{"response":{"docs":[{"id":"geh_vhpohr_323","title":"Oral history interview of Lewis S. Conn","collection_id":"geh_vhpohr","collection_title":"Veterans History Project: Oral History Interviews","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["France, Saint-Lô, 49.1157004, -1.0906637","Germany, North Rhine-Westphalia, Cologne District, Städteregion Aachen, Aachen, 50.77664, 6.08342","Netherlands, Rhine River, 51.97198, 5.91545","United Kingdom, England, London, 51.50853, -0.12574","United Kingdom, Wales, Rhondda Cynon Taf, Pontypridd, 51.6021, -3.34211","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, Coweta County, 33.35346, -84.76337","United States, Georgia, Meriwether County, 33.04066, -84.68831","United States, Texas, Bell County, Killeen, Fort Hood, 31.13884585, -97.715048633985"],"dcterms_creator":["Bruckner, William Joseph","Conn, Lewis S., 1922-2010"],"dc_date":["2003-07-16"],"dcterms_description":["In this interview, Lewis Conn recalls his childhood during the Depression in Georgia, as well as his service in the United States Army in Europe during World War II. He was assigned to a tank unit and describes what it was like serving in a segregated army. Of particular interest are his recollections about German prisoners of war attending military base movie theatres that black soldiers were not permitted to enter. He describes the day to day operations of his tank unit and recalls burning German paper money in order to keep warm. He comments on the role he and his fellow soldiers played in changing American society.","Lewis Conn served in the United States Army in Europe during World War II."],"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--Participation, African American","World War, 1939-1945--Personal narratives, American","World War, 1939-1945--Campaigns--Ardennes","Depressions--1929--Georgia","Tiger (Tank)","Lightning (Fighter plane)","Patton, George S. (George Smith), 1885-1945","United States. Army. Army, 3rd","United States. Army. Tank Battalion (Light), 784","Queen Mary (Steamship)","Hitler-Jugend","Siegfried Line","Hitler Youth","soup kitchens","Screaming Mimi","P-38 (Fighter plane)"],"dcterms_title":["Oral history interview of Lewis S. Conn"],"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/323"],"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":["1:31:19"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1758","title":"Brief regarding Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD), response to petition to de-annex territory from PCSSD, motion to enforce settlement agreement, motion and support for allied relief, Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) project management tool, and Office of Desegregation Management 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":["United States. District Court (Arkansas: Eastern District)"],"dc_date":["2003-07"],"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","Arkansas. Department of Education","Project management","Office of Desegregation Monitoring (Little Rock, Ark.)","Elementary schools","Harris Elementary School (North Little Rock, Ark.)","Education--Finance","School integration","School enrollment","African Americans--Education","Education--Evaluation","Magnet schools","Teachers"],"dcterms_title":["Brief regarding Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD), response to petition to de-annex territory from PCSSD, motion to enforce settlement agreement, motion and support for allied relief, Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) project management tool, and Office of Desegregation Management 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/1758"],"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":["57 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\u003cdcterms_description type=\"array\"\u003e   \n\n\u003cdcterms_description\u003eBefore the Arkansas State Board of Education, brief of the Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) in re: petition to de-annex territory from the Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD); District Court, fourth motion to enforce settlement agreement and for allied relief; District Court, memorandum brief in support of fourth motion to enforce settlement agreement and for allied relief; District Court, statement of material facts; District Court, notice of filing, Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) project management tool; District Court, notice of hearing; District Court, notice of filing, Office of Desegregation Management report, ''Update on the Redesign of Harris Elementary School and the Rezoning of Schools in the Sherwood Area of the Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD)''    This transcript was create using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.     I P. 03 RECEIVED BEFORE THE ARKANSAS STATE :SOARD OF EDUCATION JUL 1 O 2003 OFFICEOF DESEGREGATION MONITORING IN RE: PETITION TO DE-ANNEX TERRITORY FROM THE PCSSD BRIBf OF TiiE PCSSD Introduction Prior to tl1e hearing held on June 9, 2003, the PCSSD submjtted its \"Analysis\" of how the detachment, if approved, would negatively impact desegregation not only in the PCSSD but in tllc LRSD and the NLRSD as well. For -lbe _convenience of the Board another ~PY is included as Exhibit 1. The PCSSD asked ti1at 1hat document be made-part of the record and its cssenLial conclusions will only be briefly reiterated here . Although the PCS SD believes that its previously submitted Analysis is more than ample reason to deny Lhe petition for detachment, there is an even more fundamental reason why it should be turned down. SifI!Ply stated, the 1989 Settlement Agreement with the State, to which this -Board is a signatory i precJudes such a usurpation of the District's sovereignty and independence. 428241-vl The Settlement Agreement Provision Section II J of_the 1989 comprehensive Settlement Agreement states in its entirety: The State, Joshua and LRSD recognize that PCSSD and NLRSD are independent, sovereign desegregating school districts -operating pursuant to court orders and agreements and chat this agreement is both necessary and desirable to facilitate their desegregation activities as well as their cooperative desegregation .activities with the LRSD and others. [emphasis added] ----- - -- -- -- ~ Thi, language, whiCh remain, operative, was notsome idle boileiplaie.or filler. Indeed, as we will explain .further, it was not part of the original agreement between the State, LRSD and Joshua but was only negotiated after.the State had first reached .agreement with the LRSD and then turned its attention toward securing agreement from the PCSSD and the NLRSD. Further, thcr.e was a real and immediate specter of consolidation which prompted this _] negotiated language which, whHe it survived the legislative and judicial approval process, came I under attack from many legislators, commentators and in editorials. Indeed, for those who did not personally participate in or who do not clearly recall this historic process, a brief chronology might be useful. 1982 1985 1985 Late 1988 January 12, 1989 January 31, 1989 4?.8244-vl Not So Ancient History The LRSD sues the State, the PCSSD and the NLRSD successfully seeking consolidation of the three districts in Pulaski County. 9Zl F.2d 1371@ 1376. The Court of Appeals rejects consolidation but orders that the boundary between LRSD and PCSSD be adjusted. 921 F .2d 1371 @ 1377. This boundary adjusLinent caused PCSSD to lose sixteen schools and over one-third of its tax base_ Initial setLlerncntdiscussions are commenced among the State, the LRSD and the Joshua Intervenors. 921 F.2d 1371 @ 1376 . . Senator Jerry Jewell introduces Senate Bill 39 to consolidate the Little Rock, North Little Rock.and _P.ulaski County Special School District schools. Exhibit 2. The State Board, LRSD and Joshua Intervenors reach a proposed seulcment. The State's attorney reports that \"meetings to obtain-t11e agreement of the otl1er _parties are underway today between attorneys and representatives of the State Boar\u0026lt;l, PCSSD aml NLRSD.\" Exhibit 3. 2 i -I vUI.. I February 14, 1989 March 1989 March 3, 1989 March 7, 1989 March 11, 1989 March U, 1989 March 16, 1989 428244-vl The State hires t.lie national law furn of Hogan \u0026amp; Hartson which specialized in school desegregation to advise it concerning desegregation. Exhibit 4. Counsel .for the LRSD delivers a draft of Proposed Settlement Agreement to the State's attorney. This draft does not contain a Section II J. Exhibit 5. The settlement is agreed to by all of the parties. The final version contains Section 11 J. Exhibit 6. It is submined to the legislature for funding. In an editorial discussing the settlement, the. Arkansas Gazette note~: that: \"A key-provision is that the Little Rock, North Little Rock- and Pulaski County School Districts recognize that they remain  independent, sovereign desegregating' districts. This could -becon,e an impediment to a countywide consolidation in the future, and if so it is an unfortunate pr.ovision.\" Exhibit 7. The Atkansas Gazette reports that the county district's attorney told the county board that the settlement went through 27 revisions before being made publi~ because of the complexity of the issues. Exhibit 8. .In .explaining .the settlement to the Joint Budget Committee, the State's attorney noted that: \"This agreement. is so fragile that if it starts to unravel in any way, if there's any kind of modification to it, it'.s .going co fall apart and unravel in 100 djffcreht ways.\" In the same articfo, Senator Max Howell noted he djd not wanno vote Jor1he settlement if it meant forever prohibiting consolidation of the three county districts. \"I'm not antagonistic toward the dollars, but I am concerned that I .under.stand the small print.\" Exhibit 9. One starewide commentator, in characterizing Section II J, o.pined that: \"A brazen provision slipped into this settlement at the last minute guarantees there will be no consolidation of the school districts. Surprise!\" Exhibit 10. The Arkansas Senate approves the bill funding the settlement but .idds an amendmenr asking tbe Federal Courts to consider four changes in the seLtlcment including: \"Disapproval of language that would rctiin the autonomy of the three Pulaski County districts-.\" As Senator Max Howell stated: \"I would hope tbt: Court woulil be aware that we hl the Legislature feel the folks who caused this should not continue to be in control of the situation.\" Exhibit 11. 3  I l '  II March 18, 1989 March 24, 1989 March 31, 1989 December 11, 1989 December 12, 1990. The press reported that: \"Legislators have expressed concern that the provision would forever bar the State from merging the three districts, ancl the State Education Department's attorney told them Monday that McCutcheon (the _special Master) apparently shared that concern. n Exhibit 11. Press reports described II J as one of.the \"key\" provisions of the settlement. Exhibit 12. Mr. Herschel Friday writes the attorneys for the parties noting that: \"During the debate which preceded the v.ote to fund the settlement in this case, l was repeatedly questioned on whether changes requested by the legislature could be made in the settlement. A copy of the requested changes is enclosed for your ready reference. I agreed to follow through to see that the legislative requests were auly considered by .the .parties and to use my best efforts in this regard. . .. Will you please discuss these requests with your clients so that we can meet in the near future and address these matters .\" Exhibit 13. A copy of the requested changes, which included Section II J, is attached~ Exhibit 14 . Counsel for the AEA informs.Mr. Friday that they object to removing a.ny of the items from the settlement agreement. Exhibit 15. The District Court purports to approve the settlement agreement but only after imposing certain modifications. 726 F.Supp. 1544, 1549. The Court of Appeals reverses the District Court, ruling that the Settlement Agreement should hav.e been .approved as written by the parties. 971 F.2d 160 @ 164, 165. It should thus be clear that Section n J. was a key component of the settlement for which the PCSSD (as well as the NLRSO) separately negotiated. The reasons are clear, Not only was the PCSSD guarding against consolidation, but also any new usurpation of its territory. facilities and assets similar to the appropriation (albeit by judicial order) that occurred in the .early phases of the school case. While it is clear that many in the legislature 42$M4-vl 4  and those \"commentin_g on tbe scene\" opposed Section II J., the fact remains that it is an l integral part of the Settlement Agreement and retains full force and vitality today. In his June 4, 2003 letter, the Attorney General appropriately discussed the fact that while \"successor district\" language was included in the settlement agreement as respects the LRSD, it noted thar no such language is presented as regards the PCSSD or the NLRSD. As lhe Attorney General explained: All of this suggests that either (a) the parties simply did not anticipate that a \"successor\" district might be created from territory that was formerly within1he PCSSD, or (b) the parties specificaHy intended that there would not be any such \"successor\" district created under any circumstances, or that any successor district would not be a parcy to the Settlement Agreement. Subparagraph (b) of course is the correct outcome because of the presence of Section II J. On the san1e page and same footnote the Attorney General further noted that: Logic suggests, however, that a group of individual schools could not so easily extricate themselves from federal court supervision (and court-imposed obligations) in a desegregation case by merely \"detaching\" themselves from a schooJ district under supervision, at least not without the consem of all parties to the case and the Court overseeing the litigation. (Emphasis supplied). The Attorney General notes in his last footnote that: In this parcicular case, the parties with standing to object would be the Sr.ate it.o;clf, the three Pulaski County districts, and the 1osbua and Knight intervenors. The Potential For New Claims The principal motivation for the State to enter into and subsequently fund the Settlement Agreement was co minimize the dollar cost for its past constitutional violations and to obtain a release -of all claims for .all v.iolations which had occurred prior to execution of the Settlem~nt Agreement. While the State has been subjected to successful .claims by the school districts for 4282411-vl 5 ~ I I departures from the Settlement Agreement, it has, thus far, for over fourteen years, avoided a cbim or contention that .it has violated the constitution or enacted statutes which either prom~\u0026gt;tc segregation or hamper desegregation. 1 However, the statute at issue, by its own legislative language, sets up an interesting dynamic not otherwise present in ATkansas law. As counsel for the Pcpanment of Education and the Attorney General's office have repeatedly pointed out: \"the state board is proh~itcd by law from approving any petition fo1 detachment which hampers, delays or in any manner negative~y affects desegregation efforts of a school district or districts .in this state.\" Even if the Board makes a negative determination on this issue, it is virtually a foregone conclusion that one or another or more of the parties in the school case would contend in Federal Court that the detachment does \"hamper, delay or ... negatively affects  desegregation efforts ... \", would seek to hoist the State upon the petard of its own legislation, and, if successful, expose the State to new claims for millions of dollars, an exposure the S1ate avoic.Js if it .properly denies the petition. Indeed, it would appear that the legjsJature had the proscriptions of the Settlement Agreement in mind when it crafted this very narr.ow and rigorous test for detachment. The Settlement Agreement at page 10 states: \"The State will enact no legislation which has a substantial adverse impact on the ability of the [Pulaski] I  Districts to desegregate.\" 1 After each legisl:llive session, die ADE invites the PCSSD, as well as the olher Pulaski disu-icrs, to identify aew lc!gislation which the district believes will hamper or negatively affecc its desegregation efforts. The PCSSD duly noted by }ell.er dated April 26, 2002, thaUt believed tile detachment scaruce at issue would negatively -:tffoct it; desegregation efforts. 4282'14-vl 6 Thus, those who might pursue a new claim, where none currently exists, would likely si.multancously argue that the Settlement Agreement itself has been breached, a claim that carries with it not only the potential for new money damages .but substantial legal fees as well. The petitioners are correct that the racial balance tests for the -PCS SD accommodate a growing. black enrollment. However, the racial balance test is only a fraction of the issue involved. By ultimately approving a new school district, the State- will have participated in a process that artificially accelerates the evolution of the PCCSD to a majority black school district. When all three districts become majority black, then the State will argue that its oblig~tion to fund M-to.:M payments will suddenly and abruptly end. (Indeed, a cynic.might wonder if there are those in authority who may have already figured this out.) lf and when this day comes, the financial consequenct;S to the three current districts in this county would be crippling. Thus, to lhc extent that the State endorses steps to hasten and accelerate this day, then perhaps a new round of claims against the Slate would logically follow. The black student population of the PCSSD has grown on average between one-half percent and one percent per year. By accelerating tlle process by 6.5 -percentage points (sec further analysis) in 1hc year of detachment, the State will have \"gained\" approximately 7 .5 years toward the day when M-to-M funding might end. (See 15 years enrollment trend.) The Detachment Statute Constitutes Impermissible Special Local Legislation The Arkansas Constimtion succinctly provides that: \"The legislature shall not pass any local or-special Act\". (Arkansas Constitution Amendment 14). 428244vl 7 I'   l As the staff of -the ADE can verify, this statute, by its tcnns, can_only apply to the _PCSSD. No ot:h,er school district in the State meets the quaJifying characteristics of the legislation. Further, there is no plausible .argument that the statute could ever apply to any other school district in Arkansas -in the future. -Bottom line: It was carefully crafted to apply only to the Jacksonville area, cannot apply elsewhere, and as such is impermissible special, local legislation which should not be enforced. Not-All Of The Pai1ies Have Been Consulted_ The Attorney General's letter ofJime 4, 2003 (hereafter-the June 4 letter), strongly urges the Board to seek input from the three school districts in Pulaski as well as Joshua and the Knight Intervenors before determining whether or not .creation of the new district would \"hamper, delay, or in any manner affect 'desegregation efforts of a school district or distrkts in the State.