given to how the students are responding to the intervention and technical assistance is provided to schools when the data indicates it is needed. Professional Development Specialized Training Based on examination of CRT, DRA and Observation Survey data, as well as teacher observation, it was determined that support and services were needed in the following areas of literacy in the lowperforming schools: phonemic awareness/phonics, spelling, oral language, and reading comprehension. Both local and nationally recognized experts in these areas of literacy were contracted to provide professional development to teachers of PreK through Grade 5. Ongoing Professional Development Ongoing professional development in literacy instruction is made available to all PreK - Grade 5 teachers. This professional development, a component of the State Smart Start Initiative, includes: Early Literacy Learning in Arkansas (ELLA) for grades K-2 Effective Literacy for grades 2-4 The LRSD Effective Literacy 5 for grade 5 Pre Early Literacy Learning in Arkansas (PreELLA) Pre-Kindergarten. Benchmark Preparation In response to requests from principals of the identified schools, District literacy specialists provided State Benchmark Exam preparation training to the teachers of grades 3-5 focused on the areas of - \"Writing On Demand\" and \"Constructed Response\" . Technical Assistance Technical Assistance in Literacy was provided to classroom teachers at the Elementary Schools identified for School Improvement. The focus and the intensity of the assistance were based on the particular needs of each teacher related to instruction during the 2  hour Literacy Block - Reading Workshop, Writing Workshop and Word Study. Reading Specialists visited each classroom in need of assistance to meet with the teacher. The specialist and teacher identified the specific needs from the following areas:  Physical Setting/Context for Instruction Explicit Phonics/Spelling/Word Study Literature Circles/Literature Discussion Groups Guided Reading Instruction Shared Reading Shared Writing Strategy-Based Mini Lessons Literacy Comers Teacher Read Aloud Writing Workshop Reading Workshop Independent Reading Benchmark Prep The specialists then addressed the areas identified, including: setting up Literacy Comers, rearranging classrooms, organizing and categorizing reading materials, teaching students in both whole and small group, modeling instructional approaches, demonstrating the use of materials, assessing students and developing instructional plans. Professional books, independent reading books and sets of books for guided reading, as well as organizational materials and center supplies are also provided. Approximately 20 of the schools have employed literacy coaches to help support and accelerate change in literacy instruction to improve the achievement of all students in the area of literacy. ---- - - - - - - --------- 4 2001-2002 Program Modifications Based on Informal Program Evaluation Secondary Literacy 1. Teachers attended after school meetings with director to examine data and conduct analysis of scores of ACT AAP tests. 2. English faculty of each school spent a day together with English director and building principa,I in session devoted to best practices for improvement of Ii teracy program. January - March 2002. 3. All building assistant principals at middle school were inserviced by director in literacy program in order to provide for more consistent supervision and coordination by including all administrators in literacy program. 4. Monthly collaboration sessions were held at all middle schools, taking turns hosting, with dedicated topics related to modifying literacy program and practices. 5. Recognizing that secondary teachers have never been trained in the teaching of reading, Dee Bench, consultant from Denver Coalition of Business and Education was employed to lead staff development during summer of '02 for teachers to modify reading strategies and instruction. Four weeks of training took place with teachers (approximately 75) from all four core subjects in attendance. This summer inservice was a modification to include all cross curricular teachers in literacy program. 2002-2003 1. Teachers met with director to assist in production of curriculum for writing in order to be able to consistently deliver quality program elements. Evaluation of current practice and focus on optimum results were goals. Spring - Summer '02. New Writing Curriculum was put into use 02-03. Teachers were inserviced school by school during preschool work days on use of new curriculum. Committee of teachers for curriculum development: Brenda Bankston, Mabelvale Middle School Barbara Brandon, Southwest Middle School Lisa Lewis, Pulaski Heights Middle School Sarah Schutte, Cloverdale Middle School Alison Hargis, Central High School Dr. Rhonda Fowler, Central High School Emily Lewis, Parkview High School Carol Carter, Hall High School Peggy Thompson, Fair High School Sandra Nichols, McClellan High School Karen Shofner, McClellan High School 2. Director met with building principals during early morning sessions to introduce new curriculum for purposes of effectively evaluating classroom instruction and to provide basis for collaborative program evaluation. Fall '02. 3. Analysis of data from all tests and sessions with individual schools to modify areas of emphasis according to areas of need. It was discovered that our students do well on the ~  EXHIBIT I F mechanics and usage areas while the writing in content areas is weaker. Strategies were developed to practice and teach these skills. 4. Practice kits were developed by the English office and distributed to every middle school teacher for use in modification of literacy program in terms of test preparation. 5. Consultation with outside expert in reading comprehension for older readers to evaluate next steps and current status of lowest achieving students. Summer '02- ' 03 . (Need for literacy coaches in high school was determined and, as a result, three are now in place at three lo:west performing high schools , based on ACT AAP.) 6. Teachers met during swnmer 2003 to evaluate and modify urriculum producing an amending document. Survey given to all English teachers prior to meeting and results discussed and useful for changes made. Committee to revise English Curriculum: Wes Zeigler, Southwest Middle School Lisa Lewis, Pulaski Heights Middle School Billie Wallace, Parkview High School Beverly Maddox, Henderson Middle School Peggy Thompson, Fair High School Louisa Rook, Cloverdale Middle School Carol Carter, Hall High School Joan Bender, ALC Jennifer Moore, Forest Heights Middle School Alison Hargis, Central High School Cherry Robinson, McClellan High School 7. ESL Supervisor and director met to discuss and evaluate materials as they relate to program's effectiveness for ESL and low-level learners. Materials were purchased for these students as a result. Summer '03. 8. Consultant from Denver Coalition returned for one week of further training in reading instruction strategies for secondary students. 2003-2004 1. Based on being placed on School Improvement list, Associate Superintendent and director met to discuss literacy program at low performing middle school and to write plan for improvement following detailed audit. 2. Director has met with middle school principals and high school principals separately to discuss progress and evaluate future steps for increasing effectiveness of program and greater achievement of lower-achieving students. . September '03 . 3. Personnel involved with audit of middle school met with building principal and vice principal to evaluate literacy program and discuss focus for improving student achievement through literacy program. 4. Bi-Monthly meetings to evaluate programs and problems and collaborate on strategies for improvement held with director and high school literacy coaches. Five meetings held, August - October '03 . 5. Session was held for disaggregating data - school by school and teacher by teacher - for recent performances on SAT 9 and ACT AAP to evaluate successes and areas and students and teachers needing improvement for high schools. August - September '03. - ---- - ---------- ---- 6. Meeting with department chairs and director to disaggregate data for middle school to evaluate successes and denote areas needing improvement in program. Sept. '03 . 7. SREB consultant meeting with literacy coaches to evaluate effectiveness of test preparation strategies and plan for improvements. Sept. '03 . 8. In response to data, sessions have been held at most schools with some or all of faculty in open-ended responses. Teachers have made many modifications to classroom instruction based on the experiential sessions involving reading, writing, and scoring with a rubric. 9. Implem~tation ofreading intervention for lowest performing ninth and eighth graders at three high schools and two middle schools began. One middle school uses same intervention for sixth and seventh as well. 10. Information and evaluation session held February 04 for all building principals and key administrators on reading intervention with proposals for expansion of program in 04-05 . 11 . All middle schools have committed to a day long inservice for their English teachers to review workshop structure for literacy program. April - May 04. On-going 1. Director and Middle School Specialist meet often to discuss and evaluate progress, problems, and to set trainings, meetings, and interventions to correct and further progress . Attention to both lowest achievers and highest achievers is focus of discussions. Calendars are aligned and coordinated at these meetings. 2. Director and Middle School Specialist meet after school visits to evaluate implementation of literacy program strategies and content and to determine plans for improvement, especially as it relates to lower-achieving students. Weekly, at least. 3. Director communicates often and as requested to address individual problems in buildings with principals and teachers. 4. Middle School Specialist works intensely with new teachers to improve implementation of curriculum and literacy program. 5. Continue to provide training in preparing teachers in ACTAAP open-ended responses. 6. Middle School Specialist working closely with social studies department in providing literacy best practice training to assist in reading in social studies content. 7. Participation in faculty meetings by director and specialist to modify program implementation across curriculum. 8. Increase efforts to provide literacy coaches in all secondary schools. 9. Create, distribute and compile data from a survey evaluating the effectiveness of the literacy coaches. (In May 04 set date for survey June 04) 10. Develop an action plan for providing specific inservices for high school English teachers Spring 2004. 11. Department Chairs meet monthly to discuss hurdles, issues, celebrations, and to communicate openly about the literacy programs. These meetings are separate for middle school and high school. These meetings serve as a means of communicating curriculum items, special events, new developments, and reminders to all English teachers from the district office as well as collaboration. Secondary Literacy Evaluation Team January 16, 2004 Suzi Davis, Chair Prograi Modifications as a Result of Analysis of the CREP Report  Continue to provide training to whole faculties in ACT AAP open-ended responses and rubric scoring. January, February, March, 2004  continue cross-curricular unit development and training in workshops  Communicate with principals on the need for intense support for the literacy program. January,2004  Increase efforts to provide literacy coaches for all secondary schools  Create, distribute and compile data from a survey evaluating the effectiveness of the literacy coaches. A date will be set in May for a June meeting to discuss the results of this survey.  All eight middle schools have committed to a day long inservice for their English teachers to review the Read/Write Workshop structure. During this inservice, plans will be made for collaborations among schools for next year. April, 2004  Develop an action plan for providing specific inservices for high school English teachers. Spring 2004 Mark A. Hagemeier Assistant Attorney General M. Samuel Jones, III Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 2000 NationsBank Bldg. 200 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 John W. Walker John Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Mark Burnette Attorney at Law 1010 W. 3rd Little Rock, AR 72201 THE ATTORNEY GENERAL STATE OF ARKANSAS MIKE BEEBE March 16, 2004 RECEIVED MAR 1 7 2004 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING Direct dial: (501) 682-3643 E-mail: mark.hagemeier@ag.state.ar.us Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 2000 Regions Center 400 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Ann Marshall Office of Desegregation Monitoring 1 Union National Plaza 124 W. Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Re: Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District, et al. USDC No. LR-C-82-866 Dear Counselors and Ms. Marshall: Please find enclosed the State's Motion to Withdraw as Counsel and for Substitution of Counsel which we filed today. 323 Center Street Suite 200  Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 682-2007  FAX (501) 682-2591 Internet Website http://www.ag.state.ar.us/ Page 2 of2 March 16, 2004 MAH Enclosures ~~-~  MARK A. HAGEMEIER r Assistant Attorney General - - - - _ _ ___________ ___ __. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT v. No. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al. MOTION TO WITHDRAW AS COUNSEL AND FOR SUBSTITUTION OF COUNSEL RECEIVED MAR 1 7 2004 . OfflCE DF ~ nrm fdDN!fOfl:Ji'J:G PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS Separate Defendant Arkansas Department of Education, by and through their attorneys, Attorney General Mike Beebe and Assistant Attorney Mark A. Hagemeier, for their Motion to Withdraw as Counsel and for Substitution of Counsel, state: 1. Chief Deputy Attorney General Dennis Hansen is no longer actively participating in day-to-day litigation at the Attorney General's office. 2. This matter has been reassigned to Assistant Attorney General Mark A. Hagemeier, who now represents the Arkansas Department of Education and should be substituted as counsel of record. 3. Defendant requests that the Court and parties direct all future services and correspondence to Mark A. Hagemeier. WHEREFORE, premises considered, Defendant respectfully requests that the Court grant the Motion to Withdraw as Counsel and for Substitution of Counsel and that Mark A. Hagemeier be substituted as their counsel of record. By: Respectfully Submitted, MIKE BEEBE Attorney General Assistant Attorney Gen 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, AR 72201-2610 (501) 682-3643 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Mark A. Hagemeier, Assistant Attorney General, do hereby certify that I have served the foregoing by depositing a copy in the United States Mail, postage prepaid, this _J_.b_ day of March 2004, addressed to: Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 M. Samuel Jones, III Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings LLP 200 W. Capitol, Suite 2300 Little Rock, AR 72201-3699 Ann Brown Marshall  ODM One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 2 Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 2000 Regions Center 400 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 John W. Walker John Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Mark Burnette Attorney at Law 1010 W. 3rd Little Rock, AR 72201 - - - - - - - ------------------~    This project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resources.\u003c/dcterms_description\u003e\n   \n\n\u003c/dcterms_description\u003e   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\u003c/item\u003e\n\u003c/items\u003e"},{"id":"bcas_p1532coll1_12493","title":"Frances Ross interview with Virginia Grobmyer Mitchell","collection_id":"bcas_p1532coll1","collection_title":"Butler Center for Arkansas Studies Audio Collection","dcterms_contributor":["Ross, Frances"],"dcterms_spatial":["United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044"],"dcterms_creator":["Mitchell, Virginia Grobmyer"],"dc_date":["2004-03-02"],"dcterms_description":["Frances Ross interviews Virginia Grobmyer Mitchell about her life in Little Rock and the STOP (Stop This Outrageous Purge) campaign during the 1957 Central High desegregation crisis.","On-site file includes transcript, biographies, and audio recording."],"dc_format":["audio/mpeg"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":null,"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : University of Arkansas at Little Rock Center for Arkansas History and Culture"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Oral History collection, 1973-2001 (UALR.ORH)","Biographical"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Segregation in education--Arkansas--Little Rock","Women--Arkansas--Little Rock"],"dcterms_title":["Frances Ross interview with Virginia Grobmyer Mitchell"],"dcterms_type":["Sound"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/p1532coll1/id/12493"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["audiocassettes"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"hbcula_rwwl_1648","title":"22nd Annual SCLC/W.O.M.E.N. Civil Rights Heritage Tour, March 2004","collection_id":"hbcula_rwwl","collection_title":"Digital Collection of Robert W. Wooodruff Library (AUC)","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, Georgia, Fulton County, Atlanta, 33.749, -84.38798"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["2004-03"],"dcterms_description":["This video features an introduction to the 22nd Annual SCLC/W.O.M.E.N. Civil Rights Heritage Tour by founder and convener Evelyn G. Lowery. Lowery speaks about the purpose of the civil rights Heritage Tour as well as providing a preview of the historic sites to be visited. Her narration is accompanied by music, pictures, and a detailed schedule of the tour."],"dc_format":["image/jpeg"],"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 civil rights workers","African Americans--Civil rights","Protest movements","Special events"],"dcterms_title":["22nd Annual SCLC/W.O.M.E.N. Civil Rights Heritage Tour, March 2004"],"dcterms_type":["MovingImage"],"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/rwwl/id/1648"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["All works in this collection either are protected by copyright and/or are the property of the Robert W. Woodruff Library, and/or the copyright holder as appropriate. To order a reproduction or to inquire about permission to publish, please contact the Archives Research Center at: archives@auctr.edu With the web URL or handle identification number."],"dcterms_medium":["videotapes"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_138","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":["2004-03","2004-04"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Education--Arkansas","Little Rock (Ark.). Office of Desegregation Monitoring","School integration--Arkansas","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/138"],"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.\nTOM COURTWAY Interim Director State Board of Education JoNell Caldwell, Chair Lillie Rock Shelby Hillman, Vice Chair Carlisle Sherry Burrow Jonesboro Luke Gordy Van Buren Calvin King Marianna -Lawson Bentonville MaryJane Rebick Liule Rock Diane Tatum Pine Bluff Jeanna Westmoreland 4rkadelphia Arkansas Department of Education #4 Capitol Mall, Lutle Rock, AR 72201-1071 501-682-4475 March 31, 2004 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 Ms. Ann Marshall One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 http:/ /arkedu.stale.ar.us RECEIVED APR - 1 2004 . OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING RE: Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District, et al. U.S. District Court No. 4:82-CV-866 Dear Gentlemen and Ms. Marshall: 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 2004 in the above-referenced case. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at your convenience. Sincerely, ~4.~ General Counsel Arkansas Department of Education SS:law cc: Mark Hagemeier UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION RECEIVED APR - 1 200\\ OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. No. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al DEFENDANTS NOTICE OF FILING In accordance with the Court's Order of December 10, 1993, the Arkansas Department of Education hereby gives notice of the filing of the ADE's Project Management Tool for March 2004. Respectfully Submitted, cottSmith, #92251 Attorney, 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, 2004, 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. SamuelJones,m 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 Ms. Ann Marshall One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. No. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al DEFENDANTS NOTICE OF FILING In accordance with the Court's Order of December 10, 1993, the Arkansas Department of Education hereby gives notice of the filing of the ADE's Project Management Tool for March 2004. Respectfully Submitted, cottSmith, #92251 Attorney, 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, 2004, 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 Ms. Ann Marshall One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 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 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENORS KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS ADE'S PROJECT MANAGEMENT TOOL In compliance with the Court's Order of December 10, 1993, the Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) submits the following Project Management Tool to the parties and the Court. This document describes the progress the ADE has made since March 15, 1994, in complying with provisions of the Implementation Plan and itemizes the ADE's progress against timelines presented in the Plan. IMPLEMENTATION PHASE ACTIVITY I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS A. Use the previous year's three quarter average daily membership to calculate MFPA (State Equalization) for the current school year. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of March 31, 2004 Based on the information available at February 29, 2004, the ADE calculated the Equalization Funding for FY 03/04, subject to periodic adjustments. B. Include all Magnet students in the resident District's average daily membership for calculation. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 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, 2004 Based on the information available at February 29, 2004, the ADE calculated for FY 03/04, subject to periodic adjustments. C. Process and distribute State MFPA. 1 . Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of March 31, 2004 On February 29, 2004, distributions of State Equalization Funding for FY 03/04 were as follows: LRSD - $33,871 , 179 NLRSD - $17,865,960 PCSSD - $32,434,059 The allotments of State Equalization FundinQ calculated for FY 03/04 at February 29, 2004, subject to periodic adjustments, were as follows: LRSD - $53,226,139 NLRSD - $28,075,080 PCSSD - $50,967,808 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, 2004 Based on the information available, the ADE calculated at February 29, 2004 for FY 03/04, subject to periodic adjustments. E. Desegregation Staff Attorney reports the Magnet Operational Charge to the Fiscal Services Office. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing, as ordered by the Court. 2 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) E. Desegregation Staff Attorney reports the Magnet Operational Charge to the Fiscal Services Office. (Continued) 2. Actual as of March 31, 2004 Based on the information available, the ADE calculated at February 29, 2004 for FY 03/04, subject to periodic adjustments. It should be noted that currently the Magnet Review Committee is reporting this information instead of the staff attorney as indicated in the Implementation Plan. F. Calculate state aid due the LASO based upon the Magnet Operational Charge. 1 . Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of March 31, 2004 Based on the information available, the ADE calculated at February 29, 2004 for FY 03/04, subject to periodic adjustments. G. Process and distribute state aid for Magnet Operational Charge. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of March 31, 2004 Distributions for FY 03/04 at February 29, 2004, totaled $7,919,519. Allotment calculated for FY 03/04 was $12,459,153 subject to periodic adjustments. H. Calculate the amount of M-to-M incentive money to which each school district is entitled. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of March 31, 2004 Calculated for FY 02/03, subject to periodic adjustments. I. Process and distribute M-to-M incentive checks. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, September - June. 3 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) I. Process and distribute M-to-M incentive checks. (Continued) 2. Actual as of March 31, 2004 Distributions for FY 03/04 at February 29, 2004, 2003 were: LRSD - $2,312,167 NLRSD - $1,802,672 PCSSD - $6,094,855 The allotments calculated for FY 03/04 at February 29, 2004, subject to periodic adjustments, were: LRSD - $4, 192,396 NLRSD - $3,832,804 PCSSD - $11,854,856 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, 2004 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, 2004 In January 2003, General Finance was notified to pay the second one-third payment for FY 02/03 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. L. ADE pays districts three equal installments of their proposed budget. 1 . Projected Ending Date Ongoing, annually. 4 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) L. ADE pays districts three equal installments of their proposed budget. (Continued) 2. Actual as of March 31, 2004 In September 2003, General Finance made the last one-third payment to the Districts for their FY 02/03 transportation budget. The budget is now paid out in three equal installments. At September 2003, the following had been paid for FY 02/03: LRSD - $3,835,562.00 NLRSD - $742,399.62 PCSSD - $2,252,050.92 In September 2003, General Finance made the first 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 2003, the following had been paid for FY 03/04: LRSD - $1,243,841.33 NLRSD - $263,000.00 PCSSD - $727,406.63 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 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, 2004 In August 1997, the ADE transportation coordinator reviewed each district's Magnet and M-to-M transportation costs for FY 96/97. In July 1998, each district was asked to submit an estimated budget for the 98/99 school year. 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, 2004 (Continued) 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. 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, 2004 In FY 94/95, the State purchased 52 buses at a cost of $1,799,431 which were added to or replaced existing Magnet and M-to-M buses in the Districts. The buses were distributed to the Districts as follows: LRSD - 32\nNLRSD - 6\nand PCSSD - 14. The ADE purchased 64 Magnet and M-to-M buses at a cost of $2,334,800 in FY 95/96. The buses were distributed accordingly: LRSD - 45\nNLRSD - 7\nand PCSSD - 12. In May 1997, the ADE purchased 16 Magnet and M-to-M buses at a cost of $646,400. 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, 2004 (Continued) 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. 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. 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, 2004 (Continued) 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 47 passenger and 1 of the 65 passenger buses. 0. Process and distribute compensatory education payments to LRSD as required by page 23 of the Settlement Agreement. 1. Projected Ending Date 2. July 1 and January 1, of each school year through January 1, 1999. Actual as of March 31, 2004 Obligation fulfilled in FY 96/97. P. Process and distribute additional payments in lieu of formula to LRSD as required by page 24 of the Settlement Agreement. 1. Projected Ending Date Payment due date and ending July 1, 1995. 2. Actual as of March 31, 2004 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, 2004 Final payment was distributed July 1994. 8 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) R. Upon loan request by LRSD accompanied by a promissory note, the ADE makes loans to LRSD. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing through July 1, 1999. See Settlement Agreement page 24. 2. Actual as of March 31, 2004 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. T. 1. Projected Ending Date Payment due date and ending July 1, 1995. 2. Actual as of March 31, 2004 Obligation fulfilled in FY 95/96. Process and distribute compensatory education payments to NLRSD as required by page 31 of the Settlement Agreement. 1. Projected Ending Date July 1 of each school year through June 30, 1996. 2. Actual as of March 31, 2004 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, 2004 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. 9 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) u. Process and distribute check to Magnet Review Committee. (Continued) 2. Actual as of March 31, 2004 (Continued) 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. V. Process and distribute payments for Office of Desegregation Monitoring. 1. Projected Ending Date Not applicable. 2. Actual as of March 31, 2004 Distribution in July 1997 for FY 97/98 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 97/98. Distribution in July 1998 for FY 98/99 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 98/99. Distribution in July 1999 for FY 99/00 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 99/00. Distribution in July 2000 for FY 00/01 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 00/01. Distribution in August 2001 for FY 01 /02 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 01/02. Distribution in July 2002 for FY 02/03 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 02/03. Distribution in July 2003 for FY 03/04 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 03/04. 10 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 , 2004 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. 11 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, 2004 (Continued) The Semiannual Monitoring Report was completed and filed with the Court on July 15, 1996 with copies distributed to the parties. Announced monitoring visits of the Cycle 1 schools began on October 28, 1996 and concluded in December 1996. In January 1997, presentations were made to the State Board of Education, the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee, and the parties to review the draft Semiannual Monitoring Report. The monitoring instrument and process were evaluated for their usefulness in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on achievement disparities. In February 1997, the Semiannual Monitoring Report was filed. Unannounced monitoring visits began on February 3, 1997 and concluded in May 1997. In March 1997, letters were sent to the Districts regarding data requirements for the July 1997 Semiannual Monitoring Report and the additional discipline data element that was requested by the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee. Desegregation data collection workshops were conducted in the Districts from March 28, 1997 to April 7, 1997. A meeting was conducted on April 3, 1997 to finalize plans for the July 15, 1997 Semiannual Monitoring Report. Onsite visits were made to Cycle 1 schools who did not submit accurate and timely data on discipline, M-to-M transfers, and policy. The July 15, 1997 Semiannual Monitoring Report and its executive summary were finalized in June 1997. In July 1997, the Semiannual Monitoring Report and its executive summary were filed with the court, and the ADE sponsored a School Improvement Conference. On July 10, 1997, copies of the Semiannual Monitoring Report and its executive summary were made available to the Districts for their review prior to filing it with the Court. In August 1997, procedures and schedules were organized for the monitoring of the Cycle 2 schools in FY 97/98. 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, 2004 (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. 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, 2004 (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. 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, 2004 (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. 15 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of March 31, 2004 (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. 16 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of March 31, 2004 (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 AD E'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. 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, 2004 (Continued) On April 24, 2003, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Laws passed by the legislature need to be checked to make sure none of them impede desegregation. Ray Lumpkin was chairman of the last committee to check legislation. Since he left, we will discuss the legislation with Clearence Lovell. The Desegregation ruling on unitary status for LRSD was discussed. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for July 10, 2003 at 1 :30 p.m. in room 201-A at the ADE. On August 28, 2003, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. The Desegregation ruling on unitary status for LRSD was discussed. The LRSD has been instructed to submit evidence showing progress in reducing disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. This is supposed to be done by March of 2004, so that the LRSD can achieve unitary status. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for October 9, 2003 at the ADE. On October 9, 2003, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Mark Hagemeier, Assistant Attorney General, discussed the Desegregation ruling on unitary status for LRSD. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for January 8, 2004 at the ADE. On October 16, 2003, ADE staff met with the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee at the State Capitol. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, and Dr. Charity Smith, Assistant Director for Accountability, presented the Chronology of activity by the ADE in complying with provisions of the Implementation Plan for the Desegregation Settlement Agreement. They also discussed the role of the ADE Desegregation Monitoring Section. Mr. Mark Hagemeier, Assistant Attorney General, and Scott Smith, ADE Staff Attorney, reported on legal issues relating to the Pulaski County Desegregation Case. Ann Marshall shared a history of activities by ODM, and their view of the activity of the school districts in Pulaski County. John Kunkel discussed Desegregation funding by the ADE. 18 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, 2004 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, 2004 To date, no action has been taken by the LRSD. 19 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, 2004 The information tor 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, 2004 The information tor 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, 2004 The information tor this item is detailed under Section IV.E. of this report. D. Submit proposals to the State Board of Education tor repeal of those regulations that are confirmed to be impediments to desegregation. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of March 31, 2004 The information tor this item is detailed under Section IV.E. of this report. 20 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, 2004 A committee within the ADE was formed in May 1995 to review and collect data on existing legislation and regulations identified by the parties as impediments to desegregation. The committee researched the Districts' concerns to determine if any of the rules, regulations, or legislation cited impede desegregation. The legislation cited by the Districts regarding loss funding and worker's compensation were not reviewed because they had already been litigated. In September 1995, the committee reviewed the following statutes, acts, and regulations: Act 113 of 1993\nADE Director's Communication 93-205\nAct 145 of 1989\nADE Director's Memo 91-67\nADE Program Standards Eligibility Criteria for Special Education\nArkansas Codes 6-18-206, 6-20-307, 6-20-319, and 6-17- 1506. In October 1995, the individual reports prepared by committee members in their areas of expertise and the data used to support their conclusions were submitted to the ADE administrative team for their review. A report was prepared and submitted to the State Board of Education in July 1996. The report concluded that none of the items reviewed impeded desegregation. As of February 3, 1997, no laws or regulations have been determined to impede desegregation efforts. Any new education laws enacted during the Arkansas 81 st Legislative Session will be reviewed at the close of the legislative session to ensure that they do not impede desegregation. In April 1997, copies of all laws passed during the 1997 Regular Session of the 81 st General Assembly were requested from the office of the ADE Liaison to the Legislature for distribution to the Districts for their input and review of possible impediments to their desegregation efforts. In August 1997, a meeting to review the statutes passed in the prior legislative session was scheduled for September 9, 1997. 21 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, 2004 (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. 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. (Continued) 2. Actual as of March 31, 2004 (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. 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, 2004 (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. 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, 2004 (Continued) On January 10, 2002, the ADE Committee to Repeal Statutes and Regulations that Impede Desegregation sent letters to the school districts in Pulaski County. The letters ask for input regarding any new laws or regulations that may impede desegregation. The districts were asked to respond by March 8, 2002. On March 5, 2002, A letter was sent from the LRSD which mentioned Act 17 48 and Act 1667 passed during the 83rd Legislative Session which may impede desegregation. These laws will be researched to determine if changes need to be made. A letter was sent from the NLRSD on March 19, noting that the district did not find any laws which impede desegregation. On April 26, 2002, A letter was sent for the PCSSD to the ADE, noting that the district did not find any laws which impede desegregation except the \"deannexation\" legislation which the District opposed before the Senate committee. On October 27, 2003, the ADE sent letters to the school districts in Pulaski County asking if there were any new laws or regulations that may impede desegregation. The districts were asked to review laws passed during the 84th Legislative Session, any new ADE rules or regulations, and district policies. 25 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, 2004 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, 2004 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, 2004 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 26 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of AD E'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, 2004 At each regular monthly meeting of the State Board of Education, the Board is provided copies of the most recent Project Management Tool (PMT) and an executive summary of the PMT for their review and approval. Only activities that are in addition to the Board's monthly review of the PMT are detailed below. In May 1995, the State Board of Education was informed of the total number of schools visited during the monitoring phase and the data collection process. Suggestions were presented to the State Board of Education on how recommendations could be presented in the monitoring reports. In June 1995, an update on the status of the pending Semiannual Monitoring Report was provided to the State Board of Education. In July 1995, the July Semiannual Monitoring Report was reviewed by the State Board of Education. On August 14, 1995, the State Board of Education was informed of the need to increase minority participation in the teacher scholarship program and provided tentative monitoring dates to facilitate reporting requests by the ADE administrative team and the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee. In September 1995, the State Board of Education was advised of a change in the PMT from a table format to a narrative format. The Board was also briefed about a meeting with the Office of Desegregation Monitoring regarding the PMT. In October 1995, the State Board of Education was updated on monitoring timelines. The Board was also informed of a meeting with the parties regarding a review of the Semiannual Monitoring Report and the monitoring process, and the progress of the test validation study. In November 1995, a report was made to the State Board of Education regarding the monitoring schedule and a meeting with the parties concerning the development of a common terminology for monitoring purposes. In December 1995, the State Board of Education was updated regarding announced monitoring visits. In January 1996, copies of the draft February Semiannual Monitoring Report and its executive summary were provided to the State Board of Education. 27 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of AD E'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, 2004 (Continued) During the months of February 1996 through May 1996, the PMT report was the only item on the agenda regarding the status of the implementation of the Monitoring Plan. In June 1996, the State Board of Education was updated on the status of the bias review study. In July 1996, the Semiannual Monitoring Report was provided to the Court, the parties, ODM, the State Board of Education, and the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee. In August 1996, the State Board of Education and the ADE administrative team were provided with copies of the test validation study prepared by Dr. Paul Williams. During the months of September 1996 through December 1996, the PMT was the only item on the agenda regarding the status of the implementation of the Monitoring Plan. On January 13, 1997, a presentation was made to the State Board of Education regarding the February 1997 Semiannual Monitoring Report, and copies of the report and its executive summary were distributed to all Board members. The Project Management Tool and its executive summary were addressed at the February 10, 1997 State Board of Education meeting regarding the ADE's progress in fulfilling their obligations as set forth in the Implementation Plan. In March 1997, the State Board of Education was notified that historical information in the PMT had been summarized at the direction of the Assistant Attorney General in order to reduce the size and increase the clarity of the report. The Board was updated on the Pulaski County Desegregation Case and reviewed the Memorandum Opinion and Order issued by the Court on February 18, 1997 in response to the Districts' motion for summary judgment on the issue of state funding for teacher retirement matching contributions. During the months of April 1997 through June 1997, the PMT was the only item on the agenda regarding the status of the implementation of the Monitoring Plan. The State Board of Education received copies of the July 15, 1997 Semiannual Monitoring Report and executive summary at the July Board meeting. 28 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of AD E'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, 2004 (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. 29 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of AD E'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, 2004 (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. 30 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of AD E'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, 2004 (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. 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, 2004 (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. 32 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of AD E'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, 2004 (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. 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, 2004 (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. 34 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project ManagementTool, and scrutiny of results of AD E'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, 2004 (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 Edcation reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of December. On February 10, 2003, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of January. On March 10, 2003, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of February. On April 14, 2003, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of March. On May 12, 2003, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of April. On June 9, 2003, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of May. On August 11, 2003, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the months of June and July. On September 8, 2003, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of August. On October 13, 2003, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of September. On November 10, 2003, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of October. 35 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of AD E'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 , 2004 (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. 36 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, 2004 During May 1995, team visits to Cycle 4 schools were conducted, and plans were developed for reviewing the Cycle 5 schools. In June 1995, the current Extended COE packet was reviewed, and enhancements to the Extended COE packet were prepared. In July 1995, year end reports were finalized by the Pulaski County field service specialists, and plans were finalized for reviewing the draft improvement plans of the Cycle 5 schools. In August 1995, Phase I - Cycle 5 school improvement plans were reviewed. Plans were developed for meeting with the Districts to discuss plans for Phase II - Cycle 1 schools of Extended COE, and a school improvement conference was conducted in Hot Springs. The technical review visits for the FY 95/96 year and the documentation process were also discussed. In October 1995, two computer programs, the Effective Schools Planner and the Effective Schools Research Assistant, were ordered for review, and the first draft of a monitoring checklist for Extended COE was developed. Through the Extended COE process, the field service representatives provided technical assistance based on the needs identified within the Districts from the data gathered. In November 1995, ADE personnel discussed and planned for the FY 95/96 monitoring, and onsite visits were conducted to prepare schools for the FY 95/96 team visits. Technical review visits continued in the Districts. In December 1995, announced monitoring and technical assistance visits were conducted in the Districts. At December 31, 1995, approximately 59% of the schools in the Districts had been monitored. Technical review visits were conducted during January 1996. In February 1996, announced monitoring visits and midyear monitoring reports were completed, and the field service specialists prepared for the spring NCA/COE peer team visits. 37 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, 2004 (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. 38 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, 2004 (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. 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, 2004 (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 inseNice 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, 2004 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 40 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) C. Through the ERIC system, conduct a literature search for research evaluating compensatory education programs. (Continued) 2. Actual as of March 31, 2004 An updated ERIC Search was conducted on May 15, 1995 to locate research on evaluating compensatory education programs. The ADE received the updated ERIC disc that covered material through March 1995. An ERIC search was conducted in September 30, 1996 to identify current research dealing with the evaluation of compensatory education programs, and the articles were reviewed. An ERIC search was conducted in April 1997 to identify current research on compensatory education programs and sent to the Cycle 1 principals and the field service specialists for their use. An Eric search was conducted in October 1998 on the topic of Compensatory Education and related descriptors. The search included articles with publication dates from 1997 through July 1998. D. Identify and research technical resources available to ADE and the Districts through programs and organizations such as the Desegregation Assistance Center in San Antonio, Texas. 1. Projected Ending Date Summer 1994 2. Actual as of March 31, 2004 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, 2004 The information for this item is detailed under Section VI.F. of this report. 41 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, 2004 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. 42 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of March 31, 2004 (Continued) On March 6-9, 1997, three members of the ADE's Technical Assistance Section attended the National Committee for School Desegregation Conference. The participants received training in strategies for Excellence and Equity: Empowerment and Training for the Future. Specific information was received regarding the current status of court-ordered desegregation, unitary status, and resegregation and distributed to the Districts and ADE personnel. The field service specialists attended workshops in March on ACT testing and school improvement to identify technical assistance resources available to the Districts and the ADE that will facilitate desegregation efforts. ADE personnel attended the Eighth Annual Conference on Middle Level Education in Arkansas presented by the Arkansas Association of Middle Level Education on April 6-8, 1997. The theme of the conference was Sailing Toward New Horizons. In May 1997, the field service specialists attended the NCA annual conference and an inservice session with Mutiu Fagbayi. An Implementation Oversight Committee member participated in the Consolidated COE Plan inservice training. In June and July 1997, field service staff attended an SAT-9 testing workshop and participated in the three-day School Improvement Conference held in Hot Springs. The conference provided the Districts with information on the COE school improvement process, technical assistance on monitoring and assessing achievement, availability of technology for the classroom teacher, and teaching strategies for successful student achievement. In August 1997, field service personnel attended the ASCD Statewide Conference and the AAEA Administrators Conference. On August 18, 1997, the bi-monthly Team V meeting was held and presentations were made on the Early Literacy Learning in Arkansas (ELLA) program and the Schools of the 21st Century program. In September 1997, technical assistance was provided to the Cycle 2 principals on data collection for onsite and offsite monitoring. ADE personnel attended the Region VI Desegregation Conference in October 1997. Current desegregation and educational equity cases and unitary status issues were the primary focus of the conference. On October 14, 1997, the bi-monthly Team V meeting was held in Paragould to enable members to observe a 21st Century school and a school that incorporates traditional and multi-age classes in its curriculum. 43 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of March 31, 2004 (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. 44 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of March 31, 2004 (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 ACTAAP program was presented during the preschool staff development activities for the Accelerated Learning Center in the LRSD. On September 13, 1999, professional development on ways to increase student achievement and the components of the new 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 ACTAAP program, and ACT 999 of 1999. On October 26, 1999, professional development on ways to increase student achievement was presented to LRSD personnel through a staff development training class. The workshop also covered the components of the new ACTAAP program, and ACT 999 of 1999. On December 7, 1999, professional development on ways to increase student achievement was scheduled for Southwest Middle School in the LRSD. The workshop was also set to cover the components of the new ACTAAP program, and ACT 999 of 1999. However, Southwest Middle School administrators had a need to reschedule, therefore the workshop will be rescheduled. 45 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of March 31, 2004 (Continued) On January 10, 2000, professional development on ways to increase student achievement was conducted for both Dr. Martin Luther King Magnet Elementary School \u0026amp; Little Rock Central High School. The workshops also covered the components of the new ACTAAP program, and ACT 999 of 1999. On March 1, 2000, professional development on ways to increase student achievement was conducted for all principals and district level administrators in the PCSSD. The workshop also covered the components of the new ACTAAP program, and ACT 999 of 1999. On April 12, 2000, professional development on ways to increase student achievement was conducted for the LRSD. The workshop also covered the components of the new ACTAAP program, and ACT 999 of 1999. Targeted staffs from the middle and junior high schools in the three districts in Pulaski County attended the Smart Step Summit on May 1 and May 2. Training was provided regarding the overview of the \"Smart Step\" initiative, \"Standard and Accountability in Action,\" and \"Creating Learning Environments Through Leadership Teams.\" The ADE provided training on the development of alternative assessment September 12-13, 2000. Information was provided regarding the assessment of Special Education and LEP students. Representatives from each district were provided the opportunity to select a team of educators from each school within the district to participate in professional development regarding Integrating Curriculum and Assessment K-12. The professional development activity was directed by the national consultant, Dr. Heidi Hays Jacobs, on September 14 and 15, 2000. The ADE provided professional development workshops from October 2 through October 13, 2000 regarding, \"The Write Stuff: Curriculum Frameworks, Content Standards and Item Development.\" Experts from the Data Recognition Corporation provided the training. Representatives from each district were provided the opportunity to select a team of educators from each school within the district to participate. The ADE provided training on Alternative Assessment Portfolio Systems by video conference for Special Education and LEP Teachers on November 17, 2000. Also, Alternative Assessment Portfolio System Training was provided for testing coordinators through teleconference broadcast on November 27, 2000. 46 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of March 31, 2004 (Continued) On December 12, 2000, the ADE provided training for Test Coordinators on end of course assessments in Geometry and Algebra I Pilot examination. Experts from the Data Recognition Corporation conducted the professional development at the Arkansas Teacher Retirement Building. The ADE presented a one-day training session with Dr. Cecil Reynolds on the Behavior Assessment for Children (BASC). This took place on December 7, 2000 at the NLRSD Administrative Annex. Dr. Reynolds is a practicing clinical psychologist. He is also a professor at Texas A \u0026amp; M University and a nationally known author. In the training, Dr. Reynolds addressed the following: 1) how to use and interpret information obtained on the direct observation form, 2) how to use this information for programming, 3) when to use the BASC, 4) when to refer for more or additional testing or evaluation, 5) who should complete the forms and when, (i.e., parents, teachers, students), 6) how to correctly interpret scores. This training was intended to especially benefit School Psychology Specialists, psychologists, psychological examiners, educational examiners and counselors. During January 22-26, 2001 the ADE presented the ACTAAP Intermediate (Grade 6) Benchmark Professional Development Workshop on Item Writing. Experts from the Data Recognition Corporation provided the training. Representatives from each district were invited to attend. On January 12, 2001 the ADE presented test administrators training for mid-year End of Course (Pilot) Algebra I and Geometry exams. This was provided for schools with block scheduling. On January 13, 2001 the ADE presented SmartScience Lessons and worked with teachers to produce curriculum. This was shared with eight Master Teachers. The SmartScience Lessons were developed by the Arkansas Science Teachers Association in conjunction with the Wilbur Mills Educational Cooperative under an Eisenhower grant provided by the ADE. The purpose of SmartScience is to provide K-6 teachers with activity-oriented science lessons that incorporate reading, writing, and mathematics skills. The following training has been provided for educators in the three districts in Pulaski County by the Division of Special Education at the ADE since January 2000: On January 6, 2000, training was conducted for the Shannon Hills Pre-school Program, entitled \"Things you can do at home to support your child's learning.\" This was presented by Don Boyd - ASERC and Shelley Weir. The school's director and seven parents attended. 47 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of March 31, 2004 (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; SeNices. 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. 48 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of March 31, 2004 (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 PilotTests. 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. 49 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of March 31, 2004 (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. 50 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of March 31, 2004 (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. 51 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of March 31, 2004 (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 seNices 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. 52 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of March 31, 2004 (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. 53 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of March 31, 2004 (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. 54 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of March 31, 2004 (Continued) The Twenty-First Annual Curriculum and Instruction Conference, co-sponsored by the Arkansas Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development and the Arkansas Department of Education, will be held June 24-26, 2002, at the Arlington Hotel in Hot Springs, Arkansas. \"Ignite Your Enthusiasm for Learning\" is the theme for this year's conference, which will feature educational consultant, Dr. Debbie Silver, as well as other very knowledgeable presenters. Additionally, there will be small group sessions on Curriculum Alignment, North Central Accreditation, Section 504, Building Level Assessment, Administrator Standards, Data Disaggregation, and National Board. The Educational Accountability Unit of the ADE hosted a workshop entitled \"Strategies for Increasing Achievement on the ACT AAP Benchmark Examination\" on June 13-14, 2002 at the Agora Center in Conway. The workshop was presented for schools in which 100% of students scored below the proficient level on one or more parts of the most recent Benchmark Examination. The agenda included presentations on 'The Plan-Do-Check-Act Instructional Cycle\" by the nationally known speaker Pat Davenport. ADE personnel provided an explanation of the MPH point program. Presentations were made by Math and Literacy Specialists. Dr. Charity Smith, Assistant Director for Accountability, gave a presentation about ACTAAP. Break out sessions were held, in which school districts with high scores on the MPH point program offered strategies and insights into 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. 55 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of March 31, 2004 (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 the Social Studies Classroom 2. Document Based (open-ended) Questioning Techniques 3. How to practice writing on a weekly basis without assigning a lengthy research report 4. Developing Higher Level Thinking Skills in order to produce active citizens, rather than passive, uninformed citizens 5. Using the Social Studies Framework 6. Identifying state and national Web Sites which contain Primary Sources for use in the classroom The 8:30 - 11 :30 session was for the 6 - 8 grade social studies teachers. The 12:30 - 3:00 session was for the 9 - 12 grade social studies teachers. Several handouts were used, also PowerPoint, primary source photos and documents, and Internet web sites (i.e., Library of Congress, Butler Center for Arkansas Studies, National Archives, etc.). This was a Back-to-School In-service workshop. The teachers were actively involved in the workshop. Marie McNeal is the Social Studies Specialist for the Little Rock School District. She invited Steven Weber to present at the workshop, and was in attendance. 56 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of March 31, 2004 (Continued) On September 30 through October 11, 2002, the ADE provided Professional Development for Test Administrators on the End of Course Literacy, Algebra and Geometry Exams. The training was held at the Holiday Inn Airport. All three districts in Pulaski County sent representatives to the training. On October 3, 2002, Charlotte Marvel provided in-service training for LEP teachers in the Little Rock School District. On December 6, 2002, the Community and Parent Empowerment Summit was held for parents of children attending the LRSD. It took place at the Saint Mark Baptist Church in Little Rock. Dr. Charity Smith, Assistant Director for Accountability, presented information on No Child Left Behind, Supplemental Services, after school tutoring\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\n "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1064","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":["2004-03"],"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--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/1064"],"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\nThis transcript was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.\nAgenda RECEIVED MAR 2 2004 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING Little Rock School District Board of Directors' Meeting MARCH2004 \"D (/J! --,m c::c cc:: ~ ~ ..... r-ril J ~:l O,,,,m,, J~ Z=E Om m r-n 0 I: m \u0026gt;~  \"D \"c:':0,,, \"D ..... :\"'!(! n:,\n, =Im \u0026gt;n :::!8 Oz ~~ z \"' I. 11. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS REGULAR MEETING March 25, 2004 5:30 p.m. PRELIMINARY FUNCTIONS A. Call to Order B. Roll Call PROCEDURAL MATTERS A. Welcome to Guests B. Student Performance - Baseline Elementary Choir Ill. REPORTS/RECOGNITIONS/PUBLIC COMMENTS: IV. A. Superintendent's Citations B. Partners in Education - New Partnerships Baseline Elementary School - Eleanor Cox Southwest Produce - Kay Moore Metropolitan Careet \u0026amp; Technical Center - Mike Peterson Pulaski Technical College - Larry Lewallen Williams Traditional Magnet School - Mary Menking \u0026amp; Anne Pattillo AARP - Maria Diaz C. Remarks from Citizens (persons who have signed up to speak) D. First Tee Golf \u0026amp; Life Skills Program - Tony Hourston E. Little Rock Classroom Teachers Association REPORTS AND COMMUNICATIONS: 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 n-,:, ,). l.,.\n,m:..0. ,..._ -, 31: Oz o\u0026gt; e:~ m-,,\n:o C: -z\non o,...- c\u0026lt;5 r-z nu, \u0026gt; F= n a,\n.,:.. m\u0026gt; ~~\nom ,..\n:o u, u,\nz om :1:C C: nn =I\u0026gt; ,:\n-\u0026lt; mi5 zz u, Regular Board Meeting March 25, 2004 Page2 V. APPROVAL OF ROUTINE MATTERS: A. Minutes Regular Meeting - 02-26-04 Special Meeting - 03-11-04 B. Personnel Changes C. Ratification of PN Agreement* D. Salary Adjustments, 2003-04 school year* E. Student Calendar - 2004-05* VI. ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES: A. Submission of 2004 Carol M. White P. E. Program Proposal VII. SCHOOL SERVICES: A. Naming of Facilities - - Mabelvale Magnet Middle School VIII. BUSINESS SERVICES DIVISION: A. Donations of Property B. Financial Report/ Annual Audit Report IX. CLOSING REMARKS: Superintendent's Report: 1. Dates to Remember 2. Special Functions X. EMPLOYEE HEARINGS XI. ADJOURNMENT * Requires Suspension of the Rules I. PRELIMINARY FUNCTIONS CA.LL TO ORDER/ ROLL CALL II. PROCEDURAL MATTERS/ WELCOME STUDENT PERFORMANCE 111. REPORTS/RECOGNITIONS A. SUPT. CITATIONS B. PARTNERS IN EDUCATION C. REMARKS FROM CITIZENS D. FIRSTTEE PRESENTATION E. LR CTA To: From: Through: Subject: Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 March 25, 2004 Board of Education Debbie Milam, Director, ViPS/Partners in Education ~J Morris L. Holmes, Interim Superintendent Partners in Education Program: New partnerships 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. The following schools and businesses have completed the requirements necessary to establish a partnership and are actively working together to accomplish their objectives. We recommend that the Board approve the following partnerships: Baseline Elementary School and Southwest Produce Metropolitan Career - Technical Center and Pulaski Technical College Williams Traditional Magnet School and AARP ~ .n..\"..' a, C: C: 0 g!\nll m\"\"' ....  C:\"' ~!!5  Z -\u0026lt;Ii: mm .z.. . !=' n 0 z !!l ::a C: n... . lz5 ::a m ~ !'\"  C: 0 :::\n0 ill ~ ~ ~ BASELINE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL Partnership Agreement between Baseline Elementary and Soutwest Produce Southwest Produce is willing to: Make food/ice donations for special events Make food donations to help needy families, if needed Sponsor one or more students for Job Shadowing Kay Moore will mentor a female student and will visit with said student at least once a month at Baseline Be willing for students to make a fieldtrip to the store in the line of academic study or career education Participate in our annual community service project by donating or getting food items at cost Display student work in the business Baseline Elementary is willing to: Provide a calendar of events and invite employees to appropriate school functions Provide appropriate tokens of appreciation for partnership Help with a special project, such as a clean-up day or other 3623 Baseline Road  Phone (501) 447-3700 Fax (501) 447-3701  Little Rock, Arkansas 72209 Partnership Between Pulaski Technical College and Metropolitan Career and Technical Center Metropolitan Career and Technical Center will: 1. Recognize Pulaski Technical College as a partner in education under the Career Links articulation agreement an advertise this agreement on the Schools website under the Metropolitan sub link and in the monthly newsletter distributed to parents and students throughout the district. 2. Recognize Pulaski Technical College as a Partner In Education at the next Little Rock School Board meeting. 3. Display the plaque received at the Little Rock School Board meeting recognizing the partnership with Pulaski Technical College in the Central office at Metropolitan Career and Technical Center. 4. Metropolitan Career and Technical Center will identify qualified students who meet the the requirements outlined in the Career Links agreement and recommend the for this program. 5. Arrange field trips for students and/or parents to tour Pulaski Technical College coordinated through the Tech/Prep Coordinator. 6. Provide a display for Pulaski Technical College to recruit potential students and parents to review during Open House, Parent or Advisory Board Day and Job Fair. Pulaski Technical College will: 1. Provide a representative to serve on the Advisory Council to Metropolitan Career and Technical Center's various programs in order to provide guidance and strategic planning support regarding the enhancement of the school's curriculum, recruitment policies and the marketing of programs. 2. Provide technical credit toward a degree area for students at Metropolitan Career and Technical Center who meet the career links qualifications. 3. Provide an opportunity for field trips and visiting the campus. 4. Provide assistance with the annual Skills USA Competition in Hot Springs 5. Provide assistance with Open House at Metropolitan Career and Technical center. !