\" While tht'. PCSSD has supplied information to the Board, the -PCSSD is unaware that the Knight Intcrvenors have been solicited for their input. The Focus Of The Petitioner's New Submissions Is Much Too Nan-ow As .the June 4 lctter explains (and even Mr. Fendley's letter quotes the same language), dest:grcgation includes much more than racial balance from school to school. Accordingly, the Board should look nor only at student assignments, but to every facet of school operations including faculty, staff, transportation, extl'acurricular activities and facilities. (June 4 letter at page 2). While the submissions of the petitioners do touch upon student assignment, faculty and somewhat upon transportation, there is no mention of staff (which is also unionized in the PCSSD) or extracurricular activities. This omission alone is sufficient for this Board to 428244-vl 8 I   1 conclude that insufficient information concerning desegregation in the area of staff and extracurricular activities has been presented. While .the supplemental submissions address current enrollments by school, enrolhnents before and after M-to-M and magnet transfers and deployment .of staff at schools, (all under cenain assumptions about which we will write later), the submission is otherwise largely devoid of analysis and specificity, particularly as it relates to specific matters set forth in the PCSSD's \"Analysis\" previously submitted to this Board. '\\, for instance, there is scant mention of the three specialty schools. in th~ southeast portion of Pulaski County, all of which contain programs which were specifically designed for aml gained Court approval for .desegregation. The supplemental filings simply do not contest the PCSSD calculation that approximately 200 students from the area proposed for detachment  attended those schools last year. These students are necessary for the continued vitality of these programs, all of which feed to Mills Uniyersity Studies High School, recently recognized as the 201 !, \"best\" high school in the country. }lewsweek, May 2003. (Exhibit 16). Does this Board really want to play a role in undermining one of the most shining success stories in Arkansas .education? el 1 Included as Exhibit 17 is a memor11ndum from Davis Hendricks, the.District Director of Talented and Gifted Programs, prepared the day after the Board's June 9 hearing. The memorandum explains at least two things. First, it shows the extensive array of AP courses currently available at both JacksonviJle High School and North Pulaski High School. It also explains in some detail how the detachment would negatively impact the College Station, .Fuller and Mills progl'ams. 428244-vJ 9 - I  While the supplemental submissions do purport to Cl!lculate enrollment in the / \u0026lt;letachment.schools if M-to-M and magnet transfers ended, Lhey singularly do not provide any analysis as to what affect the lack of such transfers would have not only upon the finances of the PCSSD but upon the schools and finances affected in the NLRSD.and .theLRSD. Although the June 4 letter was necessarily fairly general in most respects, it was quite ~pecific as regards certain areas. As the Allorney General opined: (a]ny detachment of a significant amount of territory from the PCSSD could almost certainly be expected to have an \"impact\" on the -PCSSD's ability to comply with its desegregation plan and have an impact on the operation of the Settlement Agreement, including the Agreement's provisjons concerning M.:M students and the Magnet schoolsjh the LRSD. Teacher Deployment As to teacher deployment, the petitioners stake out thena1ve position that the Federal  District Court could simply order all the teachers to stay where they are. This assumption ignores the realities of teacher unions, teacher contracts and previous admonitions from the United States Court of Appeals. For instance, the PCSSD successfully enjoined an on-goinJ teacher strike fo .1996. The union appealed to the Federal Court of A.ppeals arguing that the union negotiated contract beLwccn lhc PCSSD and .the Teachers' Union was none of the District Court's business. The Court of Appeals agreed, reversed the District Court ~d explained to the parties that the role of the District Court is to enforce the Settlement Agreement (which is silent as to the master contracts), but not to otherwise interfere with the rights of employees and organizations of employers. 112 F.3d 953 @ 955 . . Petitioners' position is completely silent regarding recognition of a new teacher organization for a new district . .Is this or js this not pan of their proposed calculus? As the.! 428244-vl 10 - - - - - --- -  PCSSD knows from prior difficult and n-ying circrunst\u0026gt;nccs, many teacliers prefer working in / a district which reco_gnizes a union. I I  e l J The PCSSD \"Analysis\" Revisited Petitioners claim u1at Exhibit 5 in their supplemental submission demonstrates that detachment will not have a negative impact upon the PCSSD. However, even though petitioners purport to have used data obtained from the PCSSD, the PCSSD cannot reconcik its data with chat presented by tne petitioncr.2 For instance, petitioners' Exhibit 5 predicts that the detached school district would have 3,345 elementary students of whom 34.1 % would bt! black. However, the PCSSD .calculates lhat the detached district would have 3,700 elementrtry srudents of wlmm only 32. 7% would be black. (Exhibit 18).. At the secondary level, the petitiom;:rs project 3,750 students of whom 36.6% would be black. While the total number calculated by the PCSSD is similar a.t 3,757, it calculates that ollly 32.4 % of those students would be black. (Exhibit 18). Since the petitioners calculate that the residual PCSSD would be 39 % black, there is a difference of six and one-half percentaie points. Also, while the petitioners project a .total .enrollment of 7,095 students, the PCSSD calculates that the new district would enrolt 7,457 srudents. (Exhibit 18), As for individual schools, the impact upon Clinton Elementary is profound. Detachmem would cause the loss of 124 sLudents and would push Clinton from 55 % black to 60% black. (Exhibit 18). It is required to be no more than 50% black. : The PCSSD once a.ga.iu 1ecommends that these discrepancies be .evaluated by the staff of the ADE. 4282M-vl 11 )  l' -! l e l I As we previously projected, 61 students would leave College-Station reducing its enrollment from 215 .to 159. (Exhibit 18) . This would artificially increase the black population at College Station from the current 55 % to 59 % black. The enrollment at Sylvan Hills Middle School would increase from 878 to 972, the African-American percentage would increase from 39 % to 45 % and the building capacity of 925 would be grossly exceed~d- (Exhibit 18). Court Orders While the petitioners seek to cast doubt upon the over capacity reported for the Sylvan Hills schools, they are either unaware of the fact or.have neglected to inform the Board that as recently as March 25, 2003, the District CoUit noted that: Fur.ther, the Court is jnformed that Sylvan Hills Middle School no Ionger has tho capacity .to .accommodate all 6111 _grade M-to-M students who attended Clintou Interdistrict School through the 5111 grade. Those students should be informed of their opportunity to attend the new middle school in Mawnelle. (Order, Exhibit 19, at page 2.) Accordingly, the PCSSD supplements its previous Analysis and reiterates its point that the displaced students, many of whom are black, who the petitioners submit can \"easily be accommodated at Sylvan Hills\" simply cannot be. Part of the detachment proposal flies in the face of another order entered by the District Court on January 28, 2003. In evaluating and approving the PCSSD plans for the redesign of Harris Elementary School, the Federal Court ruled that: 428244-vl African American students from Brushy Island will not be reassigned to Harris but will continue to attend Cato El~mentary. Cato Elementary student enrollment will.remain 75% Caucasian (white) and 25% African American (black). (Order, Exhibit 20 at page 2.) 12 \\ I  l Of course, the petitioners arc excluding the Brushy lsland students from Cato and are leaving them .to he assigned somewhere in the PCSSD. The petitioners say send them to Sylvan Hills but there is no room. The Court has .said they will not be reassigned to Harris. Where can they go? Another aspect of the Court's January order as respects Harris requires the PCSSD to vigorously recruit minority snidents (white) from north of the river for placement at Harris. The Director of Equity and Multicultural Education was ordered to direct this \"intensification\" of.eff 01t. Of course, if most of the PCSSD nonh of the river is allowed to detach, it will render the PCSSD substantially unable to comply with this order. Sylvan Hills Petitioners make some rather astonishing suggestions regarding Sylvan Hills High School. At page 6 of counsel's letter, the following statements are made: Moreover, even assuming a real capacity problem at Sylvan Hills High School, the District Court coo.ld address the problem in a number.of ways to avoid any negative affect on desegregation. One option may be to revise the attendance zones for all of PCSSD's high schools. The ODM reported that the PCSSD has .nor revised its attendance zones in \"many years\" and recommended that it do so. See ODM March 26, 2003, pp. 19 and 21. Another option may be to discontinue the school's specialty program that allows smdents residing outside the attendance zone to attend the school. This program was implemented to increase the African-American enrollment at the school at a tirnc when it was below the minimum of 20 percent. The African-American enrollment at the school in 2002-03 was 35 percent. This calls into question the continuing need for the program to increase African-American enrollment. A rhir4 option may be to build additional classrooms at Sylvan Hills High School. The PCSSD recently addcdnew classrooms at Robinson High.Sc;:hool to address overcrowding at that school. In short, a capacity problem at Sylvan Hills High School can easily be addressed without negatively affecting desegregation. 428244-vl 13 i  l I I J, e l As to revisingattendancezones or disestablishing a specialty program, a cardinal rule in desegre_gation is \"if it ain't broke, don't fix ic\". Any effort to disestablish a successful program would .immediately be attacked by Joshua. Moreover, ifthe PCSSD is compelled Lo build .additional classrooms because of the efforts of the pelitioners and the actions of the State, who is going to pay for this construction? The petitioners? The State'? The upshot of petitioners' suggestions is that the \"suggestions\" prove that the detachment would have a negative impact on desegregation in the PCSSD. Further, they ignore the fact lhat .much of the increase in black enroilment at Sylvan Hills is M-to-M students from- the LRSD. To discontinue or ecn diminish the specialty program, affects not only the; PCSSD but the LRSD as well. F..nrollmcnt The foasibility study at page 1 predicts the new district would contain 5,700 students. Alternative IV predicts 6,578. The supplemental submissions (Exhibit 5) predicts the new district will contain approx.imately 7,500 students if transfers cease. The numbers keep growing and growing. While the feasibility study forecasts that the PCSSD would remain .the .second largest district in the State, it is clear that a comparison of petitioners' Exhibit5 to its \"district size\" exhibit would relegate the PCSSD to only the sixth largest district in the State with fewer tban 10,500 students. (Before the Pulaski County school desegregation case was filed, the PCSSD boasted an enrollment of almost 33;000 students and was by far the largest school district h1 the State.) 42.SZ44-vl 14  I e l l ! Such a dramatic reduction in enrollment will undoubtedly require a reduction in force not only among teachers and staff but within the Central Office as well. Such dislocations, heartache and ,car.eer affecting decisions will be unnecessary if this Board finds the petition to be invalid. Further, lhe feasibility study points outthatdensity ofstudents per square mile would improve from 25 in. the current PCSSD to approximately 53 students per square mile- in 'the new dislrict. While the feasibility study boasts that this will irnprnve transportation in the new district, it singularly fails to point out that the current density of 25 students per square mile logically and .necessarily becomes far less in the residual PCSSD. This sets up the real potential for more and longer bus rides, less efficiency and an undoubted ne_gative impact upon desegregation and the district's ability to stem enrollment declines and to attract more students . The Stipulations The M~to-M stipulation and the magnet schools stipulation are just that: Stipulated agreements among all of the parties. Therefore, as a threshold matter, it would seem that the specific written consent of Joshua, the Knight Intervenors, the Norl.h Little Rock School District, the J,irtle Rock School District, the State and the PCSSD would be required before tllese \"agreements\" cm1ld be made operative as to a detaching district. Indeed, as w~ know from the Eig_hth Circuit, a District Coun cannot impose agreements but can only -accept or reject them. 921 .F.2d 1371@ 1388. Further. both stipulations are part of the 1989 Settlement Agreement. It seems log.ical that the Agreement would have to be renegotiated and rc--cxecuted by all of the parties to the case to include the new district. Query, would the re, negotiated agreement then have to be submitted to the next session of the legislature to 428244-vJ 15 . I  dctcnnine if !he legislature was Willing l-0 fund tl1i modified agreement? Again, as the Eighth Circuit has taught us, the District Court cannot impose an agreement upon the parties to this case unless they all consent. I  Federal-Court An emerging strategy of the petitioners seems to be to shift as muc~ of the process ar,d decision making as possible to the. Federal District Court often re-assuring this 'Board that the Federal Court can do whatever is necessary to 1mpose obligations, agreements and the like. We have previously explained that the District Court is not all powerful. It cannot, for instance, as we have explained, tell teachers where they are going to teach. It cannot create capacity in sehoolswhere11one exist. Indeed, the current jurisdiction of the District Court 'is \"only\" to enforce the -SettlemGnt Agreement (which it has done) and to monitor and enforce the desegregation plans (which it. continues to do). The detachment statute is, in effect, an effort by a State to confer jurisdiction upon a Federal Court. So far as the PCSSD knows, this effort is unprecedented. It is also highly suspect. However, to the extent that the petitioners ,can convince lhis Board that \"the Federal Court will fix it\", it can perhaps win the authorization for an election, presumably hay..c ,a successful election followed by a large street party and then show up onthe District Court's doorstep with a ten page laundry list of issue!i to be decided. This scenario is not likely to result in a very happy District Court judge. 428244-vl 16  I  I The PCSSD Would Have To Rezone In no shape, .form or fashion does the proposed detachment auempt to follow current Board member 'zoneboundarics. For instance, Zone 5,. from which Board Member Carol Burgett was elected last year, is largely eviscerated. The detachment would require the residual PCSSD. to constitute new zones some seven years in advance of the next census. Tliis would constitute an unnecessary and unwarranted ~xpense and disruption to the governance of the residual PCSSD. Conclusion For all of the foregoing reasons, this Board should determine that the petition is invalid and decline to aulhorize an e1ection. 428244-vl Respectfully submitted, WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026amp; JENNINGS LLP 200 West Capitol Avenue, .Suite 2.300 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3699 (501) 371-0808 FAX: (501) 376:..9442 -- By ----'-=;,.,,\u0026lt;e---.----:...=-r--f=--- cy Special School 17 EDWARD L. WRIGHT (1903-1977) ROBERT S. LINDSEY (1913-1991) WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026amp; JENNINGS LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW ISAAC A. SCOTT, JR. JOHN G. LILE GORDON S. RATHER , JR . ROGER A. GLASGOW C. DOUGLAS BUFORD , JR. PATRICK J. GOSS ALSTON JENNINGS , JR . JOHN R. TISDALE KATHLYN GRAVES M. SAMUEL JONES Ill JOHN WILLIAM SPIVEY 111 LEE J. MULDROW N.M. NORTON CHARLES C. PRICE CHARLEST. COLEMAN JAMES J. GLOVER EDWIN L. LOWTHER. JR . WALTER E. MAY GREGORY T. JONES H. KEITH MORRISON BETTINA E. BROWNSTEIN WALTER McSPADOEN JOHN 0 . DAVIS JJJOY SIMMONS HENRY VIA HAND DELIVERY The Honorable Wm. R. Wilson, Jr. U.S. District Courthouse 600 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 360 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 200 WEST CAPITOL AVENUE SUITE 2300 LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201-3699 (501) 371 -0808 FAX (501) 376-9442 www . wlj. com OF COUNSEL ALSTON JENNINGS RONALD A . MAY BRUCE R . LINDSEY JAMES R . VAN DOVER Writer's Direct Dial No . 501-212-1273 mjoncs@wlj .com July 25, 2003 R5ElYED JUL 2 8 2003 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING Re: Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District; et al. USDC Docket No.: 4:82CV00866WRW Dear Judge Wilson: KIMBERLY WOOD TUCKER RAY F. COX . JR . TROY A. PRICE PATRICIA SIEVERS HARRIS KATHRYN A . PRYOR J. MARX DAVIS CLAIRE SHOWS HANCOCK KEVIN W. KENNEDY JERRY J. SALLINGS WILLIAM STUART JACKSON MICHAEL 0 . BARNES STEPHEN R . LANCASTER JUDY ROBINSON WILBER KYLER . WILSON C . TAD BOHANNON KRISTI M. MOODY J. CHARLES DOUGHERTY M. SEAN HATCH J . ANDREW VINES JUSTIN T. ALLEN MICHELLE M. KAEMMERLING SCOTT ANDREW IRBY PATRICK 0 . WILSON REGINA A. SPAULDING Lia::Dsi=d IO pn,cti be\u0026amp;-e tbe UDilt/ Suta hlt:DI ud Tndt:mvt Olfice Enclosed is a courtesy copy of PCSSD's fourth motion to enforce settlement agreement and for allied relief, together with supporting memorandum brief and statement of material facts . The originals have been filed and the parties served. Thank you for your consideration in this matter. Cordially yours, WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026amp; JENNINGS LLP MSJ:ao Encls. cc/w/encls.: d,(__ \\ Honorable J. Thomas Ray All Counsel of Record Mr. Ray Simon Mr. Scott Smith Mr. Will Bond Mr. Timothy Gauger Mr. Mark Burnett IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V . NO. 4:82CV00866WRW . PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. RECEIVED )-c1.,f \\\u0026lt;J JY7uv{_ JUL 2 8 2003 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING FOURTH MOTION TO ENFORCE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND FOR ALLIED RELIEF PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS The PCSSD for its fourth motion to enforce Settlement Agreement, states: 1. This motion is brought both by the PCSSD and its Board of Directors. The individual directors are named defendants in this action. For purposes of this motion, Directors, Mildred Tatum, Pam Roberts, Don Baker, Jeff Shaneyfeld and Gwen Williams, are moving in both their official and individual capacities because of the equal rights issues asserted herein. 2. This motion is accompanied by a lengthy Statement of Material Facts. The movant respectfully suggests that the reader first examine this Statement for a full and complete context for this motion. 3. On July 14, 2003, the Arkansas State Board of Education purportedly acting - pursuant to Ark. Code Ann.  6-13-1501 , et seq., voted to order an election on September 434830-v1 - 16, 2003, for the purpose of allowing voters in the greater Jacksonville area to consider approval of a ballot measure to detach certain territory from the PCSSD and form a new school district. The statute does not provide for a vote by those residing in other areas of the PCS SD. 4. The statutory scheme, as well as the election which the State has authorized, violates the 1989 Settlement Agreement in this case. This Court has continuing jurisdiction over the State via the Arkansas Department of Education to enforce compliance with the Settlement Agreement. 5. The actions described above violate Section II.J of the Settlement Agreement which states in its entirety: 6. The State, Joshua and LRSD recognize that PCSSD and NLRSD are independent, sovereign desegregating school districts operating pursuant to court orders and agreements and that this agreement is both necessary and desirable to facilitate their desegregation activities as well as their cooperative desegregation activities with the LRSD and others. [emphasis added] The above-described actions also violate Section ILL of the Settlement Agreement which states in pertinent part that: The State will enact no legislation which has a substantial adverse impact on the ability of the Districts to desegregate. 7. As the PCSSD will demonstrate, the creation of a \"new\" district as agreed to by the State Board of Education will both \"substantially affect the ability of the district to desegregate\" and will violate Ark. Code Ann.  6-13-1504(b)(2)(b) since the detachment would \"hamper, delay or in any manner negatively affect desegregation efforts\" of the PCSSD. 434830-v1 2 8. The detachment, if successful in the State-authorized scheme, would call upon this Court to recognize a \"new defendant\" in this 20 year old case while the case is in its remedial phase, liability having been long ago established and subsequently settled in the 1989 Settlement Agreement. This Court should not and cannot embark upon such a slippery slope. Unless or until this case ends, the parties have been established, their liability adjudicated, their differences compromised and settled and a new and different entity should not be introduced to this litigation in the remedial phase. 9. The statute is also unconstitutional because it denies due process and equal protection to those patrons in the PCSSD who do not reside in the area proposed in the petition for detachment and therefore are not allowed to exercise their constitutional right to vote upon the issue. Specifically, Directors Tatum, Williams, Roberts, Shaneyfeld and Baker and all others similarly situated are being denied the opportunity to vote upon the detachment question even though each represents a zone of patrons and voters who will be directly and negatively affected if the detachment is successful. Further, each of them will be negatively affected individually if the detachment proves successful. 10. Discreet provisions of orders of this Court would be violated if the detachment proved successful. For instance, this Court noted on March 25, 2003, that: 434830-v1 Further, the Court is informed that Sylvan Hills Middle School no longer has the capacity to accommodate all 6th grade M-to-M students who attended Clinton Interdistrict School through the 5th grade. Those students should be informed of their opportunity to attend the new middle school in Maumelle. (Order, Exhibit 22 to Statement of Material Facts, at page 2.) 3 However, if the detachment proved successful, several hundred students who currently attend Cato and other schools in the area proposed for detachment would, in the eyes of the petitioners, be reassigned to the several Sylvan Hills schools. Simply stated, there is no room for these students, many of whom are black and no feasible alternative exists for reassignment that does not involve a significant bus ride. 11. The detachment, if successful, would also negatively impact this Court's order of January 28, 2003, which stated in pertinent part that: African American students from Brushy Island will not be reassigned to Harris but will continue to attend Cato Elementary. Cato Elementary student enrollment will remain 75 % Caucasian (white) and 25% African American (black). (Order, Exhibit 23 to Statement of Material Facts, at page 2.) The detachment would leave the Brushy Island students in the residual PCSSD but would take Cato from the PCSSD. The petitioners propose that these students be reassigned to Sylvan Hills as well. However, there is simply no room for these mainly black students and they would face a long bus ride somewhere. 12. Sylvan Hills has proven to be a popular destination for M-to-M students from Little Rock. Obviously, the detachment would place all of the Sylvan Hills schools well over capacity. Since the M-to-M stipulation specifies that M-to-M students can only be accepted on a space available basis, it is likely that all current M-to-M students would have to be evicted from Sylvan Hills if the detachment proved successful. 13. The detachment would artificially accelerate the evolution of the PCS SD to a majority black school district, facilitating the State's inevitable argument that, at such a point, 434830-v1 4 - M-to-M funding should end. The State should not be permitted to effect such an artificial change in enrollment percentages. 14. Mills University Studies High School was recently recognized by Newsweekas the twentieth \"best\" high school in the country. This is a remarkable achievement for any Arkansas school. However, if the detachment proves successful, approximately 200 students from the area proposed for detachment would no longer qualify for transfer to College Station, Fuller Middle and Mills. These three schools are among the centerpieces of Plan 2000 and previous desegregation plans and this Court should not tolerate an action that would likely wreck these successful desegregation programs. 15. If successful, the detachment would work a substantial negative impact upon the current employee force in the PCS SD. The PCS SD calculates it would have to undergo a reduction in force of approximately 475 employees. Since seniority controls such a reduction, the PCSSD would be left with an artificially senior teacher corps and with an artificially imposed salary schedule that would be top heavy in the highest paid teachers. Such an outcome would work a substantial financial hardship upon the PCSSD and interfere with its ability to desegregate. 16. Such a reduction in force would also artificially make the residual PCSSD teacher force whiter than it currently is since the PCSSD has been aggressive the past several years in hiring young minority teachers. These would be the first to be laid off in a reduction in force. 17. If the detachment were successful, Clinton Elementary would lose 124 students and would move from being 55 % black to 60 % black. 434830-v1 5 18. College Station would lose 61 students reducing its enrollment from 215 students to 159. This would also artificially increase the black population at College Station from the current 55 % to 59 % black. 19. The enrollment at Sylvan Hills Middle School would increase from 878 to 972. The building capacity is only 925. Even if they could be accommodated, this infusion of students would increase the enrollment from 39 % black to 45 % black. 20. The detachment, if successful, would reduce the student population in the PCSSD to only approximately 10,500 students. It would change it from the second largest district in the State to only the sixth largest district. With a reduction in enrollment of approximately 7,500 students, the PCSSD would be substantially reduced in its capability to send and receive M-to-M students and to send magnet students to the stipulation magnets. 21. The current student density per square mile in the PCSSD is 25 students per square mile. The detachers calculate that the new district would improve this density to 53 students per square mile in the new district. Logically, however, the current density of 25 students per square mile in the current PCSSD would be significantly reduced leading to longer and less efficient transportation of students in the residual PCSSD and likely imposing an artificial and unwarranted busing burden upon black students. 22. The State Board granted the petition and in its subsequent order for elections based its decision largely upon \"the petitioners' willingness to seek, accept, and comply fully with any and all additional orders and requirements that might be imposed by the Federal Court ... \". The PCSSD submits that that which petitioners seek is legally impossible, particularly as respects the agreements entered into in this case. For instance, the M-to-M 434830-v1 6 - stipulation, the magnet stipulation and the 1989 Settlement Agreement are just that. They are agreements entered among the current parties and this Court cannot \"impose\" those agreements upon a new entity. Rather, all of the parties would have to consent and presumably the legislature would have to concur. 23. As the Court of Appeals has explained, the current jurisdiction of this Court is to enforce the Settlement Agreement and to monitor and enforce the desegregation plans. The detachment statute is an effort by a State to confer jurisdiction upon a Federal Court. The PCSSD knows of no precedent for this effort. 24. This motion is brought now because the action of the State Board in authorizing the election has created a clear and current case or controversy. Since the effects of a detachment are palpable and provable, it is respectfully submitted that this Court should exercise its jurisdiction now to end an effort which violates the Settlement Agreement and would work a manifest injury upon the ability of the PCSSD to carry out its Court approved plans and obligations and would have significant adverse outcomes financially and enrollment wise upon the other parties to this case. WHEREFORE, for all of the foregoing reasons, this Court should enter its order finding that the Settlement Agreement has been violated or that the detachment would work an impermissible negative affect upon the PCSSD's efforts to desegregate and comply with Court orders and agreements entered into with the other parties. For all of these reasons, this Court should enter its order directing the State Board of Education to rescind its order of July 16, 2003, and cancel its authorization for an election. 434830-v1 7 Respectfully submitted, WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026amp; JENNINGS LLP 200 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 2300 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3699 (501) 371-0808 FAX: (501) 376-9442 Att Sc CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE On July 25, 2003, a copy of the foregoing was served via U.S. mail on each of the following: Mr. John W. Walker John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 2000 Regions Center 400 West Capitol Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Ms. Ann Brown Marshall ODM One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 434830-v1 8 Mr. Mark A. Hagemeier Assistant Attorney General Arkansas Attorney General's Office 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Richard Roach ell Roachell Law Firm Plaza West Building 415 N. McKinley, Suite 465 Little Rock, Arkansas 72205 Mr. Ray Simon Director of the Arkansas Department of Education 4 State Capitol Mall Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-1071 Mr. Will Bond 602 W. Main . Jacksonville, AR 72076 Mr. Mark Burnett 1010 W. Third Street Little Rock, AR 72201 434830-v1 9 Mr. Scott Smith General Counsel Arkansas Department of Edudation #4 Capitol Mall, Room 404-A Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Timothy Gauger Assistant Attorney General 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 J IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. NO. 4:82CV00866WRW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. MEMORANDUM BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF FOURTII MOTION TO ENFORCE SETILEMENT AGREEMENT AND FOR ALLIED RELIEF REf,1~0 JUL 2 8 2003 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS Simply stated, the 1989 Settlement Agreement with the State, to which the State Board of Education is a signatory, precludes any such usurpation of the District's sovereignty and independence, as would result from the detachment the State recently authorized. It is the law of the case that the Court retains jurisdiction to insure that the parties, including the State, comply with the terms of the Settlement Agreement as well as the settlement plans. (Order dated January 13, 1995, at page 2, Docket No. 2337). The Settlement Agreement Provision Section II J of the 1989 comprehensive Settlement Agreement states in its entirety: 435830-v1 The State, Joshua and LRSD recognize that PCSSD and NLRSD are independent, sovereign desegregating school districts operating pursuant to court orders and agreements and that this agreement is both necessary and desirable to facilitate their desegregation activities as well as their cooperative desegregation activities with the LRSD and others. [emphasis added] This language, which remains operative, was not some idle boilerplate or filler. Indeed, as we will explain further, it was not part of the original agreement between the State, LRSD and Joshua but was only negotiated after the State bad first reached agreement with the LRSD and  then turned its attention toward securing agreement from the PCSSD and the NLRSD. (Exhibit 2). Further, there was then a real and immediate specter of consolidation which prompted this negotiated language which, while it survived the legislative and judicial approval process, came under attack from many legislators, commentators and in editorials. (Exhibits 1, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12, and 14). It should thus be clear that Section II J. was a key component of the settlement for which the PCSSD (as well as the NLRSD) separately negotiated. The reasons are clear. Not only was the PCSSD guarding against consolidation, but also against any new usurpation of its territory, facilities and assets similar to the appropriation (albeit by judicial order) that occurred in the early phases of this case. Absent this promise by the State, it had no logical reason to join the settlement. Were it to be either consolidated or carved up into pieces, it would have no reason to settle. While it is clear that many in the legislature and those \"commenting on the scene\" opposed Section II J., the fact remains that it is an integral part of the Settlement Agreement and retains full force and vitality today. In his June 4, 2003 letter (Exhibit 16), generated as part of the proceedings before the State Board, the Attorney General appropriately discussed the fact that while \"successor district\" language was included in the settlement agreement as respects the LRSD, he noted 435830-v1 2 that no such language was presented as regards the PCS SD or the NLRSD. As the Attorney General explained: All of this suggests that either (a) the parties simply did not anticipate that a \"successor\" district might be created from territory that was formerly within the PCSSD, or (b) the parties specifically intended that there would not be any such \"successor\" district created under any circumstances, or that any successor district would not be a party to the Settlement Agreement. Subparagraph (b) of course is the correct analysis because of the presence of Section II J. On the same page and same footnote the Attorney General further noted that: Logic suggests, however, that a group of individual schools could not so easily extricate themselves from federal court supervision (and court-imposed obligations) in a desegregation case by merely \"detaching\" themselves from a school district under supervision, at least not without the consent of all parties to the case and the Court overseeing the litigation. (Emphasis supplied). The Attorney General notes in his last footnote that: In this particular case, the parties with standing to object would be the State itself, the three Pulaski County districts, and the Joshua and Knight intervenors. Section II L. The principal motivation for the State to enter into and subsequently fund the Settlement Agreement was to minimize the dollar cost for its past constitutional violations and to obtain a release of all claims for all violations which had occurred prior to execution of the Settlement Agreement. While the State has been subjected to successful claims by the school districts for departures from the Settlement Agreement, (Statement 1s 20, 21, 22 and 23) it has, thus far, for over fourteen years, avoided a claim or contention that it has violated the constitution or 435830-v1 3 enacted statutes which either promote segregation or hamper desegregation. 1 However, the statute at issue, by its own legislative language, sets up an interesting dynamic not otherwise present in Arkansas law. As counsel for the Department of Education and the Attorney General's office have repeatedly pointed out: \"the state board is prohibited by law from approving any petition for detachment which hampers, delays or in any manner negatively affects desegregation efforts of a school district or districts in this state.\" (Exhibit 16) Indeed, it would appear that the legislature had the proscriptions of the Settlement Agreement in mind when it crafted this very rigorous test for detachment. The Settlement Agreement at page 10 states: \"The State will enact no legislation which has a substantial adverse impact on the ability of the [Pulaski] Districts to desegregate.\" By ultimately approving a new school district, the State will have participated in a process that artificially accelerates the evolution of the PCCSD to a majority black school district. When all three districts become majority black, then the State will argue that its obligation to fund M-to-M payments will suddenly and abruptly end. (Indeed, a cynic might wonder if there are those in authority who may have already figured this out.) If and when this day comes, the financial consequences to the three current districts in this county would be crippling. 1 After each legislative session, the ADE invites the PCSSD, as well as the other Pulaski districts, to identify new legislation which the district believes will hamper or negatively affect its desegregation efforts. The PCSSD duly noted by letter dated April 26, 2002, that it believed the detachment statute at issue would negatively affect its desegregation efforts. 435830-v1 4 This Court has consistently reiterated the proposition that: \"A party may not unilaterally change the implementation or language of an agreement or order without the prior approval of the Court and/or the consent of the parties.\" (Order dated January 13, 1995, at page 10, Docket No. 2337). The State of Arkansas needs to focus on its obligation in the settlement to give the Pulaski County school districts special consideration to enable these districts to meet their numerous and burdensome obligations under the settlement. The Court reminds the State of the Eighth Circuit's specific findings about the State's complicated and lengthy history of promotion of unconstitutional racial segregation which has led to this interminable litigation. The swiftest and surest way out of the federal court is to abide by the terms and spirit of this Settlement Agreement, and this includes following proper procedures for modification of the settlement. (Emphasis in the original) (Order dated January 13, 1995, at pages 16, 17, Docket No. 2337). The Equal Protection Claim Under the new detachment statute, when part of a school district attempts to detach itself from the school district, and become its own entity, a majority vote of only the voters in the area to be detached is permitted. Ark. Code Ann.  6-13-1504(3)(C). This provision is clearly unconstitutional and denies equal protection of the laws to those voters remaining in the original school district who are not allowed to vote even though they will be materially affected by detachment. The United States Supreme Court has stated that if a state statute is challenged on the grounds that it grants the right to vote in a limited purpose election to some otherwise qualified voters, but denies it to others, then the court must be called upon to determine whether the exclusion from the election is necessary to promote a compelling state interest. Kramer v. 435830-v1 5 Union Free School District, 395 U.S. 621, 633 (1969); Cipriano v. City of Houma, 395 U.S. 701, 704 (1969). The Kramer court went further to point out, that when the State's sole justification for the statute is that the classification provides merely a reasonable basis upon which to determine which voters have a special interest in the outcome of the election, then the statute fails to meet the \"exacting standard of precision we require of statutes which selectively distribute the franchise .\" Kramer, 395 U.S. at 632. In determining whether there has been a violation of the equal protection clause, the court's attention should be focused on two inquiries: (1) whether there is a genuine difference in interests among the two groups that the State has created, and (2) if so, whether any resulting increase . in voting strength of one group over the other amounts to discrimination under the Equal Protection Clause. Town of Lockport, N. Y. v. Citizens for Cmty. Action At - the Local Level, Inc., 430 U.S. 259, 268 (1976). In several cases the Supreme Court has allowed the electorate of a special-purpose unit of government to be apportioned to give more weight to a certain sector which is found to be most affected by the government unit's functions. Id. at 266. But, as Kramer points out, the classification of voters into \"interested\" and \"non-interested\" groups must be reasonably precise, and the State must have a compelling state interest that the statute, and its classification of voters, furthers. Kramer, 395 U.S. at 633. Several United State Supreme Court cases demonstrate these principles. For example, in Kramer the court found it was unconstitutional and a violation of equal protection to restrict the voting in a school board election to either those people who paid property taxes or rented homes, or to those people who had children enrolled in the schools. Id. The court applied 435830-v1 6 - heightened scrutiny, and reasoned that this distinction among voters was not necessary to promote a compelling state interest. Id. The court did not afford the usual presumption of constitutionality to this election statute. Presumptions of constitutionality for statutes are based on the premise that the state governments are structured to fairly represent people. Id. at 628. But, when the challenge to the statute is basically a challenge of the basic premise, the premise can no longer serve as the basis for presuming constitutionality. Id. Additionally, the court in Kramer pointed out that the statute defining who could vote in school board elections was not narrowly tailored to serve a compelling state interest, because it was simultaneously too over inclusive both as well as too under inclusive. Id. at 632. The court stated that these election criteria excluded \"senior citizens and others living with children or relatives; military personnel, and others who live on tax exempt property; boarders and lodgers; parents who neither lease nor own qualifying property and whose children are too young to attend school; and parents who neither own nor lease property and whose children attend private school.\" Id. at 630. Further, the Supreme Court in Cipriano, decided that a Louisiana statute conferring the right to vote in bond issuance elections only to those people who paid property taxes was unconstitutional as denying equal protection. Cipriano, 395 U.S. at 704. Just as in Kramer, the Cipriano court pointed out that when the vote, in a special purpose election, is given to some people, but denied to others then the court must determine whether the exclusions are necessary to promote a compelling state interest. Id. The Cipriano court also noted that it is unconstitutional to deny the vote to some people because of the way the members of that group might vote. Id. at 705. 435830-v1 7 Similar to the voting classifications drawn in Kramer and Cipriano, the Arkansas statute which only allows voters in the area to be detached to vote in the detachment proceedings, and denies the vote to those in the remaining area is unconstitutional, because the statute offends the notion of \"one person, one vote.