=' (') 0 z !!l\na ~... cz5 fl:l ~ !'T1 \u0026gt; C: C ~ ill\na m c8 ~ WILLIAMS TRADITIONAL MAGNET SCHOOL A CHOICE FOR EXCELLENCE AARP Arkansas and Williams Traditional Magnet School Partnership Establishment The AARP Foundation leads positive social change to help people 50 and over age with independence, dignity and purpose. The Arkansas State Office and Information Center are both located in Little Rock. All AARP chapters are non-government, non-partisan, non-profit community service organizations that are open to all local AARP members. The AARP offers many programs, services, and many other subjects of interest to their members and their families. There are numerous employees who have a wide range of interests, talents, experiences, and ideas, and possibly will be willing to share these for the benefit of students at Williams Magnet School. Williams Traditional Magnet School is a tri-district magnet school operating in Pulaski County as a part of the LRSD. There is a staff of approximately 40 and a student enrollment of approximately 460. Despite all of the help afforded by the three school districts whose children attend, the school is always in need of additional resources in connection with the education provided to students. The staff at Williams Magnet School completed a school needs assessment to determine needed services and resources for the 2003-04 school year. The Partnership Council will use this information to match resources and needs throughout the school year. Activities will be coordinated through the AARP team leader and the Williams Magnet School team leader. The Partnership Council will attend an initial conference, and will then meet as the need arises to assess the effectiveness of the Partnership. Communication will be open and constant. *Proposed plan of activities for the 2003-04 school year: AARP Grandparent's Day Activities Student incentives/awards for Grandparent's Day Grandparent seminars/classes Provide educational resources Assembly guests Wjljiams Magnet School Student/reacher participation in AARP programs Promote ongoing recognition and appreciation Send monthly newsletters Art work Participate in contests Choir performance 7301 Evergreen Street  Phone (501) 447-7100  Fax (501) 447-7101 Little Rock , Arkansas 72207 DATE: TO: FROM: '.\n4.n Individual Approach to a World if Knowledge\" March 25, 2004 Board of Directors Donald M. Stewart, Chief Financial Office~ Morris L. Holmes, Interim Superintendent PREPARED BY: Bill Goodman,\nj\nSUBJECT: March 2004 Construction Report - Bond Projects Please note that I am showing that the construction projects at Mabelvale Magnet Middle, Mann Magnet Middle and Williams Magnet Elementary are still under construction. In reality, these projects are complete except for some details that have not been completed. As an example, the area north of the replacement school at Mann is free of the portable classrooms and a parking lot is now under construction. Work on landscaping, drainage and drives at Mabelvale are nearing completion. There is still some odds and ends type work at Williams. All three (3) projects should be completed by the April 22nd Board meeting. The work for asbestos abatement and microbial remediation of Mitchell Elementary will be bid on April ?1h. When a contract is awarded, the contractor will have 60 calendar days from the time the Notice To Proceed is issued to complete the work. The drawings for renovating the building will be completed this summer. If you have any questions, please call me at 447-1146. 810 W Markham  Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  www.lrsd.k12.ar.us 501-324-2000  fax: 501-324-2032 !..J.,' m\n%J ~ zz m rn ~ i!5 m en !.\".,' z ~ ~ m mE .z... . :-r, ..... mn ::c C: iB m~ CONSTRUCTION REPORT TO THE BOARD MARCH 25, 2004 BOND PROJECTS UNDER CONSTRUCTION Facility Name I Proiect Description I Cost I Est. Completion Date Baseline Renovation $953,520 Jul-04 Brady Addition/renovation --- ~ 73,62_1 __ Aug-04 Central Renovation - Interior -- $10,200,266 - AJ:!_g-05 --- -- ~nbar Renovation/addition $6,149,023-- -- Dec-04 6 classroom addition \u0026amp; cafeteria/music J. A. Fair room addition $3,155,640 May-04 Mabelvale MS Renovation $6,851.~- - Mar-04 I-Partial Replacement -- ----,- Mann $11 ,500,000 May-04 McClellan Classroom Addition ~. 155,62_2 __ Jul-04 Parkview -- Addition $2,121,226 - Jun-04 f- - --- Pulaski Hgts. Elem Renovation $1 ,193,259 Aug_:_Qi ~ski Hgts. MS Renovation $3,755,0-41 ___ Aug-04 Southwest Addition t $2,000,00-0 -- Aug-04 Tech Ctr/ Metro Renovation - Addition/Renovation - Phase II I $3,679,000 __ Jun-04 Wakefield Rebuild --- ---- $5,300,000 Jul-04 -- -- -- Williams Renovation $2,106,4~ Mar-04 BOND PROJECTS CONSTRUCTION - SPRING / SUMMER W04 Facility Name I Project Description I Cost I !::st. L\nompIeuon Date Central Reflecting Pond 50000 38203 Central HVAC Renovation - Band Area - --\n-- $225,000 ~ ug-04 Mitchell Building Remediation --- $165,000 - May-04 ~ -- --+--- Mitchell Renovation $2,377,493 Auo-05 BOND PROJECTS PLANNING STARTED CONST. DATE TO BE DETERMINED Facility Name I Proiect Description I Cost I Est. Completion Date Booker Electrical Upgrade Unknown Unknown -- ~ 8,525 _ Booker Roof Unknown - --- Booker ADA Rest rooms TBD Unknown - Carver Media Center Expansion Unknown -Un-kn-own Chicot Electrical Upgrade Unknown Unknown -- -Chi-cot Sound Attenuation \u0026amp; Fire Alarm ___J13, 134--+-- Unknown --- -- --- floverdale Elementary Addition Unknown U-nk-no-wn Dodd Fire Alarm Upgrade TBD 1 -- Unkn-own Fair Park Addition Unknown Unknown - --- Remodel - $1,400,000 - Forest Heights Unknown --- --- GarJand Remodel Unknown Unknown ~yer Springs Roof Repair $161 ,752 Unknown -- --- Gibbs Addition Unknown Unknown -- - --- --- Henderson Lockers $80,876 Unknown Mablevale Fire Alarm Upgrade TBD-- Unknown McDermott Fire Alarm Upgrade TBD Unknown --- - --- -- Meadowcliff Addition Unknown Unknown -- Pulaski Hgts._MS _ Energy monitoring system installation Unknown Unknown Renovation -- - Rightsell -- -- -- --- $2,494,00Q_ 38930 ~hington Fire Alarm Upgrade TBD Unknown Western Hills Electrical Upgrade \u0026amp; HVAC $640,0~ Aug-05 Western Hills Fire Alarm Upgrade --- TBD Unknown - TB~ --- Western Hills ADA Rest rooms Un-kno-wn Woodruff Parkinq addition $193,777 Unknown CONSTRUCTIONREPORTTOTHEBOARD MARCH 25, 2004 BOND PROJECTS THAT HAVE BEEN COMPLETED Facility Name I Project Description I Cost I t::st. 1,.\nompIe11on Date Administration Asbestos abatement - $380,495 Mar-03 Administration Fresh air system_ $55,000 Aug-03 -- - Administration Fire alarm $32,350 Aug-03 - Administration Annex Energy monitoring system installation May-02 Alternative Learning Ctr. Energy monitoring system installation $15,1 60 Oct-01 Alternative Learning Ctr. Energy efficient lighting -- I ~2,000 Dec-01 Badgett Partial asbestos abatement $237,237 Jul-01 Badgett Fire alarm I $18,250 Aug-02 --- Bale Classroom addition/renovation $2,244,524 Dec-02 Bale Energy monitoring system I Mar-02 Bale Partial roof replacement ' $269,587 Dec-01 Bale HVAC $664,587 Aug-01 Booker Energy efficient lighting $170,295 Apr-01 Booker Energy monitoring system installation $23,710 Oct-01 Booker Asbestos abatement -- -- -- $10,900 Feb-02 Booker Fire alarm $34,501 I Mar-02 Brady Energy efficient lighting $80,5[3 Sep-02 Brady Asbestos abatement $345,072 Aug-02 Carver Energy monitoring system installation $14,480 May-01 Carver Parking lot $111 ,742 Aug-03 Central Parking Student parking $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 Central Roof \u0026amp; exterior renovations $2,000,000 I Dec-02 Central Ceiling and wall repair $24,ooo I Oct-01 Central Fire Alarm System Design/Installation $80,876 Aug-01 Central Front landing tile repair $22,470 Aug-01 ---- -- Clove-rda-le- El-em. -- Energy efficient lighting $132,678 Jul-01 $189,743 I -- Cloverdale MS ~rgy efficient lighting Jul-01 Cloverdale MS Major renovation \u0026amp; addition $1,393,822 Nov-02 Dodd Energy efficient lighting $90,665 I Aug-01 Dodd 1 Asbestos abatement-ceiling tile $156,299 Jul-01 Dodd Replace roof top HVAC I $215,570 I Aug-02 Facilities Service Interior renovation $84,672 Mar-01 Facility Services Fire alarm I $12,000 I Aug-03 Fair Park HVAC renovation/fire alarm $315,956 I Apr-02 - I Fair Park - Energy efficient lighting I $90,162 Aug-01 Fair Park .Asbestos abatement-ceiling I $59,310 Aug-01 J. A. Fair -- Energy efficient lighting I $277,594 Apr-01 -J. A. Fair Press box I $10,784 Nov-00 -J. A-. Fair - Security cameras I $12,500 Jun-01 J. A. Fair Athletic Field Improvement I $38,000 Jul-03 J. A. Fair Irrigation System I $14,000 Jul-03 J. A. Fair Roof repairs I $391,871 Aug-03 Forest Park Replace window units w/central HVAC ! $485,258 I Nov-03 Forest Park Diagonal parking I $111,742 Aug-03 Forest Park - 'Energy efficient lighting I $119,788 I May-01 Fulbright - Energy efficient lighting I $134,463 Jun-01 Fulbrig_b,!_ ~ergy monitoring system installation I $11,950 Aug-01 Fulbright Replace roof top HVAC units $107,835 Aug-02 Fulbright Parking lot I $140,000 Sep-02 Fulbright Roof repairs I $200,000 Oct-02 Franklin i Renovation I $2,511,736 Mar-03 Gibbs Energy efficient lighting $76,447 Apr-01 Gibbs Energy monitoring system installation : $11,770 Jul-01 2 '.Tl .... m n % C: ~ m !JI ~ m\n,:, is z z ,m... n ~ z G) m en CONSTRUCTION REPORT TO THE BOARD MARCH 25, 2004 BOND PROJECTS THAT HAVE BEEN COMPLETED Facilitv Name I I I Est. Completion Project Description Cost Date 1-H..,.a.-cll_ ________ __.._M,...a~j_or_r_e_nov.,.a._ti_on_\u0026amp;_a_ddition $8,637,709 Sep-03 ,_H_a_ll ________ A_s_b_e_st_os abatement $168,222 Aug-01 Hall Energy efficient lighting__ -----,- $42,931 Jul-01 1-H_a_ll ________ Energy efficient lighting _ _ $296,707 Apr-01 1-H..,.a.-cll_ ________l_n fra_s_tr_u_cture improvements $93,657 Aug-01 Hall Intercom ----,------==-~------ _ F_eb-_01 Hall Security cameras ____ $10,600 Jun-01 ,_H_e_n_d_e_r-s~o~n~~~~~~~~~~~~-=-E~n~e-=r-gy~e- f-fi1cientlighting __-_ -_- _:-_ $193,6_7_9__ Jul-01 Henderson Roof replacement gym $107,835 May-01 1-c.H.,.e._n_d,-ers_on _____+ -A- s~b-e-st'-0-'--s' -abatement Phase I $500\n0~ Aug-01 Henderson - -- Asbestos abatement Phase2 $250,00-_0+_ --~-g--~0-2 , IRC Energy efficient lighting ___ ___ $109,136 Jul-02 Jefferson Asbestos abatement ____ $43,639 Oct-01 Jefferson ==--Renovation \u0026amp; fire alarm -- ___ $1]30~0-00___ Nov-02 Laidlaw Parking lot ___ $269,588 Jul-01 Mabelvale Elem. - - Energy monitoring system installation $12,150 ~g-01 Mabelvale Elem. Replace HVAC units --- ~00,0~(J...0.,___ Aug-02 Mabelvale Elem. Mabelvale Elem. Asbestos Abatement _____ --+-- $107,000 Aug-02 'Energy efficient lighting___ ---,-- $106,598 - ~02 Mabelvale MS Renovate bleachers $134,7~ Aug-01 1_-a_~n_n_ _______~ A--sJ\np:_\nh-a'---l_t w.ac.lk_ -s'--- ___ -----The total $1_ 8 million f--- Dec-01 Mann _Walkway canopies ---.jis what has been Dec-01 Mann  Boiler replacement used so far on the __ Oct-01 Mann Fencing projects listed __ Sep-01 Mann _ Partial demolition/portable classroo~ completed for Mann. Aug-01 McClellan Athletic Field Improvement $38,000 _Ju_l-_0_3 _McClellan __ Irrigation System $14,750  Jul-03 McClellan Security cameras $36,30_0===-=---J-un_-_0_1, McClellan __ Energy efficient lighting ____ $303,614 May-01 McClella_n_ - _ Stadium stands repair ___ _ -~- $235,000 Aug-01 McClellan Intercom __ $46,0_0_0__ Feb-02 McDermott __ Energy efficient lighting --- , $79~.4,...1.,..1,,.-+--_ Feb-01 McDermott Replace roof top HVAC units I $476,000 Aug-02 Meadow_c_liff------+~F-ire-'---a--,l.a..-rm---'---'----------\"----'--.$.,..1-6~,-1-7--5-----J--u~I--0-1I -----------+------- -------------~------- Meadowcliff Meado_w_c.l,,i.f-f -- Metroe9I~ Metropol~ Metropolitan Mitchell --- -- Mitchell --- Mitchell Oakhurst Asbestos abatement ! $253,412 Aug-02 Engergy efficient lighting $88,297 Dec-02 Replace cooling tower -----~ $37,203 Dec-00 Replace shop vent system __ ~0.000 May-01 Energy monitoring system installation $17,145 Aug-01 Energy efficient lighting -- ---,- - $103,642 1 Apr-01 Energy monitoring system installation __ $16.~ Jul-01 ! Asbestos abatement $13,000 Jul-01 HVAC renovation , $237,2ll._L Aug-01 ,_O_tte_r C_re_e_k___ _ __ Energy monitoring system installation $10,6_9_5__ May-01 Otter Creek ---~E_nergy efficient lighting 1 $81,828 Apr-01 Otter Creek Asbestos abatement 1 $10,000 Aug-02 Otter Creek --- ~Parking lot I $138,029 . Aug-02 _Otte_r Creek ____ 6 classroom addition 1 $888,778 __ O_c_t-_0_2 IP arking Improvements I __$c -c1,_4-2-~,5..4..,~1_ ___A_ ,.u.~g~-0,--3,-1 HVAC controls I $210,000 Jun-02 Otter Creek Parkview Parkview Roof replacement I $273,877 Sep-01 Parkview 1Exteriorlights 1 $10,784 Nov-00 Parkview ---\nHVAC renovation \u0026amp; 700 area controls -~- $301,938 Aug-01 Locker replacement ____ $12_0,~000~--- Aug-01 Energy efficient lighting , - ~15,000 Jun-01 Parkview Parkview 3 CONSTRUCTION REPORT TO THE BOARD MARCH 25, 2004 BOND PROJECTS THAT HAVE BEEN COMPLETED Facility Name I Proiect Descriotion I Cost I Est. Completion Date Procurement Energy monitoring system installation $5,290 Jun-02 Procurement Fire alarm $25,000 Aug-03 Pulaski Hgts. Elem Move plat ground $17,000 Dec-02 Rightsell Energy efficient lighting I $84,898 Apr-01 Rockefeller Energy efficient lighting i $137,004 Mar-01 Rockefeller Replace roof top HVAC I $539,175 Aug-01 Rockefeller Parking addition I $111 ,742 Aug-02 Romine Ast\n\u0026gt;estos abatement I $10,000 Apr-02 Romine Major renovation \u0026amp; addition I $3,534,675 Mar-03 Security/Transportation Bus cameras I $22,500 -- Jun-01 Southwest Asbestos abatement I $28,138 Aug-00 Southwest New roof I $690,000 -- Oct-03 Southwe-st -- Energy efficient lighting --- $168,719 Jan-02 -- Southwest - Drainage / street widening $250,000 Aug-03 Student Assignment Energy monitoring system installation I ~ 4,830 Aug-02 Student Assignment ~ alarm-- --- ~ --$- 9,000 Aug-03 Tech Center Phase 1 Renovation $275,000 Dec-01 - Technology Upgrade I Upgrade phone system \u0026amp; data Nov-02 Terry 'Energy efficient lighting $73,850 Feb-01 Terry I Driveway \u0026amp; Parking $83,484 Aug-02 Terry Media Center addition $704,932 Sep-02 Wakefield Security cameras I $8,000  Jun-01 Wakefield - -- Energy efficient lighting $74,776 Feb-01 Wakefield Demolition/Asbestos Abatement $200,000 Nov-02 Washington - -- Security cameras $7,900 Jun-01 Washington Energy efficient lighting $165,281 Apr-01 Watson Energy monitoring system installation $8,530 Jul-01 Watson Asbestos abatement $182,241 Aug-01 Watson Energy efficient lighting $106,868 Aug-01 Watson Asbestos abatement $10,000 Aug-02 Watson - Major renovation \u0026amp; addition $800,000 Aug-02 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 -- 'Parking expansions I $183,717 Dec-03 Williams - Energy efficient lighting $122,719 Jun-01 Wilson Renovation/expansion I $1,263,876 Feb-04 -Wilson - Parking Expansion $110,000 Aug-03 Woodruff Renovation $246,419 Auo-02 4 .?.,' m ~ !S z z ,m.. n $\nz C) m \"' 0.., z ~ ill m 31: zm ..... !'\" \u0026gt; C 0 ~ ~ \"' ill c8 ::!l :,-, ..... Ill :::c .C. , ~ m Date: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK, AR.KANSAS March 25, 2004 To: Board of Directors @ From: Sandy Becker, Internal Auditor Re: Audit Report - March This is the fifty-third communication regarding status of the current year projects and reviews. Activity Funds a) Working with one high school, two middle schools and one elementary school to resolve financial issues in their activity funds. b) Reviewing monthly financial information 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) Working with the new Activities Advisory Board to develop plans for the new school year and beyond. b) Assist the Activities Advisory Board in its mission to strengthen the effectiveness and viability of activities in the District. c) Working with the Activities Advisory Board to provide ways to assist the different Booster groups in our schools. Board Policy and Regulation a) Coordinating development of payroll guidelines with Financial Services as part of Financial Services Section of the District Operations Manual. Technology a) Monitoring technology plans and technology meetings to determine 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 ewspaper production staff in LRSD high schools to improve access to tools needed for students and staff. !II \"0 m\no is z z m rn $= z C) m \"' fl \"0 z ~ ~ m\ni:: m z -\u0026lt; Audit Report - March 2004 Page 2 of2 Training a) Served as a trainer for financial portion of uts \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. 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 infom1ation 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) Working with Financial Services on internal controls and rules for payroll processes and implementation of a new interface system. c) Monitoring other selected risk areas for efficiency, cost effectiveness, and compliance with District policies. Reviewing grant programs. d) Working with Child Nutrition on implementation of streamlined information processing system with Information Services and Child Nutrition Staff. e) Working with Information Services on streamlining of data processes regarding SIS reporting. f) Monitoring cost reduction efforts in the District. g) Monitoring combined payroll and human resources issues for compliance with board direction and internal controls. h) Reviewing leave accountability system. a) Provided technical assistance to school staff on grant writing. b) Served as co-chair of Strategic Team One - Financial Resources. c) Participating in planning for Day of Caring (April 17, 2004). 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 501-44 7-1115. My e-mail is sandy.becker@lrsd.org. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201 Date: March 25, 2004 TO: Little Rock School District Board of Directors FROM: Lucy Neal, Director Technology and Media Services John Ruffins, Director Computer Information Services THROUGH: Morris L. Holmes, Interim Superintendent Title/Subject Summary Objectives Expected Outcomes Population/Location Budget Amount Managers Duration Long Range/Continuation Technology Report  Technology training projects are continuing. UALR Cyberteacher summer program applicants have been selected and will participate for 6 weeks in June and July. District-wide professional development for teachers will take place on May 3 and will emphasize technology integration.  E-rate applications for 2004-2005 were all filed on or before the deadline of February 4. LRSD filed for approximately $1. 7 million in discounts on telecommunications services, LAN electronics, and video systems. We currently have outstanding applications for 3 different years for which we have received no notification. To provide an update to the Board of Directors on the status of technology projects To continue to implement the approved technology plan NIA NIA Lucy Neal - Instructional John Ruffins - Technical February 26, 2004 - March 25, 2004 Technology Plan is approved from 2003-2006. !J:l \"ti m\n,::, is z z ,m... (\") ~ z c\n, m U\u0026gt; !\"' \"ti z ~ ~ m ~ zm ..... !=' ~ s\n:\n,::, -\u0026lt;  l: C: 5!l ~ zm ..... U\u0026gt; !\" 5!l C: C zm ..... (\") j!: zm ~ DATE: TO: FROM: THROUGH: Re: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS March 25, 2004 Board of Education ~everly Williams, Director, Human Resources Dr. Morris Holmes, Interim Superintendent of Schools Personnel Changes It is recommended that the following personnel changes be approved at the indicated positions, salaries and classifications. In accordance with A.C.A. 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) years. Teachers with an effective date of employment after August 18, 2003 are considered intern teachers. r.,\u0026gt;, z ~ ~ m\ns:: .zm.. . !\" ~ = C mz... . n .\u0026gt;.... mz ~\nc Personnel Changes Page 2 March 25, 2004 NAME Cheatham, Mary Jane Reason: Retired Wold, Donald Reason: Contract Ended Andrews, Ashley Beggs, Melinda Brown, Carleton Brown, V erlyn POSITION SCHOOL START DATE END DATE SALARY CLASS Resignations/Terminations Certified Employees Math II 8-21-73 6-21 SOUTHWEST 3-3-04 TCH925 1-6-03 66-13 CURR/INSTR. 3-1-04 ADN12 New Certified Emplovees Elem ill 2-16-04 1-01 BALE TCH925 English 1-20-04 4-19 CENTRAL TCH925 English 1-20-04 4-01 CENTRAL TCH925 Tutor 1-10 1-10 FAJRPARK TCH925 ANNUAL SALARY 54700.00 52248.00 26546.00 annual 9678.23 prorated 25554.23 annual 11845.45 prorated 30553.00 annual 14162.59 prorated 34714.00 annual 11752.14 prorated Personnel Changes Page 3 March 25, 2004 NAME Cain, Mary Carter, Arrel Crossley, Demetria Dyer, Julie Farrar, Neoma Green, Michele Harder, Melanie POSITION SCHOOL ElemV GEYER SPRINGS Spec. Ed. ALC Math TCH925 Elem IV STEPHENS Elem III CHICOT Elem IV BALE Physical Science FAIR START DATE END DATE 1-20-04 2-9-04 2-13-04 1-22-04 2-16-04 2-23-04 1-20-04 SALARY CLASS 1-04 TCH925 1-06 SPE925 1-04 TCH925 1-05 TCH925 1-01 TCH925 1-01 TCH925 2-03 TCH925 ANNUAL SALARY 28588.00 annual 13251.73 prorated 30630.00 annual 11964.84 prorated 29409.00 annual 10875.20 prorated 29609.00 annual 13416.58 prorated 26546.00 annual 9678.23 prorated 26546.00 annual 8986.93 prorated 14447.00 annual 6696.79 prorated \u0026gt; ~~ \u0026gt;' !\n~ Z::c ~..,,,8.... !JI: en 31::m 31::\na:I en~ Cm a, en ~ ~ r\u0026gt; \"D z \u0026gt; C)\na:, m m\nI: .zm.. . !=' en \u0026gt; \u0026gt;\na:, -\u0026lt; \u0026gt; ~ C: e..n.. m31:: z... . en 'e.\".n.. C: C .mz.. . (\") ,\u0026gt;.... mz ~\na:, Personnel Changes Page 4 March 25, 2004 NAME Harrison, Kenneth Home, Wanda King, Carmelita Kuhn, Scarlett Larry,Betty Lockhart, Kelly POSITION SCHOOL Geometry HALL Special Ed HENDERSON English FAIR Elem ill STEPHENS Typing START DATE END DATE 1-22-04 2-17-04 2-23-04 1-26-04 2-5-04 MABELV ALE MID. Algebra 2-16-04 PUL. HGTS. MID. SALARY CLASS 4-18 TCH925 1-04 SPE925 4-06 TCH925 1-05 TCH925 4-01 TCH925 1-01 TCH925 ANNUAL SALARY 46889.00 annual 21246.53 prorated 28588.00 annual 10273.81 prorated 35633.00 annual 12063.25 prorated 29609.00 annual 14033.43 prorated 19095.62 annual 7658.14 prorated 26546.00 annual 9678.23 prorated Personnel Changes Page 5 March 25, 2004 NAME McDaniel, Yvonne Miller, Owyla Muhammad, Khaleelah Neumeier, Cynthia Olivares, Lizete Parr, Patricia Smith, Michelle POSITION SCHOOL Elem ill CLOVERDALE EL. Special Ed MANN Elem IV STEPHENS Elem II MCDERMOTT Spanish CENTRAL ElemV FAIR.PARK Elem II MCDERMOT START DATE END DATE 1-14-04 3-2-04 1-14-04 1-5-04 1-6-04 2-9-04 1-5-04 SALARY CLASS 1-01 TCH925 1-03 SPE925 1-02 TCH925 1-07 TCH925 1-03 TCH925 4-14 TCH925 1-01 TCH925 ANNUAL SALARY 26546.00 annual 12719.96 prorated 28359.00 annual 8714.48 prorated 27056.00 annual 13809.83 prorated 31651.00 annual 16320.05 prorated 27567.00 annual 14070.66 prorated 42805.00 annual 16720.70 prorated 26546.00 annual 13687.78 prorated  ~~  ' !\n~ Z::,: ~8 'TII'\"\" !I:\"'\n1:m ~~ Cm CD v, ~ !.,\",' z  C) ~ m !I: mz --\n!=' ~ s\n:\na -\u0026lt;  0 \u0026lt;- C: \"--'\n!I: mz --\n\"' rn \"--'\nC: 0 mz --\n0 ,.... m z 0 \na Personnel Changes Page 6 March 25, 2004 NAME Treat, Heather Watkins, Cindy Williams, Frank Wise, Marshalette Withers, Aaron ONE NONE POSITION SCHOOL Elem I CHICOT Spanish DUNBAR Music START DATE END DATE 2-2-04 1-14-04 1-20-04 MABELV ALE EL. English 1-12-04 HENDERSON Music 1-5-04 ROMINE Certified Promotion Certified Transfer SALARY CLASS 1-01 TCH925 1-16 TCH925 6-08 TCH925 4-04 TCH925 1-04 TCH925 ANNUAL SALARY 26546.00 annual 11060.83 prorated 40839.00 annual 19568.69 prorated 39461.00 annual 19524.97 prorated 32595.00 annual 15957.57 prorated 28588.00 annual 14398.52 prorated Personnel Changes Page 7 March 25, 2004 NAME POSITION SCHOOL START DATE END DATE SALARY CLASS Resignationsfferminations Non-Certified Em(?lovees Bradford, Ollie Instr. Aide 8-24-81 1-10 Reason: Retired BALE 3-1-04 INA925 Carter, Danny Instr. Aide 2-10-97 2-01 Reason: None Given WASHINGTON 3-12-04 INA925 Graham, Linda Child Nutrition 1-7-04 3-01 Reason: Personal BALE 2-16-04 FSH550 Holloway, Jack Labor Driver 5-25-01 40-04 Reason: None Given FACILITY SERV. 3-9-04 MAINT. Holmes, Gloria Care 12-23-02 3-07 Reason: None Given CARE 1-21-04 CARE Homer, Bobbie Instr. Aide 9-7-93 1-04 Reaspn: Deceased BALE 2-25-04 INA185 Johnson, Eloyce Care 9-3-02 1-07 Reason: None Given CARE 1-21-04 CARE Lambert, Danielle Care 10-6-03 2-01 Reason: None Given CARE 2-13-04 CARE Lee, Charlotte Care 5-1-00 1-11 Reason: None Given CARE 1-21-04 CARE Miles, Janet Care 9-9-02 3-07 Reason: None Given CARE 1-21-04 CARE ANNUAL SALARY 14067.00 15916.00 8130.00 18384.00 7.68 12163.00 6.97 6.97 7.53 7.68 \u0026gt; ~~ \u0026gt;\" ~~ Z::c ~..,,8.. 31: en 31:m ~~ Cm CD en ~\nc -\u0026lt; p z\"0 \u0026gt; C)\nc m m :I: zm --\u0026lt; ~ en \u0026gt; \u0026gt;\nc -\u0026lt; \u0026gt; c0. .. C: en --\u0026lt; 31: zm e--n\u0026lt; !\" en --\u0026lt; C: 0 zm --\u0026lt; n ,\u0026gt;.... mz C \u0026gt;\nc Personnel Changes Page 8 March 25, 2004 NAME Ray, Dwight Reason: Personal Ricks, Anjanette Reason: None Given Ridgel, Richard Reason: None Given Simmons, Lakisha Reason: None Given Smittie, Carol Reason: None Given Todd, Freeman Reason: None Given Warren, Alfred Reason: None Given Watson, Izora Reason: None Given White, Gloria Reason: Deceased Whittington, Sherkeyer Reason: None Given Williams, Henrietta Reason: None Given POSITION SCHOOL Custodian FOREST PARK Care CARE Custodian None Given Care CARE Care CARE Care CARE Instr. Aide STEPHENS Child Nutrition MANN Child Nutrition START DATE END DATE 9-6-04 1-30-04 3-17-03 1-21-04 1-6-03 1-15-04 10-6-03 1-20-04 12-8-03 1-20-04 11-17-03 2-2-04 9-10-03 2-27-04 8-12-03 2-23-04 8-19-03 CHILD NUTRITION 2-23-04 Care 12-2-02 CARE 1-21-04 Custodian 12-15-97 BASELINE 2-24-04 SALARY CLASS 1-01 CUS925 1-05 CARE 1-02 CUS12 1-03 CARE 1-14 CARE 1-03 CARE 1-04 INA925 3-01 FSH550 2-01 FSMEAL 3-17 CARE 1-07 CUS!2 ANNUAL SALARY 10329.00 6.68 13955.00 6.43 7.93 6.43 12163.00 8130.00 11593.00 9.15 16736.00 Personnel Changes Page 9 March 25, 2004 NAME Williams, Carla Reason: None Given Wilson, Carolyn Reason: Personal Belcher, Aretha Carlock, Phillip Davis, Reshaunda Frizzell, Jennifer Gardner, Gayle POSITION SCHOOL Care CARE Instr. Aide PUL. HGTS. MID. START DATE END DATE 9-2-03 1-20-04 8-31-87 2-18-04 SALARY CLASS 2-05 CARE 1-05 INA185 New Non-Certified Employees Clerical 3-3-04 39-12 SOUTHWEST CLKl0 Instr. Aide 2-18-04 1-06 MABELV ALE MID. INA925 Custodian 2-26-04 1-01 HALL CUS925 Instr. Aide 2-28-04 1-07 ROCKEFELLER INA12 Media Clerical 3-3-04 31-16 PARKVIEW CLK925 ANNUAL SALARY 7.22 12481.00 23304.00 annual 7117.48 prorated 12798.00 annual 4565.77 prorated 5313.00 annual 1732.50 prorated 16931.00 annual 6051.93 prorated 20676.00 annual 6378.77 prorated \u0026gt; ~~ \u0026gt;  !\n!ll Z::i:: .~....8... !11:en 31:m 31:::C en~ Cm CD en ~ ~ f..l, z ~ :m:c m I: zm ..... !::\u0026gt; ~ s\n: ::c -\u0026lt; \u0026gt; c0.. .. C: e...n.. ll: mz ..... en !'\" .e..n.. C: 0 mz ..... n ,\u0026gt;... mz 0 :\u0026gt;:c Personnel Changes Page 10 March 25, 2004 NAME Germany, Lisa Howard, Vince Hyder, Keyonna Johnson, Loma Lenzie, Diann Nichols, Sherrie POSITION SCHOOL Child Nutrition START DATE END DATE 2-2-04 CLOVERDALE MID. Custodian 2-26-04 HALL Custodian 2-24-04 FOREST PARK Clerical 3-9-04 FAIR Instr. Aide 3-8-04 FOREST HGTS. Instr. Aide 2-23-04 MITCHELL SALARY CLASS 3-01 FSH550 1-01 CUS925 1-01 CUS925 44-11 CLK12 1-06 INA925 1-05 INA925 ANNUAL SALARY 8130.00 annual 3465.25 prorated 5313.00 annual 1732.50 prorated 5164.50 annual 1740.21 prorated 26256.00 annual 9049.94 prorated 13166.00 annual 3771.88 prorated 12481.00 annual 4790.01 prorated Personnel Changes Page 11 March 25, 2004 NAME McIntosh, Felicia Patterson, Gary Peaster, Pearlie Swagerty, Gail POSITION SCHOOL Secretary FEDERAL PROG. Instr. Aide ROCKEFELLER Child Nutrition BASELINE Child Nutrition FULBRIGHT START DATE END DATE 3-15-04 2-2-04 1-30-04 2-9-04 Non-Certified Promotion SALARY CLASS 49-09 AN12 1-07 INA12 7-01 FSH650 3-01 FSH550 Lucas, Chester Regular Security to District Wide Security Robertson, Andrew Regular Security to School Based Supervisor Non-Certified Transfer NONE ANNUAL SALARY 28716.00 annual 9042.48 prorated 16931.00 annual 7348.77 prorated 9606.00 annual 4146.85 prorated 8130.00 annual 3243.11 prorated .,_ z~ - '= ~ Z::c .~.,,8.. S:\u0026lt;n s:m s:\na \"'~ Cm ID \u0026lt;n ~ f) .., z ~ ~ m ms: z --\n~ \"\u0026gt;' \na -\u0026lt; \u0026gt; c~:: \"--'\ns: zm --\n\"' !\" ~c:: C zm --\n(\"') ~ mz ~ :x, '..1/:l.n Individual Approach to a World ef Knowledge\" March 25, 2004 To: LRSD Board of Directors From: Dr. Morris L. Holmes, Interim Superintendent Prepared by:trieverly Williams, Director of Human Resources RE: Ratification of Professional egotiated Agreement between the Little Rock Classroom Teachers Association and the LRSD Board of Directors On Friday, March 12, 2004, all components of the Negotiations were concluded as the Executive Director ofLRCTA and the ChiefNegotiator for the LRSD Board of Directors signed the attached tentative agreement. Several other articles were also signed off on with regard to language. I will be glad to answer any questions with regard to negotiations at the special board meeting. 810 W Markham  Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  www.lrsd.org 501-447-1000  fax: 501-447-1001 !'\" ~ C C m z --\u0026lt; n ,\u0026gt;... mz ~\n,:, Tentative Agreement Signed with LRCTA and the Board on 3-12-04 1) Salary: a. 2.875% for the 2003-04 school year retroactive to the first of the contract. b. 10% for the 2004-05 school year c. There is no guarantee in this package that additional funds allocated to LRSD because of Act 59 and/or changes in the Lakeview Court Settlement will be added to the teacher salary schedule. 2) Article 10: a) Insurance: 1. $253 for the 2003-04 school year for the remaining pay periods in the year. 2. Up to $260 for the 2004-05 school year. 3. Employees currently receiving the $550 in lieu :\u0026gt;fhealth insurance will not receive the stipend for the 2004-05 school year. They will be given an opportunity to enroll in a health insurance program during open enrollment in the fall. 3) Attendance Incentive: (professional leave and personal leave days are not part of this agreement.) Employees on sabbatical leave, educational leave, leave without pay or taken off payroll for any reason do not qualify for the perfect attendance bonus money outlined in the package proposal ($300, $300, $700). l. Employees who use none of their sick leave days during the first semester will receive a $300 stipend at the end of that semester. 2. Employees who use none of their sick days during the second semester will receive a $300 stipend at the end of that semester. 3. Employees who use none of their sick days during the entire school year will receive an additional perfect attendance stipend of $700. (Total of$1300 for one year of perfect attendance.) 4) Effective for the 2004-05 school year, teachers awarded National Board Certification will receive an annual stipend of$3000. 5) The language tentatively agreed to on March 12, 2004, on Articles 4, 6, 9 and 21 must be agreed to. 6) Two workdays and two record days will be used for staff development. Two record days will be  day in length. 7) Current Contract Language will be used with regard to period pay. ~n Individual Approach to a World of Knowledge\" March 25, 2004 To: LRSD Board of Directors From: Dr. Morris L. Holmes, Interim Superintendent Prepared by:~everly Williams, Director of Human Resources RE: Salary Adjustments for all other Employee Groups for 2003-04 The Administration is making the following recommendations for all other employee groups for the 2003-04 school year: A) B) The same salary raise as negotiated for teachers of 2.875% for 2003-04 retroactive to July I, 2003 The same insurance benefit of $253 per month on health insurance for the 2003- 04 school year beginning with the April I, 2004, pay period. C) All employees currently receiving the $550 in lieu of health insurance will not receive the stipend for the 2004-05 school year. They will be given an opportunity to enroll in a health insurance program during open enrollment in the fall. The Administration will be making recommendations with regard to future negotiations and salaries for the 2004-05 school year for all remaining employee groups at a later date. 810 \\'(/ Markham  Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  www.lrsd.org 501-447-1000  fax: 501-447-1001\n,\u0026gt;s \"Cl . m\u0026gt; C) 0 ~~ .z..,i Zen \"tlm \"0'\"~'\ngm en en ~ \u0026gt; ,~.\n.: i !,\n~ Z\n:c .~., 8,- !sI:: men se:n\"\u0026lt;' ,- \u0026lt;\"\u0026gt; -m a:, en ~ !..J,l z ~ C') ,\u0026gt;- en z\u0026gt; z C ~ \u0026gt; C C =l !\" !':l C 0 .zm.. . C') ,\u0026gt;.... zm ~ \"' '54n Individual Approach to a World efKnowledge\" March 25, 2004 To: LRSD Board of Directors From: .  ir. Morris L. Holmes, Interim Superintendent Prepared by:~everly Williams, Director of Human Resources RE: Calendar for 2004-05 The attached calendar for the 2004-05 school year is recommended for your approval. I will be glad to answer any questions regarding the calendar at the special board meeting. 810 W farkham  Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  www.lrsd.org 501-447-1000  fax: 501-447-1001 .!%.,1 z ~ n ,\u0026gt;.... en \u0026gt;z z C: ,\u0026gt;.... ~ C :::. MONTH JULY AUGUST SEPTEMBER OCTOBER NOVEMBER DECEMBER JANUARY '05 FEBRUARY MARCH APRIL MAY JUNE Legend M T 2 3 I 2 3 4 I I 2 3 * [] WV LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT STUDENT CALENDAR 2004-2005 w TH F M T w TH F M T w I 2 5 6 7 8 9 12 13 14 SD SD SD SD SD WD 4 5 6 9 10 11 12 13 16 17 18 H I 2 3 6 7 8 9 10 13 14 15 SD 1 4 5 6 7 8 11 12 13 SD SD 3 4 5 8 9 10 II 12 15 16 17 I 2 3 6 7 8 9 10 13 14 15 [87] -R H 5 6 7 10 II 12 13 14 17 18 19 2 3 4 7 8 9 10 II 14 15 16 2 3 4 7 8 9 10 II 14 15 16 sv I 4 5 6 7 8 II 12 13 4 5 6 9 10 II 12 13 16 17 18 [1781 # R I 2 3 T 7 8 9 10 13 14 15 1st Day Students H Holiday End Quarter SD Staff Development TH 15 1*9 16 14 18 16 20 17 17 14 19 16 Winter Vacation R Reoord Days (one-half day) F M 16 19 20 23 17 20 15 18 19 22 WV 17 20 21 24 PC 18 21 18 21 15 18 20 23 17 20 sv Spring Vacation TCD Total Contract Days (9.25 teachers) PC Parent Conference WD Non-student Work Day ST DA' Student Days # Last Day Students T w 20 21 24 25 21 22 19 20 H 23 24 WV WV 21 22 25 26 22 23 22 23 19 20 24 25 21 22 For Board Approval # 2 ST TH F M T w TH F DAY :-, I) TCD 22 23 26 27 28 29 30 26 27 30 31 9 0 I 5 15 PC 23 24 27 28 29 30 20 1 1 0 21 [43] SD 21 22 25 26 27 28 29 19 0 0 2 21 H H 25 26 29 30 17 3 0 2 19 WV H WV WV WV WV WV 23 24 27 28 29 30 31 13 10 0 0 13 27 28 31 19 I 0.5 0 19.5 24 25 28 19 0 I 0 20 [134] SD sv sv sv SV 24 25 28 29 30 31 18 4 0 I 19 21 22 25 26 27 28 29 20 I 0 0 20 H 26 27 30 31 21 I 0 0 21 23 24 27 28 29 30 3 0 0.5 0 3.5 TOTALS 178 21 4 10 192 STUDENTS DO NOT ATTEND ON THE DAYS SHADED ABOVE I 1st Quarter = 43 student days 2nd Quarter = 44 student days 3rd Quarter = 4 7 student days 4th Quarter= 44 student days TOTAL = 178 STUDENT DAYS Student Galendar2004-05 4th Oran 3/22/2004 Date: To: From: Prepared By: Subject: Summary: Objectives: Population: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS March 25, 2004 Board of Education Morris L. Holmes, Interim Superintendent of Schools Margo Bushmiaer, Coordinator of Health Services \u0026amp; Chair of District Coordinated School Health Committee Mary Paal, Director of Safe Schools/Healthy Students Grant Annette Scogin, Assistant Director of Athletics Submission of 2004 Carol M. White Physical Education Program Proposal The U. S. Department of Education, Office of Safe and Drug Free Schools, has published the draft guidelines for the 2004 application for grants under the Carol M. White Physical Education Program (PEP). We are currently in the process of preparing for submission of a Physical Education Program proposal and seek Board support and approval. The focus of this grant will be to expand and improve the physical education program in Little Rock School District elementary schools by: 1. hiring a Coordinator of Elementary Physical Education to assure implementation of the Arkansas Department of Education Physical Education Standards. 2. providing equipment to enable students to participate actively in physical education activities\nand 3. provide staff and teacher training and education in order to make progress toward meeting State Standards for physical education. 4. implement the \"Nifty Nutrition Education\" program with elementary students. All students and staff in Elementary Schools. Duration: Three-year period: July 2004 - June 2007 Projected Request: $ 627,000.00 over the three-year period .?.,l z \u0026gt;z C')\n,\n\nVI \u0026gt;z z C: ,\u0026gt;- ~ C =I March 25, 2004 Page2 Other Agencies: Arkansas Parks and Recreation Extension Services of Arkansas University of Arkansas at Little Rock University of Central Arkansas Recommendations: We recommend approval for submission of the 2004 PEP proposal\nprovide support by adoption of the PEP resolution Attachments: None TO: FROM: SUBJECT: '54n Individual Approach to a World of Knowledge\" March 25, 2004 Board of Directors Morris L Holmes, Ed.D. Interim Superintendent aming of Facilities - Mabelvale Magnet Middle School The faculty, staff, parents, and students of Mabelvale Magnet Middle School have submitted a request to name the library in honor of Mr. Carl Martin, a lifetime resident of Mabelvale who serves as the local historian for Mabelvale students. The request and supporting documents are submitted in accordance with Policy FF: aming of Facilities. The administration recommends approval. 810 \\'C l\\Iarkham  Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  www.lrsd.org 501-447-1000  fax: 501-447-1001 .!J.,l z \u0026gt;z 0 ,\u0026gt;- \"' \u0026gt;z z C: \u0026gt;,- ~ C =I Adopted: May 27, 1999 Cross Reference: Naming and Renaming Facilities Form NAMING AND RENAMING FACILITIES Mabe/vale Magnet Middle School I propose that the 10811 Mabe/vale West Roa~ Mabe/vale/ AR 72103 be named the \"Carl Martin Librarv// I. Biographical Data: Carl Martin, a lifetime resident of Mabelvale, has served as the local historian for Mabelvale students. His great-grandparents settled this area in 1826 when they bought 1,300 acres of land. (See attached Biographical Data) II. The Nominee's significant contribution is his donation of \"local history\" to Mabelvale students. As a 93-year member of this community, Mr. Martin is well-known and very respected by the people of the community. He loves our students and enjoys sharing his \"stories\" with them. He has worked for many years to preserve the history of the Little Rock area. He plans to donate two columns from the old Little Rock Carnegie Library to our school. (See attached Significant Contribution) 111. I believe the facility should be named for this person because of the Martin families ties to the community and to the school. Carl Martin has spent a lifetime dedicated to the preservation of the history of the \"Mabelvale Community\". (Date) This form should be submitted by persons nominating names for new facilities to the LRSD Board of Education for consideration according to Board policy FF. 4 Background History on \"The Martin Projecr' During the 2001-2002 school year, our Builders Club met to discuss various service projects for our club. At this same time, Ms. Kathey Farley was looking for a project for the East Lab to research. Locating and recording data from an area cemetery was a project that intrigued Ms. Farley. After brainstorming with many teachers, Ms. Farley contacted Joyce Swinney, a teacher and longtime area resident, who told her about Mr. Clif Morehart, the caretaker of the Martin Cemetery. As Mr. Morehart visited our school to tutor reading students for Ms. Beckie Jones's English classes, we were able to visit with him frequently about Mabelvale's history. Ms. Farley asked Mr. Morehart to speak to her East Lab classes about the cemetery and the community. We shared information with Ms. Farley about a research project on Mabelvale that we had completed with some classes several years ago. As Ms. Pam Wallace and I worked on an Arkansas Heritage \"Living History\" grant, the pieces started falling into place. We decided to work with Ms. Farley's East Classes on a special project to interview Mr. Carl Martin, whose family had lived in this area for over 150 years. Ms. Farley's East Lab students and the Builders Club students could work on a living history project. However, the project was \"too large\" for our time constraints. Even though we didn't get the Arkansas Heritage grant, Ms. Wallace and I felt that the \"living history\" project was important. Mrs. Farley's East students took pictures and started transcribing the interviews. Throughout the year, we visited Mr. Martin, got to know his wife, Lorene, and fell in love with both of them. Our students were amazing-they were so interested in learning about Mr. Martin's rooster, the Little Rock City Jail keys, and the Andrew Carnegie columns. We learned about the town of Mabelvale, and even about the red clay that the school is built on. It didn't matter what topic we asked about, Mr. Martin had an answer. He was versed on everything. He loved our kids, and they felt it. After each visit, he always hugged them as if he had known :tiem forever. Some of our sixth graders visited Mr. Martin, and the next year they started asking us if they could go back to see him. On September 25, 2003, representatives of the Builder's Club presented a plaque to Mr. Martin to thank him for his years of service to Mabelvale schools. When we gave him the plaque, he was very touched. We were also very touched and amazed at what an impression this project has had on our students. After spending the past three school years on this project, we knew that it was only fitting to honor our local historian with a unique gift since our school sits in the middle of the Martin\" homestead. The community of Mabelvale has a \"rich heritage\" and closeness. To honor the Martin Family and this community, we are requesting permission to name the Mabe/vale Magnet Middle School Library the \"Carl Martin Library\". When the new library is finished, we plan to have an Open House to dedicate the facility as the Carl Martin Library. We will have a portrait of Mr. Martin to display in an area of the library with other items collected from the community. Mr. Martin has agreed to donate two columns from the old Carnegie Library to our school. We plan to have a plaque placed on them to tell of their historical significance to the state. We will invite the community to the Open House and dedication of the Library. We will ask our Partners-In-Education to assist us with the celebration. .!%.,' z ~ 0 ,\u0026gt;- ,e,n. zz ,C,.: ,- ~ C =I LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, AR 72201 DATE: TO: March 25, 2004 Board of Education FROM: ~Darral Paradis, Director of Procurement and Materials Mgmt. THROUGH: Morris L. Holmes, Interim Superintendent of Schools SUBJECT: Donations of Property Attached are requests to donate property to the Little Rock School District as follows: Schoo I/Department Booker Arts Magnet Elementary School J.A. Fair Magnet High School Forest Park Elementary School Forest Park Elementary School Forest Park Elementary School Item G.E refrigerator, valued at $200.00, for use in the teacher's lounge 156 backboards, valued at $1,000.00, for use by students in all-school science fair Mr. Jeffrey Carson Mr. David Rainey of SmurfitStone Container Corporation New iron fencing at east, Forest Park PT A north and part of the west playground perimeters valued at $19,850.00 Stonework surrounding Forest Park PT A both play equipment areas at east and west sides valued at $17,867.00 Multipondo play Forest Park PT A equipment and installation valued at $2,798.35 !.X.,I z \u0026gt; ~ ,\u0026gt;.... \"' \u0026gt;z z C: -,:. \u0026gt; C: C =i Board of Education March 25, 2004 Page2 School/Department Gibbs Elementary Magnet School Jefferson Elementary School Parkview Arts/Science Magnet High School Rightsell Academy Item Donor $2,500.00 check to be Ms. Susan M. Wixon applied toward the installation of a sprinkler system Six (6) DVD players Jefferson PTA and one (1) DVDNCR combo player. The estimated value of all donated items is $775.00. Four (4) iMac computers Mr. Patrick R. Carrington w/separate components, four (4) Epson color printers and miscellaneous computer supplies to Parkview's Journalism Department. The total value of all donated items is $3,035 .00. 15 Dell P2/300 computers Acxiom Corporation w/separate components. The estimated value of all donated items is $1,000.00. It is recommended that these donation requests be approved in accordance with the policies of the Board. To: From: Subject: Date: Mr. Darral Paradis, Director of Procurement Cheryl A. Carson, Principal, Booker Arts Magnet School Donation of Property March 2, 2004 Jeffrey Carson wishes to donate a G.E. refrigerator, model number TBX18TAZGRWH, for use in the Teacher's Lounge at Booker Arts Magnet School. The refrigerator is valued at $200.00. Mr. Carson's address is 4115 Ridge Road, North Little Rock, AR, 72116. I respectfully request that this donation be accepted in accordance with Little Rock School District policy. .!.I,I z ~ n \u0026gt; ~ \u0026gt;z z C .\u0026gt;.... \u0026gt; C C ::::\nTO: FROM: DATE: RE: J. A. Fair Magnet High School Science \u0026amp; Technology Systems 13420 David O. Dodd Roaa Little Rock, Arkansas 72210 Telephone (501) 447-1700 Fax (501) 447-1701 Darral Paradis, Director of Procurement e:\\\\_,. Cassandra Norman, Principal February 5, 2004 Donation to J. A. Fair Systems Magnet High School Mr. Davin Rainey, Smurfit-Stone Container Corp., P. 0 . Box 4790, Little Rock, Arkansas 72214, has generously donated 156 backboards with a value of $1 ,000 for use by our students in our all school science fair. It is recommended that this donation be approved in accordance with the policies of the Little Rock School District. Thank you for your consideration. A School of the Little Rock School District TO: \u0026lt;'1rf ,FROM: vv-DATE: RE: Darral Paradis, Director Theresa Ketcher, Principal of Forest Park School February 5, 2004 Donations These donations have been made to Forest Park School. See attachment It is recommended that this donation be approved in accordance with the policies of the Little Rock School District. /pl .!J.,I z ~ n \u0026gt; ~ \u0026gt;z z C ,\u0026gt;- \u0026gt; C C =l December 1, 2003 Theresa Ketcher, Principal Forest Park Elementary 16 N. Tyler Little Rock, AR 72207 Dear Mrs. Ketcher, The Forest Park PT A is pleased to list the following items donated for playground improvements during the 2002-2003 school year: New iron fencing at east, north and part of the west playground perimeters valued at $19,850.00. Stonework surrounding both play equipment areas at east and west sides, $17,867.00. Multipondo play equipment and installation, $2798.35. The precast caps installed on the stonework surrounds were donated by Arkansas Precast and are valued at $22,000.00. (This donation was approved in the Feb. 2003 Board meeting.) Forest Park continues to provide a great learning environment and we appreciate the opportunity to contribute to our school in this way. Sincerely, / /21,\n// t\n.~ /\nV ----- e.. l ('0f/, '\" L Ellen Yearyl,Past Prtsident, PT A (2002-2003) GIBBS MAGNET SCHOOL TO: FROM: DATE: I \\ T E 12 \\ .\\ T I O \\ .\\ I. HDI [6 Mr. Darrall Paradis, Director of Procurement Jfl'Felicia Hobbs, Principal February 27, 2004 SUBJECT: Donation Ms Susan M. Wixon very graciously donated a check in the amount of$2,500.00 to Gibbs Magnet School. The donation goes toward the installation of a sprinkler system here at Gibbs. We sincerely appreciate this donation. It is my recommendation that this donation be accepted in accordance with the policies and procedures of the Little Rock School District. FH:kt ' .. 11 15 West 1 6'\" Street Phone 447-4900  Little Rock . Arkansas 72202 /.~ /'' ,~1'.\\,  ,.,, \\ JEFFERSON E LEMENTARY SCHOOL February 27, 2004 To: Darral Paradis, Director Procurement and Materials Management From: f.f Roberta Mannon, Principal Jefferson Elementary School Subject: Donation The following donation has been made to Jefferson Elementary School: Six DVD players and one DVDNCR combo player - total value approximately $775.00. The Jefferson PTA donated these items. Mailing address for the PTA is Jefferson School. It is recommended that this donation be accepted in accordance with LRSD Board policies. 2600 N. McKinley Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72207 - Parkview Arts/Science Magnet High School I LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 2501 BARROW ROAD Date: To: From: Subject: PHONE 228-3000 February 10, 2004 Darral Paradis, Director LRSD Procurement Department Dr. Linda Brown, Principal '/fr Parkview Arts/Science Magnet High School Computer Equipment Donation Ll'ITLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72204 Mr. Patrick R. Carrington recently donated several items of computer equipment to Parkview' s Journalism Department. Please reference the attached list. We, at Parkview, would like to say a very hearty Thank You to Mr.Carrigan! Your support is appreciated more than we can express. It is recommended that this donation be approved in accordance with the policies of the Little Rock School District. .. ,!l,:l z \u0026gt;z 0 ,... u,\n:\nzz C: ,\u0026gt;... \u0026gt; C: C =l DONATION(S) TO PARKVIEW HIGH SCHOOL Judith Murray Class: Journalism _________ _ January 22, 2004 from Patrick R. Carrington/ 26 Talais Drive/ LR/ Ar./ 72223 501.821.0114 MacOvation, Inc. 1 . ) iMac ( completely functional) (iMac A) Revision A-233 mHz / Serial # XA8464N5EUL / RAM 128 MB 4 GB HD/ Video Mem 6MB / Backside L2 cache 512K internal modem v.90 56K MacOS10.3.2 (Panther) / MacOS9.2.2 Microsoft Office for MacOS9 AND MacOSX (Word, Powerpoint, Excel) Wordperfect (MacOS9) by Corel MaclinkPlusDeluxe VALUE: $550 2.) Plastic riser platform for iMac: Revision A VALUE: $ 35 3.) Computer Skins: iMac \u0026amp; Keyboard Designer Covers X3 VALUE: $12 X 5 = $60 4.) iMac (ethernet disabled by lightening strike) (iMac B) Revision C-350 mHz / Serial # YMO35ASV-JWQ-ff09 / RAM 640 MB 7 GB HD/ Video Mem 6MB / Backside L2 cache 512K internal modem v.90 56K MacOS10.3.2 (Panther) / MacOS9.2.2 Microsoft Office for MacOS9 AND MacOSX (Word, Powerpoint, Excel) Wordperfect (MacOS9) by Corel I MaclinkPlusDeluxe Stuffit Expander 8.0.2 VALUE: $650 5.) Epson Color 740i Printer Serial # BUY1389723 Includes USB cable \u0026amp; printer cartridges VALUE: $120 6.) iMac (completely functional) (iMac C) Revision C-350 mHz / Serial # YM0320Z9JWQ / RAM 640 MB 7 GB HD/ Video Mem 6MB / Backside L2 cache 512K internal modem v.90 56K MacOS10.3.2 (Panther) / MacOS9.2.2 Microsoft Office for MacOS9 AND MacOSX 0fvord, Powerpoint, Excel) Wordperfect (MacOS9) by Corel MaclinkPlusDeluxe VALUE: $650 7.) Epson Black Printer Cartridge for Epson 7 40 S020189 VALUE: $25 8.) Epson Color Photo 850 Printer w/ new black ink cartridge. Serial# AZN1123175 Model P930-A VALUE: $150 9.) Epson Color Stylus 820 Printer Serial# EKEK038614 Model P330-A VALUE: $125 1 O.) Epson 740i Stylus Color Printer Serial# BUY1137914 VALUE: $120 11.) iMac (completely functional) (iMac D) Revision A-233 mHz /Serial# XA834FJUDFN / RAM 288 MB 4 GB HD/ Video Mem 6MB / Backside L2 cache 512K internal modem v.90 56K MacOS10.3.2 (Panther) / MacOS9.2.2 Microsoft Office for MacOS9 AND MacOSX (Word, Powerpoint, Excel) Wordperfect (MacOS9) by Corel MaclinkPlusDeluxe VALUE: $550 Total Value of Donation: $3,035.00 !..II, z ~ C'l \u0026gt; ~ \u0026gt;z z C \u0026gt;,.... \u0026gt; C 0 =I TO: FROM: DATE: RE: Darral Paradis, Director of Procurement Eunice M. Thrasher, Principal  i Rightsell Academy February 17, 2004 Donation The donor listed below has generously donated 15-P2-300 Dell workstations and 15 \"13\" monitors. The estimated value is $1000.00. Acxiom 301 Industrial Blvd Conway, AR 72032 Contact Person: Jerry Adams (501) 342-2480 It is recommended that this donation be approved with thanks in accordance with the policies of the Little Rock School District Board of Directors. Thank you for you consideration. Date: To: From: Through: Re: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS March 25, 2004 Board of Education Mark Milhollen, Manager, Financial Services Don Stewart, Chief Financial Officer Morris L. Holmes, Ed. D. Interim Superintendent Annual Audit Report You have received under separate cover a copy of the annual audit of the District's financial condition as prepared by Thomas \u0026amp; Thomas, Certified Public Accountants. As required by Arkansas law, the board must take action to approve the audit prior to submission to the state. The administration recommends approval of the audit at this time. bjg Little Rock School District Financial Services 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Phone: (501) 447-1086 Fu: (501) 447-1158 DATE: March 25, 2004 TO: Little Rock School District Board of Directors THROUGH: Donald M. Stewart, Chief Financial Officer Morris L. Holmes, Interim Superintendent PREPARED BY,Mark D. Milhollen, Manager, Financial Services  Subject  Summary  Objectives  Expected Outcomes  Population/Location  Budget Amount/Source  Manager  Duration Financial Reports District funds are reported for the period ending February 29, 2004. To report the District's financial status monthly to the Board of Directors. The Board members will be informed of the District's current financial condition. NIA NIA Mark Milhollen, Manager of Financial Services NIA  Long Range/Continuation Financial reports will be submitted monthly to the Board.  Other Agencies Involved None  Expectations of District NI A  Needed Staff NI A  Comments None  Recommendation Approval of the February 2004 financial reports. We recommend that the Board approve the financial reports as submitted. -- LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT COMBINED STATEMENT OF REVENUES, EXPENDITURES AND CHANGES IN FUND BALANCE FOR THE PERIOD ENDED FEBRUARY 28, 2003 AND FEBRUARY 29, 2004 -- APPROVED RECEIPTS % APPROVED RECEIPTS % 2002/03 02/28/03 COLLECTED 2003/04 02/29/04 COLLECTED REVENUE-LOCAL SOURCES CURRENT TAXES 58,550,000 57 ,147,781 97.61% 57,547,800 55,681 ,497 96.76% ~DELINQUENT TAXES 8,000,000 8,432,483 105.41% 10,100,000 10,264,896 101 .63% 4 0% PULLBACK 29,400,000 29,600,000 EXCESS TREASURER'S FEE 187,000 205,072 109.66% 210,000 ~DEPOSITORY INTEREST 385,000 174,515 45.33% 180,000 REVENUE IN LIEU OF TAXES 135,000 337,232 249.80% 150,000 206,062 137.37% MISCELLANEOUS AND RENTS 340,000 235,596 69.29% 380,000 239,896 63.13% INTEREST ON INVESTMENTS 275,000 119,016 43.28% 200,000 106,666 53.33% ATHLETIC RECEIPTS 160,000 175,342 109.59% 240,000 178,086 74.20% TOTAL 97,432,000 66,827,036 68.59% 98,607,800 66,6TT,103 67.62% REVENUE - COUNTY SOURCES COUNTY GENERAL 24,000 17,215 71 .73% 21 ,000 11 ,594 55.21% TOTAL 24,000 17,215 71.73% 21,000 11,594 55.21% REVENUE - STATE SOURCES EQUALIZATION FUNDING 54,867,630 35,239,580 64.23% 53,226,139 34,286,616 64.42% REIMBURSEMENT STRS/HEAL TH 7,590,000 4,566,701 60.17% 8,300,000 4,048,584 48.78% VOCATIONAL 1,340,000 833,381 62.19% 1,400,000 828,403 59.17% HANDICAPPED CHILDREN 1,700,000 757,851 44.58% 1,675,000 821,175 49.03% EARLY CHILDHOOD 273,358 205,407 75.14% 273,358 202,301 74.01% TRANSPORTATION 3,685,226 2,453,084 66.57% 3,875,562 1,243,841 32.09% INCENTIVE FUNDS - M TO M 3,265,000 1,804,317 55.26% 3,900,000 1,842,110 47.23% ADULT EDUCATION 1,006,014 377,991 37.57% 920,337 403,283 43.82% POVERTY INDEX FUNDS 658,607 658,607 100.00% 560,545 267,486 47.72% EARLY LITERACY LEARNING 120,000 TAP PROGRAM 285,271 285,271 100.00% 285,245 285,245 100.00% AT RISK FUNDING 650,000 64,573 9.93% 360,000 236,541 65.71% TOTAL 75,441,106 47,246,763 62.63% 74,776,187 44,465,585 59.46% REVENUE - OTHER SOURCES TRANSFER FROM CAP PROJ FUND 620,000 770,000 TRANSFER FROM OTHER FUNDS 1,126,233 175,922 15.62% 1,350,000 135,093 10.01% TRANSFER FROM MAGNET FUND 1,664,438 554,813 33.33% 1,632,430 544,143 33.33% TOTAL 3,410,671 730,735 21.42% 3,752,430 679,236 18.10% TOTAL REVENUE OPERATING 176,307,777 114,821,750 65.13% 177,157,418 111,833,518 63.13% REVENUE - OTHER FEDERAL GRANTS 25,152,981 10,731 ,261 42.66% 24,075,790 12,036,503 49.99% DEDICATED M\u0026amp; 0 3,980,000 2,082,476 52.32% 4,000,000 2,427,292 60.68% MAGNET SCHOOLS 25,065,942 10,408,214 41 .52% 24,689,351 10,464,842 42.39% TOTAL 54,198,923 23,221,951 42.85% 52,765,141 24,928,637 47.24% TOTAL REVENUE 230,506,700 138,043,700 59.89% 229,922,559 136,762,155 59.48% LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT COMBINED STATEMENT OF REVENUES, EXPENDITURES AND CHANGES IN FUND BALANCE FOR THE PERIOD ENDED FEBRUARY 28, 2003 AND FEBRUARY 29, 2004 APPROVED EXPENDED % APPROVED EXPENDED % 2002/03 02/28/03 EXPENDED 2003/04 02/29/04 EXPENDED EXPENSES SALARIES 100,865,586 59,903,522 59.39% 100,684,982 55,047,173 54.67% BENEFITS 24,838,361 15,085,593 60.74% 26,483,772 14,377,965 54.29% PURCHASED SERVICES 19,795,774 11,960,581 60.42% 19,719,297 11,745,812 59.57% MATERIALS \u0026amp; SUPPLIES 8,347,098 4,756,586 56.98% 8,185,459 5,873,557 71 .76% CAPITAL OUTLAY 1,616,991 860,152 53.19% 1,575,580 707,894 44.93% OTHER OBJECTS 8,508,680 2,918,81 1 34.30% 8,384,567 2,982,417 35.57% DEBT SERVICE 12,217,048 12,213,572 99.97% 12,098,342 12,191,763 100.77% TOTAL EXPENSES OPERATING 176,189,538 107,698,817 61.13% 177,131,999 102,926,581 58.11% EXPENSES-OTHER FEDERAL GRANTS 26,1 48,726 10,208,019 39.04% 26,056,193 10,284,905 39.47% DEDICATED M\u0026amp; 0 3,980,000 1,976,084 49.65% 4,000,000 2,563,705 64.09% MAGNET SCHOOLS 25,065,942 13,302,996 53.07% 24,689,351 12,438,947 50.38% TOTAL 55,194,668 25,487,100 46.18% 54,745,544 25,287,557 46.19% TOTAL EXPENSES 231,384,206 133,185,917 57.56% 231,877,543 128,214,138 55.29% INCREASE (DECREASE) IN FUND BALANCE (877,506) 4,857,782 (1,954,984) 8,548,016 BEGINNING FUND BALANCE FEDERAL, MAGNET \u0026amp; DED M\u0026amp; 0 1,645,440 1,645,440 3,558,580 3,558,580 OPERATING 8,557,652 8,557,652 9,026,855 9,026,855 ENDING FUND BALANCE FEDERAL, MAGNET \u0026amp; DED M\u0026amp; 0 649,695 (619,709) 1,578,177 3,199,660 OPERATING 8,675,891 15,680,583 9,052,274 17,933,792 TOTAL 9,325,586 15,060,875 10,630,451 21,133,452 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT BOND ACCOUNT FOR THE PERIOD ENDED FEBRUARY 29, 2004 pROJECT BEG BALANCE INCOME TRANSFERS EXPENDITURES ENCUMBRANCES END BALANCE 07-01-03 2003-04 2003-04 2003-04 2003-04 02-29-04 $6,200,000 BOND ISSUE FAIR 33,282.90 33,282.90 MCCLELLAN 77,219.02 77,219.02 CONTINGENCY 0.00 0.00 SUBTOTAL 110,501 .92 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 110,501.92 $136,268,560 BOND ISSUES ADMINISTRATION 32,802.37 87,000.00 68,753.26 51,049.11 NEW WORK PROJECTS 18,614,545.40 246,791 .00 10,880,842.34 6,516,266.11 1,464,227.95 SECURITY PROJECTS 42,273.97 7,963.49 25,000.00 9,310.48 LIGHTING PROJECTS 29,869.56 7,679.00 22,190.56 MAINTENANCE \u0026amp; REPAIR 2,768,579.81 2,108,630.36 2,381,883.52 408,932.43 2,086,394.22 RENOVATION PROJECTS 31,306,506.59 166,300.00 13,032,781 .41 8,695,556.31 9,744,468.87 TECHNOLOGY UPGRADES 2,335,019.24 949,213.61 59.53 1,385,746.10 SUBTOTAL 55,129,596.94 0.00 2,608,721.36 27,329,116.63 15,645,814.38 14,763,387.29 REVENUES PROCEEDS-PROPERTY SALE 444,618.31 1,000.00 445,618.31 DUNBAR PROJECT 5,266.71 5,266.71 PROCEEDS-BOND SALES 22,074,599.23 (2,608,721.36} 19,465,877.87 PROCEEDS-QZAB SALE 1,293,820.97 1,293,820.97 INTEREST 7,288,776.89 917,779.02 8,206,555.91 SUBTOTAL 31,107,082.11 918,779.02 (2,608,721.36} 0.00 0.00 29,417,139.77 GRAND TOTAL  ~~z laa ~z ~la zz~ a2 ~ ~z a~~ mi a l:i ~:i aa aa ~m 11~a~a PROJECT ALLOCATIONS PROJECT CATEGORIES THRU 02-29-04 1 ADMINISTRATION 673,846.55 NEW WORK PROJECTS 35,565,851 .80 SECURITY PROJECTS 265,814.17 LIGHTING PROJECTS 4,883,405.13 MAINTENANCE \u0026amp; REPAIR 13,342,240.87 RENOVATION PROJECTS 51 ,655,707.04 TECHNOLOGY UPGRADES 11 ,735,611 .78 UNALLOCATED PROCEEDS 20,759,698.84 I TOTAL I 138,882,176.18\nLITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT BOND ISSUE PROJECT HISTORY THRU THE PERIOD ENDED FEBRUARY 29, 2004 EXPENSE EXPENSE EXPENSE EXPENSE I 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 THRU 02-29-04 889,772.32 (485,325.77) 149,597.63 68,753.26 443,467.00 4,589,606.29 11 ,671 ,442.11 10,880,842.34 113,930.47 109,609.73 7,963.49 2,641,482.13 1,832,392.06 379,661.38 I 7,679.oo I 791 ,385.63\n4,218,294.40 3,455,350.67 2,381 ,883.52 I 397,615.34 4,119,045.21 15,666,239.90 13,032,781.41 I 575,016.53 4,325,201.40 4,500,374.61 949,213.61 I 5,852,669.42 I 18,708,823.32 35,822,666.30 27,329,116.63 I I ENDING ENCUMBERED ALLOCATION THRU 02-29-04 SUBTOTAL 02-29-04 0.00 622,797.44 51 ,049.11 6,516,266.11 34,101 ,623.85 1,464,227.95 25,000.00 256,503.69 9,310.48 0.00 4,861 ,214.57 22,190.56 408,932.43 : 11 ,255,846.65 2,086,394.22 8,695,556.31 41 ,911 ,238.17 9,744,468.87 59.53 10,349,865.68 1,385,746. 10 20,759,698.84 I 15,645,814.38 I 103,359,090.05 I 35,523,086.13 Mnorov Ix , s~~l~l/3H x S)fH\\IW3M ~NISOl:\u0026gt; 'XI Fund Operating Operating Operating Operating Total Food Service Activity Fund Total Bond Account Capital Projects Fund Capital Projects Fund Capital Projects Fund Capital Projects Fund Capital Projects Fund Capital Projects Fund Capital Projects Fund Capital Projects Fund Capital Projects Fund Capital Projects Fund Total Deseg Plan Scholarship Total Rockefeller Scholarship Total Risk Management Loss Fund I ' Purchase ' Date 02-26-04 ' 01-15-04 ' 02-13-04 ' I 12-19-03 I 02-19-04 I 02-17-04 I I I 09-08-03 01-16-04 01-16-04 01-30-04 11-18-03 05-15-03 01-16-04 05-15-03 12-01-03 09-15-03 02-23-04 12-05-03 01-15-04 02-17-04 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT I SCHEDULE OF INVESTMENTS BY FUND FOR THE PERIOD ENDED FEBRUARY 29, 2004 I I I Maturity l I Institution I interest Rate j Type Principal I I I Date ' I I TFN Bank of America ' 0.810% Repo I 5,585,000.00 I 03-15-04 Twin City Bank 1.350% CD 5,004 ,986.08 I ' ' 03-15-04 Twin City Bank l 1.350% CD 5,010,334.44 I 03-01-04 Twin City Bank 1.400% CD I 9,600,000.00 I 25,200,320.52 I I I I TFN Bank of America 0.720% Repo 945,000.00 I I I I I 945,000.00 I TFN I Bank of America I 0.780% Repo I 1,200,000.00 I I I I I 1,200,000.00 i I ' 03-08-04 I Regions I 1.094% CD I 400,000.00 I 07-14-04 Metropolitan 1.930% CD 1,000,934.31 I I 07-16-04 Bank of the Ozarks 1.400% CD 5,231,393.21 01-31-05 ' Bancorp South 1.850% CD I I I 2,100,244.72 04-15-04 I Bank of the Ozarks I 1.300% I CD I 6,000,000.00 08-16-04 USBANK 1.420% I CD 11,000,000.00 06-10-04 Bank of America I 0.910% I Treasury Bills 5,365,126.36 05-14-04 I Bank of the Ozarks 1.360% CD I 9,000,000.00 05-03-04 Bank of the Ozarks 1.250% CD I 3,060,648.33 03-15-04 ' Bank of the Ozarks 1.430% CD 10,221,001.82 TFN Bank of America 0.810% Repo I 7,000,000.00 I 60,379,348.75 I 06-15-04 Bank of America 1.020% Treasury Bills 668,325.28 I I I 668,325.28 i I I 06-10-04 Bank of America 0.910% I Treasury Bills 252,059.89 I 252,059.89 TFN I Bank of America 0.250% Repo 400,000.00 I ' 400,000.00\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":"hbcula_becu_42","title":"Voice of the Wildcats Newsletter, February 27, 2004","collection_id":"hbcula_becu","collection_title":"Bethune-Cookman University Digital Collection","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, Florida, Volusia County, Panama Beach, 28.86832, -81.22778"],"dcterms_creator":["Bethune-Cookman University"],"dc_date":["2004-02-27"],"dcterms_description":["The student newsletter of Bethune-Cookman College, now Bethune-Cookman University, highlighting student voices, campus and community activities, and current events."],"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"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 students","Campus life","College student newspapers and periodicals","Civil rights movements"],"dcterms_title":["Voice of the Wildcats Newsletter, February 27, 2004"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCU) Library Alliance"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["https://hbcudigitallibrary.auctr.edu/digital/collection/becu/id/42"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["All rights to images are held by the respective holding institution. This image is posted publicly for non-profit educational uses, excluding printed publication. For permission to reproduce images and/or for copyright information contact University Archives, Bethune-Cookman University, Daytona Beach, FL 32114 (386) 481-2186. https://www.cookman.edu/library/index.html"],"dcterms_medium":["documents (object genre)"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"noa_sohpcr_u-0007","title":"Oral history interview with Carnell Locklear, February 24, 2004","collection_id":"noa_sohpcr","collection_title":"Oral Histories of the American South: The Civil Rights Movement","dcterms_contributor":["Maynor, Malinda M.","Lowery, Willie French","Southern Oral History Program"],"dcterms_spatial":["United States, North Carolina, Robeson County, 34.64009, -79.10353"],"dcterms_creator":["Locklear, Carnell"],"dc_date":["2004-02-24"],"dcterms_description":["Carnell Locklear recalls his fight for Lumbee Native American rights in eastern North Carolina in the 1970s and 1980s. He describes his efforts, via both nonviolent protest and legal means, to attain federal assistance for Lumbee Native Americans, who long before had earned government recognition at the price of benefits. Locklear describes his ascent through the ranks of the protestors, his sudden descent and the movement's fracture, and his life after departing the movement.","The Civil Rights Digital Library received support from a National Leadership Grant for Libraries awarded to the University of Georgia by the Institute of Museum and Library Services for the aggregation and enhancement of partner metadata."],"dc_format":["text/html","text/xml","audio/mpeg"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":null,"dc_relation":["Forms part of Oral histories of the American South collection."],"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":null,"dcterms_subject":["North Carolina--Race relations--20th century","Robeson County (N.C.)--Race relations","Civil rights--North Carolina","Civil rights movements--North Carolina--History--20th century","Civil rights movements--North Carolina--Robeson County","Indians of North America--North Carolina--Robeson County","Indians of North America--Civil rights--North Carolina--History--20th century","Robeson County (N.C.)