\" By denying interested and affected voters the right to vote, the state is ultimately denying equal protection of the laws to those who are not allowed to vote in this school district election. This distinction of the voters does not further a compelling state interest, and is therefore unconstitutional.2 First, as indicated by the Kramer court, this statute should not be given a presumption of constitutionality because the challenge to the statute is to the basic premise that the laws are created by a fair process. Because the process is being challenged in this case, the usual presumption of constitutionality cannot be afforded. Therefore, in analyzing whether there has been an equal protection violation the court must focus on whether there is a genuine difference of interests among the two groups the state has created, and if so whether the resulting increase in voter strength in one of the groups amounts to discrimination under the Equal Protection clause. Since the Arkansas statute allows only those people residing in the area to be detached the vote, one gets no further than the first step under this analysis. There 2 Indeed, the principal interest being endorsed by the State in this instance is to apply detachment only to the PCSSD. As we noted in our State Court complaint (Exhibit 20), the detachment provision applies by definition only to the PCSSD and to no other school district. Thus, is not even dealing with \"special purpose elections\" Statewide but only to one that is limited to the PCSSD. Stated another way, to the extent that others in other school districts might wish detachment, there is no statutory provision available to them to seek it. The detachment statutes apply neither to the largest district in the State, middle sized districts or the smallest. It applies only to the PCSSD. 435830-v1 8 is no real and distinct difference, and certainly not a compelling difference, in the interests between those in the Jacksonville area and those remaining in the Pulaski County Special School District. The state must have a compelling reason or justification for distinguishing between those wanting to be detached and those who would remain from the original school district. It is not enough to say that distinguishing them in this manner is for purposes of determining who is interested or affected by the election and who is not. The residents of the PCSSD who do not seek to be detached have a real and palpable interest in the matter of the detachment, yet they are being denied the right to vote in the election. If Jacksonville were to detach, this would have a definite and immediate impact on the processes and operations of the other schools that would remain in the PCSSD. School funding, transportation and busing, teacher school assignments, and student assignments would most certainly be affected. The school district would have to immediately reconfigure its processes, resources and operations. Therefore, as a result of the sudden impact the detachment would have on the entire PCS SD, it is disingenuous to claim that those residing in the area that would remain the PCSSD are not interested or affected by this vote. Further, this distinction the State has made is not so precise as to satisfy the exacting standard set forth in Kramer. Just as in Kramer, this election statute is not narrowly tailored to achieving the goal of franchising those people interested or affected by the vote. The statute is over inclusive in the sense that it allows people in Jacksonville to vote that have, at best, a remote or indirect interest and are not affected by the school detachment election whatsoever. For example, a senior citizen residing in Jacksonville with no children, and no more children 435830-v1 9 expected in their lifetime are allowed to vote in this school detachment election. A single airman with no children living in base housing during a two year assignment may vote. On the other hand the statute is under inclusive because it denies the right to vote to those people in the PCSSD who do not live in the Jacksonville area and who would be severely affected by the outcome of the election, such as those people with children currently attending a school in the PCSSD particularly schools such as College Station, Fuller and Mills whose very programs are threatened by the detachment. This distinction is not made with the precision necessary to safeguard equal protection of the law. Negative Impact Upon Desegregation Although the June 4 letter of the Attorney General was necessarily fairly general in most respects, it was quite specific as regards certain areas. As the Attorney General opined: [a]ny detachment of a significant amount of territory from the 435830-v1 PCSSD could almost certainly be expected to have an \"impact\" on the PCSSD's ability to comply with its desegregation plan and have an impact on the operation of the Settlement Agreement, including the Agreement's provisions concerning M-M students and the Magnet schools in the LRSD. The Court of Appeals has previously succinctly explained the M-to-M arrangement: M-to-M students are peculiar to the districts that are parties to the Settlement Agreement. They are students who are of the majority race in their home districts, and who voluntarily transfer to .another Pulaski County district where they are of the minority race. The State, by way of a funding formula contained in the Settlement Agreement, compensates both the home district and the receiving district for each M-to-M student. The home, or sending, district receives one-half of the state aid that it would have received if the student had remained in the district, while the receiving, or host, district receives the full cots of educating the student. (United States Court of Appeals, No. 95-1481EA, Docket No. 2718, Opinion filed May 15, 1996). 10 The three specialty schools in the southeast portion of Pulaski County all contain programs which were specifically designed for and gained Court approval for desegregation. The PCSSD calculates that approximately 200 students from the area proposed for detachment attended those schools last year. These students are necessary for the continued vitality of these programs, all of which feed to Mills University Studies High School, recently recognized as the 20th \"best\" high school in the country. Newsweek, May 2003. Included as Exhibit 17 is a memorandum from Davis Hendricks, the District Director of Talented and Gifted Programs, prepared the day after the Board's June 9 hearing. The memorandum explains at least two things. First, it shows the extensive array of AP courses currently available at both Jacksonville High School and North Pulaski High School. It also explains in some detail how the detachment would negatively impact the College Station, Fuller and Mills programs. The PCS SD calculates that the detached district would have 3, 700 elementary students of whom only 32.7% would be black. At the secondary level, the PCSSD calculates an enrollment of 3,757 and that only 32.4% of those students would be black. Since the petitioners calculated that the residual PCSSD would be 39 % black, there is a difference of six and one-half percentage points. The PCSSD calculates that the new district would enroll 7,457 students. Individual Schools As for individual schools, the impact upon Clinton Elementary is profound. Detachment would cause the loss of 124 students and would push Clinton from 55 % black to 60 % black. It is required to be no more than 50 % black. 435830-v1 11 Clinton is an inter-district school. The Court of Appeals has specifically stated that one of the elements of the Settlement Agreement it considers to be crucial, and with respect to which no retreat should be approved, is the operation of the agreed number of inter-district schools according to the agreed timetable. (Appeal of Little Rock School District, 949 F .2d 253,256 (8th Cir. 1991)). The PCSSD projects that 61 students would leave College Station reducing its enrollment from 215 to 159. This would artificially increase the black population at College Station from the current 55 % to 59 % black. The enrollment at Sylvan Hills Middle School would increase from 878 to 972, the African-American percentage would increase from 39% to 45 % and the building capacity of 925 would be grossly exceeded. Court Orders As recently as March 25, 2003, this Court noted that: Further, the Court is informed that Sylvan Hills Middle School no longer has the capacity to accommodate all 6th grade M-to-M students who attended Clinton Interdistrict School through the 5th grade. Those students should be informed of their opportunity to attend the new middle school in Maumelle. (Order, March 25, 2003) Accordingly, the PCSSD reiterates its point that the displaced students, many of whom are black, who the petitioners submit can \"easily be accommodated at Sylvan Hills\" simply cannot be. 435830-v1 12 Part of the detachment proposal flies in the face of another order entered by the District Court on January 28, 2003. In evaluating and approving the PCSSD plans for the redesign of Harris Elementary School, this Court ruled that: African American students from Brushy Island will not be reassigned to Harris but will continue to attend Cato Elementary. Cato Elementary student enrollment will remain 75 % Caucasian (white) and 25% African American (black). (Order, January 28, 2003). However, the petitioners are excluding the Brushy Island students from Cato and are leaving them to be assigned somewhere in the PCS SD. The petitioners say send them to Sylvan Hills but there is no room. The Court has said they will not be reassigned to Harris. Where can they go? Another aspect of the Court's January order as respects Harris requires the PCSSD to vigorously recruit minority students (white) from north of the river for placement at Harris. The Director of Equity and Multicultural Education was ordered to direct this \"intensification\" of effort. Of course, if most of the PCSSD north of the river is allowed to detach, it will render the PCSSD substantially unable to comply with this order. Sylvan Hills Petitioners make some rather astonishing suggestions regarding Sylvan Hills High School. At page 6 of counsel's letter (Exhibit 17), the following statements are made: 435830-v1 Moreover, even assuming a real capacity problem at Sylvan Hills High School, the District Court could address the problem in a number of ways to avoid any negative affect on desegregation. One option may be to revise the attendance zones for all of PCSSD's high schools. The ODM reported that the PCSSD has not revised its attendance zones in \"many years\" and recommended that it do so. See ODM March 26, 2003, pp. 19 13 and 21. Another option may be to discontinue the school's specialty program that allows students residing outside the attendance zone to attend the school. This program was implemented to increase the African-American enrollment at the school at a time when it was below the minimum of 20 percent. The African-American enrollment at the school in 2002-03 was 35 percent. This calls into question the continuing need for the program to increase African-American enrollment. A third option may be to build additional classrooms at Sylvan Hills High School. The PCSSD recently added new classrooms at Robinson High School to address overcrowding at that school. In short, a capacity problem at Sylvan Hills High School can easily be addressed without negatively affecting desegregation. As to revising attendance zones or disestablishing a specialty program, a cardinal rule in desegregation is \"if it ain't broke, don't fix it\". Any effort to disestablish a successful program would immediately be attacked by Joshua. Moreover, if the PCS SD is compelled to build additional classrooms because of the - efforts of the petitioners and the actions of the State, who is going to pay for this construction? The petitioners? The State? The upshot of petitioners' suggestions is that the \"suggestions\" prove that the detachment would have a negative impact on desegregation in the PCSSD. Further, they ignore the fact that much of the increase in black enrollment at Sylvan Hills is M-to-M students from the LRSD. To discontinue or even diminish the specialty program, affects not only the PCSSD but the LRSD as well. Enrollment While the feasibility study forecasts that the PCSSD would remain the second largest district in the State, the PCSSD calculates it would be relegated to only the sixth largest district in the State with fewer than 10,500 students. (Before the Pulaski County school desegregation 435830-v1 14 case was filed, the PCSSD boasted an enrollment of almost 33,000 students and was by far the largest school district in the State.) Such a dramatic reduction in enrollment will undoubtedly require a reduction in force not only among teachers and staff but within the Central Office as well. Such dislocations, heartache and career affecting decisions are simply unnecessary. Further, the feasibility study (Exhibit 15 at page 39) points out that density of students per square mile would improve from 25 in the current PCSSD to approximately 53 students per square mile in the new district. While the feasibility study boasts that this will improve transportation in the new district, it singularly fails to point out that the current density of 25 students per square mile logically and necessarily becomes far less in the residual PCSSD. This sets up the real potential for more and longer bus rides, less efficiency and an undoubted negative impact upon desegregation and the district's ability to stem enrollment declines and to attract more students. Strong Precedent Supports The PCSSD Position Many unsuccessful efforts to detach from districts operating pursuant to desegregation orders litter the legal landscape in this jurisprudence. The latest appears to be Lee vs. Chambers County Board of Education, 849 F.Supp. 1474, (M.D.Ala. 1994). The case is an outgrowth of Lee vs. Macon County Board of Education, 267 F.Supp. 458 (M.D.Ala.) (threejudge court), aff'd sub nom. Wallace v. United States, 389 U.S. 215, 88 S.Ct. 415, 19 L.Ed.2d 422 (1967). In that case, a three-judge district court ordered Alabama's local school districts, including Chambers County and Lanett City, to disestablish their racially segregated - and discriminatory systems. 435830-v1 15 While the Lee case is procedurally and statutorily complicated, it does bear remarkable similarities to the case at bar. By 1990, the City of Valley, located within Chambers County, had become frustrated with the Chambers County Board of Education believing it had ignored requests to improve the schools in the City of Valley. Id. at 1478. The City of Valley attempted to form its own separate school district which was opposed by the county. Among the complaints of the City of Valley was that the county enrollment had been declining, that historically there had been a tension between the Valley area and the rest of the county, and that no new facilities had been built in the Valley area since the early 1980s. As part of its proposal to create its separate school system, Valley agreed to abide by any orders of the Court which orders are designed to assure that such a system will not impede the desegregation process in Chambers County. It also committed itself to operate a totally integrated system including utilizing existing attendance zones. Id. Valley considered at least three options for configuring the district but chose Option 1 because it would leave existing attendance zones intact, cause the least student disruption, allow children to attend schools they or their parents had historically attended and effect no changes in the remaining schools. Id. at 1485. Among the factors that were not considered by Valley was the affect upon children having special educational needs, the Court pointing out that these costs are not fully funded from State or Federal sources and that the local cost for these programs can be a substantial burden. 435830-v1 16 We note that Jacksonville has performed no such analysis in this case either, even though the PCSSD facilities for children with multi handicapping conditions are all located in schools proposed for detachment. As the Court noted in Lee. (Id. at 1490) If the court permits the Valley district to operate, the Chambers County district would have to equip and operate special education programs now offered only at schools in the Valley area, such as the pre-school handicapped student program at Fairfax Elementary School and the gifted student program at Fairfax Elementary School. After a long discussion of the facts and the law, the Court finally came down to the issue of \"Practicability\". Beginning at page 1498, the Court explained that: (Id. at 1498) (Id. at 1498) 435830-v1 The court must also consider whether Valley's proposal introduces a level of complexity to the desegregation process in Chambers County that is so great that it will itself be an impediment to the speedy and effective elimination of the remaining vestiges of the dual school system. Valley takes the position that the ongoing desegregation process in the Chambers County school district will not be affected adversely by its establishment and independent operation as a separate system because any issues that may arise can be negotiated between the school systems, resolved by the State Superintendent of Education, or be determined by this court. Thus, at a time when Chambers County school authorities should be devoting their energies and attention to implementing the recent Orders of this court and to devising and implementing the comprehensive blueprint for final constitutional compliance as agreed by the parties and that is required by the 1993 Agreed Order, if operation of a Valley district were permitted, they would instead be enmeshed in negotiations, state administrative 17 (Id. at 1499) - (Id. at 1499) (Id. at 1500) proceedings, and possible further appearances before this court to resolve disputed matters. If the City of Valley is permitted to operate a separate and independent system, these efforts-and the progress of the Chambers County public schools toward unitary status-will become far more complex. For example, each teacher assignment decision presently is affected by current assignments throughout the existing Chambers County school district. To the extent that full constitutional compliance has not been attained-and it currently has not been attained at the time a separate Valley district begins operations, both school systems will share in the responsibility for achieving the original goal of having racially non-identifiable faculties among all of other schools that either operates. If the districts operate independently, however, ensuring the realization of this goal will inevitably cause friction and ultimately involve this court in a level of detailed supervision and administration of local schools that would be unwieldy and unwise. The court finds that the introduction of an independent decisionmaking body (a new school district) in the midst of the desegregation process in Chambers County will greatly complicate planning and implementation of measures necessary for constitutional compliance, will increase the potential for conflict, will be likely to involve this court in an unnecessarily detailed level of supervision and administration (thus displacing local control), and ultimately will impede the County's progress toward a unitary system from which all vestiges of past discrimination have been eliminated. In its conclusions of law, the Court appropriately traced the cases from the United States Supreme Court which culminate in the lead decision: 435830-v1 Over 20 years ago, the Supreme Court firmly established the test which must be applied in situations such as this: 18 435830-v1 We have today held that any attempt by state of local officials to carve out a new school district from an existing district that is in the process of dismantling a dual school system \"must be judged according to whether it hinders or furthers the process of school desegregation. If the proposal would impede the dismantling of a dual system, then a district court, in the exercise of its remedial discretion, may enjoin it from being carried out.