--History--20th century","Lumbee Indians--North Carolina--Robeson County","Indians of North America -- Civil rights -- North Carolina -- Robeson County","African Americans--North Carolina--Robeson County--Relations with Indians--20th century"],"dcterms_title":["Oral history interview with Carnell Locklear, February 24, 2004"],"dcterms_type":["Text","Sound"],"dcterms_provenance":["University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Documenting the American South (Project)"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://docsouth.unc.edu/sohp/U-0007/menu.html"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["transcripts","sound recordings","oral histories (literary works)"],"dcterms_extent":["Duration: 00:59:55"],"dlg_subject_personal":["Locklear, Carnell"],"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"hbcula_becu_25","title":"Voice of the Wildcats Newsletter, February 5, 2004","collection_id":"hbcula_becu","collection_title":"Bethune-Cookman University Digital Collection","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, Florida, Volusia County, Panama Beach, 28.86832, -81.22778"],"dcterms_creator":["Bethune-Cookman University"],"dc_date":["2004-02-05"],"dcterms_description":["The student newsletter of Bethune-Cookman College, now Bethune-Cookman University, highlighting student voices, campus and community activities, and current events."],"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"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 students","Campus life","College student newspapers and periodicals","Civil rights movements"],"dcterms_title":["Voice of the Wildcats Newsletter, February 5, 2004"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCU) Library Alliance"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["https://hbcudigitallibrary.auctr.edu/digital/collection/becu/id/25"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["All rights to images are held by the respective holding institution. This image is posted publicly for non-profit educational uses, excluding printed publication. For permission to reproduce images and/or for copyright information contact University Archives, Bethune-Cookman University, Daytona Beach, FL 32114 (386) 481-2186. https://www.cookman.edu/library/index.html"],"dcterms_medium":["documents (object genre)"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"geh_vhpohr_269","title":"Oral history interview of Paul G. Moss","collection_id":"geh_vhpohr","collection_title":"Veterans History Project: Oral History Interviews","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["Guam, 13.47861, 144.81834","Japan, Volcano Islands, Iwo Jima","Marshall Islands, Enewetak Atoll, 11.5141037, 162.064393241945","New Zealand, -40.900557, 174.885971","Papua New Guinea, Bougainville Island, -5.9631994, 154.9998011","United States, California, San Diego County, Marine Corps Base Camp Pendleton, 33.35386, -117.42558","United States, Georgia, 32.75042, -83.50018","United States, Georgia, Atlanta Metropolitan Area, 33.8498, 84.4383","United States, Georgia, Chattahoochee County, Fort Benning, 32.35237, -84.96882","United States, Georgia, Marion County, Buena Vista, 32.31904, -84.51714","United States, Virginia, Stafford County, Marine Corps Base Quantico, 38.48959, -77.46688"],"dcterms_creator":["Eberhard, Sarah","Moss, Paul G., 1918-2010"],"dc_date":["2004-02-04"],"dcterms_description":["In this interview, Paul Moss recalls his service in the United States Marine Corps during World War II. He describes his early years and education. He recounts his mother's brother's service during World War I and his motivation for enlisting. He details his training, where he met his future wife. He discusses in detail his activities in the Pacific. He relates his trip back to the United States, surprising his wife, Inez, and his transfer to Marine Corps Schools at Quantico to be an instructor. He describes their V-J Day celebration and marriage. He describes what it was like for his parents to have all four of their boys in the service during the war and talks about his brothers. He displays two books written by members of his unit.","Paul Moss was a Marine in the Pacific during World War II.","PAUL MOSS (see wife's interview: Inez Moss) VETERANS HISTORY PROJECT ATLANTA HISTORY CENTER February 4, 2004 Interviewer: Sarah Eberhard Transcriber: Stephanie McKinnell COUNTER 000 Sarah Eberhard: My name is Sarah Eberhard, and today is February 4, 2004. I'm interviewing Paul G. Moss at the Atlanta History Center in Atlanta, Georgia for the Veteran's History Project. If I could get you to state your name and your branch of the service. Paul Moss: My name is Paul G. Moss, M-o-s-s, and I'm a Jr. The branch of service was marine corp. I went into the _ SE: OK, were you drafted or did you enlist yourself? PM: I enlisted as a reserve in June of 1941, prior to Pearl Harbor. I was very close to being drafted but I beat the draft by joining my service that I wanted. SE: Tell us a little bit about your life before the service, what were you working, were you in school, what your family life was like prior to enlisting. PM: Good, I grew up as a son of a railroad agent who moved up and down the tracks. I spent most of my formative years in Buena Vista, Georgia but I graduated from Troy, Alabama high school, finished at the University of Alabama in 1940 and went to work for the Southern Bell telephone company. I, in 1940, I was transferred to Birmingham in 1941. There, in about June of 1941. I knew that I was close to being drafted, so I looked around in several services and decided to go into the marine corps, primarily because my mother's brother was a marine in World War I, and he died of an illness at Parris Island. I, is that it? SE: Did you have any friends that you joined with or had you made the decision just on your own, was there a group of you? PM: Oh, no, I was the only one. I just primarily wanted to beat the draft and select my service, so I joined early, about six months prior to Pearl Harbor, my anticipating going into service selected my service. SE: Did you have any special interests going into the service or areas that you were looking to specialize in, or did they assign you? PM: I had no choice, I mean had no desire to make a choice, other than the marine corps. There was an officer's candidate class for which I was enrolled. And so I did go to officer's candidate school in Quantico, Virginia where I came on active duty. SE: When you first signed up with the reserves, how soon after that did you go to training? PM: I signed up in June of 1941 and shortly after Pearl Harbor I got a call to show up fast, and so I reported for that, orders for duty January of 1942. I went to Quantico, VA, I don't get ahead of your story, but I went to Quantico, VA to the officer's candidates class, the fifth officer's candidates class of the marine corps. We, after our class began, it was shortened from eighteen weeks to nine weeks due to the urgency of having fellows overseas. After finishing the officer's candidates class, I was sent to the reserve officer's class for several weeks in Quantico in the marine corps schools. I finished that about June of [1941], when I was sent to Fort Benning, Georgia, _ training again as a communications officer. I guess I spent about nine weeks at Fort Benning getting that training before going to active duty, active troop assignment in about October of 1942. A side item is that during the time at Fort Benning, which was very close to my home in Andalusia, I went to Andalusia several weekends and there I met Inez Riley, who I later proposed to and married. I visited with her on the way from Fort Benning to Camp Pendleton, stopping at Waco, Texas for several days. I reported to Camp Pendleton in about October or November of 1941, well '42, I'm sorry, and was assigned to the 12th marines, an artillery unit of the 3rd marine division. That would have been in about November of 1942. I may be getting far ahead of the story, but we was put aboard a ship in January of '43, I guess it was and sent to New Zealand, an entire division. I think we were sent to New Zealand because the Japanese had made such a run in the south pacific that the people in New Zealand were a little bit squeamish about having protection. All of their men had been with the British in South Africa as part of that troop and so they didn't have many men and many defenses left. We stayed there for several months before going up to Guadalcanal which was… [background voices] Oh yeah, in New Zealand, we carried on some maneuvers, this is prior to going to Guadalcanal. The last maneuver we had was going up into the country of the _ I think there was a _ of New Zealand to shoot our artillery. During this time, one of the units make a battery called our colonel and told him that they had just barbecued a _ big and would he come and join them for the feast. He delightfully did so, having been with a family on a wild pig feast earlier. He, and they knew of his desire. It turned out that the next morning after the feast, the regimental commander called Colonel Letcher and asked him said what in the world are you doing killing this farmer's pig, and not only that but you tore down his fence to cook it. The colonel was just aghast because this had pulled on him, and it was a true thing, I don't think he took any punishment for it, it was the case. Shortly after that, we went up to Guadalcanal. The islands were still being strafed by the Japanese and this was at a time of the Kennedy episode in _ in the Solomon islands where his boat went down. We were there in a coconut grove and constantly fearing that some Japanese would be coming towards us. It never happened, but we did get the strafing almost every night from the Japanese aircraft. SE: Now what type of facilities, had much been built there in terms of a base shed or… PM: Oh, no, I'm glad you asked this. At New Zealand, we had wooden decks and tents on top of the wooden decks, so we had fairly comfortable arrangements. But when we got to Guadalcanal we had only tents to spread and we put, our tents were located in a coconut grove which had been commercially owned, I'm sure. And we stayed there until we got aboard ship to go on our operations. But that was a pretty crude and yet, there were some prominent visitors, I don't know who, I think Mrs. Roosevelt came, because quite a few prominent visitors had came. I didn't hear any of them. SE: Was there much of an airfield yet there at that time or _? PM: They had just completed that airfield, Henderson field I guess it was, it was the only one there I think. And it was of course actively used. There was a need for keeping our fighters _ airfield so that they could protect, they could strafe the New Guinea area and the upper part of the Solomon islands. So we were sent to Bouganville, landed there about the first of November 1943. And this was a volcanic island, very crude position there. We went aboard a sandy beach and, of course were strafed by the Japanese there almost every night. We came into some torrential rains there and bogged down up to our knees in the sand, and then we dug our foxholes, they were filled up with water because of the torrential rains. And so when the Japanese would come strafing most of us didn't hesitate to duck and jump into the water filled foxholes. But the next morning we'd get up and find holes all in the sand where they had gotten tree_ or where bombs and they were scattered all over the area, so we were very fortunate none of those fragments hit us. But we were there so that the Seabees could come and build an airfield. The fighters _ needed protection to fly into New Guinea. We built one airfield and then we built a second airfield, that was, or rather the Seabees did. They were, my job was a telephone and radio officer. And so we were constantly having trouble with our wires and used to direct the guns and their firings. Forward observers stayed with the advanced troops and telephoned with instructions about firing back to the gun positions. We built a second airfield there and we were disturbed one day by looking out and seeing this ground just wave, looked like it was rolling water, and it was of course an earthquake I guess you'd call it, an earthquake. And we did have a mountain there that came in for some fun. People told the colonel that they could see the gun that was firing at us. We were getting shot at by artillery pieces from the Japanese. We had landed on the side of the island opposite from where they were based, so when they got in position to see us, they were shooting artillery towards us. When we turned, kept shooting our rifles, how howitzers to this place that there was being directed by the forward observers, it finally became aware that we were not going to reach it with our artillery. The colonel finally asked the observer, said what are you shooting at? You are shooting at the volcano, and of course that's what they were shooting in, so we had mistaken that. I guess that we were there through the first of the year and as soon as we had gotten the airfields built, the fighters started coming in very fast. SE: And that would have been in early '44? PM: That would have been, the landing was in '43, wasn't it, I said, and yes, in early '44 we left there and went back to Guadalcanal for bivouacs. The next operation we knew in advance where it was, and they had showed us maps of it and showed us that there was going to be a very heavy bomber base there. We had no idea what a very heavy bomber was, but when we got to that operation, it turned out that we were aboard a ship and for about a month. We went back and forth close to the Mariannas every night so that we could go in and support the 4th division that had landed there, you know whether they would need us or not at night, if they didn't need us, they'd turn around and the ships would go back out to sea. Finally after about twenty days we went back to [Inowetok] and we were allowed to get off the ship and go aboard in the bay then the water in that atoll, and we loaded up and instead of going to Guam on the 19th of June, which had bee planned, we went in at about the 19th of July, that delay having been to support the Mariannas. We went to Guam, again, we landed on a beach which was opposite the ones where the Japanese were. It was a very unlikely spot with coral reefs going extensively 5 or 600 yards out into the water. So the water was very low when the low tide was _, we could walk on the coral reef. This made the landing rather difficult, so our landing craft usually went into the fresh water inlet where the creek came out so that we could get ashore without too much exposure on the coral reef. On that _ after we got out of the landing craft, we were in the early phases with the general and the advance guards going ashore so they could direct the infantry. We went in to establish artillery support for them and so to get to our regimental headquarters of fire control center, we went up this little creek several hundred yards and established a fire control spot where we could direct our artillery support of the infantry when the army came in. This was fine and we were there for about five days, very, feeling very comfortable about it. We had no contact back _ with the Japanese. And all of the sudden we had overrun all of the infantry ahead of us and were overrunning our position, and the hospital and the division headquarters. As a matter of fact, one of my good friend was killed in that attack from the Japanese. Unfortunately I was out doing my morning duties when they became shooting. One of the fellows remembered very much the fact that I had to run from the latrine with my pants down. But, it was a very fortunate thing we came through it fairly well. Earlier when I was coming ashore, I had been under fire from the grenades and a grenade hit my knapsack which I had tossed aside and hidden behind a tree, but they hit the knapsack and the only thing that survived was a picture that I had of Inez, which I had taken overseas with me. I still have that, and we have a dent in the frame showing that attack, but I didn't have any damage from it, I came out safely. I guess it took us twenty five or thirty days to secure our position there, then we moved on up into a more comfortable coconut grove area. We stayed there, the infantry carried out some mopping up operations of stragglers in the Japanese fire. We found a tremendous amount of Japanese food and many of us were, had a tendency to eat that food because it was some of the best we had seen. We were constantly warned that _ should be very careful because it could be poisoned. SE: Now, I want to just for a moment give a time frame on this, that this is taking place, that you're moving on to this point where this is going on. PM: We landed about I think it was July 19th, or maybe… And the counter attack came about five days later after we had gotten ashore. Twenty days later we moved on in inland to a more secure spot on the opposite side of the island. We had, our infantry carried out mop up operations. SE: That would have been later on, about August or September? PM: Right. And we were very comfortable at Guam and had secured the entire island very well. Although some stragglers were found several years later I think. We stayed at Guam until about February of '45, I guess it was, January or February of '45, when we went ashore to, incidentally before I leave it, I wanted to say that I did go up to the airfield at Guam and see the very heavy bombers which was a B-29 that had come there and were going to be used to shoot at Japan, carry bombs to Japan. Which brought up the next operation, we went up to Iwo to give the airplanes a landing spot. We were losing B-29s because they'd run out of gas, it'd be hit by anti aircraft weapons. But we went up to Iwo Jima and we were the third _ division was the third division. We were also the third division that was ashore there because two other marine divisions went in the initial contact. We were _ ashore the fifth day at Iwo Jima. On that fifth day, or maybe it was the fourth day, the flag was raised at Iwo, and we saw it from shipboard. But we landed that same day I think. Then that capture, that high point, and given the flag there, took the Japanese observation of us away to a degree. And so that they could not train their artillery in on us. We were an artillery unit too, and we went over the island to the opposite side from where we landed is a couple of hundred yards, it's a very small island, and established gun positions and fire control units. We stayed in that position, and we're right under the airfield, for the time that we were there, some twenty or twenty five days. The, we were there to see the first aircraft land on the airstrip, which was quite a cheerful point, it got cheers from everybody from seeing that aircraft safely. I understand that about 2000 aircraft landed there before, in these next few months. So you can see that was with ten or twelve guys aboard on each aircraft, you can see there was a significant number of people that we helped out by having that island. Now this was of course, _ late March of 1945, went back to Guam where we were in supposedly retreat and rest spot. But about five days after I'd been there, the colonel came to me saying that PG, how soon can you be ready to go to the states. I told him in fifteen minutes. And so he says well be in the JEEP at two o'clock because there's an airplane going back to Hawaii and get on it. So I went up to, and of course delighted to find that I could get back to the states and left everything that I had there. But I got aboard this aircraft with no air control on it at all _, and so when we got up to 20,000 feet it was pretty cold. And we flew to Johnson island in Hawaii. In Hawaii I stayed for about five days waiting for transportation to the United States. I got back in early April to San Francisco from Honolulu. And immediately I couldn't get Inez on the telephone in San Francisco so I went on down to the Los Angeles area where she was and waited for… what's that? Yeah, I had to buy uniforms in San Francisco to be civilized again. And went down to, what is _ name again, Santa Ana, El Toro base where Inez was stationed. I waited until she got in and we finally got together and I stayed there for about four or five days. SE: But she had no idea that you were going to show up? PM: Oh, no, she couldn't. There was no way I could get in touch with her. SE: So she came back, or she came in, and you were just sitting there waiting for her? PM: Something like that. I had a real good friend who had given me the name of his family in Santa Ana so I had a place to stay, and they were delightful, the _ family, gave me a place to stay while I was there. And they even loaned us a car didn't they, they gave us a car that Inez and I visited San Bernadino and up the mountains over there in the San Bernadino area… [off-mike, unclear] PM: Yeah, up San Bernadino, it was that first night was a hell of a commotion wasn't it? [off-mike, unclear] PM: Yes, Long Beach. And then we went on over to Palm Springs and the whole area, the Knotts Berry Farm. We just had a nice time but for four or five days. Then I left here and came back to my home in Andalusia, AL to visit my parents before going to Quantico. I had orders to go into marine corps schools at Quantico where I served as an artillery instructor, communications artillery instructor to an officer's class at Quantico. There I was when V-J day came, Inez was up, and I got, because of a high number of points that I had, I had immediate deactivation orders. I think on the 9th of September, some such day as that. And so I was sent home fast. We did have a wonderful opportunity of seeing the _ parade in Washington with about as many aircraft over Washington as I've ever seen, looked like a solid blanket of aircraft over Washington to celebrate V-J day and celebrating Admiral Nimitz _ was back in that time too. So it was a delightful time, we went, I was given my separation orders and I went to Cherry Point to get Inez. And we went home and planned our wedding and planned that we would get married and get her out of service. SE: How did you go about that, getting her to Cherry Point from California? PM: I just went to the headquarters and asked them how could they do it. I found a fellow who was grudgingly willing to transfer, he wouldn't transfer her to the Washington area, but he said he'd get her back to the east coast. I didn't know she was going to Cherry Point, but I didn't see how I could commute to El Toro very well. SE: So what, how long was it after you got out that she was able to get out, what was the time, how much longer did she have to be in? PM: She was out in November I guess, maybe two months. We went home for… IM: It was probably a shorter time than that because you came from Quantico down to Cherry Point to meet me and then we came to Atlanta and on to Andalusia, so _ stayed very long _. Anyway, we were there but when we went back to get me out, it was only a matter of a couple of days. So he had the _ time _ status _. PM: I didn't cover that earlier, but I was working with the telephone company when I went overseas, and I was in Birmingham when I went in the service. They gave me a leave of absence, military leave, and I returned to them in Atlanta and they assigned me to Atlanta for work here after the war. So I've probably left a lot out, but that's the… IM: You might mention that you had three brothers who were in service too as marines _. They all came through without a scratch. PM: Three of us were in the Pacific area at one time. One was in 4th division, he was, and I was in the 3rd division. He was in the Marianna islands and I was at Guam. And he was, he got, he was sent back to Perdue to go to school after his operation, which was shortly after I got back home I guess. My mother and father had a rough time because there were three of us in the marines. And one went through the quartermaster service in the army so there were four of us all in service. SE: There were four children in the family? PM: That's all, four boys. SE: And every single one of you was involved? PM: Oh, absolutely. SE: What was the, we talked earlier about your communication with Inez, but what communication was with your family? How long did it take for them to, or how often were you able to stay in touch with them? COUNTER 447 PM: Oh I could stay in touch with them but I couldn't identify my locations. And so I don't know that they knew where I was until after the fact _. And I think its probably true of Inez too, she didn't have any idea where I was. But because _, we were censoring, I was a censor, I censored all the mail for fellows. I didn't say anything about my reunions. I have not kept up with my outfit, but I had about 75 or 80 fellows with whom I was working. I was the communication officer, and they were the wire men and the radiomen. Our function was to keep communications between the forward observers and the gun positions. And so we had to lay wire and use radio. In 1975, I got a call from a fellow and he said that he was so and so, and I didn't know the name, John somebody. He said he was in Jacksonville, Florida and said he had been trying to find me, said he was in my outfit. And I asked him, I said well I'm glad to hear from you. He says well Pete Peterson lives right close to you, and I didn't remember Pete but he told me who he was. He said they were going to have a reunion in Atlanta very shortly and they wanted me to come. These were the enlisted fellows had been having this reunion for fifteen and twenty years after the war, they had had it regularly every year, got together. And so they were meeting in Atlanta with Pete who lived fairly close to me. I went to that in 1975, and they meet every year, and I've been several times. I didn't miss, I missed the last one, but we still stay in touch. We're down now to about thirty guys I guess, and so it's harder to get together but we do stay in touch. As a matter of fact, Pete has written this book which he says is still a PFC I think. This is his wartime experience and this is a copy which I'll be glad to make, you can have. That's not the autographed one is it, no. This is another one by a fellow, Jack [Kerins] who was a radio operator. He happened to be in the ditch with me when we were under fire going in Guam. And we've since enjoyed swapping stories about it, we still stay in touch with him, I've talked with him in the last couple of months. And you know this book, this is one that you can have also, _ he wrote, and it's primarily his personal experience as a marine and it describes the conditions. SE: Were these _ IM: Just magazines, this is a brief history of the 12th Marines _. This magazine you can have to keep. SE: These came out during… IM: This is October '43, and this is _ later, I'm not sure when. [inaudible] PM: My colonel, battalion commander of the 1st battalion, was a brother-in-law of the fellow who defended Wake Island, what was his name?, a major who, marine major who defended Wake Island when it was under attack was a brother-in-law of mine. Oh yes, and one of the fellows in my outfit was an aircraft observer, I mean an air observer, he went up and spotted targets for our artillery and telephoned them back. He was a Connelly, he was a brother of John Connelly of Texas, governor of Texas, I don't remember his name, we did have it, but… SE: And when you have your reunions, people are coming from all over the country. PM: Oh yes, California too, and most of them are in the Indiana area, middle America, some in Missouri, all over the country. We have met here a couple of times. IM: We're celebrating our 50th anniversary by having the marine corps reunion _. SE: Was there anything else you'd like to add, any particular information, your training or your _, any other just experiences that you _. PM: One of the interesting experiences I had was when I flew from Hawaii to San Francisco. I was sitting in the right hand seat and the left hand seat next to me was this fellow [Gonya] who was one of the fellows in the picture of the flag at Iwo Jima. He was one of the five fellows that posed in that and I had a nice visit with him all the way. I never did stay in contact with him, wish I would had. He was being brought back for selling a bond, war bonds. SE: So that raising of the flag at Iwo Jima had an immediate impact, the photo? PM: Oh yes, it was… I have a copy that was presented by the photographer to a friend of mine, and so he gave it me also, passed it along to me. And it is a very symbolic moment of course, but it is a… another interesting fact is that at Iwo Jima one of the largest concentrations of artillery that we've ever had was involved in what we call rowing barrage. And people have described the washboard effect on Iwo Jima as being filled with caves with Japanese and it was a very deeply entrenched positions. And so about sixty pieces of artillery were involved in a roving barrage that raised sights a little bit for the Japanese, and this was a tremendous experience for us because it was a corps artillery and the artillery from three divisions was all involved in it. SE: I also wanted to mention again, I found it very interesting when you were talking about the flag going up. At the time, we think of it being a symbolic photo now, but it was also as you mentioned, a diversion for US troops coming in, from the Japanese, were diverted from that going on where as others were coming in. PM: Well the _ was that Iwo Jima served as an observation post for them. They could see the entire island so any time that the troops came ashore, they had a perfect sight on where to shoot and defend the island. Getting to the top of the island eradicated that observation post. And there were still… TAPE 2-SIDE A COUNTER 000 …many others and that's _ fighting going on another fifteen days I guess or three weeks. But it was quite an event that brought down cheers from the whole island where all the marines aboard were delighted to see that flag up. And of course as you know, there was a smaller flag placed up there originally, and these troops were sent up to pose for this flag after the fact. But it was a very symbolic message to the troops that everybody in the island saw. SE: I'd like to wrap up with you both mentioned that you have plans you're going to the dedication of the World War II memorial. Are you going to be getting together with any of your marine friends up there, do you have any special plans involved for that? PM: We will communicate with each other about it, but we don't have any plans to be with them. Our family is very much our three adult children, are very much wrapped up in the fact that their mother and daddy were marines, and so they don't let anything happen without letting us know about it. IM: There are several marines in the area that we _ hope to generate interest in _ because _ there are supposed to reunions all over the _ it should be a real fine time. Mentioned that all these men were enlisted and it was totally amazing what _ to do, _ so proud of _. PM: _ vice president of the American Cancer Society, responsible for raising funds, there was one in Annapolis was a very successful building contractor I guess a construction contractor and has done quite well. All of these fellows have been extremely well. SE: Did a lot of them come back and go back to school? PM: Oh yes. And Inez reminded me of a story, we went through Texas and stopped out beyond Fort Worth, wasn't it?, and talked, visited one of our guys and he was quite amazed that she, rather me, says heck that's what they called it. IM: One reunion in Annapolis and they have a home overlooking the bay, and _ Annapolis and look at all those houses _ bricks on them, they're all mine. _ Washington and we were kind of about the Iwo Jima memorial and we stopped _ person that we asked was a Japanese tourist. But it was fun to have the picture of all these guys at _ memorial, that meant a lot and enriched out lives so much. PM: This is the finest group of fellows you ever saw in your life, and they've been successful, all of them have wonderful mates, wives, we've enjoyed both their wives and them. SE: Had, do you keep up through email and… PM: Nothing formal, but we do have, they do have annual reunions and we telephone calls and communications. SE: Well, I think we're about at a stopping point here, so I'm going to go ahead and turn this off and get it rewound here. COUNTER 051"],"dc_format":["video/quicktime"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":null,"dcterms_publisher":null,"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Veterans History Project oral history recordings","Veterans History Project collection, MSS 1010, Kenan Research Center, Atlanta History Center"],"dcterms_subject":["World War, 1939-1945--Personal narratives, American","Guadalcanal, Battle of, Solomon Islands, 1942-1943","Iwo Jima, Battle of, Japan, 1945","B-29 (Bomber)","Moss, Inez Riley, 1922-2014","Moss, Arthur B., 1922-1998","Moss, Wade","Moss, Fred, 1924-","Peterson, Pete","Kerins, Jack","Gagnon, Rene, 1925-1979","Letcher, John Seymour, 1903-1994","United States. Marine Corps. Marine Division, 3rd","United States. Marine Corps. Marine Regiment, 12th","United States. Navy. Seabees","Mt. Suribachi","Boeing B-29 Superfortress (heavy bomber)","United States. Marine Corps. Marine Artillery"],"dcterms_title":["Oral history interview of Paul G. Moss"],"dcterms_type":["MovingImage"],"dcterms_provenance":["Atlanta History Center"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://album.atlantahistorycenter.com/cdm/ref/collection/VHPohr/id/269"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["This material is protected by copyright law. (Title 17, U.S. Code) Permission for use must be cleared through the Kenan Research Center at the Atlanta History Center. Licensing agreement may be required."],"dcterms_medium":["video recordings (physical artifacts)","mini-dv"],"dcterms_extent":["50:13"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1091","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":["2004-02"],"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--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/1091"],"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\nThis transcript was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.\nI. PRELIMINARY FUNCTIONS CA.LL TO ORDER I ROLL CALL C :=z i:i: w ~ c::, I- \u0026gt; c::::, LLCz\u0026gt; C'-1 =::s ~ -  LL1::z: -~ w \" ~ c::, C\\1 ::~ 0 == ~ co LL.I LU a: ~ w ~ ~ a: (fl LU c:a  ?---1 ~ C) ~ C ~ ~CJ) ~ ~ ~ Q.) ~ ~  \"\".'1 ~ II. PROCEDURAL MATTERS WELCOME 9() S ~ Q.) ~ .... ~ ~ ~ Q.) -~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 111. REPORTS/RECOGNITIONS A. SUPT. CITATIONS B. PARTNERS IN EDUCATION C. PUBLIC ED FOUNDATION REPORT  \\ ' ' . \\ \\ \\ \\ I . ' \\ '. \\  . \\ \\ \\' ' . \\ \\ . \\. \\ .. . ., .\u0026lt;.\\\\ \\ .. \\ .. . . D. REMARKS FROM CITIZENS E. LRCTA/F.JOSHUA ~ ~ ~ Q: ~ I le 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 February 12, 2004 5:30 p.m. 111. REPORTS/RECOGNITIONS/PUBLIC COMMENTS: A. Superintendent's Citations B. Partners in Education - New Partnerships Bale Elementary School - Twin City Bank - Baseline Elementary School - Southwest Produce - Williams Magnet School - AARP-C. Public Education Foundation of Little Rock - John A. Riggs, IV D. Remarks from Citizens (persons who have signed up to speak) E. Little Rock Classroom Teachers Association F. Joshua lntervenors IV. REPORTS AND COMMUNICATIONS: A. Remarks from Board Members B. Student Assignment Report C. Budget Update D. Construction Report: Proposed Bond Projects E. Internal Auditors Report F. Technology Demonstration Regular Board Meeting February 26, 2004 Page2 V. VI. APPROVAL OF ROUTINE MATTERS: A. Minutes: Regular Meeting - 01-22-04 Special Meeting - 02-12-04 B. Extension of PN Agreement C. Personnel Changes SCHOOL SERVICES: A. Naming of Facilities: Mann Magnet Middle School Auditorium B. Resolution to 4G: Attendance Rubric C. School Improvement Report: An Overview VII. BUSINESS SERVICES DIVISION: A. Land Sale - Forest Heights Middle School B. Lease: Miles Memorial Church C. Resolution Authorizing Refinance/Consolidation of Outstanding Debt D. Construction Budget Revision - Mitchell and Rightsell E. Donations of Property F. Financial Report VIII. CLOSING REMARKS: IX. X. Superintendent's Report: 1. Dates to Remember 2. Special Functions EMPLOYEE HEARINGS ADJOURNMENT I. PRELIMINARY FUNCTIONS CA.LL TO ORDER I ROLL CALL U. PROCEDURAL MATTERS WELCOME Ill. REPORTS/RECOGNITIONS A. SUPT. CITATIONS B. PARTNERS IN EDUCATION C. PUBLIC ED FOUNDATION REPORT 0. REMARKS FROM CITIZENS E. LRCTA/F.JOSHUA To: From: Through: Subject: Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 February 26, 2004 Board of Education Debbie Milam, Director, ViPS/Partners in Education)~ Morris L. Holmes, Interim Superintendent Partners in Education Program: New partnerships 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. The following schools and businesses have completed the requirements necessary to establish a partnership and are actively working together to accomplish their objectives. We recommend that the Board approve the following partnerships: Bale Elementary School and Twin City Bank-University Branch Baseline Elementary School and Southwest Produce Williams Traditional Magnet School and AARP Partnership Proposal Twin City Bank- University Branch and Bale Elementary School Twin City Bank- University Branch commits to the following partnership activities:  Sponsor Red Ribbon Week  Count change collected through fundraisers  Arrange for Penny, Nick and Buck to make appearances at school functions  Recruit employees to read to students and listen to students read  Job shadowing  Provide speakers for topics such as economics, saving money, etc.  Provide refreshments for staff functions Bale Elementary commits to the following partnership activities:  Provide artwork for display in bank lobby  Provide choir to perform on holidays and special occasions-grand opening  Acknowledged Twin City Bank - University Branch as a Partner in Education  Invite the bank to school events  Work with the bank on community service projects BASELINE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL Partnership Agreement between Baseline Elementary and Soutwest Produce Southwest Produce is willing to: Make food/ice donations for special events Make food donations to help needy families, if needed Sponsor one or more students for Job Shadowing Kay Moore will mentor a female student and will visit with said student at least once a month at Baseline Be willing for students to make a fieldtrip to the store in the line of academic study or career education Participate in our annual community service project by donating or getting food items at cost Display student work in the business Baseline Elementary is willing to: Provide a calendar of events and invite employees to appropriate school functions Provide appropriate tokens of appreciation for partnership Help with a special project, such as a clean-up day or other 3623 Baseline Road  Phone (501) 447-3700  Fax (501) 447-3701 Little Rock, Arkansas 72209 !\" \u0026gt; C: C ~ ::0 en fll c3 ~ WILLIAMS TRADITIONAL MAGNET SCHOOL A CHOICE FOR EXCELLENCE AARP Arkansas and Williams Traditional Magnet School Partnership Establishment The AARP Foundation leads positive social change to help people 50 and over age with independence, dignity and purpose. The Arkansas State Office and Information Center are both located in Little Rock. All AARP chapters are non-government, non-partisan, non-profit community service organizations that are open to all local AARP members. The AARP offers many programs, services, and many other subjects of interest to their members and their families. There are numerous employees who have a wide range of interests, talents, experiences, and ideas, and possibly will be willing to share these for the benefit of students at Williams Magnet School. Williams Traditional Magnet School is a tri-district magnet school operating in Pulaski County as a part of the LR.SD. There is a staff of approximately 40 and a student enrollment of approximately 460. Despite all of the help afforded by the three school districts whose children attend, the school is always in need of additional resources in connection with the education provided to students. The staff at Williams Magnet School completed a school needs assessment to determine needed services and resources for the 2003-04 school year. The Partnership Council will use this information to match resources and needs throughout the school year. Activities will be coordinated through the AARP team leader and the Williams Magnet School team leader. The Partnership Council will attend an initial conference, and will then meet as the need arises to assess the effectiveness of the Partnership. Communication will be open and constant. *Proposed plan of activities for the 2003-04 school year: AARP Grandparent's Day Activities Student incentives/awards for Grandparent's Day Grandparent seminars/classes Provide educational resources Assembly guests 7301 E:vergreen Street  Phone (501) 447-7100 Williams Magnet School Student/Teacher participation in AARP programs Promote ongoing recognition and appreciation Send monthly newsletters Art work Participate in contests Choir performance Fax (501) 447-7101  Little Rock , Arl\u0026lt;ansas 72207 '.54.n Individual Approach to a World of Knowledge\" DATE: TO: FROM: PREPARED BY: SUBJECT: February 26, 2004 Board of Directors ~nald M. Stewart, Chief Financial Officer Morris L. Holmes, Interim Superintendent Bill Goodman~ February 2004 Construction Report - Bond Projects The remodeling of Central High School is being performed in construction phases. Portable classrooms have permitted construction to be done during normal working hours in the areas of the building that are vacated by staff and students. This method and the cooperation of Central' s staff have allowed the contractor to accelerate the construction schedule. The completion date has been changed to the summer of 2005 as opposed to the original completion date of December 2005. All of the portable classrooms at Mann Magnet Middle School were sold at a public auction earlier this month. All of the portable classrooms will be removed by the end of this month. This will allow the contractor to build the new parking lot north of the replacement school. All construction will be completed by May 1st . The above is all good news. The bad news is that the construction of the new media center at Dunbar Magnet Middle School has had several unexpected delays. Instead of being ready for occupancy this summer, it will be completed in December 2004. If you have any questions, please call me at 447-1146. 810 W Markham  Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  www.1rsd.k12.ar.us 501-324-2000  fax: 501-324-2032 rn  c:: C ~ 6l ~ ~ .'..\". mn ::c C ~ z ~ ! \u0026lt;z5 CONSTRUCTION REPORT TO THE BOARD FEBRUARY 26, 2004 BOND PROJECTS UNDER CONSTRUCTION Facility Name I Project Description I Cost I Est. Completion Date Baseline Renovation $953,520 Jul-O4 Brady Addition/renovation $973,621 Aug_:Qi Central Renovation  Interior $10,200,266 Aug-O5 Dunbar Renovation/addition $6,161 ,950 Dec-O4 J. A. Fair 6 classroom addition \u0026amp; cafeteria/music room addition $3,155,640 May-O4 Mabelvale MS Renovation $6,851,621 Mar-O4 Mann Partial Replacement $11 ,500,000 May-O4 McClellan Classroom Addition $2,155,622 Jul-O4 Parkview Addition $2,121 ,226 Jun-O4 Pulaski Hgts. Elem Renovation $1 ,193,259 . Aug-O4 Pulaski Hgts. MS Renovation $3,755,041 Aug-O4 Southwest Addition $2,000,000 Aug-O4 Tech Ctr I Metro Renovation 'Addition/Renovation Phase II $3,679,000 Jun-O4 Wakefield Rebuild $5,300,000 Jul-O4 Williams Renovation $2,106,492 Mar-O4 BOND PROJECTS CONSTRUCTION - WINTER/ SPRING 2004 Facility Name I Project Description I Cost I tst. Completion Date Mitchell Renovation $750,000 I Aug-O5 Rightsell I Renovation $660,000 Aug-O6 BOND PROJECTS PLANNING STARTED CONST. DATE TO BE DETERMINED Facility Name I Project Description I Cost I Est. completion Date Booke-r --- Electrical Upgrade Unknown Unknown --Roof-- --- ----- -Boo-ker -- $48,525 I Unknown ADA Rest rooms -- Booker TBD Unknown Carver Media Center Expansion Unknown Unknown Chicot -- Electrical Upgrade Unknown Unknown Chicot Sound Attenuation \u0026amp; Fire Alarm $50,783 Un-known Cloverdale Elementary Addition Unknown Unknown Dodd Fire Alarm Upgrade TBD Unknown Fair Park 1Additior, Unknown I Unknown Forest Heights _ !Remodel $1,400,000 Unknown Garland Remodel Unknown 1 Unknown Geyer Springs Roof Repair $161 ,752 . Unknown Gibbs - Addition Unknown Unknown - --- Henderson Lockers $80,876 Unknown -- -Mab-levale- -- Fire Alarm Upgrade TBD Unknown McD-ermot-t --Fire Alarm Upgrade TB~ Unknown Meadowcliff --- Addition Unknown  Unknown -- --- Pulask_!_!igts. MS_ - - ~ rgy monitoring system installation Unknown Unknown Washington Fire Alarm Upgrade -- T~ Unknown --- Western Hills Electrical Upgrade \u0026amp; HVAC $640,000 Unknown -- Western Hills _ __ire Alarm Upgrade TBD Unknown - - Western Hills ADA Rest rooms TBD Unknown Woodruff Parking addition $193,777 Unknown CONSTRUCTION REPORT TO THE BOARD FEBRUARY 26, 2004 BOND PROJECTS THAT HAVE BEEN COMPLETED Facility Name Administration Administration Administration Administration Annex Alternative Learning Ctr. Alternative Learning Ctr. Badg._ett ______ _ Badgett Bale Project Description Asbestos abatement Fresh airs stem Fire alarm Energy monitoring system installation Energy monitoring system installation Energy efficient lighting Partial asbestos abatement Fire alarm Classroom addition/renovation E nergy monitoring system Partial roof replacement HVAC Bale Bale Bale Booker --------'- ------- Booker Energy efficient lighting . Energy monitoring system installation Booker A sbestos abatement Booker Brady Brady Carver -------- -- -- Fire alarm  Energy efficient lighting --------Asbestos abatement - -- ------ Carver ----- Central Parking Central/Quigley Central/Quigley Central/Quigley Central Central Central Central Central Cloverdale Elem. Cloverdale MS Cloverdale MS Dodd Dodd Dodd Facilities Service Facility Services Fair Park- -- - Fair Park Fair Park J. A. Fair J. A. Fair J. A. Fair J. A. Fair J. A. Fair J. A. Fair Forest Park Forest Park Forest Park __ _ fulbright Fulbright Fulbright --===-Fulbright Fulbrigh.!_ __ _ Franklin Gibbs GibbS - - - - - - Energy monitoring system installation Parking lot S tudent parking Stadium light repair \u0026amp; electrical repair A thletic Field lmprovemen-t - Irrigation System P urchase land for school Roof \u0026amp; exterior renovations -Ceiling and wall repair -Fire Alarm System De- s-ig-n-/1-ns- tallation -,-FroniTanding tile repair - Energy efficient lighting  Energy efficient lighting _ Major renovation \u0026amp; addition Energy efficient lighting - Asbestos abatement-ceiling tile ~ Replace roof top HVAC J nterior renovation Fire alarm . HVAC renovation/fire alarm ~Energy efficient lighting Asbestos abatement-ceiling _Energy efficient lighting Press box Security cameras Athletic Field Improvement I rrigation System Roof repair_s __ _ Replace window units w\"lcentral HVAC Diagonal parking __ _ 1Energy efficient lighting Energyefficient lighting 7EnergyITlonitorfi,g._s_y~st\"- e-m_i_n-stallation - Re lace roof top HVAC units Parking lot ______ _ Roof repairs R enovation Energy efficient lig,h_tin~g,__ _ Energ monitoring s stem installation --~$=3-8:..0::.!,.4.:.c9::..5:c,-___M ar-03 $55,000 Aug-03 $32,350 ~g-03 May-02 ~ t-01 Dec-01 $15,160 $82,000 $237,237 $18,250 $2,244,524 - Jul-01 $269,587 ---.-. --$664,587- -=----$170,295 $23,710 -- $10,900 $34,501 ----$80,5~ + $345,072 - - $14,4~ .._ - $111~742 $174,000 $265,000 $38,000 $1~ 500 Unknown $2,000,000 .,_ $24,000 $80,876- $22,470 - $132,678 $189,743 $1 ,393,822 $90,665~ $156,299- $215:570 $84,672 $12,00~ $315,956 $90,162~ $59,310 $277,594 $10,784 - $12,500 $38,000- $14,000 $391 ,871 $485,258 ~ 11 ,7~ --- ~ 788- $134.463 $11,950 $107,835 $140,000 - $200,000 $2,511 ,7~ - $76,447- $11 ,770 Aug-02 Dec-02 Mar-02 Dec-01 Aug-01 Apr-01 Oct-01 Feb-02 Mar-02 Sep-02 Aug-02 May-01 Aug-03 Aug-03 Aug-03 Aug-03 Aug-03 Dec-02 Dec-02 Oct-01 Aug-01 Aug-01 Jul-01 Jul-01 Nov-02 Aug-01 Jul-01 Aug-02 Mar-01 Aug-03 Apr-02 Aug-01 Aug-01 Apr-01 Nov-00 Jun-01 Jul-03 Jul-03 Aug-03 Nov-03 Aug-03 ~y-01 Jun-01 Aug-0_!_ Aug-02 Sep-02 Oct-02 Mar-03 Apr-01 Jul-01 2 f\u0026gt; ril ,0 ~ z m rn ::z:: ~ Cl m \"' :n .... ~ ::z:: C m ~ ~ ! 15 z CONSTRUCTIONREPORTTOTHEBOARD FEBRUARY 26, 2004 BOND PROJECTS THAT HAVE BEEN COMPLETED Facility Name I I I Est. Completion Proiect Description Cost Date Hall Major renovation \u0026amp; addition $8,637,709 Sep-03 Hall Asbestos abatement I $168,2221 Aug-01 Hall I Energy efficient lighting I $42,931 Jul-01 Hall I Energy efficient lighting I $296,707 Apr-01 Hall Infrastructure improvements I $93,657 Aug-01 Hall Intercom I Feb-01 Hall Security cameras $10,600 Jun-01 i--H:-..,..e._n--d-,,e....rs_o_n ______ ,,E,,...n_e,..r..g,.,_y,'-ef_fi1ci_en_t_l~ig_ht~ing'---------'--'---$-'--1-9'-3'..,,6_7_9_ ____J_ u_l-01---1 Henderson Roof replacement gy,~m_ ______, ___$_ 107~,8_35 ____M_ ay~-_0.1,.. Henderson Asbestos abatement Phase I $500,000 1 Aug-01 Henderson Asbestos abatement Phase 2 $250,000 Aug-02 IRC IEnergy efficient lighting $109,136 Jul-02 Jefferson Asbestos abatement $43,639 Oct-01 Jefferson Renovation \u0026amp; fire alarm $1 ,630,000 Nov-02 Laidlaw Parking lot $269,588 1 Jul-01 Mabelvale Elem. Energy monitoring system installation $12,150 Aug-01 Mabelvale Elem. 'Replace HVAC units $300,000 Aug-02 Mabelvale Elem. Asbestos Abatement $107,000 ' Aug-02 Mabelvale Elem. Energy efficient lighting --'$-_1.0:..6_,,.5.:..9.:..8\n_\n,_ ___D_ e_c-,..0..-21 Mabelvale MS-------,R- e-n-o'\"v''a-t_e_b_le_a_c_h\"e\"\"r_s_,,___ ________- _ -__$ 1_3_4~,7 _9_3_ ___A_ u~g~-01_, ~ann Asphalt walks 'The total $1_ 8 million If---___D, ,...ec_-c0c1----1 Mann Walkway canopies is what has been Dec-01 Mann Boiler repla_c_e_m_e_n_t _______ __, used so far on the l~ ___ O_c_t-01_. Mann Fencing projects listed 1f---___ Se_,p_-01---1 ,-Ma-nn- --- Partial demolition/portable classrooms completed for Mann. Aug-01 McClellan Athletic Field Improvement $38,000  Jul-03 1 M_c_C_le_lla_n=-~----____ l_rr~ig~a_tio_n_ System $14,750 Jul-03 McClellan Security cameras $36,300 1 Jun-01 _M_c_Cle_lla_n _______ E_n_ergy efficient lighting $303,614 May-01 McClellan Stadium stands repair $~23_5_,,,0....0,...0._ ___- A=cu-=g--:0:-=1-1 McClellan Intercom $46,000 Feb-02 I_M_c_D_e_rm_ ott _____. ...,,E__n_ergy efficient lighting 1 $79,411 1 Feb-01 McD_erm6tt Replace roof top HVAC units , $476,000 Aug-02 Meadowcliff Fire alarm ! $16,175 1 Jul-01 Meadowcliff ______A_ s_b_e-st_o_s_a-bat_em_e-n-t -------1~---$--2'-5-3-'-\",4--1.2.:.._,__ __A_ u_g_-0--21 Mead_ow_c_liff - ----,-E-n-ge_r_g_y_effi-1c-ie_nt l-ig-h-ti-ng------~,----$-88-',-29_7_ I ----D-e=c--0-21 Metropolit~ I Replace cooling tower i $37,203 ' Dec-00 Metropolitan Replace shop vent system I $20,000 May-01 1 _M_e_tr_o_politan_ ______E_ n_e_r,g=y monitoring system installation ____$_1 7_,,_145_ ____A_ u=g-_0_1, Mitchell Energy efficient lighting $103,642 I Apr-01 ~itchell __-_ 'Energy monitoring system installation $16,695 Jul-01 Mitchell Oakhurst Otter Creek Otter Creek Otter Creek Otter Creek- Otter Creek ~~~t~:n~~:::~ent $~!\n:~-~-~----A-Ju~_I:~- ~-\u0026lt; Energy monitoring system installation $10,695 May-01 __ _ Energy ~ ff~ient lighting ---=-~_ ____$8_ 1_,,82_8__ Apr-01 - -----A-sb-es=tos- a-ba-te-m-en-t ------------,--$1,0~,000- -----A~ug-0~2 Parking lot $138,029 1 Aug-02 --- - -----~6 c-las-sr-oom- -add-itio-n -----------~$88-8,-778- 1- ---O-ct\u0026lt;-02 Otter Creek , Parking Improvements 1 $142,541 1 Aug-03 Parkview HVAC controls $210,000 I Jun-02 Parkview Roof replacement $273,877 1 Sep-01 Parkview Parkview Exterior lights , $10,784 1 Nov-00 HVAC renovation \u0026amp; 700 area controls $301 ,938 Aug-0'1 Parkview Locker replacement $120,000 , Aug-01 Parkview 1 Energy efficient liohting $315,000 Jun-01 3 CONSTRUCTION REPORT TO THE BOARD FEBRUARY 26, 2004 BOND PROJECTS THAT HAVE BEEN COMPLETED Facilitv Name I Proiect Descriotion I Cost I Est. Completion Date Procurement Energy monitoring system installation $5,290 I Jun-02 Procurement Fire alarm I $25,000 Aug-03 Pulaski Hgts. Elem I Move playground $17,000 Dec-02 Rightsell I Energy efficient lighting $84,898 I Apr-01 Rockefeller Energy efficient lighting $137,004 Mar-01 Rockefeller Replace roof too HVAC $539,175 I Aug-01 Rockefeller I Parking addition $111,742 I Aug-02 Romine I Asbestos abatement $10,000 . Apr-02 Romine 'Major renovation \u0026amp; addition $3,534,675 Mar-03 SecurityfTransportation Bus cameras $22,500 I Jun-01 Southwest Asbestos abatement $28,138 Aug-00 Southwest INew roof $690,000 Oct-03 Southwest Energy efficient lighting $168,719 I Jan-02 Southwest Drainage I street widening I $250,000 I Aug-03 Student Assignment Energy monitoring system installation $4,830 Aug-02 Student Assignment Fire alarm $9,000 Aug-03 Tech Center Phase 1 Renovation $275,000 Dec-01 Technology Upgrade Upgrade phone system \u0026amp; data Nov-02 Terry Energy efficient lighting $73,850 Feb-01 Terry I Driveway \u0026amp; Parking $83,484 Aug-02 Terry 1 Media Center addition I $704,932 I Sep-02 Wakefield I Security cameras I $8,000 Jun-01 Wakefield Energy efficient lighting $74,776 I Feb-01 Wakefield Demolition/Asbestos Abatement I $200,000 Nov-02 Washington 1 Security cameras I $7,900 I Jun-01 Washington I Energy efficient lighting I I $165,281 Apr-01 Watson Energy monitoring system installation I $8,530 Jul-01 Watson Asbestos abatement I $182,241 Aug-01 Watson Energy efficient lighting $106,868 I Aug-01 Watson ,Asbestos abatement I $10,000 Aug-02 Watson I Major renovation \u0026amp; addition I $800,000 - Aug-02 Western Hills IAsbestos abatement I $191 ,946 I Aug-02 Western Hills I Intercom I $1,100 I Dec-01 Western Hills 1 Energy efficient lighting $106,000 I Jul-01 Williams Parking expansions $183,717 Dec-03 Williams Energy efficient lighting $122,719 . Jun-01 Wilson Renovation/expansion $1 ,263,876 Feb-04 Wilson Parking Expansion I $110,000 Aug-03 Woodruff Renovation I $246,419 I Aug-02 4 !I' -a z I ii: m .z.. . r\u0026gt; ril ~ z z m h ::c ~ Cl m en .=..\". m ('\") ::c C m ~ z !!l ! lz5 Date: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS February 26, 2004 To: Board of Directors From~andy Becker, Internal Auditor Re: Audit Report - February This is the fifty-second communication regarding status of the current year projects and reviews. Activity Funds a) Working with one high school, two middle schools and one elementary school to resolve financial issues in their activity funds. b) Reviewing monthly financial information 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) Working with the new Activities Advisory Board to develop plans for the new school year and beyond. b) Assist the Activities Advisory Board in its mission to strengthen the effectiveness and viability of activities in the District. c) Working with the Activities Advisory Board to provide ways to assist the different Booster groups in our schools. Board Policy and Regulation a) Coordinating development of payroll guidelines with Financial Services as part of Financial Services Section of the District Operations Manual. Technology Training a) Monitoring technology plans and technology meetings to determine how use of technology will improve and streamline the workflow for staff persons. a) Served as a trainer for financial portion of Nuts \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. !II \",zt. i c\n') ::,c, m m ii: m :!:i r, ~ ~ z m h ::c ~ c\n') m CII Audit Report - February 2004 Page 2 of 2 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) Working with Financial Services on internal controls and rules for payroll processes and implementation of a new interface system. c) Monitoring other selected risk areas for efficiency, cost effectiveness, and compliance with District policies. Reviewing grant programs. d) Working with Child Nutrition on implementation of streamlined information processing system with Information Services and Child Nutrition Staff. e) Working with Information Services on streamlining of data processes regarding SIS reporting. f) Monitoring cost reduction efforts in the District. g) Monitoring combined payroll and human resources issues for compliance with board direction and internal controls. h) Reviewing leave accountability system. a) Provided technical assistance to school staff on grant writing. b) Served as co-chair of Strategic Team One - Financial Resources. c) Participating in planning for Day of Caring (April 17, 2004). 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. '54n Individual Approach to a World of Knowledge\" Date: February 26, 2004 To: Board of Education F rorn: ( Beverly Williams, Director ofH uman Resources Through: Morris L. Holmes, Ed.D. Interim Superintendent Re: Agreement regarding extension of the PN contract for all employee groups Attached is an agreement, which was reached on January 27, 2004, between the Little Rock Classroom Teachers Association and the District with regard to an extension of the present written negotiated Agreements. On going negotiations will continue. I am requesting the Board approval. 810 W/. Markham  Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  www.lrsd.org 501-447-1000  fax: 501-447-1001 !\"\u0026gt; -a m ~ z m h ::c ~ C') m en\n,,, :s ~~ !\n::c ~8 o.., ren ..,m \u0026gt;\no n-:nS ~ m en .!.l.l Cl \u0026gt; ,,. :z ~ :z ,C,.: LITTLE ROCK CLASSROOM TEACHERS ASSOCIATION January 27, 2004 AGREEMENT BETWEEN LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT AND LITTLE ROCK CLASSROOM TEACHERS ASSOCIATION I. The Board of Directors of the Little Rock School District and the Little Rock Classroom Teachers Association agree to extend their written negotiated agreements for the following employee groups: Teachers\nBus Drivers, Aides, and Monitors\nCustodians: Security Officers\nand Paraprofessionals. II. This extension is effective from January 30, 2004 until March 7, 2004 for all Agreements. All provisions and benefits of the contracts will remain in full force and automatically continue. On going negotiations will continue. ~?fit Grainger Ledbetter Chief Negotiator, LRCTA Date: ~/_- --\"-P_,_2----=--!)::.....i'----- 1500 West 4th Street Li ttle Roel~, AR 72201  5011372-3519 1-\\=.A/l'f=.1-. Affiliate DATE: TO: FROM: THROUGH: Re: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS February 26, 2004 Board of Education Beverly Williams, Director, Human Resources Dr. Morris Holmes, Interim Superintendent of Schools Personnel Changes It is recommended that the following personnel changes be approved at the indicated positions, salaries and classifications. In accordance with A.C.A. 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) years. Teachers with an effective date of employment after August 18, 2003 are considered intern teachers. !D Personnel Changes Page 2 February 26, 2004 NAME Igwe, Carrie Reason: Leaving City Forenro, Dan Reason: Retired Purifoy, Jimmy Reason: Deceased Thompson, Peggy Reason: Retired Wamble, Faustine Reason: Retired Andrews, Ashley Beggs, Melinda POSITION SCHOOL START DATE END DATE SALARY CLASS Resignations/Terminations Certified Employees Spec. Ed 9-2-86 2-17 MABELV ALE EL. 2-4-04 SPE925 Computer Tech 8-19-03 5-20 DUNBAR 5-31-04 TCHlO General Music 11-13-78 6-21 WATSON 12-18-03 TCH925 English 8-27-74 6-21 FAIR 2-13-04 TCH925 Elem IV 8-16-93 5-18 WILLIAMS 1-2-04 TCH925 . New Certified Employees Elem III 2-16-04 1-01 BALE TCH925 English 1-20-04 4-19 CENTRAL TCH925 ANNUAL SALARY 43667.00 50788.00 53213.00 53213.00 48267.00 26546.00 annual 9678.23 prorated 25554.23 annual 11845.45 prorated Personnel Changes Page 3 February 26, 2004 NAME Brown, Carleton Cain, Mary Carter, Arre! Charles, Glenroy Dyer, Julie Farrar, Neoma Harder, Melanie POSITION SCHOOL English CENTRAL ElemV GEYER SPRINGS Spec. Ed. ALC Algebra I FAIR Elem IV STEPHENS Elem ill CHICOT Physical Science FAIR START DATE END DATE 1-20-04 1-20-04 2-9-04 1-20-04 1-22-04 2-16-04 1-20-04 SALARY CLASS 4-01 TCH925 1-04 TCH925 1-06 SPE925 6-13 TCH925 1-05 TCH925 1-01 TCH925 2-03 TCH925 ANNUAL SALARY 30553.00 annual 14162.59 prorated 28588.00 annual 13251.73 prorated 30630.00 annual 11964.84 prorated 44566.00 annual 20658.20 prorated 29609.00 annual 13416.58 prorated 26546.00 annual 9678.23 prorated 14447.00 annual 6696.79 prorated\ni m C\nii-!!? ~~ cr(l !~ m u, !II ,... ~ u, m \u0026gt; C) ~ m I:: .mz.. .\n,,:s ~ ~ l!.::r:: ~8 0,... .., u, ..,m ~ ~ -n 3~ m u, .!Z.! Cl ~\nz ,C.: z c-: IT Personnel Changes Page 4 February 26, 2004 NAME Harrison, Kenneth Kuhn, Scarlett Larry,Betty Lockhart, Kelly McDaniel, Yvonne Muhammad, Khaleelah POSITION SCHOOL Geometry HALL Elem III STEPHENS Typing MABELV ALE MID. Algebra PUL. HGTS. MID. Elem III CLOVERDALE EL. Elem IV STEPHENS START DATE END DATE 1-22-04 1-26-04 2-5-04 2-16-04 1-14-04 1-14-04 SALARY CLASS 4-18 TCH925 1-05 TCH925 4-01 TCH925 1-01 TCH925 1-01 TCH925 1-02 TCH925 ANNUAL SALARY 46889.00 annual 21246.53 prorated 29609.00 annual 14033.43 prorated 19095.62 annual 7658.14 prorated 26546.00 annual 9678.23 prorated 26546.00 annual 12719.96 prorated 27056.00 annual 13809.83 prorated Personnel Changes Page 5 February 26, 2004 NAME eumeier, Cynthia Olivares, Lizete Smith, Michelle Treat, Heather Watkins, Cindy Williams, Frank Wise, Marshalette POSITION SCHOOL Elem Il MCDERMOTT Spanish CENTRAL Elem Il MCDERMOT Elem I CHICOT Spanish DUNBAR Music START DATE END DATE 1-5-04 1-6-04 1-5-04 2-2-04 1-14-04 1-20-04 MABELV ALE EL. English 1-12-04 HENDERSON SALARY CLASS 1-07 TCH925 1-03 TCH925 1-01 TCH925 1-01 TCH925 1-16 TCH925 6-08 TCH925 4-04 TCH925 ANNUAL SALARY 31651.00 annual 16320.05 prorated 27567.00 annual 14070.66 prorated 26546.00 annual 13687.78 prorated 26546.00 annual 11060.83 prorated 40839.00 annual 19568.69 prorated 39461.00 annual 19524.97 prorated 32595.00 annual 15957.57 prorated ~ a, C:\n\u0026gt; S!? ~~ cgi !~ m (I) !I' ~ (I) m \u0026gt; C, i!ll m :I: .mz. . ~:s ~~ !. :z: ~8 or- -.,u, ..,m \u0026gt;\na !:? ~ m m (I) !.l.l Cl ?\n: z C,. z C': rr Personnel Changes Page 6 February 26, 2004 NAME Hobbs, Anthony NONE POSITION SCHOOL START DATE END DATE Certified Promotion Day Coor. ROMINE 1-5-04 Certified Transfer SALARY CLASS ADC105 61-17 Resignationsfferminations Non-Certified Employees Alexander, Deborah Care 8-26-97 CARE Reason: None Given CARE 1-21-04 3-17 Anderson, Leamon Child Nut. 11-13-03 FSH4 Reason: Accepted Another CHILD NUT. 1-30-04 1-01 Position Austin, Sharon Instr. Aide 8-21-00 1NA925 Reason: None Given FAJRPARK 1-5-04 1-03 Barnes, Connie Child Nut. 9-29-03 FSH550 Reason: Personal FULBRIGHT 1-21-04 3-01 ANNUAL SALARY 50712.00 annual 28166.95 prorated 9.15 per hr 7121.00 11635.00 8130.00 Personnel Changes Page 7 February 26, 2004 NAME Bates, Betty Reason: Retired Boykin, Lalicia Reason: None Given Britton, Erica POSITION SCHOOL Secretary FAIR Custodian HALL Instr. Aide Reason: Returning to School GIBBS Burton, Jennifer Care Reason: None Given CARE Canady, Aquanetta Care Reason: None Given CARE Clegg, Shirleta Care Reason: None Given CARE Davis, Eleanor Care Reason: None Given CARE Doyne, Pamela Care Reason: None Given CARE Fairchild, Hattie Child Nutrition Reason: None Given WILLIAMS Fisher, Lisa Secretary Reason: Personal SOUTHWEST Goodman, Phyllis Care Reason: None Given , CARE START DATE END DATE 6-15-87 2-27-04 7-29-99 1-30-04 9-9-03 2-3-04 1-18-00 1-21-04 9-9-02 1-21-04 1-22-02 1-21-04 8-18-03 1-21-04 2-4-02 1-21-04 8-26-91 12-1-03 9-29-03 2-5-04 10-25-03 1-20-04 SALARY CLASS 44-20 CLK12 1-01 CUS925 1-03 INA925 1-05 CARE 3-07 CARE 4-01 CARE 1-03 CARE 3-03 CARE 5-13 FSH6 39-12 CLKlO 1-07 CARE ANNUAL SALARY 33396.00 10329.00 11635.00 6.68 7.68 6.25 6.43 7.12 9274.00 22656.00 6.97 ~ a, C: il\"Sz!? ~e 0~ !~ m en !ZI ,... ~ en m \u0026gt; C\u0026gt; Rl m I:: mz - il\"s ~~ l!!!\n::c zo C\u0026gt;O 0 ,- .., en ..,m \u0026gt;\no C') :S\n=~ :3 en m en .!Z.I Cl ~\n: z C )\u0026gt; z rrr. Personnel Changes Page 8 February 26, 2004 NAME Handy, Rosilyn Reason: None Given Harris, Fayette Reason: None Given Harvell, Lola Reason: None Given Hussian, Lateesha Reason: None Given Johnson, J arnes Reason: Terminated Johnson, Nikol POSITION SCHOOL Care CARE Child Nutrition CENTRAL Care CARE Custodian DUNBAR Instr. Aide ALC Instr. Aide START DATE END DATE 9-10-01 1-21-04 10-2-03 2-26-04 9-29-03 1-20-04 8-21-79 1-5-04 8-14-03 2-12-04 1-13-00 Reason: Returning To School MITCHELL 1-16-04 Jones, Ruthie Child Nutrition 8-4-97 Reason: Health OTTERCREEK 12-18-03 Kennedy, Jarvis Custodian 8-8-03 Reason: None Given CENTRAL 2-2-04 Knight, Cynthia Child Nutrition 1-16-03 Reason: Accepted Another CLOVERDALE MID.1-8-04 Position Lee, Roy Custodian 4-22-91 Reason: Retired TERRY 12-5-03 Martin, Fred Custodian 8-13-01 Reason: Health MEADOW CLIFF 1-30-04 SALARY CLASS 1-05 CARE 3-01 FSH550 3-08 CARE 1-03 CUS925 1-10 INA925 1-07 INA185 1-06 FSH5 1-01 CUS928 3-02 FSH550 1-11 CUS928 1-11 CUS925 ANNUAL SALARY 6.68 8130.00 7.82 11201.00 14067.00 13115.00 7532.00 10329.00 8158.00 14461.00 14461.00 Personnel Changes Page 9 February 26, 2004 NAME Turner, Lois Reason: Accepted Another Position Washington, Sydney Reason: None Given Williams, Angela Reason: Personal Williams, Charlotte Reason: Health Young, Cylde POSITION SCHOOL Child Nutrition CENTRAL Child Nutrition START DATE END DATE 8-12-03 1-30-04 4-1-03 CHILD NUTRITION 12-9-03 Instr. Aide 11-4-03 ROMINE 12-31-03 Child Nutrition 9-22-03 HALL 12-15-03 Custodian 3-18-02 Reason: Returning to School MCDERMOTT  12-3-03 SALARY CLASS 3-12 FSH550 2-01 FSMEAL 1-10 INA925 3-01 FSH550 1-02 CUS12 New Non-Certified Employees Beard, Roberta Instr. Aide 1-20-04 1-10 FAIR PARK INA925 Blackmon, Ronald Security Officer 2-2-04 36-14 ALC SOFR9 Ervin, Christin Instr. Aide 2-3-04 1-01 GIBBS INA925 ANNUAL SALARY 8470.00 11593.00 14067.00 8130.00 13955.00 14067.00 annual 6615.29 prorated 15390.00 annual 6426.59 prorated 7086.59 annual 2949.55 prorated ~ a, C: ii\" 2z? ~i:! c~ ~ :0 m~ emn !I' ,.. ! en m \u0026gt; C, Fil m :mI: .z..\n,,:s ~~ !\n::c ~8 o.., re-n ..,m \u0026gt; :0 n:S r=~ ::! en emn !ll  Gl ~\n: z ,C. zr. rr Personnel Changes Page 10 February 26, 2004 NAME Finch, Felicia Fortenberry, Carolyn Ghant, atlyn Graham, Linda Gray, Cleola Hawkins, Derrick Higgins, Melissa POSITION SCHOOL Trainee CHILD NUT. Bus Driver TRANS. Care CA.RE Child Nutrition BALE Bus Driver TRANS. Instr. Aide KING Instr. Aides FRANKLIN START DATE END DATE 1-5-04 2-2-04 2-13-04 1-7-04 2-2-04 1-26-04 2-9-04 SALARY CLASS 2-01 FSMEAL 3-01 BUSDRV 3-05 CARE 3-01 FSH550 2-02 BUSDRV 1-10 INA925 1-10 INA925 ANNUAL SALARY 11593.00 annual 6108.14 prorated 9540.00 annual 4073.26 prorated 7.40 8130.00 annual 4220.49 prorated 8956.00 annual 3823.91 prorated 14067.00 annual 6311.14 prorated 14067.00 annual 5550.76 prorated Personnel Changes Page 11 February 26, 2004 NAME Hooks, Marichal Johnson, Linda Johnson, Stephanie Jones, Mary Lyons,Peggy Mondy, Lisa Myers, Dale POSITION SCHOOL Bus Driver TRANS. Custodian FULBRIGHT Child Nutrition OTTERCREEK Child Nutrition CLOVERDALE EL. Instr. Aide FAIR.PARK Security Officer CENTRAL Custodian WILLIAMS START DATE END DATE 2-2-04 1-19-04 1-28-04 12-1-03 1-20-04 2-6-04 1-21-04 SALARY CLASS 3-04 BUSDRV 1-01 CUS925 3-07 FSH550 3-01 FSH550 1-10 1NA925 36-10 SOFR9 1-01 CUS12 ANNUAL SALARY 11296.00 annual 4823.01 prorated 5164.50 annual 2441.91 prorated 8312.00 annual 3679.08 prorated 8130.00 annual 5020.16 prorated 14067.00 annual 6615.29 prorated 13657.00 annual 5402.77 prorated 13399.00 annual 6271.87 prorated ~ a, C:  en z ~~ C kl ~~ m~ m en !I' ,- e~n m i ~ m I:: .mz..\ni-s ~~ l!,\n::c ~8 0 ,- -.,en ..,m -~n~ 3 g: m en !Zl  Cl ~\n: z C: \"zr. M' Personnel Changes Page 12 February 26, 2004 NAME Relford, Yolanda Simpson, Sylvia Terry, Shirley Tidwell, Darrell Tribulak, Ashley Trussell, Kimo Turner, James POSITION SCHOOL Instr. Aide WASHINGTON Custodian START DATE END DATE 2-2-04 1-26-04 MABELV ALE MID. Bus Driver 2-2-04 TRANS. Child Nutrition 2-2-04 CHILDNUTR. Care 2-9-04 CARE Instr. Aide 1-27-04 CHICOT Security Officer 1-8-04 WOODRUFF SALARY CLASS 1-10 INA925 1-01 CUS925 3-02 BUSDRV 1-01 FSH4 2-02 CARE 1-10 INA925 36-11  SOFR9 ANNUAL SALARY 14067.00 annual 5930.95 prorated 5164.50 annual 2329.64 prorated 10118.00 annual 4320.04 prorated 7121.00 annual 2986.23 prorated 6.80 14067.00 annual 6235.10 prorated 14065.00 annual 7032.50 prorated Personnel Changes Page 13 February 26, 2004 NAME Urias, Oscar Weaver, Nellieann Williams, Wanda Williams, Yalanda NONE NONE POSITION SCHOOL Custodian START DATE END DATE 2-2-04 CLOVERDALE MID. Instr. Aide 1-14-04 STEPHE S Bus Driver 2-2-04 TRANS. Instr. Aide 1-12-04 CHICOT Non-Certified Promotion Non-Certified Transfer SALARY CLASS 1-01 CUS12 1-10 INA925 3-02 BUSDRV 1-10 INA925 ANNUAL SALARY 13399.00 annual 6815.74 prorated 14067.00 annual 7451.71 prorated 10188.00 annual 4320.04 prorated 14067.00 annual 6995.48 prorated\ni a, C: ?-Sz!? ~\ncgi ~~ m~ m UI !D ,... !j'\n! UI m \u0026gt; C) ~ m :I: .mz.. . ?\"s ~~ !\n:c ~8 0,... -,, UI ..,m ~~ rn m UI ,,. 2 ~ c,,-.: Personnel Changes Page 14 February 26, 2004 NAME Moore, Erica Moore, Cristen POSITION SCHOOL START DATE END DATE Sabbatical Leave SALARY CLASS ANNUAL SALARY Date of Hire 8-17-00 Length of Sabbatical 1 year (2004-2005) Date of Hire 8-12-99 Length of Sabbatical 1 year (2004-2005) LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS Date: February 26, 2004 To: Board of Education From: Morris L. Holmes, Ed. 0. Interim Superintendent Re: Naming of Facilities: Mann Magnet Middle School The faculty, staff, parents and students of Mann Magnet Middle School have submitted a request to name the school auditorium in honor of Mr. James L. Matthis. The request and supporting documents are submitted in accordance with Policy FF: Naming of Facilities. The administration recommends approval. bjg r\u0026gt; ill ~a -t- -1: ~~ ::a~ ~~ !i\nm C:\n,,se z ~~ C kl !~ m en IT z C ~ C': IT NAMING AND RENAMING F ACLITIES I propose that the Horace Mann Magnet Middle School Auditorium (Designation of building and/or other location) 1000 East Roosevelt Rd., Little Rock, AR 72206 (Address) Be named for James L. Matthis I. Biographical Data: Attached II. The Nominee's significant contribution is: Attached III. I believe the facility should be named for this person because: Attached (Signature) (Date) This form should be submitted by person nominating names for new facilities to the LRSD Board of Education for consideration according to Board policy FF. I. II. Biographical Data: Mr. James L. Matthis was born on January 23, 1939 in Jefferson, Texas. He received his early education in the Macedonia Schools in Jefferson, Texas. He received his Bachelor of Arts degree from Wiley College Marshall, Texas, and his Masters Degree from the University of Central Arkansas Conway, Arkansas. Additional course work was complete at UCA. Prior to beginning an exceptional professional career, he was a member of the Army Reserve and was stationed at Fort Smith, Arkansas. The Nominee's significant contribution is: Mr. Matthis began his professional career as a high school music teacher in Augusta, Arkansas. He shared his gifts in the education profession for forty years. He devoted the last thirty-six years of service in the Little Rock Public Schools beginning as a vocational coordinator at Horace Mann High School, Administrator-Opportunity Gateway School, ESAU Coordinator-Federal Programs and Assistant Principal-Mann Magnet Middle School. III. I believe the facility should be named for this person because: We the staff at Mann Magnet believe that the Mann Auditorium should be named James Matthis Auditorium for various reasons. Mr. Matthis taught music. The auditorium was part of the original Horace Mann r\u0026gt; ill\ngg\nor- -\u0026lt;- -o-\n=g ~o\n~ ~ ID C:\n\u0026gt;S!? z ii cf(l !~ m \"' IT z ~ r. IT High School during his tenure as a teacher. He was responsible for the smooth operation of the auditorium. He watched thousands of students walk across the stage. Mr. Matthis' most cherished responsibilities focused on helping students to become good scholars and citizens, supporting administrators, teachers, and support staff in accomplishing their assigned responsibilities and assisting parents in helping their students in school. For these reasons, we believe Mann's Auditorium should be named in honor of Mr. Matthis. TO: Board of Education SCHOOL SERVICES DIVISION 810 WEST MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK, AR 72201 447-1130 FROM: Sadie Mitchell, Associate Superintendent - School Services Dr. Lloyd Sain, Coordinator of Leadership Development THROUGH: Dr. Morris Holmes, Interim Superintendent DATE: February 23, 2004 SUBJECT: Resolution to 4G: Attendance Rubric The District and the Little Rock Classroom Teachers Association {LRCTA) have completed their task as requested by the Board in proposing an alternative to the on-going discussion with Domain 4, item 4G (attendance and punctuality). On February 1th, we submitted for your review our recommendation and now solicit your direction on this matter. !='\nK:c, :::.o nz ::c U\u0026gt; m~\n'\"c' ~c: \"i!! ins C) z ~~ PJ8 ~m LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS Date: February 26, 2004 To: From: Through: Board of Education Sadie Mitchell,~ciate Superintendent-School Services Lloyd Sain, Coordinator - Leadership Development Morris L. Holmes, Ed. D. Interim Superintendent Re: A School Improvement Report: An Overview of the Schools and Their School Improvement Progress, Grants, and Initiatives The above named report is being provided under separate cover. We will be available to review the findings and respond to any questions you might have. Please feel free to contact us if we can provide any additional information. bjg !\" 8 ~ lz5 en !=' ll:n ::.o nz ::c en m-1 rr--\"C': ,\".\", C..'). i5 0 :CZ -I a, enc: ~8 r-m MEMORANDUM I FACILITY SERVICES DIRECTORATE DATE: TO: SUBJ: February 9, 2004 Dr. Morris, L. Homes, Interim Superintendent r. Do Stewart, Chief Financial Officer ~ton, Director of Facility Services nformation: Land Sale - Forest Heights Middle School The Little Rock School District has received a viable offer from a company known as Mangan Properties, LLC, of Little Rock, for the purchase of the property immediately west of Forest Heights Middle School for the sum of $200,000. This $200,000 figure includes the Little Rock School District's realtor's fee of 9%. The property was professionally appraised in December of 2003 at $188,000. It is the intention of Mangan Properties to construct a dental office at this location that will present a single-story office building with associated parking. The building will tie-in well with the neighborhood and the adjoining buildings, and I believe that it will make an excellent neighbor to our school property and not interfere with the operations of the school. The details of the sale of the property are such that there will be a vision screen from the school looking toward this property. The Offer and Acceptance that you signed has been forwarded to Rector Phillips Morse for notification to Mangan Properties. DE:cg !