\" United States v. Scottland Neck Bd. of Educ., 401 U.S. 484, 489, 92 S.Ct. 2214, 2217, 33 L.Ed.2d 75 (1972) (citing Wright v. Council of City of Emporia, 401 U.S. 451 , 460, 92 S. Ct. 2196, 2202, 33 L.Ed.2d 51 (1972)). In Wright v. Council of City of Emporia, the city which wished to form and operate a splinter school district made much the same argument as that of Valley here: ... Emporia advances arguments that a separate system is necessary to achieve quality education for city residents, and that it is unfair in any event to force the city to continue to send its children to schools over which the city, because of the character of its arrangement with the county, has very little control. Id. at 467, 92 S.Ct. at 2205. The Supreme Court's answer to that argument must guide the court in its decision in the case at bar: The District Court, with its responsibility to provide an effective remedy for segregation in the entire city-county system could not property allow the city to make its part of that system more attractive where such a result would be accomplished at the expense of the children remaining in the county. Id. at 468, 92 S.Ct. at 2206. The year before, the Fifth Circuit had dealt with the issue of a splinter school district in a case involving Alabama splinters (Pleasant Grove, Vestavia, Midfield and Homewood) withdrawing from their parent (Jefferson County). Stout v. Jefferson County Board of Ed., 448 F .2d 403 (5th Cir., 1971 (\"Stout I\") [FN26] The court held: .. . [W]here the formulation of splinter school districts, albeit validly created under state law, have the effect of 19 435830-v1 thwarting the implementation of a unitary school system, the district court may not ... recognize their creation. Id. at 404 (footnote omitted). On remand, the district court ordered the splinter districts to accept a proper role in the desegregation of the county system. This was affirmed on appeal, Stout v. Jefferson County Board of Education, 466 F2d 1213 (5th Cir. 1972) (\"Stout II\"), cert. denied, sub nom., Stripling v. Jefferson County Bd. of Educ., 410 U.S. 928, 93 S.Ct. 1361, 35 L.Ed.2d 589 (1973), with the Fifth Circuit holding that legally created splinter school districts could be disregarded if their existence thwarted implementation of a unitary school system in the county as a whole. The court went on to say that courts should not remove local control indefinitely and that sovereignty should be returned to a splinter district when the splinter demonstrates \"by clear and convincing evidence\" that it is able and intends to comply with the court's orders concerning its role in the desegregation of the county school district. Id. at 1215. Valley argues that the latter holding in Stout II should cause this court to authorize it to operate a separate school system because it has pledged to the court that it would follow any order which the court might issue as to the role which the Valley district should play in assisting to complete desegregation of the schools in Chambers County. Valley also emphasizes its commitment to operate an integrated system, even hopefully a \"model\" system, within its new district for the benefit of children of all races. While the court accepts the sincerity of Valley's officer, accepts Valley's assurance that it intends to operate a fully integrated school system that would be eligible to be adjudged a unitary system if judged along, and accepts Valley's commitment that it has no intention to impede the progress of desegregation in the county system, this begs the real issue. As the Supreme Court has stated, \"[t]he existence of a permissible purpose cannot sustain any action that has an impermissible effect.\" Wright, 407 U.S. at 462, 92 S.Ct. at 2203. The issue here is not whether Valley could create a fully integrated unitary system for itself, or whether Valley is willing to accept a role in desegregating the county system. The basic issue before the court is whether a separate Valley system can be operated at this time, even accepting whatever role the court might assign it, in a way which does not impede the final dismantling of a dual school system in Chambers County. (Id. at 1500, 1501). 20 (Id. at 1502) (Id. at 1503) (Id. at 1503) The court has carefully considered Valley's proposals. Although it has expressed preferences, Valley has suggested several alternatives designed to address the various Green factors, all of which it is willing to accept. And, while the burden of proof is properly on Valley, the court has struggled with Valley's request that it \"mandate a desegregation plan that incorporates, recognizes and accommodates the existence of and in turn operation of a city school system by the Valley City Board of Education.\" (Brief in Support of Amended Petition to Intervene on Behalf of the Valley City Board of Education and the City of Valley, Alabama.). The court has concluded that it cannot be done at this time. What we must all seek -- the parties, the lawyers, and the court -is to finally remedy the constitutional violations created by the old state-imposed system of segregated schools to the end that the federal courts no longer have to supervise the operation of the public schools of Chambers County, not to adopt a patchwork approach which depends on continued court involvement to make it work. The facts in this case impel the court to the inevitable conclusion that this ultimate objective for the Chambers County schools would be impeded by the operation of a Valley school system at this time. Accordingly, the court will deny Valley's request to operate as a separate school district. Teacher Deployment As to teacher deployment, the petitioners stake out the naive position that the Federal District Court could simply order all the teachers to stay where they are. (Exhibit 17 at 8). This assumption ignores the realities of teacher unions, teacher contracts and previous admonitions from the United States Court of Appeals. For instance, the PCSSD successfully 435830-v1 21 enjoined an on-going teacher strike in 1996. The union appealed to the Federal Court of Appeals arguing that the union negotiated contract between the PCSSD and the Teachers' Union was none of the District Court's business. The Court of Appeals agreed, reversed the District Court and explained to the parties that the role of the District Court is to enforce the Settlement Agreement (which is silent as to the master contracts), but not to otherwise interfere with the rights of employees and organizations of employers. 112 F.3d 953@ 955. Petitioners' position is completely silent regarding recognition of a new teacher organization for a new district. Is this or is this not part of their proposed calculus? As the PCSSD knows from prior difficult and trying circumstances, many teachers prefer working in a district which recognizes a union. The Stipulations The M-to-M stipulation and the magnet schools stipulation are just that: Stipulated agreements among all of the parties. Therefore, as a threshold matter, it would seem that the specific written consent of Joshua, the Knight Intervenors, the North Little Rock School District, the Little Rock School District, the State and the PCSSD would be required before these \"agreements\" could be made operative in a detaching district. Indeed, as we know from the Eighth Circuit, a District Court cannot impose agreements but can only accept or reject them. 921 F.2d 1371@ 1388. Further, both stipulations are part of the 1989 Settlement Agreement. It seems logical that the Agreement would have to be renegotiated and reexecuted by all of the parties to the case to include the new district. Query, would the renegotiated agreement then have to be submitted to the next session of the legislature to determine if the legislature was willing to fund this modified agreement? Again, as the Eighth 435830-v1 22 Circuit has taught us, the District Court cannot impose an agreement upon the parties to this case unless they all consent. The PCSSD Would Have To Rezone Zones 4 and 5 would be completely removed from the PCSSD. The detachment would require the residual PCSSD to constitute new zones some seven years in advance of the next census. This would constitute an unnecessary and unwarranted expense and disruption to the governance of the residual PCS SD. Time has yet to permit an analysis as to the effect such rezoning would have upon those protected by the Voting Rights Act if detachment was successful. Federal Court The strategy of the petitioners seems to be to shift as much of the process and decision - making as possible to the Federal District Court often re-assuring the State Board that the Federal Court can do whatever is necessary to impose obligations, agreements and the like. We have previously explained that the District Court is not all powerful. It cannot, for instance, as we have explained, tell teachers where they are going to teach. It cannot create capacity in schools where none exist. Indeed, the current jurisdiction of the District Court is \"only\" to enforce the Settlement Agreement (which it has done) and to monitor and enforce the desegregation plans (which it continues to do). The detachment statute is, in effect, an effort by a State to confer jurisdiction upon a Federal Court. So far as the PCSSD knows, this effort is unprecedented. It is also highly suspect. 435830-v1 23 However, petitioners successfully convinced the Board that \"the Federal Court will fix it\" , and won authorization for the election. Presuming a successful election followed by a large street party, the new district would then show up on the District Court's doorstep with a ten page laundry list of issues to be decided. This scenario is not calculated to advance the ultimate resolution of the case and should be ended now. Conclusion For all of the foregoing reasons, this Court should determine that the statutes violate the Settlement Agreement, are an unconstitutional denial of equal protection, and will negatively impact desegregation and the ultimate resolution of this case. 435830-v1 Respectfully submitted, WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026amp; JENNINGS LLP 200 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 2300 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3699 (501) 371-0808 FAX: (501) 376-9442 By '-y)7 ' ?~ ~0~ M. _Srunuel Jones III (769 0) A-ifurneys 'or Pulaski c6un Special School strict 24 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE On July ;25, 2003, a copy of the foregoing was served via U.S. mail on each of the following: Mr. John W. Walker John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway . Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 2000 Regions Center 400 West Capitol Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Ms. Ann Brown Marshall ODM One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Ray Simon Director of the Arkansas Department of Education 4 State Capitol Mall Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-1071 Mr. Will Bond 602 W. Main Jacksonville, AR 72076 Mr. Mark Burnette 1010 W. Third Street Little Rock, AR 72201 435830-v1 Mr. Mark A. Hagemeier Assistant Attorney General Arkansas Attorney General's Office 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell Law Firm Plaza West Building 415 N. McKinley, Suite 465 Little Rock, Arkansas 72205 Mr. Scott Smith General Counsel Arkansas Department of Edudation #4 Capitol Mall, Room 404-A Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Timothy Gauger Assistant Attorney General 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 M.S~nesII( 25 .. I  II II II II II  I I I I I I I .. I IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. NO. 4:82CV00866WRW  PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS History of the Settlement Agreement RE?L~D JUL 2 8 2003 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS  INTERVENORS INTERVENORS 1. 1982. The LRSD sues the State, the PCSSD and the NLRSD successfully seeking consolidation of the three districts in Pulaski County. 921 F.2d 1371@ 1376. 2. 1985. The Court of Appeals rejects consolidation but orders that the boundary between LRSD and PCSSD be adjusted. 921 F.2d 1371@ 1377. 3. 1985. This boundary adjustment caused PCSSD to lose fourteen schools and over one-third of its tax base. 4. Late 1988. Initial settlement discussions are commenced among the State, the LRSD and the Joshua Intervenors. 921 F.2d 1371 @ 1376. 5. January 12, 1989. Senator Jerry Jewell introduces Senate Bill 39 to consolidate the Little Rock, North Little Rock and Pulaski County Special School District schools . (Exhibit 1) 434696-v1 I   I 1:  .- 1  I I I I .. I I 6. January 31, 1989. The State Board, LRSD and Joshua Intervenors reach a proposed settlement. The State's attorney reports that \"meetings to obtain the agreement of the other parties are underway today between attorneys and representatives of the State Board, PCSSD and NLRSD.\" (Exhibit 2) 7. February 9, 1989. The State hires the national law firm of Hogan \u0026amp; Hartson which specialized in school desegregation to advise it concerning desegregation. (Exhibit 3) 8. February 14, 1989. Counsel for the LRSD delivers a draft of Proposed Settlement Agreement to the State's attorney. This draft does not contain a Section II J . (Exhibit 4) 9. March 1989. The settlement is agreed to by all of the parties. The final version contains Section II J. (Exhibit 5) It is submitted to the legislature for funding . 10. March 3, 1989. In an editorial discussing the settlement, the Arkansas Gazette notes that: \"A key provision is that the Little Rock, North Little Rock and Pulaski County School Districts recognize that they remain 'independent, sovereign desegregating' districts. This could become an impediment to a countywide consolidation in the future, and if so it is an unfortunate provision.\" (Exhibit 6) 11. March 7, 1989. The Arkansas Gazette reports that the county district's attorney told the county board that the settlement went through 27 revisions before being made public because of the complexity of the issues. (Exhibit 7) 12. March 11, 1989. In explaining the settlement to the Joint Budget Committee, the State's attorney noted that: \"This agreement is so fragile that if it starts to unravel in any way, if there's any kind of modification to it, it's going to fall apart and unravel in 100 434696-v1 2 I   I I I  I I I I I I -~ I different ways.\" In the same article, Senator Max Howell noted he did not want to vote for the settlement if it meant forever prohibiting consolidation of the three county districts. \"I'm not antagonistic toward the dollars, but I am concerned that I understand the small print.\" (Exhibit 8) 13. March 12, 1989. One statewide commentator, in characterizing Section II J, opined that: \"A brazen provision slipped into this settlement at the last minute guarantees there will be no consolidation of the school districts. Surprise!\" (Exhibit 9) 14. March 16, 1989. The Arkansas Senate approves the bill funding the settlement but adds an amendment asking the Federal Courts to consider four changes in the settlement including: \"Disapproval of language that would retain the autonomy of the three Pulaski County districts.\" As Senator Max Howell stated: \"I would hope the Court would be aware that we in the Legislature feel the folks who caused this should not continue to be in control of the situation.\" (Exhibit 10) The press reported that: \"Legislators have expressed concern that the provision would forever bar the State from merging the three districts, and the State Education Department's attorney told them Monday that McCutcheon (the Special Master) apparently shared that concern.\" (Exhibit 10) 15. March 18, 1989. Press reports described II J as one of the \"key\" provisions of the settlement. (Exhibit 11) 16. March 24, 1989. Mr. Herschel Friday writes the attorneys for the parties noting that: \"During the debate which preceded the vote to fund the settlement in this case, I was repeatedly questioned on whether changes requested by the legislature could be made in the settlement. A copy of the requested changes is enclosed for your 434696-v1 3       I I I . I  I ready reference. I agreed to follow through to see that the legislative requests were duly considered by the parties and to use my best efforts in this regard. . . . Will you please discuss these requests with your clients so that we can meet in the near future and address these matters.\" (Exhibit 12) A copy of the requested changes, which included Section II J, is attached as (Exhibit 13) . 17. March 31, 1989. Counsel for the AEA informs Mr. Friday that they object to removing any of the items from the settlement agreement. (Exhibit 14) 18. December 11 , 1989. The District Court purports to approve the settlement agreement but only after imposing certain modifications. 726 F.Supp. 1544, 1549 . 19. December 12, 1990. The Court of Appeals reverses the District Court, ruling that the Settlement Agreement should have been approved as written by the parties. 971 F.2d 160@ 164, 165 . Previous Efforts To Enforce Violations Of The Settlement Agreement 20. At least three times during the decade of the 1990s, the Pulaski districts were forced to sue the State to enforce the Settlement Agreement. 21. On January 13, 1995, the District Court ruled that the State had violated the Settlement Agreement as respects Workers' Compensation payments due the three Pulaski districts. (Docket No. 2337). This order was affirmed on appeal. 22. On January 13, 1995, the District Court ruled that the State had violated the Settlement Agreement as respects \"loss funding\" for M-to-M students (Docket No. 2337) and the financial award was affirmed on appeal. 23. Later, the District Court rules that the State has violated the Settlement Agreement as respects reimbursement for teacher retirement and health insurance benefits due 434696-v1 4 I  I I I I I I II I  l _i I . I . I le I the three Pulaski districts. This matter was subsequently settled and the three districts continue to receive these payments to this day. The Detachment Effort 24. 2001. The General Assembly enacts ACA 6-13-1501, et seq. Representatives of the PCSSD testify against the measure. The statute permits detachment under specified circumstances but only for districts with an average membership of at least 15,000 students but not more than 20,000 students. The PCSSD is the only district in the State of Arkansas which fits this criterion. 25. November 21, 2002. A so-called feasibility study for forming an independent school district in Northeast Pulaski County detached from The Pulaski County Special School District is completed. (Exhibit 15) 26. The study examines three alternative areas for detachment and concludes at page 39 that Alternative I be selected. (Exhibit 15) 27. February 25, 2003. An \"Addendum\" to the feasibility study is completed and is inserted in the back of the November 21, 2002, study behind page 89, the concluding page of the November study. (Exhibit 15) 28. March, 2003. A petition drive is commenced, subsequently concluded and petitions are delivered on May 19, 2003, to the Arkansas Department of Education. 29. April 15, 2003. The Legislature approves an amendment to ACA 6-13-1501, et seq. adding a criterion allowing detachment from school districts which encompass a total area of 700 square miles or more. The Pulaski district, at 726 square miles, is the only district which meets this criterion. 434696-v1 5        ,      le I I 30. May 30, 2003 . Carolyn Staley certifies that the petition has sufficient signatures. 31. June 4, 2003. The Attorney General's office, as required by this statutory scheme, renders an opinion but states he is unable to clearly opine as to whether or not the statutory requirements have been met because of the lack of information in the feasibility study. (Exhibit 16) 32. June 9, 2003. The State Board of Education conducts a hearing on the detachment petition but delays action. It instructs the petitioners to \"answer the questions\" raised by the Attorney General and to submit that information to the Attorney General's office so that the Attorney General may issue a \"definitive\" opinion on the issue. 33 . June 27, 2003 . The petitioners deliver their supplemental materials to the State Board and to the Attorney General's office including an opinion from an attorney regarding the affects or lack thereof upon desegregation. (Exhibit 17) 34. July 11, 2003. The Attorney General issues a new opinion which, while still highly qualified in many respects, opines that the petition could be granted if certain findings are made. (Exhibit 18) 35. July 11, 2003 . The State Board of Education, in the afternoon, gives notice that it has scheduled a hearing to take up this matter again on July 14, 2003. 36. The PCSSD objects to the timing of the meeting and the lack of notice. (Exhibit 19) 37. July 14, 2003 . The State Board of Education conducts another hearing and votes unanimously to authorize an election on the detachment issue. 434696-v1 6 I le I I I I I I I -I I I I I I  I I 38. 39. July 16, 2003. The State Board issues its \"Order for Election\". (Exhibit 20) July 24, 2003 . The PCSSD files suit in Pulaski County Circuit Court arguing that the Detachment Statute is unconstitutional and that the petition is invalid. (Exhibit 21) 434696-v1 Respectfully submitted, WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026amp; JENNINGS LLP 200 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 2300 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3699 (501) 371-0808 FAX: (501) 376-9442 7 I I I I I I I I - I I I I I I I  I CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE On July J.(io03 , a copy of the foregoing was served via U.S. mail on each of the following : Mr. John W. Walker John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 2000 Regions Center 400 West Capitol Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Ms. Ann Brown Marshall ODM One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Ray Simon Director of the Arkansas Department of Education 4 State Capitol Mall Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-1071 Mr. Will Bond 602 W. Main Jacksonville, AR 72076 Mr. Timothy Gauger Assistant Attorney General 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, AR 72201 434696-v1 8 Mr. Mark A. Hagemeier Assistant Attorney General Arkansas Attorney General's Office 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell Law Firm Plaza West Building 415 N. McKinley, Suite 465 Little Rock, Arkansas 72205 Mr. Scott Smith General Counsel Arkansas Department of Edudation #4 Capitol Mall, Room 404-A Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Mark Burnette 1010 W. Third Street Little Rock, AR 72201 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE II On July.2~003, a copy of the foregoing was served via U.S. mail on each of the  following :  II   I I I  I I Mr. John W. Walker John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway  Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 2000 Regions Center 400 West Capitol Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Ms. Ann Brown Marshall ODM One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Ray Simon Director of the Arkansas Department of Education 4 State Capitol Mall Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-1071 Mr. Will Bond 602 W. Main Jacksonville, AR 72076 Mr. Timothy Gauger Assistant Attorney General 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, AR 72201 434696-v1 8 Mr. Mark A. Hagemeier Assistant Attorney General Arkansas Attorney General's Office 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell Law Firm Plaza West Building 415 N. McKinley, Suite 465 Little Rock, Arkansas 72205 Mr. Scott Smith General Counsel Arkansas Department of Edudation #4 Capitol Mall, Room 404-A Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Mark Burnette 1010 W. Third Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Raymond Simon Director State Board of Eaucation JoNell Caldwell, Chair Little Rock Shelby Hillman, Vice Chair Carlisle Luke Gordy Van Buren Robert Hackler Mountain Home Calvin King Marianna Randy Lawson Bentonville Ma~- Rebick u;7:'ffock Diane Tatum Pine Bluff Jeanna Westmoreland Arkadelphia REl, ... .-vED JUL 2 9 2003 OFFICE OF Arkansas D EGREGATIOH MONITORING Department of Education #4 Capitol Mall, Little Rock, AR 72201-1071 501-682-4475 July 28, 2003 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.state.ar.us 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 ofJuly 2003 in the above-referenced case. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at your convenience. ia~ General Counsel Arkansas Department of Education SS:law cc: Mark Hagemeier RECEIVED UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUL 2 9 2003 EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DNISION OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAlNTIFF 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 July 2003. Respectfully Submitted, ~ 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 July __ , 2003, 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. 1 723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Mark Burnette Mitchell, Blackstock, Barnes Wagoner, Ivers \u0026amp; Sneddon P. 0. Box 1510 Little Rock, AR 72203-1510 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 400 West Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 Mr. Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones 425 West Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Ann Marshall One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 j.1aL~ Smit IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION RECEIVED JUL 2 9 2003 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL OFFICE OF PLAINTIF~SEGREGATION MONITORING 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. Us_!:! 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 July 31 , 2003 l@b.!iiij1w:~b.~ffii:;~~ii!ir~B~Jli~f.~'2'-i9.ailii!li!l:ifYt.~t~d.\\ffi~ 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 July 31, 2003 ~lt.\\i;ie~iil~i~tlll\u0026amp;.i:1ir\u0026amp;liifi4nif;.$.QJ~i\u0026gt;.O~;Iif.i~:.A:t.li;\\~I~.a:r~:i~:tj_fq,r.;;fX C. Process and distribute State MFPA. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of July 31, 2003 ~1i~~~-~~91i::g91t~E~t~.td~.Yti9'0:;2.f~~I~;:~!J~.!\\~~'tr2.t\\.\"'E;~nfffri:ef1.9.f.~.6X:q?/.9~-w.~re 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 July 31, 2003 ~1'9\\1~ Bi~~{~!~flilj~;i~f \u0026amp;iliklr40g:9.?lti'.ai~c(a(::JlJH~::3.0}~'bo~.f.off.Y 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 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT Little Rock Division Eastern District of Arkansas JUL 3 0 2003 NOTICE JAMES W. McCORMACK, CLERK .By: ______ __,,=~- DEP CLERK LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, Plaintiff vs. Case No.: 4:82CV00866-WRW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, et al, Defendant ******************************************************************* Type of Case: CIVIL ** ****** ***************************** *** *************************** TAKE NOTICE that a proceeding in this case has been set for the place, date and time set forth below: ******************************************************************* Place: U. S . Courthouse 600 West Capitol Little Rock, AR Ave., Room 431 72201 Date: MONDAY, AUGUST 18, 2003 Time: 10:00 A.M. *- **************************************************************** Type of Proceeding: MOTION TO ENFORCE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT HEARING ******************************************************************* Presiding Judge : BILL WILSON ******************************************************************* Instructions: ******************************************************************* James W. McCormack, Clerk of Court r By: JOHNSON Deput c9 Counsel of Record Dated: 07/30/03 RECEIVED JUL 3 1 2003 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING Fit1: ~-- tAsr~1:it g\\SiR1cr P STR1cr A2!J~, '\"\"NSAs JUL 3 0 20u3 JAMES W By:  McCORMACK - , CLERK UPDATE ON THE REDESIGN OF HARRIS ELEMENTARY SCHOOL AND THEEPCLERi,; REZONING OF SCHOOLS IN THE SHERWOOD AREA OF THE Ann S. Marshall Federal Monitor PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT July 30, 2003 Office of Desegregation Monitoring United States District Court Little Rock, Arkansas Horace R. Smith Associate Monitor    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_bcmss0837_1083","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":["2003-07"],"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/1083"],"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.\nREC::IVED JUL 2 3 2003 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING Agenda Little Rock School District Board of Directors' Meeting July 2003 n~  ::O i= ~ ...\ni:: Oz o\u0026gt;\na::O c-\u0026lt; m-., ::a C: -z\nan o-\u0026lt; .- i5 r-z ncn ~ I. 11. 111. 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 July 24, 2003 5:30 p.m. REPORTS/RECOGNITIONS/PUBLIC COMMENTS: A. Superintendent's Citations B. Partners in Education Program - New Partnerships Woodruff Elementary School - Janice Wilson Perfecting Community Development Corporation - Marchell Seawood Perfecting New Life Church - Rev. Kevin Allen C. Remarks from Citizens (persons who have signed up to speak) Please note: Speakers will not be allowed to make any disparaging or critical remarks about individuals or employees of the District. Critical comments or complaints are processed through the District's complaint procedures, which afford the individuals to whom comments or complaints are directed, the opportunity for response and due process. D. Little Rock Classroom Teachers Association E. Joshua lntervenors IV. REPORTS AND COMMUNICATIONS: A. Remarks from Board Members B. Desegregation Update/ Student Assignment Report C. Budget Update D. Construction Report: Proposed Bond Projects Update: Mitchell \u0026amp; Rightsell E. Internal Auditors Report F. Technology Update G. Human Resources Report: Recruitment \u0026amp; Selection of New Teachers (\")~ :,,.\n:o ,r.-...~_ ... !I: Oz Q),,\n:o\n:o c-\u0026lt; m-n\n:o C: -z\n:on o,.... -c\u0026lt;5 ,....z (\") U\u0026gt; ~ Regular Board Meeting July 24, 2003 Page2 V. APPROVAL OF ROUTINE MA TIERS: A. Minutes Regular Meeting - June 26, 2003 Special Meeting - July 2, 2003 B. Personnel Changes VI. INSTRUCTIONAL SERVICES DIVISION: A. Grant Proposal: Advanced Placement Incentive Program B. Revised Strategic Plan C. Resolution: MSAP Grant D. 2002-03 SAT-9 Results VII. BUSINESS SERVICES DIVISION: A. Request for Dedication Deed: Southwest Middle School B. Financial Report VIII. SCHOOL SERVICES DIVISION A. Proposal for Naming the Choral Music Department at Central High School IX. CLOSING REMARKS: Superintendent's Report: 1. Dates to Remember 2. Special Functions X. EMPLOYEE HEARINGS XI. ADJOURNMENT c-,-., \n:o ~ ~ ... i: Oz o\u0026gt;\n:o\n:o c-\u0026lt; m-..\n:o C: -z\non 0 ... ,-15 ,- z ncn ~ .., ~ m C C: ~ ~ m ill r\u0026gt; Cc-,\n.,=l ... p:\nj \u0026gt;_mz mu, ~8 !j!I c: m \u0026gt;Z.... en I. PRELIMINARY FUNCTIONS CA.LL TO ORDER/ ROLL CALL Ill. PROCEDURAL MATTERS Ill. REPORTS/RECOGNITIONS PUBLIC COMMENTS A. CITATIONS B. PARTNERSHIPS C. CITIZENS COMMENTS 0. CTA / E. JOSHUA To: From: Through: Subject: Board of Directors Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 July 24, 2003 Debbie Milam, Director, ViPS/Partners in Education Don Stewart, 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 school and business 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 partnership: Woodruff Elementary School and Perfecting Community Development Corporation Woodruff Elementary School and Perfecting New Life Church XI \u0026gt; mc3 IX\u0026gt; XI o-. \u0026gt;~ XI c-, Oo EE mE Ee IXIZ mt\"i ill~ 0z u, Woodruff Elementary School and Perfecting New Life/Westside Church have joined together in partnership to support the families and students of Woodruff Elementary School. Perfecting New Life/Westside Church commits to the following activities:  Recruit volunteers for tutoring both during school and after school  Recruit volunteers for mentoring  Participate in \"fix up\" days at Woodruff  Collect school supplies and uniforms for students at Woodruff Woodruff Elementary School commits to the following activities:  Making the school available for community events  Providing student performances and artwork  Collaborating on and promoting appropriate neighborhood projects  Referring families in need to the church for needed social services\n,:, \u0026gt; mc3 CD\n,:, o .... \u0026gt;$!!\n,:,C') Co :I:\nc m\nc\nc C: CD Z mc\"i ~~ 0z en C: -co.c ~C') .m. zo\nc en =l .... C')~ :CC') m--\u0026lt; !\n=iii ~ Rl ::c c3 gt~ I= Woodruff Elementary School and Perfecting New Life Community Development Corporation have joined together in partnership to support the families and students of Woodruff Elementary School. Perfecting New Life Community Development Corporation commits to the following activities:  Recruit volunteers for tutoring both during school and after school  Recruit volunteers for mentoring  Participate in \"fix up\" days at Woodruff  Sponsor a Community Day in the Woodruff neighborhood  Help Woodruff families with needed referrals to social service organizations  Collect school supplies and uniforms for students at Woodruff Woodruff Elementary School commits to the following activities:  Making the school available for community events  Providing student performances and artwork  Collaborating on and promoting appropriate neighborhood projects  Referring families in need to the CDC for needed social services\n,:, \u0026gt; mc3 a,\n,:, 0-4 \u0026gt;S!!\n,:,(\") Co ii::!:: m:1:: ii:: C: a,z ml'\n~~ 0z Cl) C: -co.c ~(\") .m. zo :=1I ::..\"..' (\")~ ::CC\") m-1 F o ,z\n,:,\n,c c:\nm :::c c3 ~~ F LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDENT DATE: July 24, 2003 TO: FROM: Board of Director~ Donald M. Stew~erim Superintendent of Schools PREPARED BY: Bill Goodman ~ SUBJECT: July 2003 Construction Report, Bond Projects I am pleased to report that bids will be taken July 23rd on the addition to Southwest Middle School. I will give you an update on the results of the bidding at the Board meeting. The interior renovation of Baseline Elementary project was bid July 10 1h  The contract has been awarded to the low bidder, and construction will start soon. The project will be completed in July 2004. The drawings for the replacement school at Wakefield Elementary have been completed, and the bids for the construction will be received on July 29 1h  The new building will be completed during the summer of 2004. In addition to the attached information, Doug Eaton, Director of Facility Services, will give an oral update at the Board meeting on the plan to renovate Mitchell and Rightsell. Please call me if you have any questions. My telephone number is 447-1146. 810 West Markham Street  Little Rock. Arkansas 72201  (501) 447-1002 ~ ::0 m c3 ~ ::r:: C: ~z ::0 m ~ C: ~ emn !X' \"D m ::0 ~z z ,m... !'\" .z... m ::o~ mc3,\u0026gt;...\no\u0026gt; .... C: C =1 0 ::0 en CONSTRUCTION REPORT TO THE BOARD JULY 24, 2003 BOND PROJECTS UNDER CONSTRUCTION Facility Name Project Description Cost Administration Fresh air system $55,000 Administration Fire alarm $32,350 Baseline Renovation $953,520 Carver Parking lot $111,742 Central Renovation - Interior $10,200,266 Central Parking Student parking $174,000 Central/Quigley Stadium light repair \u0026amp; electrical repair $265,000 Central/Quigley Athletic Field Improvement $38,000 Central/Quigley Irrigation System $14,500 Dunbar Renovation/addition $6,161,950 Facility Services Fire alarm $12,000 Forest Park Replace window units w/central HVAC $485,258 Hall Major renovation \u0026amp; addition $8,637,709 J. A. Fair Roof repairs $391,871 J. A. Fair Athletic Field Improvement $38,000 J. A. Fair Irrigation System $14,000 6 classroom addition \u0026amp; cafeteria/music J. A. Fair room addition $3,155,640 Forest Park Diagonal parking $111,742 Mabelvale MS Renovation $6,851,621 Mann Partial Replacement $11,500,000 McClellan Athletic Field Improvement $38,000 McClellan Irrigation System $14,750 McClellan Classroom Addition $2,155,622 Otter Creek Parking Improvements $142,541 Procurement Fire alarm $25,000 Pulaski Hgts. Elem Renovation $1,193,259 Pulaski Hgts. MS Renovation $3,755,041 Southwest Drainage/ street widening $250,000 Southwest New roof $690,000 Student Assignment Fire alarm $9,000 Tech Ctr/ Metro Renovation Addition/Renovation - Phase II $2,725,000 Williams Renovation $2,106,492 Williams Parking expansions $183,717 Wilson Parking Expansion $110,000 Wilson Renovation/expansion $1,263,876 BOND PROJECTS CONSTRUCTION SUMMER/ FALL 2003 Facilitv Name Project Description Cost Brady Addition/renovation $973,621 Parkview Addition $2,121,226 Southwest Addition $2,000,000 Wakefield Rebuild $5,300,000 t::st. c.\nompIet1on Date Jul-03 Jul-03 Jul-04 Jul-03 Dec-05 Aug-03 Jul-03 Jul-03 Jul-03 Aug-04 Jul-03 Aug-03 Jul-03 Aug-03 Jul-03 Jul-03 Feb-04 Aug-03 Dec-03 Dec-03 Jul-03 Jul-03 Jul-04 Aug-03 Jul-03 Aug-04 Aug-04 Aug-03 Aug-03 Jul-03 Jun-04 Jun-04 Jun-04 Jul-03 Nov-03 t::st. c.\nompletton Date Dec-04 Jun-04 Jun-04 Jun-04 BOND PROJECTS PLANNING STARTED CONST. DATE TO BE DETERMINED t:st. ~ompteuon Facility Name Project Description Cost Date Mitchell Renovation $750,000 Unknown Pulaski Hgts. MS Energy monitoring system installation Unknown Rightsell Renovation $660,000 Unknown Wilson Energy monitoring system installation Unknown Woodruff Parking addition $193,777 Unknown ~\n,:, m \"D 0 ~ ::c C: I: z\n,:, m g ill m V, !11\nl:l\n,:, is z z m I'\"' !'\" .z.... m\n,:,!l!l ~m,....\n,:,\u0026gt; ..... C: 0 a\n,:, V, =....\". Pl ::c z 0  -\u0026lt; C: ~ m CONSTRUCTION REPORT TO THE BOARD JULY 24, 2003 BOND PROJECTS THAT HAVE BEEN COMPLETED Facility Name Project Description Cost Administration Asbestos abatement $380,495 Administration Annex Energy monitoring system installation Alternative Learning Ctr. I Energy monitoring system installation $15,160 Alternative Learning Ctr. Energy efficient lighting I $82,QQQ I Badgett Partial asbestos abatement $237,237 Badgett Fire alarm $18,250 Bale Classroom addition/renovation $2,244,524 Bale Energy monitoring system I Bale Partial roof replacement I $269,587 Bale HVAC $664,587 Booker Energy efficient lighting $170,295 Booker Energy monitoring system installation $23,710 Booker Asbestos abatement I $10,900 Booker Fire alarm $34,501 Brady Energy efficient lighting $80,593 Brady Asbestos abatement $345,072 Carver Energy monitoring system installation $14,480 Central Purchase land for school Unknown Central Roof \u0026amp; exterior renovations $2,000,000 Central Ceiling and wall repair $24,000 Central Fire Alarm System Design/Installation $80,876 Central Front landing tile repair $22,470 Cloverdale Elem. Energy efficient lighting $132,678 Cloverdale MS Energy efficient lighting $189,743 Cloverdale MS Major renovation \u0026amp; addition $1,393,822 Dodd Energy efficient lighting $90,665 Dodd Asbestos abatement-ceiling tile $156,299 Dodd Replace roof top HV AC $215,570 Facilities Service Interior renovation $84,672 Fair Park HVAC renovation/fire alarm $315,956 Fair Park Energy efficient lighting $90,162 Fair Park Asbestos abatement-ceiling $59,310 J. A. Fair Energy efficient lighting $277,594 J. A. Fair Press box $10,784 J. A. Fair Security cameras $12,500 Forest Park Energy efficient lighting $119,788 Fulbright Energy efficient lighting $134,463 Fulbright Energy monitoring system installation $11,950 Fulbright Replace roof top HVAC units $107,835 Fulbright Parking lot $140,000 Fulbright Roof repairs $200,000 Franklin Renovation $2,511,736 Gibbs Energy efficient lighting $76,447 Gibbs Energy monitoring system installation $11,770 Hall Asbestos abatement $168,222 Hall Energy efficient lighting $42,931 Hall Energy efficient lighting $296,707 Hall Infrastructure improvements $93,657 Hall Intercom Hall Security cameras $10,600 Est. Completion Date Mar-03 May-02 Oct-01 Dec-01 Jul-01 Aug-02 Dec-02 Mar-02 Dec-01 Aug-01 Apr-01 Oct-01 Feb-02 Mar-02 Sep-02 Aug-02 May-01 Dec-02 Dec-02 Oct-01 Aug-01 Aug-01 Jul-01 Jul-01 Nov-02 Aug-01 Jul-01 Aug-02 Mar-01 Apr-02 Aug-01 Aug-01 Apr-01 Nov-00 Jun-01 May-01 Jun-01 Aug-01 Aug-02 Sep-02 Oct-02 Mar-03 Apr-01 Jul-01 Aug-01 Jul-01 Apr-01 Aug-01 Feb-01 Jun-01 p ~ m c3 ~ ::c C: ~ z ~ m ~ C: ~ m en ~ -\u0026lt; p:: ::c z 0  -\u0026lt; C: ~ m Facility Name Henderson Henderson Henderson Henderson IRC Jefferson Jefferson Laidlaw Mabelvale Elem. Mabelvale Elem. Mabelvale Elem. Mabelvale Elem. Mabelvale MS Mann Mann Mann Mann Mann McClellan McClellan McClellan McClellan McDermott McDermott Meadowcliff Meadowcliff Meadowcliff Metropolitan Metropolitan Metropolitan Mitchell Mitchell Mitchell Oakhurst Otter Creek Otter Creek Otter Creek Otter Creek Otter Creek Parkview Parkview Parkview Parkview Parkview Parkview Procurement Pulaski Hgts. Elem Rightsell Rockefeller Rockefeller Rockefeller CONSTRUCTION REPORT TO THE BOARD JULY 24, 2003 BOND PROJECTS THAT HAVE BEEN COMPLETED Project Description Cost Energy efficient lighting $193,679 Roof replacement gym $107,835 Asbestos abatement Phase I $500,000 Asbestos abatement Phase 2 $250,000 Energy efficient lighting $109,136 Asbestos abatement $43,639 Renovation \u0026amp; fire alarm $1 ,630,000 Parking lot $269,588 Energy monitoring system installation $12,150 Replace HVAC units $300,000 Asbestos Abatement $107,000 Energy efficient lighting $106,598 Renovate bleachers $134,793 Asphalt walks The total $1 .8 million Walkway canopies is what has been Boiler replacement used so far on the Fencing projects listed Partial demolition/portable classrooms completed for Mann. Security cameras $36,300 Energy efficient lighting $303,614 Stadium stands repair $235,000 Intercom $46,000 Energy efficient lighting $79,411 Replace roof top HVAC units $476,000 Fire alarm $16,175 Asbestos abatement $253,412 Engergy efficient lighting $88,297 Replace cooling tower $37,203 Replace shop vent system $20,000 Energy monitoring system installation $17,145 Energy efficient lighting $103,642 Energy monitoring system installation $16,695 Asbestos abatement $13,000 HVAC renovation $237,237 Energy monitoring system installation $10,695 Energy efficient lighting $81,828 Asbestos abatement $10,000 Parking lot $138,029 6 classroom addition $888,778 HVAC controls $210,000 Roof replacement $273,877 Exterior lights $10,784 HVAC renovation \u0026amp; 700 area controls $301,938 Locker replacement $120,000 Energy efficient lighting $315,000 Energy monitoring system installation $5,290 Move playground $17,000 Energy efficient lighting $84,898 Energy efficient lighting $137,004 Replace roof top HVAC $539,175 Parking addition $111,742 t:st. t.\nompletIon Date Jul-01 May-01 Aug-01 Aug-02 Jul-02 Oct-01 Nov-02 Jul-01 Aug-01 Aug-02 Aug-02 Dec-02 Aug-01 Dec-01 Dec-01 Oct-01 Sep-01 Aug-01 Jun-01 May-01 Aug-01 Feb-02 Feb-01 Aug-02 Jul-01 Aug-02 Dec-02 Dec-00 May-01 Aug-01 Apr-01 Jul-01 Jul-01 Aug-01 May-01 Apr-01 Aug-02 Aug-02 Oct-02 Jun-02 Sep-01 Nov-00 Aug-01 Aug-01 Jun-01 Jun-02 Dec-02 Apr-01 Mar-01 Aug-01 Aug-02 ~\nJl m ~ ~ ::c C: 'z=:\nJl m ~ C: ~ m \"' !'\" .z... m\nJl s! ~m,.\u0026gt;..\n,,\u0026gt; .... C: C =i i \"' :n .... m n ::c z: 0 8 -\u0026lt; C: ~ m Facility Name Romine Romine SecurityfTransportation Southwest Southwest Student Assignment Tech Center Phase 1 Technology Upgrade Terry Terry Terry Wakefield Wakefield Wakefield Washington Washington Watson Watson Watson Watson Watson Western Hills Western Hills Western Hills Williams Woodruff CONSTRUCTION REPORT TO THE BOARD JULY 24, 2003 BOND PROJECTS THAT HAVE BEEN COMPLETED Project Descriotion Cost Asbestos abatement $10,000 Major renovation \u0026amp; addition $3,534,675 Bus cameras I $22,500 Asbestos abatement $28,138 1 Energy efficient lighting $168,719 l Energy monitoring system installation $4,830 1 Renovation $275,000 Upgrade phone system \u0026amp; data Energy efficient lighting I $73,850 , Driveway \u0026amp; Parking $83,484 Media Center addition $704,932 I Security cameras $8,000 Energy efficient lighting $74,776 Demolition/Asbestos Abatement - $200,000 Security cameras I $7,900 Energy efficient lighting $165,281 Energy monitoring system installation $8,530 Asbestos abatement I $182,241 Energy efficient lighting I $106,868 Asbestos abatement $10,000 Major renovation \u0026amp; addition $800,000 Asbestos abatement $191,946 Intercom $7,100 Energy efficient lighting $106,000 Energy efficient lighting $122,719 Renovation $246,419 Est. Completion Date Apr-02 Mar-03 Jun-01 Auo-00 Jan-02 Aug-02 Dec-01 Nov-02 Feb-01 Aug-02 Sep-02 Jun-01 Feb-01 Nov-02 Jun-01 Apr-01 Jul-01 Aug-01 Aug-01 Aug-02 Aug-02 Aug-02 Dec-01 Jul-01 Jun-01 Auo-02 ~ :,0 m i!! ~ ::c C: i z ~ ~ C: ~ m V, .!.II, m :,0 ~ z z ,m.. !