\" 8 ~ iz5 en !=' !I:(\") =I 0 nz % en m--1 r-\n:c r- C: go(\")\n:c__, i\n~ ~~ mo r- C) r- m FOREST HEIGHTS PROPERTY March 24, 1983  J RESOLUTION WHEREAS, the Little Rock School District of Pulaski County, Arkansas, herein called \"District,\" is the owner of the following described lands located in the City of Little Rock, Arkansas: and\nA tract of land located in the NW SW Section 31, T-2-N, R-12-W, Pulaski County, Arkansas, more particularly described as: Beginning at a point on the South right-of-way line of Evergreen Drive, (formerly \"K\" Street), 30 ft. South of the centerline and 70 ft. East of the West line of said Section 31\nthence S 8g(ll6'10\"E along said South right-of-way line 275.0 ft. to a point\nthence South along a line, parallel with said West line of said Section 31, 450.06 ft. to a point\nthence NS916'10\"W and parallel with the South rightof- way line of Evergreen Drive, 295.0 ft. to a point on the East right-of-way line of North University Avenue, said point being 50 ft. East of the West line of said Section 31\nthence North along said East right-of-way line and 50 ft. East of and parallel with the West line of said Section 31, 230 ft. to a point\nthence East and continuing along said East rightof- way line, 5.0 ft. to a point\nthence North and continuing along said East right-of-way line, 55.0 ft. East and parallel with the West line of said Section 31, 205.0 ft. to a point\nthence Northeasterly along the arc of a 14.81 ft. (Deed 15.0 ft.) radius curve to the right, having a chord bearing and distance of N4521 '55\"E, 21.08 ft. to the point of beginning containing 131,609 sq. ft. or 3.0213 Acres more or less. WHEREAS, said lands are hereby found to be surpl~s to the needs of the District, and are accordingly no longer needed for school purposes and should be abandoned and sold\nand WHEREAS, in order to convey merchantable title to said lands free and clear of all liens and encumbrances, it is necessary to secure releases of said lands from the liens of several mortgages or deeds of ti-ust securing bonds issued by the District, and it will be necessary in order to secure such releases that the District place the proceeds of the sale in the Building Fund of the District to be used exclusively for either repairs or new construction of buildings and other facilities for school purposes . of the District. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Board of Directors of the Little Rock School District of Pulaski County, Arkansas: l. That the administration take the necessary measures to offer for sale the above described surplus lands which are no longer needed for school purposes. 2. That no offer be accepted except by resolution of this Board convened in a legal meeting. 3. That the proceeds, if any, from the sale of said lands be placed in the Building Fund of the District and will be used exclusively for either repairs or new construction of buildings and other facilities for school purposes. 4. That a certified copy of this Resolution be delivered to the several trustees of the mortgages and deeds of trust presently encumbering the above described property, this Board requesting that upon receipt of such certified Resolution said corporate trustees forthwith release, in recordable form, the above described lands from each of the separate mortgages and deeds of trust aforesaid, as same are applicable to each corporate trustee. ADOPTED: March 24, 1983 STATE OF ARKANSAS) ) ss COUNTY OF PULASKI) Subscribed and sworn to before me My Commission Expires 7/1/83 this 24th day of March, 1983. . c\n?:t,,na, )t' ~,,,., ,~ J Notary Pu ic - 8 z ~ lz5 Cl) :.n., z ~ 0 ,\n,Cl) ~n Individual Approach to a World of Knowledge\" TO: Board of Education THROUGH: Dr. Morris L. Holmes I Superintendent of Schools FROM: SUBJECT: ease: Miles Memorial Church Title/Subject: Short Summary: Objectives: Expected Outcomes: Population/Location: Budget Amount/Source of Budget: Manager: Duration: Long Range/Continuation: Other Agencies Involved: Expectations of the District: Needed Staff: Comments: Recommendations: Attachment: Copy of proposed lease Request for leasing action. The Miles Memorial Christian Methodist Episcopal Church has requested to lease the parkin~ lot at the Procurement Office, 1800 East 61 St. Not applicable Not applicable Office/Procurement Office, 1800 East 6th St. Not applicable Doug Eaton, Director of Facility Services One year beginning March 2004 and ending February 2005 Not applicable Miles Memorial CME Church Not applicable Not applicable The Miles Memorial CME Church, recently constructed across from Procurement, has requested the use of our parking lot during non-working hours to support their functions until their parking lot can be constructed. Their parking lot is expected to be completed within one year. It is recommended that this leasing action be approved. The Little Rock School District has entered into similar leases to support nonprofit organizations in our community. 810 W Markham  Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  www.lrsd.k12.ar.us 501-324-2000  fax: 501-324-2032 8 ! lz5 Cl) !=' :l:n =l 0 nz :Z:CII mr --\n\u0026lt;o r c: gon\no .... i5\n~~ fgo rr mC\u0026gt; LEASE AGREEMENT Lease made this ____ day of __________ _ , by and between Little Rock School District, as Lessor, and Miles Memorial CME Church of Little Rock, Arkansas, as Lessee. WINESSETH Lessor hereby leases to Lessee the entire premises described as follows : SEE EXHIBIT A A TT ACHED HERETO, m the City of Little Rock, Arkansas, for the term of one year beginning on ______________ , at yearly rental of twelve dollars ($12.00) payable in equal monthly installments, or a lump sum, at the office of the Lessor. This lease may be extended from year to year on the same terms and conditions by express agreement of the Lessor and the Lessee. CONDITIONS, COVENANTS, AND OTHER PROVISIONS I. In the event that the said premises shall be or become unsafe for the continuation of the Lessee's use thereof, or if Lessee be prevented by any present or future law or ordinance and/or by the authorities having jurisdiction in the premises from continuing use of said premises, this lease shall terminate at the option of the Lessee on sixty (60) days' notice, in writing, to the Lessor by registered mail addressed to the Lessor at the place of address listed herein or such other address as the Lessor may hereafter in writing specify\nand the Lessor agrees, thereupon, to return to the Lessee any rent paid in advance for the unexpired term. II. Lessor represents and warrants to be the owner of the premises described above and to have the authority to make this lease. III. Lessor reserves the right to terminate this lease by giving thirty (30) days' notice in writing by registered mail to Lessee. IV. The Lessee shall take good care of the leased premises and be responsible for any repairs necessitated by any act or negligence of the Lessee or the agents, employees, or visitors of the Lessee. V. The Lessee shall not do, or permit to be done, anything in or about the leased premises that interferes with the rights of other tenants of the Lessor or that conflicts with State or Municipal law or regulations of the Fire Department or Board of Health that creates a nuisance or that is dangerous to persons or property. VI. The Lessee shall not do, or permit to be done, anything in or about the leased premises that increases the fire hazard or that causes the premises to become uninsurable or results in increased rates for fire or extended insurance coverage. VII. The Lessee shall be allowed to make alterations or improvements to the leased premises with the prior written consent of Lessor. Such alternations shall be at the expense of the Lessee, subject to the other provisions of this lease, and shall become a part of the premises. The Lessor shall have the right to retain the premises as improved at the termination of said lease. VIII. Upon termination of this lease, the Lessee shall surrender possession of the leased premises to the Lessor in a condition as good as it was when the Lessee took possession, ordinary wear and tear, damage by fire, casualty, and the elements excepted. IX. This lease shall not be assigned or any part of the leased premises sublet to any agency, organization, entity or individual without prior written approval of the Lessor. Lessor retains the right to review the specific sublet documents, including terms, conditions, and financial agreements, before granting approval to sublet any or all of the premises covered under this lease. X. The Lessee shall hold the Lessor harmless from liability against all damages or injury to persons or property arising during the term of this lease and caused by any act or negligence of the Lessee or the agents, employees, or visitors of the Lessee. XI. No sign, picture, advertisement, or notice shall be affixed to any part of the leased premises except as approved by the Lessor\nand the Lessor may remove the same, if objectionable, with written notice to the Lessee and the removal to be at the Lessee's expense. Upon termination of this lease, the Lessee shall remove any such sign, picture, advertisement, or notice affixed to the leased premises and restore the place it occupied to the condition existing at the time of commencement of this lease. XII. This lease shall inure to the benefit of and be binding upon the personal representatives, successors and assigns of the parties hereto. It shall be governed by the laws of the State of Arkansas and is severable for interpretation purposes. 2 !\" 8 z s z U\u0026gt; XIII. The Lessor reserves the right to have first preference for the use of the leased premises. The Lessor and Lessee will work together to avoid conflicts in the use of the leased premises. The leased premises will be used by the Lessee for Sunday services only. Permission for uses of the leased premises by the Lessee at times other than as specified in this paragraph will be requested from the Lessor prior to their use. XIV. By entering into this agreement, the Lessor does not obligate itself, in any way, to meet any financial or contractual obligations by the Lessee in securing necessary permits for enhancement or modifications to the Lessee's property nor is the Lessor obligated to modify the leased premises to meet any conditions as expressed in any permits secured by the Lessee. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this lease on the day and year first above mentioned. LESSOR: LESSEE: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 West Markham Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 By: Morris L. Holmes, Interim Superintendent Miles Memorial CME Church By: Title: 3 Exhibit \"A\" The leased premises are described as the west parking lot bordering Bender Street at the Little Rock School District's Procurement and Materials Management Supply Center at1800 East 6th Street, Little Rock, Arkansas. 4 8 z ~ iz5 en !=' l:o =I 0 oz :mc ..e.n, ,-,a ,... C: jloO :ID .... c:c' izo .... a, emnco: ,... C) r-m Memorandum Date: February 26, 2004 To: Little Rock School District Board of Directors From: ~arral Paradis, Director of Procurement \u0026amp; Materials Management Through: Morris L. Holmes, Interim Superintendent of Schools ~ald M. Stewart, Chief Financial Officer Subject Request for Resolution authorizing the refinance/consolidation of the District's outstanding lease-purchase and post-dated warrant debt. Summary: The District has the following outstanding lease-purchase and post-dated warrant debt agreements in place: Company City First Bank Community Bank Community Bank Crews \u0026amp; Assoc. Stephens Inc. Yearly Due Date 10/15 1/05 1/15 1/15 1/15 Payment $70,177.36 $55,499.47 $47,054.75 $66,852.10 $65,568.10 Amount Outstanding $140,354.72 $166,498.41 $141,164.25 $267,408.40 $327,840.50 Interest Rate 5% 6.14% 6.45% 5.23% 4.5% The Procurement department issued an RFP (request for proposals) to consolidate and refinance the debt above to take advantage of current lower interest rates. Bank of America offered the best overall rate - 2.97%. Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark has reviewed the master lease that consolidates the above agreements and prepared the attached resolution for your approval. Objective: To streamline paperwork and take advantage of savings from current lower interest rates by consolidating/refinancing debt. Expected Outcomes: Savings to the District of Approximately $52,000. New consolidated payment will be made on January 15 of each year. NO time extension was made to the term of original debt other than to coordinate this date. g ~ z \"' Board of Directors February 26, 2004 Page 2 Population/Location: IA Budget Amount/Source of Budget: Transportation Department - All of these funds were used to purchase school buses. The annual payments are being made from the LRSD Transportation Department budget. Manager: Darral Paradis, Director, Procurement and Materials Management Duration: Last payment will be January 15, 2009. Long Range: NIA Other Agencies Involved: LRSD Transportation Department Expectations of District: NIA Needed Staff: NIA Comments: None Recommendation We request the Board of Education approve the resolution for the refinance/consolidation of the district's outstanding lease-purchase and post-dated warrant debt as detailed above. 2 RESOLUTION WHEREAS, the Little Rock School District (the \"District\") desires to consolidate/refinance various leases/existing debt related to the District's lease/purchase of various items of equipment utilized by the District in its day-to-day operations\nand WHEREAS, the District desires to accomplish the consolidation/refinance by entering into a Master Lease/Purchase Agreement with Banc of America Leasing \u0026amp; Capital, LLC. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Little Rock School District Board of Directors that Don Stewart, as Chief Financial Officer of the District, is authorized, on behalf of the District, to enter into, execute, and deliver that certain Master Equipment Lease/Purchase Agreement (the \"Agreement\") with Banc of America Leasing \u0026amp; Capital, LLC, related to the District's lease and/or acquisition of certain equipment utilized by the District in its day-to-day operations (the general form of which Agreement is attached to the Resolution). IN WITNESS WHEREOF, we have hereunto set our hands as the Little Rock School District Board of Directors on this ___ day of February, 2004. !\" 8 ! cz5 en Date: To: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDENT February 26, 2004 Little Rock School District Board of Directors Morris L. Holmes, Interim Superintendent Subject: Construction Budget Revision- Mitchell and Rightsell Based on Facility Services and Dr. Stewarts' analysis regarding the scope of work needed at Mitchell and Rightsell, the recommendation is that the Board approve sufficient funds, making up the budget shortfalls in the amonts of $1.54 million for Mitchell and $1 .78 million for Rightsell. The Board received a report at the last board agenda meeting that sufficient funds are available in the Bond Funds. /dge cc: Dr. Don Stewart Chief Financial Officer 810 West Markham Street  Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  (501) 447-1002 !\" 8 ! iz5 en Attachment: Related Information: - For the 2004-05 school year the projected enrollments from Student Assignment are: Mitchell: 228 Rightsell: 243 - For the beginning of the 2004-05 school year, the plan is to locate the Mitchell student body at the Badgett Elementary School site. - Mr. Eaton has speculated that Mitchell could be available for occupancy by the end of the Winter Holiday season, 2004. '.54.n Individual Approach to a World if Knowledge\" DATE: February 26, 2004 TO: Little Rock School District Board of Directors THROUGH: Morris L. Holmes, Interim Superintendent ~M. Stewart, Chief Financial Officer PREPARED B~uglas C. Eaton, Director, Facility Services SUBJECT: Construction Budget Revision - Mitchell and Rightsell Attached are Executive Summaries and Scopes of Work for the Mitchell and Rightsell Renovation Projects. The purpose of these documents is to assist the Board in determining if the District will proceed with these projects. As noted in the Executive Summaries, the budget shortfall for the Mitchell project is $1.54 million and for Rightsell the shortfall is $1.78 million. 810 W Markham  Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  www.lrsd.k12.ar.us 501-324-2000  fax: 501-324-2032 '\" i cz5 (II Mitchell Elementary School Executive Summary I. Purpose: The purpose of this summary is to provide information regarding a decision as to whether sufficient funding will be made available to repair Mitchell Elementary School. II. Problem: The problem before us is to decide whether Mitchell Elementary School should receive sufficient funding in order to enhance its overall appearance and structural integrity to the point where it can continue as an elementary school. ill. Facts bearing on the problem:  Age and Condition: Mitchell Elementary School is essentially a wood-frame building with a brick structural veneer and a plaster interior. It has wooden floors that have been overlaid with another layer of tile, and in many areas with carpeting. The building does not meet the current codes\nyet, in many areas, it is not deficient. It was designed for an operating capacity of 258 students plus academic and support staff. It sits on a lot of less than three acres in size and has a small parking lot and play area. It was expanded in the 1980s with the addition of three extra classrooms. Projects were completed in the 1970s and 80s that added air conditioning, upgraded code-deficient areas, such as plumbing and electric, and most recently has had energy-efficient lighting installed. The Building is structurally sound, yet it is beginning to show deterioration in a number of areas. In 1995 surveys were done for all buildings in the Little Rock School District. Needed renovations and repairs included substantial replacements of every building system, which when completed would still render the building inadequate for an elementary school of the 1990s. Beginning in 1998 the Little Rock School District began an initiative to re-summarize the needs of its facilities. The needs, at that time, totaled $950,000 and centered around environmental needs, structural needs, technology and electrical upgrades, ADA compliance, restroom renovations, and changes to the administrative and academic space. Specifically\nroof and structural repairs, waterproofing the facility, mold remediation,\" interior and exterior renovations of classrooms and administrative space, landscaping, bringing the building within ADA compliance, adding a classroom, and adding a heating-ventilation fresh-air return system, and making electrical upgrades to support all the aforementioned, plus technology that is required in our facilities.  Financial Considerations: The Little Rock School District has allocated $950,000 for any and all work to be accomplished at Mitchell Elementary School. As may be seen by the attached enclosure, this is not a sufficient level of funding due to all the work that is necessary to bring this facility inline so that a reasonable life can be expected for this capital investment. The funding shortfall is estimated at $1.54 million dollars.  Attendance Considerations: At this point in time it is anticipated that Mitchell could be impacted by the districts new attendance zone plan. Students presently attending Mitchell will be given the opportunity of choice which will allow them to attend schools in their attendance zone. A decrease in student population at this school would warrant an examinatjon of the per pupil cost for facility rehabilitation. IV. Courses of Action:  Re-examining the role of Mitchell Elementary school as an educational facility in LRSD: The possible decrease of student population coupled with the cost of repairs warrants a look at whether investing in Mitchell Elementary school is cost effective.  Reduce the scope of work to minimum essential: Decreasing the scope of work to accomplish minimum essential necessary to maintain the facility. This is predicated on a reduced occupancy.  Redefine the scope of work for non school facility: Should the facility cease to remain as a school, a reduced scope of work could be accomplished to maintain the facility and convert it to another LRSD purpose.  Do not accomplish the repairs: This course of action is only an option if LRSD decides not to retain the facility. And then, some expense will be incurred to preserve the facility for either retention or disposal. !\" 8 ! \u0026lt;z'5 en Scope of Work Mitchell Elementary School Mitchell Elementary School: a. Roof and Gutter replacement An examination needs to be made of the surface of all roofs of Mitchell Elementary School and the substructure of the roof along with the gutters and downspouts to determine extent of repairs necessary to ensure a safe and dry facility. Including within this should be an examination of the re-insulation of the attic space. b. Heating-Ventilation Unit Replacement It has been determined that the units in the building, installed in the late 1970s, have far outlived their usefulness. We desire that the scope of work include replacement of the air-handling units. We wish to retain much of the original system outside the building as well as the heating system and boiler inside the building. It is simply the air-handling units that we would like exchanged. c. A Fresh-Air System We would like an investigation and a scope of work to be done to provide a fresh-air system to all occupied space in the facility that will meet current ASHRE standards. It is our desire that this freshair system run independently of any heating or air-conditioning system. d. An Electrical Upgrade to Support Technology and any added Airconditioning or Fresh-air Systems The electrical upgrade to support technology will require us to delineate outlets in each classroom, but an estimated number of five to six per classroom will be needed. e. Interior Water Damage Those portions of the building that have been damaged due to infiltration of water from the exterior surface or from leaky pipes need to be repaired in the most efficient manner. g. Excessive Wear Due to Age Those areas of the building that have shown excessive wear or damage due to age and have caused plumbing leaks will be repaired as economically as possible. h. Administrative Renovation: It is our desire to modify the main lobby area to expand the administrative complex to provide for a new office for the principal and secretary. 1. ADA: We would like to try to adapt Mitchell Elementary School with a lift-system that allows students to get between the first and second floor. J. Waterproofing: We would like, upon the completion of all work at Mitchell Elementary School, for a waterproof coating to be applied to the exterior brick surface. k. Landscaping: We would like the rip-rap favade around the two sides of the school where it is presently located filled in with concrete to provide a permanent surface from the sidewalk up to the ground level of the school, eliminating all grass and growth in this area. 1. We would like the asphalt behind Mitchell Elementary School removed at the upper level and replaced with sod. m. Classroom addition: We would like a one-classroom addition ranging in size from 750 to 800 square feet. This would be a standard classroom with no water or restroom facilities. It would have cabinetry on one wall, at least a 12-foot-long chalkboard with 4-foot bulletin-board extensions on each end. There would be a coat rack, carpeted flooring, and wiring connected to the building's existing intercom and data systems. 2 !\" Rightsell Elementary School Executive Summary I. Purpose: The purpose of this summary is to provide information regarding a decision as to whether sufficient funding will be made available to repair Rightsell Elementary School. II. Problem: The problem before us is to decide whether Rightsell Elementary School should receive sufficient funding in order to enhance its overall appearance and structural integrity to the point where it can continue as an elementary school. ill. Facts bearing on the problem:  Age and Condition: Rightsell Elementary School is essentially a wood-frame building with a brick structural veneer and a plaster interior. It has wooden floors that have been overlaid with another layer of tile, and in many areas with carpeting. The building does not meet the current codes\nyet, in many areas, it is not deficient. It was designed for an operating capacity of 258 students plus academic and support staff. It sits on a lot of less than three acres in size and has a small parking lot and play area. It was expanded in the 1990s with the addition of one extra classroom. Projects were completed in the 1970s and 80s that added air conditioning, upgraded code-deficient areas, such as plumbing and electric, and most recently has had energy-efficient lighting installed. The Building is structurally sound, yet it is beginning to show deterioration in a number of areas. In 1995 surveys were done for all buildings in the Little Rock School District. Needed renovations and repairs included substantial replacements of every building system, which when completed would still render the building inadequate for an elementary school of the 1990s. Beginning in 1998 the Little Rock School District began an initiative to re-summarize the needs of its facilities. The needs, at that time, totaled $800,000 and centered around environmental needs, structural needs, technology and electrical upgrades, ADA compliance, restroom renovations, and changes to the administrative and academic space. Specifically\nroof and structural repairs, waterproofing the facility, mold remediation, landscaping, bringing the building within ADA compliance, adding a classroom, and adding a heating-ventilation fresh-air return system, and making electrical upgrades to support all the aforementio'ned, plus technology that is required in our facilities.  Financial Considerations: The Little Rock School District has allocated $800,000 for any and all work to be accomplished at Rightsell Elementary School. As may be seen by the attached enclosure, this is-not a sufficient level of funding due to all the work that is necessary to bring this facility inline so that a reasonable life can be expected for this capital investment. The funding shortfall is estimated at $1.78 million dollars.  Attendance Considerations: As of this writing is anticipated that Rightsell could be impacted by the districts new attendance zone plan. Students presently attending Rightsell will be given the opportunity of choice, which will allow them to attend schools in their attendance zone. A decrease in student population at this school would warrant an examination of the per pupil cost for facility rehabilitation IV. Courses of Action:  Re-examining the role of Rightsell Elementary school as an educational facility in LRSD: The possible decrease of student population coupled with the cost of repairs warrants a look at whether investing in Rightsell Elementary school is cost effective.  Reduce the scope of work to minimum essential: Decreasing the scope of work to accomplish minimum essential necessary to maintain the facility. This is predicated on a reduced occupancy.  Redefine the scope of work for non school facility: Should the facility cease to remain as a school, a reduced scope of work could be accomplished to maintain the facility and convert it to another LRSD purpose.  Do not accomplish the repairs: This course of action is only an option if LRSD decides not to retain the facility. And then, some expense will be incurred to preserve the facility for either retention or disposal. 8 ~ a z UI School: Scope of Work Rightsell Elementary School Rightsell Elementary School: a. The Fresh-Air Unit The fresh-air unit will be as specified on Mitchell, above. b. Electrical Upgrade The electrical upgrade will be as specified on Mitchell, above. c. Remediation ofHV AC Closets In this particular case, it was determined that the heatingventilation closets are going to have to be completely gutted and all fungi remediated to ensure a safe atmosphere. This, of course, will include the replacement of these units, in kind. d. HV AC Unit Replacement HV AC unit replacement will be as specified on Mitchell, above. It is our intent to save as much of the main system that provides heat to the building as possible and concentrate on the replacement of the air-handling units installed in the building in the late 1970s. e. Resealing of the Basement Walls I would like consideration given to excavating the entire building down to the footers to expose all basement walls and have these walls resealed to prevent water-infiltration. f. Interior Drainage Determine the extent of the interior drainage to determine whether the interior storm-water drainage-system can be abandoned and included within the design of \"g\" stated below. g. Determine the scope and cost for a gutter and downspout system to divert water from internal drains to an exterior drain system. 3 Included within this should be the necessary gutters and downspouts and the ceiling of the roof. Consideration should also be given to an analysis and replacement of the flat-roof portion of the school. h. Interior Repairs Those portions of the building that have been damaged because of water penetration shall be repaired in the most economical manner. 1. ADA: We would like a lift-system installed to enable students with disabilities to transverse the first and second floors. J. Classroom Addition: We would like one 750 to 800 square-foot classroom, with no water or restroom facilities, added to the facility. It would have built-in shelving or cabinetry on one side, black or dry-erase boards on one end, carpeted flooring, energy-efficient lighting, coat rack and shelves on one wall, and would be connected to the District's data and intercom system. k. Asbestos removal: To be removed commensurate with renovation work needed. Board report.doc 4 !\" 8 z ~ lz5 C/) LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 501 SHERMAN STREET LITTLE ROCK, AR 72202 TO: Board of Directors FROM: Junious Babbs SUBJECT: Mitchell and Rightsell Five (5) Year Projections DATE: February 12, 2004 OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES Junious C. Babbs, Associate Superintendent Phone: (501) 447-2955 E-Mail: junious.babbs@lrsd.org In response to the request for Mitchell and Rightsell Elementary School five (5) year projections, the following information is being provided: Mitchell and Rightsell Elementary Five Year Plan This document is a projection of student numbers for two (2) Little Rock School District elementary schools over the period 2003-04 through 2008-09. Projections are based on a set of assumptions and conditions as they exist in February 2004. Assumptions and Conditions Projections completed for the schools were compiled by \"rolling up\" students currently- attending an elementary school and identifying future students using the average number of kindergarten students who have registered in each attendance zone for the school over the past four ( 4) years. In a case where the demographic in a school zone has changed due to unusual growth or other factors, an adjustment to the average figure would be used for the projection. The numbers for the \"roll up\" students assume an equal mobility rate across the district. As some students in the schools leave a school due to address changes, others will enter at a fairly equal rate. School projections include P4 classes in existence as of February 2004. Growth Assumptions about growth do not include a forecast of substantial numbers of students who do not currently attend LRSD returning to district schools. While that is a desirable condition, there is no data on which to base a projection regarding that occurrence. There are some schools where the projection based on the four-year average of kindergarten enrollment appears to be inconsistent with the recent history of enrollment growth in the school. In this case the projection was adjusted downward due to conditions in the particular school zone. Examples of schools where reductions occurred include both Mitchell and Rightsell, where students from outside the school attendance zone are now allowed to return to their attendance zone school. An additional variable not yet available (i.e. NCLB school choice opportunity) to enter or exit will be determined during a designated period of the school year. It will be important to note that P4 numbers may increase pending recent legislative action. School Enrollment Numbers Over the Past Five (5) Years School 1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004 Average Mitchell 247 278 298 284 255 272 Ri!!htsell 269 264 268 298 292 278 !\" 8 ~ z Cl) :n ~ z \u0026gt;z ,0. ,Cl) PROJECTION WORKSHEET SCHOOL: Rightsell Elementary School Capacity: 296 GRADE 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 K 40 33 33 33 33 33 1 47 40 33 33 33 33 2 43 47 40 33 33 33 3 33 43 47 40 33 33 4 46 33 43 47 40 33 5 47 46 33 43 47 40 P4 36 36 36 36 36 36 TOTAL 292 278 265 265 255 241 Attending -10 -10 -10 -10 -10 Choice Schools Return to -25 -20 -12 -8 -6 Attendance Zone TOTAL 292 243 235 243 237 225 PROJECTION WORKSHEET SCHOOL: Mitchell Elementary School Capacity: 283 GRADE 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 K 40 36 36 36 36 36 1 41 40 36 36 36 36 2 34 41 40 36 36 36 3 39 34 41 40 36 36 4 44 39 34 41 40 36 5 39 44 39 34 41 40 P4 18 18 18 18 18 18 TOTAL 255 252 244 241 243 238 Attending -11 -10 -8 -7 -6 Choice Schools Return to -13 -13 -13 -13 -13 Attendance Zone TOTAL 255 228 221 220 223 219 2008 and Beyond Revisited stipulation magnet agreements (2008) among the State of Arkansas and the three (3) participating school districts (Little Rock School District, North Little Rock School District, and Pulaski County Special School District) will have significant impact. Pending results may display variation in student enrollment numbers in each LRSD school. cc: Dr. Morris Holmes LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, AR 72201 DATE: February 26, 2004 TO: Board of Education FROM: ~al Pru-adis, Director of Procurement and Materials Mgmt. THROUGH: Morris L. Holmes, Interim Superintendent of Schools SUBJECT: Donations of Property Attached are requests to donate property to the Little Rock School District as follows: Schoo 1/DeQartment Item Donor Bale Elementary School One (1) Sylvania VCR/ Mr. Brian Minchew, DVD player, valued at parent of Bale student $100.00, and 9 Magna Doodle Deluxe Boards, valued at $15.00 each, to the special education self-contained classroom Central High School $300.00 cash to the Mr. Rush Harding, III Lady Panther basketball team Central High School $500.00 cash to the Mr. Ronald Crawford Lady Panther basketball team J.A. Fair Magnet Four ( 4) sections Mr. Woody Rigdon of High School of 6' concrete pipe, Hanson Pipe \u0026amp; Products, Inc. valued at $200.00, for use in outdoor classroom J.A. Fair Magnet Delivery services, Mr. Gary Gaul of High School . valued at $150.00, DUIT Construction Company of four (4) sections of concrete pipe for use in outdoor classroom ~ :i  :! 