\"' z m-:, o~ im!! ,\u0026gt;.. :,0,. -- 0C : a :,0 V, :,, P--l ::c z  -\u0026lt; C: ~ m MEMORANDUM I FACILITY SERVICES DIRECTORATE DATE: TO: FROM: THROUGH: SUBJ: July 15, 2003 ool District Board of Directors Mitchell Elementary School and Rightsell Elementary School Projects We are just now beginning to plan our work on the Phase IV Bond Projects. By special request and circumstances we are beginning that process with Mitchell Elementary School and Rightsell Elementary School respectively. The bond projects at Mitchell and Rightsell Elementary Schools are relatively simple and entail classroom additions, restroom renovations, ADA adaptations, some landscape and sewer work, and some miscellaneous mechanical work, in addition to upgrading the buildings electrical capacity to sustain computer operations. In late 2002, we inspected both of these elementary schools. Environmental problems that we had been periodically correcting over a period of years, as they arose, seem to be getting more serious. As a result, we commissioned a study of both schools to determine what environmental projects might be necessary to make the schools a clean, habitable environment for their students, staff, and faculty. That study was completed at the end of calendar year 2002. In early 2003, we were able to detail the environmental scope and provide rough cost estimates for the price of these environmental upgrades. Most recently, we have hired an architectural firm, Morris and Associates, who are knowledgeable in both environmental and architectural work, to be our design firm on both of these schools. It is our intent to combine the bond projects that were approved under the millage bond vote, and the p ::c m ~ ::c C: ~z ::c m g i!=: rn !\"' .z.. m ::c~\nmg ,-\nc  ... C: C ~ 0 ::c u, :..n. Pl :z:c  -\u0026lt; C: ~ m environmental projects, which were a result of our study. Presently we are in the preliminary planning phases\nwe have met with the design architects and are beginning to detail the scientific scope of work. We will soon be meeting with the Campus Leadership Teams, principals, and staffs to receive their input regarding the bond projects. While a definitive schedule has not been established, it is our intent to do the design for these schools over the winter of 2003-2004, and hopefully have contracts advertised and ready for award in late spring 2004, so that we may begin work in the summer of that year for an estimated completion in the summer/fall of 2005. The environmental problems at both of these schools are primarily water and air quality related. We are capable of keeping up with any emergencies and can continue to provide a safe environment for the inhabitants of the school, however\nlong term solutions are deemed necessary at both of these fine old facilities. p\na m ~ :,: C: f\nz\na m l3 C: ~ m tJ\u0026gt; !\" ! m\na~\nmg ,. I'\"'\na\u0026gt; .... C: C =I 0\na tJ\u0026gt;\nn .... ~ :,: z  -\u0026lt; C: ~ m Date: July 24, 2003 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS To: Board of Directors From:@Sandy Becker, Internal Auditor Re: Audit Report - July This is the forty-fifth communication regarding status of the current year projects and reviews. Activity Funds a) Working with two middle school 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 implementation of technology by participation in the technology committee(s). b) Monitoring technology plans to determine how use of technology will improve and streamline the workflow for staff persons. c) Participating with the Technology Committee. !II iii ~ zz ,m- =...\". ~ :i: z 0  -\u0026lt; C: ~ m Audit Report - July 2003 Page 2 of2 Training 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. 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. Audit Area Sampling and Review of Financial Procedures Other a) Pulling samples of district expenditures to test for accuracy, accountability, and compliance with District policies. Reviewing district payroll processes for compliance, economy and efficiency, internal controls, and cost control. Working with Financial Services Payroll on internal control and processing issues. b) c) d) e) f) g) h) a) b) Working with Financial Services on internal controls and rules for payroll processes and implementation of a new interface system. Monitoring other selected risk areas for efficiency, cost effectiveness, and compliance with District policies. Reviewing grant programs. Working with Child Nutrition on implementation of streamlined information processing system with Information Services and Child Nutrition Staff. Working with Information Services on streamlining of data processes regarding SIS reporting. Monitoring cost reduction efforts in the District. Monitoring payroll for compliance with internal controls. Reviewing leave accountability system. (New). Provided technical assistance to school staff on grant writing. Served as co-chair of Strategic Team One - Financial Resources. 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. !..I.I, m ,a is z z p:! Current Projects:  New Network Little Rock School District Board of Directors Technology Update July 24, 2003 o All sites are now cut over to the new network. o Network training has begun. New training documents are now posted on the district web site.  Computers o Approximately 600 computers have been ordered for installation this summer. Computers have been installed at Hall, McClellan, Geyer Springs, and Franklin. Computers are scheduled to be installed this week at Central, Chicot, Parkview, and Rockefeller. Computers for Henderson will be installed August 4.  Training o Twenty-three LRSD teachers are enrolled in the UALR CyberTeacher program this summer. o Technology training will be provided during pre-school inservice week in using GradeQuick, Spectrum library system, and Safari media retrieval system. :\u0026lt; :a \u0026gt;0  C: !-IC z.... Zm ~ ~ Ch ::l m ~ .!X.,' m ~\"' zz m r- TO: FROM: THROUGH: SUBJECT: LITILE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS July 24, 2003 Board of Education W Beverly Williams, Director, Human Resources Donald M. Stewart, Interim Superintendent of Schools Screening interview procedures !.J,I, m ::0 z~ z p::! Human Resources Screening Interview Procedures July 2003 The Human Resources Department began the implementation of a revised teacher applicant screening process in the spring of 2003. The primary purpose for this process was to insure that Little Rock School District hires the best candidates for its teaching positions. Ways to accomplish this goal were to increase the applicant pool, to screen more candidates, and to involve more administrators in the process. The implementation of this process has several steps: a) b) c) d) e) f) g) h) i) j) k) Involvement of School Services last fall in a discussion about the process and their assistance this spring in identifying principals for the elementary screening interview teams. Involvement of Curriculum and Instruction last fall in helping to develop the Interview Handbook printed in March 2003. Involvement of Curriculum and Instruction as curriculum leaders from that division chaired the interview teams for subject area candidates at the secondary level. Each team developed its own questions whether it was elementary, math, science, social studies, English, business, or special education. In the screening interview process itself, candidates are required to do an impromptu writing sample from one of the various prompts developed. There is a rubric with which each candidate is scored. (This rubric is a modification of a previous rubric utilized in HR\nthe domains of PT AS have been included.) Information obtained from the interview, the writing sample, references on file, and other information from the application packet are utilized in arriving at a recommendation for each candidate. Mr. Robinson also conducts interviews, especially when an interview team is unavailable or if an out of town candidate is only in town for a few days. HR provides recommended candidates' names, phone numbers, certification/ licensure areas, degrees earned from colleges/universities, and samples of their responses regarding the teaching domains of PTAS from the interview in the information to the principals. Principals also have access to the applications room in our division where they may review applications for teachers, aides, and clerical applicants. A weekly computerized list of all certified applications is available for them to review in this room as well. Principals continue their interviews, selection, and recommendation for hiring through their appropriate supervisor in school services and then through the human resources department which forwards the names of those recommended for employment to the Board of Directors. !J:)\na ~ ~ 0 i !!l 0 s\nz Rationales for adding the screening step to the hiring process are: a) To offer a larger pool of candidates to our principals. b) To become more proactive in the interview process thus beginning the process earlier. c) To have a structured process that increases equity among our candidates by affording more interview opportunities. d) To provide principals with a viable list of candidates. e) To minimize any errors regarding certification/licensure or employability in hiring since all candidates must complete the initial paper screening through HR prior to being interviewed. f) HR views this as a service to the principals. As with any new process we have already discovered some procedures which through principals' input, we will be \"tweaking\" for next year. We believe that these ideas will make the process even smoother and enhance all components of the process. Some of those ideas are to: a) b) c) d) e) f) Have interview teams conduct screening interviews at the District's Job Fair. (We are also investigating the possibility of on-line research based screening interviews.) Include in the information provided to principals the number of years of teaching experience for each candidate. Include in the information provided to principals the grade levels the applicant has either been employed to teach or grades he/she student taught. Include both race and gender on the information provided to principals. Include all recommended candidates on one list. Communicate to candidates their need to submit their applications earlier and call for a screening interview. !.J,I, m :,0 !S zz I!! SUBJECT/ M/M *RECOM. LIST FOR HIRE Elementary A 1 1 B 2 1 Science/Math A 2 1 English A 1 1 B 0 0 Special Education A 0 0 B 0 0 Social Studies A 3 2 B 2 0 Business Education A 2 1 B 0 0 Total 13 7 INTERVIEW TEAM/ RECOMMEND HIRE DATA as of 7-18-03 M/F *RECOM. W/M *RECOM. W/F *RECOM. FOR HIRE FOR HIRE FOR HIRE 10 8 2 1 42 30 9 8 2 1 43 35 3 3 3 2 12 7 3 3 0 0 3 2 3 1 1 1 8 2 3 1 0 0 5 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 2 2 0 0 0 4 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 3 0 0 0 3 0 36 24 14 9 119 79 *Recommendation for hire total is based on vacancy documents or e-mailed recommendations for hire. 7/21/03 NVld :\u0026gt;1031VH1S 03SIA3\"tl a 1VSOdO\"tld1NVHOdV y \"S:JAS 1VNOl1:JO\"tl1SNI \"IA 13NNOS\"tl3d a S31nNIIII v S\"tl311Vlll 3NUOO\"tl \"/\\ TOTAL TOTAL# #APP. RECOM. HIRE 55 40 56 45 20 13 7 6 12 4 8 3 0 0 8 4 6 2 4 2 6 0 182 119 lNV\"tlO dVSIII :No11n10S3\"tl ::, TO: FROM: THROUGH: SUBJECT: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS July 24, 2003 Board of Education ~Beverly Williams, Director, Human Resources Donald M. Stewart, Interim Superintendent of Schools Personnel Changes I recommend the approval of the following personnel changes at the indicated positions, salaries and classifications. In accordance with AC.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. Personnel Changes Page 2 July 24, 2003 NAME POSITION SCHOOL START DATE END DATE SALARY CLASS Resignationsfferminations Certified EmJ?IOl'.ees Barre, Frances 4 Yr. Old 8-19-91 5-19 Reason: Retired ClllCOT 7-1-03 4YROLD Batson, J eaneau Instr. Music 8-13-01 2-02 Reason: Accepted Another PARK.VIEW 6-24-03 TCH925 Position Blackwell, Willie AP Chemistry 8-13-97 6-11 Reason: Contract Ended MCCLELLAN 6-2-03 TCH925 Bonds, Roselyn Elem II 8-1-02 1-02 Reason: Returning To School CLOV. ELEM. 8-2-03 TCH925 Brown, Yolonda Oral Comm. 1-21-03 1-01 Reason: Contract Ended MCCLELLAN 6-2-03 TCH925 Butler-Green, Rachael Biology 8-24-93 2-02 Reason: Contract Ended MCCLELLAN 6-2-03 TCH925 Chadwick, Ryan Art 8-21-00 6-04 Reason: Accepted Another MITCHELL 8-5-03 TCH925 Position Charles, Glenroy Math 1-21-03 6-12 Reason: Contract Ended MCCLELLAN 6-2-03 TCH925 Davis, Mabel HomeEc. 8-24-87 2-17 Reason: Terminated CENTRAL 6-12-03 VOCl0 Dobbins, William English 12-17-02 4-12 Reason: Contract Ended PUL. HGTS. MID. 6-2-03 TCH925 ANNUAL SALARY 49288.00 28384.00 42524.00 27056.00 26546.00 28384.00 35377.00 43545.00 43667.00 40763.00 !=' 8.., .c.!., !\n:o men .,C....:.. en\n,,, OS m=- !\nI a, ~~ c-,:mZ j!:l men en~\n!I' en\n,,,\nS  z \"Cl~ C,\n:o z~ ~.... .... c5 \"CIZ ::O  or-\ng ~ enn \"f:!!I' !X'\n:o ~ Kl 0 e..n.. ~ m C, 0 ~ z Personnel Changes Page 3 July 24, 2003 NAME Finney, Jason Reason: Contract Ended Flynn, Laura Reason: Leaving City Gangluff, Tracey Reason: Leaving City Gay,Myla Reason: Accepted Another Position Glenn,Betty Reason: Retired Harris, Christopher Reason: Contract Ended Harrison, Lisa Reason: Personal Headley, Debbie Reason: Health Hopper, Beverly POSITION SCHOOL General Science MANN ElemV WILLIAMS Speech Pathology CLOY.MID. Science WASHINGTON ElemV CARVER English CLOY.MID. Elem III FULBRIGHT Voe. Music CLOY.MID. English Reason: Returning to School CENTRAL Jackson, Barbara Business Ed Reason: Contract Ended MCCLELLAN START DATE END DATE 7-1-02 6-2-03 8-7-03 8-1-03 9-21-02 7-8-03 8-12-99 8-1-03 8-24-72 8-1-03 11-1-02 6-2-03 8-9-00 6-13-03 10-22-02 6-2-03 8-20-90 8-5-03 1-13-03 6-3-03 SALARY CLASS 4-04 TCH925 4-07 TCH925 62-11 SPE925 4-09 TCH925 5-20 TCH925 4-01 TCH925 1-06 TCH925 1-07 TCH925 4-19 TCH925 1-13 TCH950 ANNUAL SALARY 32595.00 35658.00 43680.00 37700.00 50788.00 30553.00 30630.00 31651.00 48389.00 37777.00 !=' 8 N .0.. !\n:o m \",.C.-.':. \"' ~ ~s m:- ~a:, \"'C: o!!! C_:, mz i gi m\"' \"-\u0026lt;'u~, I:. \"' \u0026lt; ~:- ,-z .., !!l C\u0026gt;\n:o ~~ z-\u0026lt; .... c5 \"DZ ~ f'! c3 ~ ~,-~. !II\n:o ~ Kl 0 \"...'. ~ m C\u0026gt; .0.,  z Personnel Changes Page 4 July 24, 2003 NAME Jackson, Christy Reason: Accepted Another Position Jackson, Susan Reason: Contract Ended Jarrett, Veronica Reason: Leaving City Johnson, Carolyn Reason: Contract Ended Larkin, Donna Reason: Contract Ended Lawson-Lee, Lynda Reason: Leaving City Lyon, Harley Reason: None Given Martin, Catherine Reason: Contract Ended Mays, Romonda Reason: Position Eliminated McCoy, Eddie Reason: Personal Moore, Garrick Reason: Contract Ended POSITION SCHOOL Mathematic PARK.VIEW Counselor FAIR Kindergarten CLOY.ELEM. Business Ed. START DATE END DATE 8-15-94 7-3-03 3-3-03 6-9-03 8-12-99 7-16-03 9-16-93 MABELV ALE MID. 6-3-03 Computer Literature 8-19-91 MABELV ALE MID. 6-2-03 Spanish I 8-7-02 DUNBAR 7-2-03 Counselor 7-29-02 PARK.VIEW 6-12-03 French I 1-21-03 CENTRAL 6-2-03 Voe. Home Ee. 8-2-00 CENTRAL 6-2-03 Elem IV 3-3-97 MITCHELL 7-24-03 Economics 11-25-02 CLOY.MID. 6-2-03 SALARY CLASS 5-10 TCH925 5-12 CNLlO 2-05 K925 4-04 TCH950 6-15 TCH925 1-02 TCH925 6-12 CNLlO 4-01 TCH925 1-03 TCH950 6-21 TCH925 4-01 TCH925 ANNUAL SALARY 40099.00 42141.00 30936.00 32595.00 46608.00 27056.00 43545.00 30553.00 27567.00 53213.00 30553.00 !=' 8 6\" ' \"' ~ co :,0 m \"C': !:\n\"' ?\" m~,.s.. i:\n, a, ~~ c-,:mZ ::z:\"' ~\"' m\"' \"....' ~\"' :I: \"' ?\"\ns \u0026gt;z -.:i!!l C\u0026gt; :,0 ~~ Z-1 .... i5 -.:iz :,O  or-el~ cnn '/?~ !Jl :,0 ~ ~ C !!l ~ m C\u0026gt; n s\nz Personnel Changes Page 5 July 24, 2003 NAME Neikirk, Matthew Reason: None Given Niswonger, Etta Reason: Accepted Another Position Ross, Thomas Reason: Accepted Another Position Tate, Katrina Reason: Personal Shepherd, Laura Reason: Leaving City Voegele, Crystal Reason: Accepted Another Position Washington, Lapara Reason: Contract Ended Wooten, Russell Reason: Leaving City Autrey, Debora POSITION SCHOOL Elem II FULBRIGHT Earth Science DUNBAR English FAIR English SOUTHWEST 4 Yr. Old GEYER SPRINGS English DUNBAR English FAIR Special Ed. START DATE END DATE 8-12-98 6-19-03 8-13-01 7-1-03 8-13-97 6-2-03 8-13-01 7-18-03 8-13-98 7-15-03 1-1-99 6-25-03 12-18-02 6-2-03 8-13-01 PUL. HGTS. ELEM. 6-24-03 New Certified Eml!lo:rees ElemV 8-7-03 BRADY SALARY CLASS 1-04 TCH925 1-04 TCH925 3-07 TCH925 1-03 TCH925 1-07 4YROLD 2-05 TCH925 4-01 TCH925 2-03 SPE925 1-07 TCH925 ANNUAL SALARY 28588.00 28588.00 34305.00 27567.00 31651.00 30936.00 30553.00 28894.00 31651.00 !=' 8 N b \".~..'. \"' ::0 m u, C: !:\nu,\na,, ::ils m,.. ~a, ~~ ~~ ::cu, m== uu,, u,\n!i .... u, IC. u,\ni,,\ns  z -0~ C)\nc z~ ~.... .... ~ -0 z\nc  0 ,-\ng ~ u, 0 ~!I' !II\nc ~ kl 0 ~ ~ m C) 0 -0 z Personnel Changes Page 6 July 24, 2003 NAME Ball, Bethany Beals, Yolanda Burnworth, Brandi Carlisle, Holly Collins, Kimberly Doolittle, Heidi Harder, Mariah Headley, Debbie Higginbotham, David Hill, Stephanie Holl, Maria Humphries, Laura POSITION SCHOOL Elem II CARVER ElemV BRADY Elem II FRANKLIN Elem I WILLIAMS Music FRANKLIN Elem II FRANKLIN Elem/Drama BOOKER Music BASELINE Music STEPHENS 4 Yr. Old CHICOT ElemV WILLIAMS Kindergarten RIGHTSELL START DATE END DATE 8-7-03 8-7-03 8-7-03 8-7-03 8-7-03 8-7-03 8-7-03 8-7-03 8-1-03 8-7-03 8-7-03 8-7-03 SALARY CLASS 1-01 TCH925 1-01 TCH925 1-02 TCH925 1-02 TCH925 4-07 TCH925 1-01 TCH925 1-02 TCH925 1-08 TCH925 1-01 TCH925 1-01 4YROLD 1-06 TCH925 1-02 K925 ANNUAL SALARY 26546.00 26546.00 27056.00 27056.00 35658.00 26546.00 27056.00 32672.00 26546.00 26546.00 30630.00 27056.00 !:I 8,., .0. , ! \"m' \".,C.-.': \"'\n,,, ~s m,.... !=? a, ~~ c_.:.mZ i g: m\"' .\"..' r.',i, :I:  \"'\n,,,~ \u0026gt;z \"'D!!l C\u0026gt;\"' ~~ .z..- \u0026lt; ~ \"'DZ ,O\u0026gt; or-c3 ~ U,C') '1!,!I\u0026gt; !D \"~' i:l 0 !!l ~ m C\u0026gt; n \"'D ~ z Personnel Changes Page 7 July 24, 2003 NAME Johnston, Margaret Khoury, Cynthia Loyd, April Moore, Allison Spencer, Joel Thomas, Sommer Barnes, Barbara Busbea, Patricia POSITION SCHOOL Kindergarten MEADOW CLIFF Elem ill BRADY Elem II STEPHENS Counselor BRADY Elem IV CHICOT Elem I BOOKER START DATE END DATE 8-7-03 8-7-03 8-1-03 8-7-03 8-7-03 8-7-03 SALARY CLASS 1-02 K925 1-01 TCH925 4-06 TCH925 4-03 CNL925 1-02 TCH925 1-01 TCH925 Promotion Certified Employees Director 7-28-03 75-20 DIV. EXCEPT CHILD. ADC12 Coor. Reading 7-14-03 62-12 EARLY CHILD ADC12 ANNUAL SALARY 27056.00 26546.00 34637.00 31574.00 27056.00 26546.00 84240.00 1500.00 EDU 601.00 CAR 57144.00 annual 55315.00 prorated !==' 8.., .b., E co ::D m (/) C: !:j (/) ?- ~ ~ 9a, (/) C: o!!1 .c...: Zm :c (/) ~(/) m\"' .(../. )~ (/) I:. (/) .,.,.\u0026lt;... :,,.z .,,!!l C\u0026gt; ::D ~~ z--\u0026lt; .... \u0026lt;5\ng f\nor- ~~ (/)C') \",-\"\". ' !X' ::D ~ Kl C !!l ~ m C\u0026gt; .n,, \u0026gt; z Personnel Changes Page 8 July 24, 2003 NAME POSITION SCHOOL START DATE END DATE SALARY CLASS Resignationsfferminations Non-Certified Eml!lorees Allen, Carol Child Nutrition 9-14-01 1-03 Reason: None Given HALL 6-30-03 FSH5 Brown, William Maintenance 2-24-75 50-20 Reason: Retired FACILITY SERV. 6-30-03 AN12 Bryant, Dale Custodian 9-16-02 1-02 Reason: Personal GIBBS 7-10-03 CUS928 Carr, Susie Child Nutrition 4-13-87 5-16 Reason: Retired MITCHELL 6-30-03 FSH6 Cooper, Diedre Instr. Aide 8-24-00 1-03 Reason: Position Elim. PUPIL PERSONNEL 6-2-03 INA925 Deal, Keith Instr. Aide 9-28-00 1-03 Reason: Position Elim. PUPIL PERSONNEL 6-2-03 INA925 Feurig, Janet Occupational Therapy 8-9-00 60-15 Reason: Leaving City SPECIAL ED. 7-15-03 AN925 Goad, Lena Parent Coor. 1-22-03 1-02 Reason: Position Elim. BASELINE 6-4-03 INSTR. Gordon, Eura Child Nutrition 3-7-88 4-15 Reason: Retired MCCLELLAN 6-16-03 FSH575 Grant, Curtis Child Nutrition 8-28-02 1-02 Reason: Health METRO. 6-30-03 FSH5 ANNUAL SALARY 7368.00 39936.00 10737.00 9283.00 11635.00 11635.00 46368.00 11720.00 8854.00 7340.00 !=' 8.., .c.!.:,, E co\n%1 m u, C,..:. ..... u,\ni,, ~ :S m,... !=? a, ~~ c:Z -,m jg: mu, ~~ 1:!\" u,\ni,,\ns .,..._,~z C)\n%1 z~ ~..... ..... c5 -oz i3 ~ c3~ ,~...~. !D\n%1 ~ gi C .u...,. .~.... m C) .n.., \u0026gt; z Personnel Changes Page 9 July 24, 2003 NAME Johnson, Claude Reason: Health Merritt, Augusta Reason: None Given Merritt, Reginald Reason: Position Elim. Osborne, Linda Reason: Reduction In Force Smith. Jeny Reason: Position Elim. Renaud, Nan Reason: Retired Roberts, Kathleen Reason: Position Elim. Strong, Yolanda Reason: Position Elim. Tanner, Gail Reason: Position Elim. Vester, Courtney Reason: Personal Withers, Myrtle Reason: Position Elim. POSITION SCHOOL Clerical PUL .. HGTS. MID. Bookkeeper FACILITY SERV. Vio Specialist START DATE END DATE 9-27-95 6-2-03 8-20-02 7-15-03 10-8-98 PUPIL PERSONNEL 6-6-03 Nurse 1-24-03 HALL 6-2-03 Security Officer 8-21-00 SAFETY \u0026amp; SEC. 6-4-03 Data Processor 8-21-78 Comp. Info. Serv. 6-30-03 Instr. Aide 8-15-90 PUPILSERV. 