2 Gi ~ ?' \u0026gt; ~ c\n1: Irr :! Board of Education February 26, 2004 Page 2 School/Department J.A. Fair Magnet High School Martin Luther King, Jr. Interdistrict Magnet Elementary School Martin Luther King, Jr. lnterdistrict Magnet Elementary School Metropolitan Career and Technical Center Pulaski Heights Middle School Woodruff Elementary School 200 tons of rock fines, valued at $500.00, to be used on outdoor trails and greenhouse floor Mr. Haskell Dickinson of Granite Mountain Quarries A Hewlett-Packard copier, M.L. King PT A valued at $130.00, to the Health Services Department . at King $1,500.00 cash to be used Mr. \u0026amp; Mrs. Duane Jackson for student incentives and and Ms. Genevieve Jackson classroom \u0026amp; instructional materials for Pre-Kand kindergarten curriculum. Funds are to be distributed as follows:  to Ms. Julia Lloyd's class and  to Ms. Shacuna Jones' class. Paints, primers, sealers, reducers, thinners, fillers, tools, tapes, sand paper, polish pad, etc., valued at $21,675.30, to the Paint \u0026amp; Body Program $10,000.00 cash to the instructional program at Pulaski Heights to be allocated as follows: $4,000.00 for the library (1/2 for upper level AR books)\n$1,000.00 each for 7th grade English books, gth grade English books, gth grade science classes, Foreign Language Dept., \u0026amp; the Special Ed Dept. $500.00 each for Math Counts and the Quiz Bowl. Mr. Perry Gravitt, President Hackman Paint \u0026amp; Supply Co., Inc. Winthrop \u0026amp; Lisenne Rockefeller School supplies and uniforms valued at $350.00 Dassault Falcon Jet Corp. Board of Education February 26, 2004 Page 3 School/Department LRSD Athletic Dept. Mahlon Martin Professional Library 124 metal gym lockers, valued at $11,560.00, installed at Forest Heights Middle School \u0026amp; 14 large mirrors, valued at $3,500.00, to be placed in the weight room at Quigley Stadium Educational books valued at $3,500.00 Donor Mr. David Ensminger Arkansas Democrat-Gazette It is recommended that these donation requests be approved in accordance with the policies of the Board. BALE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL To: Darral Paradis, Director of Procurement and Materials Manage From/I\u0026lt; Barbara Anderson, Principal of Bale Elementary School Date: January 15, 2004 Subject: Donation Mr. Brian Minchew, a parent of a student at Bale, wishes to donate a Sylvani1 VCR/DVD player valued at $100.00 to the special education self-contained classroom at Bale. Along with this, 9 Magna Doodle Deluxe Boards, one for each child, will be donated. They are valued at $15.00 each. It is recommended that this donation be approved in accordance with the pol\\ of the Board of Education of the Little Rock School District. LittCe 'Rock Centra( J-fif3li Sclioo( 1500 Soutfi Park Street Litt{e 'Rock, .'Arkansas 72202 Pfione 501-447-1400 ]\"ax 501-447-1401 DATE: 1/9/2004 TO: DARRAL PARADIS, DIRECTOR OF PROCUREMENT FROM: NANCY ROUSSEAU, PRINCIPAL crf!_,~ SUBJECT: DONATION Rush Harding, III, of 4 Valley Creek View, Little Rock, AR 72223, very graciously donated $300 to our Lady Panther basketball team. It is my recommendation that this donation be accepted in accordance with the policies of the Little Rock School District. RECEIVED Jfo.N r. c ittCe 'Rock Centra{ J-fffJli Sclioo{ 1500 Soutli Park Street Litt[e 'Rock, .Jlrkansas 72202 Phone 501-447-1400 ]'ax 501-447-1401 DATE: 1/9/2004 TO: DARRAL PARADIS, DIRECTOR OF PROCUREMENT FROM: NANCY ROUSSEAU, PRINCIPAL ~ SUBJECT: DONATION Ronald Crawford graciously donated $500 to our Lady Panther basketball team. Mr. Crawford's address 1s as follows: P. 0. Box 13688 Maumelle, AR 72113. It is my recommendation that this donation be accepted in accordance with the policies of the Little Rock School District. TO: FROM: DATE: RE: J. A. FAIR MAGNET HIGH SCHOOL SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY SYSTEMS 13420 David 0. Dodd Road Little Rock, AR 72210 Phone: 501-447-1700 Fax: 501-447-1701 Environmental Science * Information Science \u0026amp; Systems Engineering * Medical Science Darral Paradis, Director of Procurement Ci~\\ C~dra Norman, Principal January 6, 2004 Donation to J. A. Fair Systems Magnet High School Mr. Woody Rigdon, Hanson Pipe and Products, Incorporated, 1300 Bond Street, Little Rock, Arkansas, 72202, has generously donated four sections of six foot concrete pipe with a value of $200.00 for use in the J. A. Fair Systems Magnet High School outdoor classroom. It is recommended that this donation be approved in accordance with the policies of the Little Rock School District. Thank you for your consideration. RECEIVED A School of the Little Rock School District TO: FROM: DATE: RE: J. A. FAIR MAGNET HIGH SCHOOL SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY SYSTEMS 13420 David 0. Dodd Road Little Rock, AR 72210 Phone: 501-447-1700 Fax: 501-447-1701 Environmental Science  Information Science \u0026amp; Systems Engineering  Medical Science Darral Paradis, Director of Procurement (l\n\\L Cassandra Norman, Principal January 6, 2004 Donation to J. A. Fair Systems Magnet High School Mr. Gary Gaul, DUIT Construction Company, 16915 High 1-30, Benton, AR, 72015, has generously provided delivery of four sections of concrete pipe for use in the J. A. Fair Systems Magnet High School outdoor classroom. Delivery services for this pipe have value of $150.00. It is recommended that this donation be approved in accordance with the policies of the Little Rock School District. Thank you for your consideration. A School of the Little Rock School District TO: FROM: DATE: J. A. FAIR MAGNET HIGH SCHOOL SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY SYSTEMS 13420 David 0. Dodd Road Little Rock, AR 72210 Phone: 501-447-1700 Fax: 501-447-1701 Environmental Science * Information Science \u0026amp; Systems Engineering * Medical Science Darral Paradis, Director of Procurement t~sandra Norman, Principal January 6, 2004 RE: Donation to J. A. Fair Systems Magnet High School Mr. Haskell Dickinson, Granite Mountain Quarries, has generously donated 200 tons of rock fines with a value of$500.00 to be used on the outdoor trails and the greenhouse floor of J. A. Fair Systems Magnet High School. It is recommended that this donation be approved in accordance with the policies of the Little Rock School District. Thank you for your consideration. A School of the Little Rock School District MARTIN LUTHER KING, JR. INTERDISTRICT MAGNET SCHOOL To: Darral Paradise, Director of Procurement bi'~, From: Tyrone Harris, Principal Date: January 5, 2004 Re: Donation The M.L.King PTA, 905 M. L. King Jr. Drive, Little Rock, AR 72202 has generously donated a Hewlett Packard copier for the Health Services Department at King valued at $130.00 It is recommended that this donation request be approved in accordance with the policies of the Board of Education of the Little Rock School District. I I 1 t .. ' . i 905 Martin Luther King , Jr. Drive  Phone (501) 447-5100  Fax (501) 447-5101  Little Rock, Arkansas 72202 MARTIN LUTHER KING, JR. INTERDISTRICT MAGNET SCHOOL To: Darral Paradis, Director of Procurement From: TJi Harris, Principal Date: January 5, 2004 Re: Monetary Donation Mr. \u0026amp; Mrs. Duane and Genevieve Jackson of 16801 Davis Cup Lane in Little Rock, AR 72209 have made a generous donation of $1500.00 to split between Julia Lloyd and Shacuna Jones. It is Mrs. Jackson's wish that the donation be used to purchase student incentives, classroom and instructional materials to support the pre-kindergarten and kindergarten curriculum. It is recommended that this donation request be approved in accordance with the policies of the Board of Education of the Little Rock School District. Thank You 905 Martin Luther King , Jr. Drive  Phone (501) 447-5100  Fax (501) 447-5101  Little Rock, Arkansas 72202 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: DATE: Darral Paradis, Director of Procurement Michael Peterso~rincipal Donation January 7, 2004 Please accept this generous donation given to Metropolitan Career and Technical Center. Mr. Perry Gravitt, President of Hackman Paint and Supply Co., Inc. of Little Rock, AR, has given Metropolitan's Paint and Body Program $21 ,675.30 worth of paints, primers, sealers, reducers, thinners, fillers, tools, tapes, sand paper, polish pad, etc. These materials will be used for training our students. We recommend that this generous donation be accepted in accordance with the policies and procedures of the Little Rock School District. cc: Dr. Marion Lacey, Associate Superintendent Metropolitan Career-Technical Center 7701 Scott Hamilton Drive  Little Rock, Arkansas 72209  (501) 447-1200  Fax (501) 447-1201 PULASKI HEIGHTS MIDDLE SCHOOL \"r/)tt,.wi119 r/)anllte, r/)Pide\" Date: January 6, 2004 To: From: Darr~aradis, Director of Procurement 1,W Dr. aniel Whitehorn, PHMS Principal Subject: Donation Winthrop and Lisenne Rockefeller of 3518 Hill Rd. Little Rock, AR 72205, have very graciously donated $10,000.00 to the instructional program of Pulaski Heights Middle School. They have requested that the money be allocated in the following manner: $1,000.00 for 8th grade English books, $1,000.00 for 7th grade English books, $1,000.00 for the Foreign Language Department, $4,000.00 for our library (one-half of this amount is to be spent on upper level AR books), $1,000.00 for the Special Education Department, $1,000.00 for 8th grade science classes, $500.00 for Math Counts, and $500.00 for Quiz Bowl. It is recommended that this very generous donation be approved in accordance with the policies of the Little Rock School District. ~  ~~ :' ::y~ i ~\n401 North Pine Street  Phone (501) 447-3200  Fax (501) 447-3201  L.ittle Rock , Arkansas 72205 To: Mr. Darral Paradis, Director of Procurement From: Janice M. Wilson, Principal Date: January 15, 2004 Re: Donations Dassault Falcon Jet Corp, P.O. Box 967, Little Rock, AR 72203, has generously donated school supplies and uniforms valued at $350.00 to Woodruff Elementary School. We sincerely appreciate this donation on behalf of the children of Woodruff. School counselor, Shirley Davi~, distributed the school supplies and uniforms to children who needed assistance. We recommend that this donation be accepted in accordance with the policies and procedures of the Little Rock School District. RECEIVED LRSD ATHLETICS Fax:501-324-2119 Jan 4 2003 13:58 P.02 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Iii . ATHLETIC DIRECTOR-SECONDARY SCHOOLS II\\ January 5, 2004 To: . Darral Paradis, Director LRSD Procurement Department From: n I.JJ Johnny Johnson, CAA r ~7 Athletic Director LRSD Subject: Lockers and Mirrors Donation David Ensminger recently donated 124 metal gym lockers valued at $11,560 to the Little Rock School District which were installed at Forest Heights Middle School. Mr. Ensminger also donated 14 large mirrors valued at $3, 500 which will be placed in the weight room at Quigley Stadium. It is reconunended that this donation be approved in accordance with the policies of the LRSD. 3615 West 25th Street*Little Rock, AR 72204*(501)447-2060 To: From: Subject: '.\n4n Individual Approach to a World efKnowledge\" Darral Paradis, Director, Procurement and Materials Management tf]lkJQrion E. Woods, Coordinator of Professional Development Donation of Books for the Mahlon Martin Professional Library Arkansas Democrat-Gazette donated educational books to the Mahlon Martin Professional Library. The value of the donation is $3,500.00. The contact information is as follows: Cynthia Howell Arkansas Democrat-Gazette 121 E. Capitol Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 It is recommended that this donation be accepted in accordance with the policies and procedures of the Little Rock School District. 810 W Markham  Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  www.lrsd.kl2.ar.us Little Rock School District Financial Services 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Phone: (501) 447-1086 Fax: (501) 447-1158 DATE: February 26, 2004 TO: Little Rock School District Board of Directors THROUGH: Donald M. Stewart, Chief Financial Officer Morris L. Holmes, Interim Superintendent PREPARED BY,Mark D. Milhollen, Manager, Financial Services  Subject  Summary  Objectives  Expected Outcomes Population/Location  Budget Amount/Source  Manager  Duration Financial Reports District funds are reported for the period ending January 31, 2004. To report the District's financial status monthly to the Board of Directors. The Board members will be informed of the District's current financial conditi9n. NIA NIA Mark Milhollen, Manager of Financial Services NIA  Long Range/Continuation Financial reports will be submitted monthly to the Board.  Other Agencies Involved None  Expectations of District NIA  Needed Staff NIA  Comments None  Recommendation Approval of the January 2004 financial reports. We recommend that the Board approve the financial reports as submitted. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT COMBINED STATEMENT OF REVENUES, ~PENDITURES AND CHANGES IN FUND BALANCE FOR THE PERIOD ENDED JANUARY 31, 2003 AND 2004 APPROVED RECEIPTS % APPROVED RECEIPTS % 2002/03 01/31 /03 COLLECTED 2003/04 01/31 /04 COLLECTED REVENUE-LOCAL SOURCES CURRENT TAXES 58,550,000 57,147,781 97.61% 57,547,800 55,681 ,497 96.76% DELINQUENT TAXES 8,000,000 7,923,699 99.05% 10,100,000 9,516,878 94.23% 40% PULLBACK 29,400,000 29,600,000 EXCESS TREASURER'S FEE 187,000 205,072 109.66% 210,000 DEPOSITORY INTEREST 385,000 174,515 45.33% 180,000 REVENUE IN LIEU OF TAXES 135,000 337,232 249.80% 150,000 206,062 137.37% MISCELLANEOUS AND RENTS 340,000 223,326 65.68% 380,000 231,195 60.84% INTEREST ON INVESTMENTS 275,000 90,653 32.96% 200,000 77,339 38.67% ATHLETIC RECEIPTS 160,000 156,386 97.74% 240,000 166,872 69.53% TOTAL 97,432,000 66,258,663 68.01% 98,607,800 65,879,843 66.81% REVENUE - COUNTY SOURCES COUNTY GENERAL 24,000 17,215 71 .73% 21 ,000 11 ,594 55.21% TOTAL 24,000 17,215 71.73% 21,000 11,594 55.21% REVENUE- STATE SOURCES EQUALIZATION FUNDING 54,867,630 30,219,479 55.08% 53,226,139 29,447,876 55.33% REIMBURSEMENT STRS/HEAL TH 7,590,000 3,891 ,937 51 .28% 8,300,000 3,373,820 40.65% VOCATIONAL 1,340,000 644,552 48.10% 1,400,000 621 ,053 44.36% HANDICAPPED CHILDREN 1,700,000 346,684 20.39% 1,675,000 271 ,285 16.20% EARLY CHILDHOOD 273,358 205,407 75.14% 273,358 202,301 74.01% TRANSPORTATION 3,685,226 1,226,542 33.28% 3,875,562 1,243,841 32.09% INCENTIVE FUNDS - M TO M 3,265,000 1,396,152 42.76% 3,900,000 1,473,688 37.79% ADULT EDUCATION 1,006,014 335,976 33.40% 920,337 368,337 40.02% POVERTY INDEX FUNDS 658,607 658,607 100.00% 560,545 267,486 47.72% EARLY LITERACY LEARNING 120,000 TAP PROGRAM 285,271 285,271 100.00% 285,245 142,623 50.00% AT RISK FUNDING 650,000 57,386 8.83% 360,000 193,739 53.82% TOTAL 75,441,106 39,267,993 52.05% 74,776,187 37,606,049 50.29% REVENUE - OTHER SOURCES TRANSFER FROM CAP PROJ FUND 620,000 770,000 TRANSFER FROM OTHER FUNDS 1,126,233 13,857 1.23% 1,350,000 141,308 10.47% TRANSFER FROM MAGNET FUND 1,664,438 554,813 33.33% 1,632,430 544,143 33.33% TOTAL 3,410,671 568,670 16.67% 3,752,430 685,451 18.27% TOTAL REVENUE OPERATING 176,307,777 106, 112,540 60.19% 177,157,418 104,182,938 58.81% REVENUE - OTHER FEDERAL GRANTS 25, 152,981 7,262,743 28.87% 24,075,790 10,010,008 41 .58% DEDICATED M\u0026amp; 0 3,980,000 2,082,476 52.32% 4,000,000 2,398,316 59.96% MAGNET SCHOOLS 25,065,942 9,210,250 36.74% 24,689,351 9,322,338 37.76% TOTAL 54,198,923 18,555,469 34.24% 52,765,141 21,730,662 41.18% TOTAL REVENUE 230,506,700 124,668,008 54.08% 229,922,559 125,913,600 54.76% - LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT COMBINED STATEMENT OF REVENUES, EXPENDITURES AND CHANGES IN FUND BALANCE FOR THE PERIOD ENDED JANUARY 31, 2003 AND 2004 - APPROVED EXPENDED % APPROVED EXPENDED % 2002/03 01 /31 /03 EXPENDED 2003/04 01 /31/04 EXPENDED EXPENSES -SALARIES 100,865,586 51 ,391 ,118 50.95% 100,684,982 46,716,574 46.40% BENEFITS 24,838,361 12,739,832 51 .29% 26,483,772 12,288,907 46.40% PURCHASED SERVICES 19,795,774 9,845,498 49.74% 19,719,297 9,320,130 47.26% MATERIALS \u0026amp; SUPPLIES 8,347,098 4,087,172 48.97% 8,185,459 5,169,777 63.16% CAPITAL OUTLAY 1,616,991 781 ,770 48.35% 1,575,580 630,412 40.01% OTHER OBJECTS 8,508,680 2,903,848 34.13% 8,384,567 2,968,136 35.40% DEBT SERVICE 12,217,048 12,213,572 99.97% 12,098,342 12,191 ,763 100.77% TOTAL EXPENSES OPERATING 176,189,538 93,962,810 53.33% 177,131,999 89,285,698 50.41% EXPENSES-OTHER FEDERAL GRANTS 26,148,726 7,478,349 28.60% 26,056,193 8,419,292 32.31% DEDICATED M\u0026amp; 0 3,980,000 1,723,548 43.31% 4,000,000 2,306,955 57.67% MAGNET SCHOOLS 25,065,942 11,415,683 45.54% 24,689,351 10,577,444 42.84% TOTAL 55,194,668 20,617,580 37.35% 54,745,544 21,303,691 38.91% TOTAL EXPENSES 231,384,206 114,580,390 49.52% 231,877,543 110,589,388 47.69% INCREASE (DECREASE) IN FUND BALANCE (877,506) 10,087,617 (1 ,954,984) 15,324,211 BEGINNING FUND BALANCE FEDERAL, MAGNET \u0026amp; OED M\u0026amp; 0 1,645,440 1,645,440 3,558,580 3,558,580 OPERATING 8,557,652 8,557,652 9,026,855 9,026,855 ENDING FUND BALANCE FEDERAL, MAGNET \u0026amp; OED M\u0026amp; 0 649,695 (416,671) 1,578,177 3,985,551 OPERATING 8,675,891 20,707,381 9,052,274 23,924,095 TOTAL 9,325,586 20,290,710 10,630,451 27,909,647 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT BOND ACCOUNT FOR THE PERIOD ENDED JANUARY 31, 2004 PROJECT BEG BALANCE INCOME TRANSFERS EXPENDITURES ENCUMBRANCES END BALANCE 07-01-03 2003-04 2003-04 2003-04 2003-04 01-31-04 $6,200,000 BOND ISSUE FAIR 33,282.90 33,282.90 MCCLELLAN 77,219.02 77,219.02 CONTINGENCY 0.00 0.00 SUBTOTAL 110,501.92 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 110,501.92 $136,268,560 BOND ISSUES ADMINISTRATION 32,802.37 87,000.00 62,375.74 57,426.63 NEW WORK PROJECTS 18,614,545.40 246,791.00 10,141,400.20 7,434,812.30 1,285, 123.90 SECURITY PROJECTS 42,273.97 2,650.68 39,623.29 LIGHTING PROJECTS 29,869.56 7,679.00 22,190.56 MAINTENANCE \u0026amp; REPAIR 2,768,579.81 2,108,630.36 2,265,578.88 514,549.29 2,097,082.00 RENOVATION PROJECTS 31,306,506.59 166,300.00 11,338,379.23 9,779,114.60 10,355,312.76 TECHNOLOGY UPGRADES 2,335,019.24 945,917.47 3,353.37 1,385,748.40 SUBTOTAL 55,129,596.94 0.00 2,608,721.36 24,763,981.20 17,731,829.56 15,242,507.54 REVENUES PROCEEDS-PROPERTY SALE 444,618.31 1,000.00 445,618.31 DUNBAR PROJECT 5,266.71 5,266.71 PROCEEDS-BOND SALES 22,074,599.23 (2,608,721.36) 19,465,877.87 PROCEEDS-QZAB SALE 1,293,820.97 1,293,820.97 INTEREST 7,288,776.89 893,210.83 8,181,987.72 SUBTOTAL 31,107,082.11 894,210.83 (2,608,721.36) 0.00 0.00 29,392,571.58 GRAND TOTAL II ~!lZ lllD llZ llll!l ~lD II\n! ~ ~!l Z\n! ~Ill ~g lZnl !l~ll li !l!lZ!lli m D!l LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT BOND ISSUE PROJECT HISTORY - THRU THE PERIOD ENDED JANUARY 31, 2004 -- - - PROJECT ENDING f------- ALLOCATIONS EXPENSE EXPENSE EXPENSE EXPENSE ENCUMBERED ALLOCATION PROJECT CATEGORIES THRU 01-31-04 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 THRU 01-31-04 THRU 01-31-04 SUBTOTAL 01-31-04 - -- - - ADMINISTRATION 673,846.55 889,772.32 (485,325.77) 149,597.63 62,375.74 0.00 616,419.92 57,426.63 NEW WORK PROJECTS 35,565,851.80 443,467.00 4,589,606.29 11,671,442.11 10,141,400.20 7,434,812.30 34,280,727.90 1,285,123.90 SECURITY PROJECTS 265,814.17 113,930.47 109,609.73 2,650.68 0.00 226,190.88 39,623.29 - LIGHTING PROJECTS 4,883,405.13 2,641,482.13 1,832,392.06 379,661 .38 7,679.00 0.00 4,861,214.57 22,190.56 MAINTENANCE \u0026amp; REPAIR 13,342,240.87 ~ 791,385.63 4,218,294.40 3,455,350.67 2,265,578.88 514,549.29 11,245, 158.87 2,097,082.00 RENOVATION PROJECTS 51,655,707.04 --397,615.34 4,119,045.21 15,666,239.90 11,338,379.23- 9,779,114.60 41,300,394.28 10,355,312.76 TECHNOLOGY UPGRADES 11,735,611.7-8 - 575,016.53 4,325,201.40 4,500,374.61 945,917.47 3,353.37 10,349,863.38 1,385,748.40 - - - - -~-- - UNALLOCATED PROCEEDS 20,759,698.84 20,759,698.84 -- - - - - ~ TOTAL 138,882,176.18 5,852,669.42 18,708,823.32 35,822,666.30 24,763,981 .20 17,731,829.56 102,879,969.80 36,002,206.38 -- - - - - ~ - - - - - - f- - - c- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - -- - - - - I l,l~Ul,\u0026amp;nnl\"nW y I ~t\\Ul1.n,r.:au \"VI LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT - SCHEDULE OF INVESTMENTS BY FUND --- --- - FOR THE PERIOD ENDED JANUARY 31 , 2004 I Fund Purchase Maturity Institution Interest Rate Type Principal Date Date Operating 01 -30-04 TFN Bank of America 0.850% Repo 2,735,000.00 Operating 01 -15-04 03-15-04 Twin City Bank 1.350% CD 5,004,986.08 Operating 12-19-03 02-02-04 Twin City Bank 1.350% - CD 9,500,000.00 Operating 12-19-03 02-13-04 Twin City Bank 1.350% CD 5,000,000.00 Operating 12-19-03 03-01-04 Twin City Bank 1.400% CD 9,600,000.00 Total - 31 ,839,986.08 - - Food Service 01 -27-04 TFN Bank of America 0.720% Repo 810,000.00 810,000.00 - Activity Fund 01-16-04 TFN Bank of America 0.780% Repo 1,200,000.00 Total 1,200,000.00 - - Bond Account 09-08-03 03-08-04 Regions 1.094% CD 400,000.00 Capital Projects Fund 01 -16-04 07-14-04 Metropolitan 1.930% - - CD 1,000,934.31 Capital Projects Fund 01-16-04 07-16-04 Bank of the Ozarks 1.400% CD 5,231 ,393.21 Capital Projects Fund 10-15-03 02-13-04 Bank of the Ozarks 1.250% CD 5,000,000.00 Capital Projects Fund 01-30-04 01-31005 Bancorp South 1.850% CD 2,100,244.72 - Capital Projects Fund 11-18-03 04-15-04 Bank of the Ozarks 1.300% CD 6,000,000.00 - Capital Projects Fund 05-15-03 08-16-04 USBANK 1.420% CD 11,000,000.00 Capital Projects Fund 01-16-04 06-10-04 Bank of America 0.910% _ Treasury Bills 5,365,126.36 Capital Projects Fund 05-15-03 05-14-04 Bank of the Ozarks 1.360% CD 9,000,000.00 Capital Projects Fund 12-01-03 05-03-04 Bank of the Ozarks 1.250% CD 3,060,648.33 Capital Projects Fund 09-15-03 03-15-04 Bank of the Ozarks 1.430% CD 10,221 ,001 .82 Capital Projects Fund 01-26-04 TFN Bank of America 0.810% Repo 5,740,000.00 Total 64,119,348.75 Deseg Plan Scholarship 12-05-03 06-15-04 Bank of America 1.020% - Treasury Bills 668,325.28 Total - 668,325.28 Rockefeller Scholarship 01-15-04 . 06-10-04 Bank of America --- 0.910% - T reasury Bills 252,059.89 Total 252,059.89 - Risk Management Loss Fund 01 -30-04 TFN Bank of America 0.250% Repo 400,000.00 400,000.00\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 "}],"pages":{"current_page":321,"next_page":322,"prev_page":320,"total_pages":6766,"limit_value":12,"offset_value":3840,"total_count":81191,"first_page?":false,"last_page?":false},"facets":[{"name":"educator_resource_mediums_sms","items":[{"value":"lesson plans","hits":319},{"value":"teaching guides","hits":53},{"value":"timelines (chronologies)","hits":43},{"value":"online exhibitions","hits":38},{"value":"bibliographies","hits":15},{"value":"study guides","hits":11},{"value":"annotated bibliographies","hits":9},{"value":"learning modules","hits":6},{"value":"worksheets","hits":6},{"value":"slide shows","hits":4},{"value":"quizzes","hits":1}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":16,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"type_facet","items":[{"value":"Text","hits":40200},{"value":"StillImage","hits":35114},{"value":"MovingImage","hits":4552},{"value":"Sound","hits":3248},{"value":"Collection","hits":41},{"value":"InteractiveResource","hits":25}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":16,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"creator_facet","items":[{"value":"Peppler, Jim","hits":4965},{"value":"Phay, John E.","hits":4712},{"value":"University of Mississippi. Bureau of Educational Research","hits":4707},{"value":"Baldowski, Clifford H., 1917-1999","hits":2599},{"value":"Mississippi State Sovereignty Commission","hits":2255},{"value":"Thurmond, Strom, 1902-2003","hits":2077},{"value":"WSB-TV (Television station : Atlanta, Ga.)","hits":1475},{"value":"Newman, I. DeQuincey (Isaiah DeQuincey), 1911-1985","hits":1003},{"value":"The State Media Company (Columbia, S.C.)","hits":926},{"value":"Atlanta Journal-Constitution","hits":844},{"value":"Herrera, John J.","hits":778}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"subject_facet","items":[{"value":"African Americans--Civil rights","hits":9441},{"value":"Civil rights","hits":8347},{"value":"African Americans","hits":5895},{"value":"Mississippi--Race relations","hits":5750},{"value":"Race relations","hits":5607},{"value":"Education, Secondary","hits":5083},{"value":"Education, Elementary","hits":4729},{"value":"Segregation in education--Mississippi","hits":4727},{"value":"Education--Pictorial works","hits":4707},{"value":"Civil rights demonstrations","hits":4436},{"value":"Civil rights workers","hits":3530}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"subject_personal_facet","items":[{"value":"Smith, Lillian (Lillian Eugenia), 1897-1966--Correspondence","hits":1888},{"value":"King, Martin Luther, Jr., 1929-1968","hits":1809},{"value":"Meredith, James, 1933-","hits":1709},{"value":"Herrera, John J.","hits":1312},{"value":"Baker, Augusta, 1911-1998","hits":1282},{"value":"Parks, Rosa, 1913-2005","hits":1071},{"value":"Jordan, Barbara, 1936-1996","hits":858},{"value":"Young, Andrew, 1932-","hits":814},{"value":"Smith, Lillian (Lillian Eugenia), 1897-1966","hits":719},{"value":"Mizell, M. Hayes","hits":674},{"value":"Silver, James W. (James Wesley), 1907-1988","hits":626}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"name_authoritative_sms","items":[{"value":"Smith, Lillian (Lillian Eugenia), 1897-1966","hits":2598},{"value":"King, Martin Luther, Jr., 1929-1968","hits":1909},{"value":"Meredith, James, 1933-","hits":1704},{"value":"Herrera, John J.","hits":1331},{"value":"Parks, Rosa, 1913-2005","hits":1070},{"value":"Jordan, Barbara, 1936-1996","hits":856},{"value":"Young, Andrew, 1932-","hits":806},{"value":"Silver, James W. (James Wesley), 1907-1988","hits":625},{"value":"Connor, Eugene, 1897-1973","hits":605},{"value":"Snelling, Paula","hits":580},{"value":"Williams, Hosea, 1926-2000","hits":431}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"event_title_sms","items":[{"value":"Martin Luther King, Jr.'s Nobel Prize","hits":1763},{"value":"Ole Miss Integration","hits":1670},{"value":"Housing Act of 1961","hits":965},{"value":"Little Rock Central High School Integration","hits":704},{"value":"Memphis Sanitation Workers Strike","hits":366},{"value":"Selma-Montgomery March","hits":337},{"value":"Freedom Summer","hits":306},{"value":"Freedom Rides","hits":214},{"value":"Poor People's Campaign","hits":180},{"value":"University of Georgia Integration","hits":173},{"value":"University of Alabama Integration","hits":140}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"location_facet","items":[{"value":"United States, 39.76, -98.5","hits":17820},{"value":"United States, Georgia, Fulton County, Atlanta, 33.749, -84.38798","hits":5428},{"value":"United States, Alabama, Montgomery County, Montgomery, 32.36681, -86.29997","hits":5151},{"value":"United States, Georgia, 32.75042, -83.50018","hits":4862},{"value":"United States, South Carolina, 34.00043, -81.00009","hits":4610},{"value":"United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","hits":4177},{"value":"United States, Alabama, 32.75041, -86.75026","hits":3943},{"value":"United States, Mississippi, 32.75041, -89.75036","hits":2910},{"value":"United States, Tennessee, Shelby County, Memphis, 35.14953, -90.04898","hits":2579},{"value":"United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","hits":2430},{"value":"United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959","hits":2387}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"us_states_facet","items":[{"value":"Georgia","hits":12843},{"value":"Alabama","hits":11307},{"value":"Mississippi","hits":10219},{"value":"South Carolina","hits":8503},{"value":"Arkansas","hits":4583},{"value":"Texas","hits":4399},{"value":"Tennessee","hits":3770},{"value":"Florida","hits":2601},{"value":"Ohio","hits":2391},{"value":"North Carolina","hits":1893},{"value":"New York","hits":1667}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"year_facet","items":[{"value":"1966","hits":10514},{"value":"1963","hits":10193},{"value":"1965","hits":10119},{"value":"1956","hits":9832},{"value":"1955","hits":9611},{"value":"1964","hits":9268},{"value":"1968","hits":9243},{"value":"1962","hits":9152},{"value":"1967","hits":8771},{"value":"1957","hits":8460},{"value":"1958","hits":8242},{"value":"1961","hits":8241},{"value":"1959","hits":8046},{"value":"1960","hits":7940},{"value":"1954","hits":7239},{"value":"1969","hits":7235},{"value":"1950","hits":7117},{"value":"1953","hits":6968},{"value":"1970","hits":6743},{"value":"1971","hits":6337},{"value":"1977","hits":6280},{"value":"1952","hits":6161},{"value":"1972","hits":6144},{"value":"1951","hits":6045},{"value":"1975","hits":5806},{"value":"1976","hits":5771},{"value":"1974","hits":5729},{"value":"1973","hits":5591},{"value":"1979","hits":5329},{"value":"1978","hits":5318},{"value":"1980","hits":5279},{"value":"1995","hits":4829},{"value":"1981","hits":4724},{"value":"1994","hits":4654},{"value":"1948","hits":4596},{"value":"1949","hits":4571},{"value":"1996","hits":4486},{"value":"1982","hits":4330},{"value":"1947","hits":4316},{"value":"1985","hits":4226},{"value":"1998","hits":4225},{"value":"1997","hits":4202},{"value":"1983","hits":4174},{"value":"1984","hits":4065},{"value":"1946","hits":4046},{"value":"1999","hits":4018},{"value":"1945","hits":4017},{"value":"1990","hits":3937},{"value":"1986","hits":3919},{"value":"1943","hits":3899},{"value":"1944","hits":3895},{"value":"1942","hits":3867},{"value":"2000","hits":3808},{"value":"2001","hits":3790},{"value":"1940","hits":3764},{"value":"1941","hits":3757},{"value":"1987","hits":3657},{"value":"2002","hits":3538},{"value":"1991","hits":3507},{"value":"1936","hits":3506},{"value":"1939","hits":3500},{"value":"1938","hits":3465},{"value":"1937","hits":3449},{"value":"1992","hits":3444},{"value":"1993","hits":3422},{"value":"2003","hits":3403},{"value":"1930","hits":3377},{"value":"1989","hits":3355},{"value":"1935","hits":3306},{"value":"1933","hits":3270},{"value":"1934","hits":3270},{"value":"1988","hits":3269},{"value":"1932","hits":3254},{"value":"1931","hits":3239},{"value":"2005","hits":3057},{"value":"2004","hits":2909},{"value":"1929","hits":2789},{"value":"2006","hits":2774},{"value":"1928","hits":2271},{"value":"1921","hits":2123},{"value":"1925","hits":2039},{"value":"1927","hits":2025},{"value":"1924","hits":2011},{"value":"1926","hits":2009},{"value":"1920","hits":1975},{"value":"1923","hits":1954},{"value":"1922","hits":1928},{"value":"2016","hits":1925},{"value":"2007","hits":1629},{"value":"2008","hits":1578},{"value":"2011","hits":1575},{"value":"2019","hits":1537},{"value":"1919","hits":1532},{"value":"2009","hits":1532},{"value":"1918","hits":1530},{"value":"2015","hits":1527},{"value":"2013","hits":1518},{"value":"2010","hits":1515},{"value":"2014","hits":1481},{"value":"2012","hits":1467}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":100,"offset":0,"prefix":null},"min":"0193","max":"2035","count":500952,"missing":56},{"name":"medium_facet","items":[{"value":"photographs","hits":10708},{"value":"correspondence","hits":9437},{"value":"black-and-white photographs","hits":7678},{"value":"negatives (photographs)","hits":7513},{"value":"documents (object genre)","hits":4462},{"value":"letters (correspondence)","hits":3623},{"value":"oral histories (literary works)","hits":3607},{"value":"black-and-white negatives","hits":2740},{"value":"editorial cartoons","hits":2620},{"value":"newspapers","hits":1955},{"value":"manuscripts (documents)","hits":1692}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"rights_facet","items":[{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/","hits":41178},{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/","hits":17554},{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/UND/1.0/","hits":8828},{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/CNE/1.0/","hits":6864},{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/NoC-US/1.0/","hits":2186},{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-NC/1.0/","hits":1778},{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/NoC-CR/1.0/","hits":1115},{"value":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/","hits":197},{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/NKC/1.0/","hits":60},{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-RUU/1.0/","hits":51},{"value":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/","hits":27}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"collection_titles_sms","items":[{"value":"Jim Peppler Southern Courier Photograph Collection","hits":4956},{"value":"John E. Phay Collection ","hits":4706},{"value":"John J. Herrera Papers","hits":3288},{"value":"Baldy Editorial Cartoons, 1946-1982, 1997: Clifford H. Baldowski Editorial Cartoons at the Richard B. Russell Library.","hits":2607},{"value":"Sovereignty Commission Online","hits":2335},{"value":"Strom Thurmond Collection, Mss 100","hits":2068},{"value":"Alabama Media Group Collection","hits":2067},{"value":"Black Trailblazers, Leaders, Activists, and Intellectuals in Cleveland","hits":2033},{"value":"Rosa Parks Papers","hits":1948},{"value":"Isaiah DeQuincey Newman, (1911-1985), Papers, 1929-2003","hits":1904},{"value":"Lillian Eugenia Smith Papers (circa 1920-1980)","hits":1887}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"provenance_facet","items":[{"value":"John Davis Williams Library. Department of Archives and Special Collections","hits":8885},{"value":"Alabama. Department of Archives and History","hits":8146},{"value":"Atlanta University Center Robert W. Woodruff Library","hits":4102},{"value":"South Caroliniana Library","hits":4024},{"value":"University of North Texas. Libraries","hits":3854},{"value":"Hargrett Library","hits":3292},{"value":"University of South Carolina. Libraries","hits":3212},{"value":"Richard B. Russell Library for Political Research and Studies","hits":2874},{"value":"Mississippi. Department of Archives and History","hits":2825},{"value":"Butler Center for Arkansas Studies","hits":2633},{"value":"Rhodes College","hits":2264}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"class_name","items":[{"value":"Item","hits":80736},{"value":"Collection","hits":455}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":100,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"educator_resource_b","items":[{"value":"false","hits":80994},{"value":"true","hits":197}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":100,"offset":0,"prefix":null}}]}}