6-2-03 Instr. Aide 8-11-93 PUPIL PERSONNEL 6-2-03 Clerical 8-9-82 VJPS 6-2-03 Clerical 1-9-90 VIPS 6-10-03 Clerical 10-30-00 VIPS 6-10-03 SALARY CLASS 39-14 CLKl0 49-08 AN12 41-20 ANl0 1-07 NURSES 37-20 ANlO 60-20 AN12 1-10 INA925 1-01 INA925 35-12 CLK925 40-08 CLKll 38-20 CLK105 ANNUAL SALARY 24048.00 27096.00 30528.00 31651.00 27096.00 53832.00 14067.00 10577.00 20100.00 20712.00 27912.00 !=' 8 c\"' \"\" ~... co\nl0 m C/l .,C.-.: C/l\n,,, ~~ !=?a, C/lc: o!!! ~~ jg: mU\u0026gt; C/l ~ ... C/l I:  C/l\n,,,\ns\n\u0026gt;z -0 ~ C)\nl0 ~:=s z--\u0026lt; ... c5 \"OZ ~~ ~~ C/lC') ~!\" !D\nl0 ~ kl C .C./.l ~ m C) n ~ z Personnel Changes Page 10 July 24, 2003 NAME Young, Nicole Reason: Leaving City Miles, Michael Stewart, Marlon POSITION SCHOOL Child Nutrition BASELINE START DATE END DATE 10-11-99 5-30-03 SALARY CLASS 1-05 FSH5 New Non-Certified Employees Team Leader FACILITY SERV. Custodian HALL 6-23-03 6-9-03 44-06 MAINT. 1-01 CUS12 ANNUAL SALARY 7424.00 21984.00 13399.00 DATE: TO: FROM: PREPARED BY: RE: Background LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK, AR 72201 July 24, 2003 Board of Education - / Dr. Don Stewart, Interim Superintenden~ Linda Austin, Director of Planning and Development ~~ Grant Proposal - Advanced Placement Incentive Program The U. S. Department of Education released a request for proposals for the Advanced Placement Incentive (API) Grant program. The purpose of the program is designed to increase the successful participation of low-income students in pre-advanced placement and advanced placement courses and tests. By supporting increased access to and participation in pre-advanced and advanced placement courses and tests, the program provides greater opportunities for low-income students to achieve to high standards in English, mathematics, science, and other core subjects. Two LRSD high schools, Hall and McClellan, were selected to participate in the API grant program based on their students' eligibility for free-or-reduced lunch (42% and 50% of their enrollments, respectively) and low rate of participation in Pre-AP and AP courses compared to other District high schools. The four highest-poverty (and low performing) LRSD middle schools (Cloverdale, Henderson, Mabelvale and Southwest) were also chosen to participate in the program. In 2002- 2003, 84% of Southwest students, 78% of Cloverdale, 68% of Mabelvale and 71% Henderson students were eligible for free or reduced lunch. The API proposal includes five broad goals that articulate the major \"systems improvements\" that will be brought about as a result of this initiative. The major goals include: Goal 1 - Leadership Development: To strengthen the abilities of school-based instructional leaders to provide support to classroom teachers in designing and delivering rigorous, high quality pre-AP and AP English, math and science classes. Goal 2 - Professional Development: To further develop the pedagogical skills and content knowledge of middle and high school teachers of Pre-AP and AP courses in English, math, and science achievement and performance. Goal 3 - Curriculum Development: To support the development and implementation of a Pre-AP and English language arts curriculum that prepares middle and high school students for success in English AP courses. Goal 4 - Student Support: To provide students, particularly those from disadvantaged backgrounds, with a full range of support services to increase their enrollment and success in PreAP and AP courses. 8 i \"\" E co\na m ~ !:\nu, .!.I,I z \u0026gt;z C, \u0026gt;.... u, Goal 5 - Parent Involvement: To enhance the awareness of middle and high school students' parents of the requirements of postsecondary education and the resources available to effectively plan for this goal. The professional development initiative will be supported by three lead teachers, (English, math, and science) who will work intensely with Pre-AP and AP teachers in the six target schools over the three-year period. Grant funds will be used to support teacher participation in both on-site and off-site training activities sponsored by The College Board, the University of Arkansas at Little Rock: Advanced Placement Teacher Development Center and AVID (Advanced Via Individual Determination). The LRSD will collaborate with Metis Associates, Inc. on the implementation of a rigorous research and evaluation plan to assess the effectiveness of project activities and their impact on the target population of participating middle and high school students, teachers and parents. The grant was submitted on July 3, 2003 in order to meet the July 3, 2003 submission deadline. Fiscal Impact The total three-year award request is $1,989,216. The requested funds are primarily targeted for the implementation of the intensive ongoing professional development plan and to establish partnerships with outside organizations with the expertise needed to support program implementation. Local match is not required. Recommendation The staff requests approval for the submission of this grant. .!.I,' z z\u0026gt; 0 \u0026gt;,... \"' DATE: TO: FROM: PREPARED BY: RE: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK, AR 72201 July 24, 2003 Board of Education Dr. Don Stewart, Interim Superintenden~ Linda Austin, Director of Planning and Development~ Revised Strategic Plan The Little Rock School District Strategic Plan was originally adopted in 1996 and updated in 1998. On January 27-29, 2003, a 30 member Strategic Planning Team composed of parents, community members, teachers, students, Board members, and school administrators came together to review and update the plan. The team arrived at consensus in identifying common beliefs, creating a mission for the school system, setting parameters and developing objectives and far-reaching strategies for accomplishing the mission. For each of the strategies identified by the Planning Team, an Action Team was formed to develop plans for implementation. On June 19-20, 2003, the Strategic Planning Team reconvened to receive the Action Team's recommended implementation plans and prepare the 2003-2008 draft strategic plan for submission to the Board of Education. The draft Little Rock School District Strategic Plan is submitted under separate cover. It is recommended that the Board approve the 2003-2008 Little Rock Strategic Plan. .!.l,' z \u0026gt; l\"5 ~ \"'\n,,, nS :z\n= \"'en \u0026lt;\"\u0026gt;n :Z::z: og ,~... \"...'. 1c::: :m\n,a lH~ om m\"' ~ Date: To: From: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS July 24, 2003 Board of Education Donald M. Stewart, Interim Superintendent Re: Resolution The attached resolution is presented for the Board's review and adoption, to assure compliance with the federally funded MSAP grant as it relates to the District's receiving release from federal court supervision. The resolution pledges our commitment to improving educational opportunities for students attending Cloverdale and Mabelvale Middle Schools, and Fair and McClellan High Schools, and provides assurance that the achievement of Unitary Status will in no way jeopardize the original intent of the Grant. ?\u0026lt; (\") 5 Cl) z C) Rl f\n~ Cl) 8 .~.. ! U)\n,o m Cl) C: !:\nCl) .!D., z z\u0026gt; (\") \u0026gt; rC/) :,,,, nS :z:\n= \"\"'n\"' :Z::z: og s'\nr-r- Cl) 1:m C:\n,o ~~ om m\"'\n!l RESOLUTION WHEREAS, the Little Rock School District has applied for continued funding of a grant for the Southwest Little Rock Magnet Schools (Cloverdale, Mabelvale, Fair and McClellan) for the 2003-04 school year\nand WHEREAS, the purpose of the grant is to improve educational opportunities and reduce racial isolation in those schools. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Little Rock School District Board of Education that any grant funds received for the Southwest Little Rock Magnet Schools will be used exclusively for the benefit of those schools and not for other purposes. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, we have hereunto set our hands on behalf of the Little Rock School District Board of Education on this 24th day of July, 2003. Larry Berkley, Secretary Judy Magness, President .!,I,' ,z.. z 0 \u0026gt;..... \"'\n\u0026gt; o:S ::c\n= \"O'\"o' ::C::c 08 .~.... ...,..,. 11::m C\n,o ~~ om m\"'\n!I Date: To: From: Through: Re: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS July 24, 2003 Board of Directors Dennis Glasgow, Interim Associate Superintendent Curriculum and Instruction Donald M. Stewart, Interim Superintenden~ 2002-2003 SAT-9 Results We have received the results of the 2002-03 Stanford Achievement Tests, ninth edition, for grades 5, 7, and 10. District wide results show that students in grades five and seven improved on all subtests, while students in grade ten stayed at approximately the same level. Fifth grade students showed the most improvement by scoring nine percentile points higher than last year's fifth graders on the complete battery. Seventh grade students scored eight percentile points higher than last year's seventh graders, while tenth grade students scored two percentile points higher than last year's tenth graders. A review and report of these results will be provided at the July 24 board meeting. ?\u0026lt; m .3.1,:. 5\nm ::c ~ z~ C) en 1D' nS ::,:\n= en en On ::C::,: 08 ~ ..... ,.... en 31:.m c::\nJD ~~ cm men\n!l '54.n Individual Approach to a World of Knowledge\" July 24, 2003 TO: ~ittleR ock School District Board of Directors FROM: H.Eat~ Director of Facility Services THROUG nald M. Stewart, Interim Superintendent of Schools SUBJECT: Request for Dedication Deed: Southwest Middle School The City of Little Rock has requested that the Little Rock School District grant a 20-footradius dedication deed for the installation and maintenance of public utilities on the southeast comer of 32nd and South Bryant Streets. See Exhibit A, attached. Assessment of this dedication indicates that it would have no negative impact on the operation of Southwest Middle School. It is recommended that the Little Rock School District Administration be permitted to enter into this agreement. DEC:cg Attachment 810 W. Markham  Little Rocle, Arkansas 72201  www.lrsd.k12.ar.us 501-324-2000  fax: 501-324-2032 ,. ?\u0026lt; m I: ~  m m :::c ~\n,o z C') en ~::::c\nS= en en nn :::C:::c 08 ~ ... r- en 1:m C::\n,o ~~ om m Ul ~ CORPORATION DEDICATION DEED Know All Men By These Presents: That, Little Rock Public School District, a corporation organized under the laws of the State of Arkansas and doing business under the laws of the State of Arkansas, for and in consideration of the benefits accruing to it and to the public generally, does hereby, dedicate, give and convey unto the City of Little Rock, Arkansas, for the purpose of a public street and the installation and maintenance of public utilities, and other public purposes, a strip of land owned by it, situated in Little Rock, Pulaski County, in the State of Arkansas, to-wit: EXHIBIT A To HAVE AND TO HOLD the same unto the said City of Little Rock, Arkansas and unto its successors and assigns forever, for the purpose of the public uses and benefit herein described, together with all and singular the tenements, appurtenances and hereditaments thereunto belonging or in any wise appertaining. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the said Little Rock Public School District, a corporation, has caused these presents to be signed by its Ex-officio, attested by its signature and its corporate seal to be hereunto affixed, all in accordance with and pursuant to a resolution of the Board of Directors of the said Little Rock Public School District on this ___ day of ______ , 20 __ . Corporate Seal ?\u0026lt; m .!.I,:  ~ ::c ! cz! ! Cl en\n,\u0026gt; nS ::c\n= en en nn ::C::c 08 ~ .... r- en !l:m C:\no ~~ c,m men\n!I STATE OF ARKANSAS) ) COUNTY OF PULASKI) ACKNOWLEDGMENT On this __ day of ____ , 20 __ , before me, a Notary Public duly commissioned, qualified and acting for said County and State, appeared in person the within named ----------and ---------- being the Ex-officio Financial Secretary and ___________ respectively of Little Rock School District, and who had been designated by Little Rock School District to execute the above instrument, to me personally well-known, who stated that they were the Ex-officio Financial Secretary and for the said Little Rock School District, and were duly authorized in their respective capacities to execute the foregoing instrument for and in the name and behalf of said corporation, and further stated and acknowledged that they had so signed, executed and delivered said foregoing instrument for the consideration, uses and purposes herein mentioned and set forth. IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and seal as such Notary Public on this __ day _____ , 20 _. NOTARY PUBLIC MY COMMISSION EXPIRES: ?\u0026lt; m .3.1,:  m m ::c ~ ~ C) en .,.. nS ::c\n= en en no ::C::,: 08 ~ .... ,... en 31:m c::\n,\n, ~~ cmmen ~ EXHIBIT A 20' RADIAL R/ W DEDICATION PART OF THE SW1 / 4 NE1/4 OF SECTION 13, T-1-N, R-13-W, LITTLE ROCK, PULASKI COUND', ARKANSAS MORE PARTICULARY DESCRIBED AS: COMMENCING AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SAID SW1/4 NE1 / 4, SECTION 13\nTHENCE S88\"23'E, 35.00 FT. TO A POINT ON THE EAST LINE OF SOUTH BRYANT STREET\nTHENCE NORTH ALONG SAID EAST LINE, 1268.40 FT. TO A POINT ON THE SOUTH LINE OF W. 32ND STREET AND THE POINT OF BEGINNING\nTHENCE EAST ALONG SAID SOUTH LINE, 20.00 FT.\nTHENCE SOUTHWESTERLY ALONG THE ARC OF A 20.00 FT. RADIUS CURVE TO THE LEFT TO A POINT ON THE SAID EAST LINE OF SOUTH BRYANT STREET\nTHENCE NORTH ALONG SAID EAST LINE 20.00 FT. TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING, CONTAINING 86 SQ. FT. MORE OR LESS. / -------......_ ' \\ -+-\u0026gt; ~ ~ !.- -+-\u0026gt; V) -+-\u0026gt; ~ 1j ~ !.- ~ ..c: -+-\u0026gt; ~ 0 V) i\n' ~ c:, (0 '- W. 32nd Street (60' R/ W) ~,..2..0.... _00_' _________________________ ~ ~O, 'f\u0026gt;o ~ ?\u0026lt; m I: ~ m :c ! i!! z C) Cl\u0026gt;\n,\u0026gt; nS :c\n= n\"'\"o' :c :c 08 ~ .... ,-Cl\u0026gt; Em c\na ~~ om m\"'\n!l DATE: TO: FROM: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 July 24, 2003 Board of Directors PREPARED BY: Donald M. Stewart, Interim Superintendent of Schools ~Mark D. Milhollen, Manager Financial Services SUBJECT: Financial Reports The final stages of the financial report are still in process, and therefore, will not appear on the printed agenda for the month of July. However, should the reports be completed, they will be available at the meeting. ?\u0026lt; m I:: \"D 5 -m\u0026lt; m :c !\no z C') u, .,,. nS :c\n= u, u, nn :oc g:c ~ ... ,.. u, !::m C:\no ~~ cm mu, ~ LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS Date: July 24, 2003 To: Boao~f dir ectors From: Mar acey, Assistant Superintendent Sec Sc.s Sadie Mitchell, J\\ssociate Superintendent _ s.o1 Services Through: ~nald M. Stewart, Interim Superintendent Re: Proposal for Naming the Choral Music Department at Central High School I am attaching a proposal for naming the choral music department at Central High School as the Robert L. Brack Choral Music Department. Nancy Rousseau, principal of Central High School, completed the nomination process as requested by students and members of the Central High School community. This action would serve as a monument to the superior reputation of Mr. Brack and for his twenty-seven years of service to the Central High School Music Department. As required by District policy FF:Naming of Facilities, you will also find attached a copy of a letter of acceptance for this honor from Mr. Brack. The administration recommends approval of this proposal. ?\u0026lt; m I: ~  m m ::r:: !\n!! z Cl \"' NAMING AND RENAMING FACILITIES I propose that the Choral Music Department (Designation of building and/or location) 1500 South Park Little Rock, AR 72202 (Address) be named for Robert L. Brack I. Biographical Data: Mr. Brack was born on June 8, 1944. II. The Nominee's significant contribution is: Uhile at Central, Mr. Brack was none less than superior in all performances \u0026amp; in all aspects of his teaching career. He has left a lasting impression on hun reds of students and the faculty \u0026amp; staff at Central High School. Ill. I believe the facility should be named for this person because: We feel that the naming of the ehoral Department in Mr. Brack's honor would be both a monument to him and a motivation to all future singers to live up to the standards that Mr. Brack set for them. The current choral music students would like the department to be names, \"The Robert L. Brack Choral Music Department\". 5-28-03 (Signature) (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. ?'\u0026lt; m .i,i,: 5 m-\u0026lt; m ::,: ~\no z C\u0026gt; Cl) PROPOSAL TO HONOR MR. ROBERT L. BRACK Little Rock Central High School Concert Choir and Madrigal Singers May 1, 2003 4ss,\ns \u0026amp;l,i,l' S.11/\\ ~ --~,t:- Fc,'7', .S- 'I,.(/r O , .,.~ltf'~ ~le,, ,\u0026gt;:, V~,_ ~~ \u0026lt;Oo\n, , To whom it may concern: ~r ot/Jl ' In view of the fact that Mr. Robert L. Brack, Choral Music Director at Cen~h High, will be completing his final year in the Little Rock School District this May, the choral music students under his direction would like to propose to have the choral music department at LR Central named in his honor. While at Central, Mr. Brack has never received anything less than superior in all performances and in all aspects of his teaching career. He has left a lasting impression on hundreds of students, all of the faculty he has worked with, and the excellent tradition that Central High has and will always live up to. The current choral music students feel that having this department named, \"The Robert L. Brack Choral Music Department\" would be both a monument to him and a motivation to all future singers to live up to the reputation that Mr. Brack left behind in his twenty-seven years of service to the school. We, the 2002-2003 choral music students thank you for this consideration. This proposal is very important to us and to Central High. Respectfully yours, ~~~~ ~ ~~ Kate Goodson and Tempest Williams LRCH Concert Choir and Madrigal Singers Members RECIUVD MAY I 02118 ?\u0026lt; m .i.i,:  m m ::,: ~ \"z' C') en Dr. Marian Lacey, Assistant Superintendent Little Rock School District Board of Directors 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Dear Dr. Lacey and Board of Directors: 14217 Longtree Drive Little Rock, Arkansas 72212 June 6, 2003 I have experienced so many great opportunities and successes at Central High School during my tenure as Choral Music Director. Being named \"Teacher of the Year\" by the Central High School faculty this year was a tremendous honor. It is the greatest honor when students recognize a teacher for providing quality instruction that makes a difference in their lives. I am overwhelmed by a sense of pride and with much gratitude that my students and principal, Nancy Rousseau desire to have the Choral Music Department officially named in my honor. Of all honors, this one has to be the greatest. It is with much gratitude, humility, pride, and dignity that I give my approval for the Choral Music Department at Central High School to be named in my honor: \"The Robert L. Brack Choral Music Department\". Thanks to the Little Rock School District Board of Directors for giving me the opportunity to make a difference in the lives of many students for the past thirty-four years. Sincerely, ~~h ?'\u0026lt; m .i.i,,:  mm ::c !j'\n! i Cl Cl)\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":"gsl_borm_borm2003-2004","title":"Minutes, Board of Regents, 2003-2004, July 1, 2003-June 30, 2004","collection_id":"gsl_borm","collection_title":"Board of Regents of the University System of Georgia Meeting Minutes, 1932-2005","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, Georgia, Fulton County, Atlanta, 33.749, -84.38798"],"dcterms_creator":["Board of Regents of the University System of Georgia"],"dc_date":["2003-07-01/2004-06-30"],"dcterms_description":["Meeting minutes and agendas of the Board of Regents of the University System of Georgia. Digitization of this collection is a project of the Georgia Public Library Service, a unit of the Board of Regents of the University System of Georgia, in association with the University System. The project is supported with federal LSTA funds administered by the Institute of Museum and Library Services."],"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Atlanta, Ga. : Board of Regents of the University System of Georgia"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Board of Regents of the University System of Georgia Meeting Minutes, 1932-2005"],"dcterms_subject":["Education, Higher--United States--Administration","Universities and colleges","Schools","University System of Georgia. Board of Regents","Minutes (Records)","Agendas (Series)"],"dcterms_title":["Minutes, Board of Regents, 2003-2004, July 1, 2003-June 30, 2004"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Board of Regents of the University System of Georgia"],"edm_is_shown_by":["https://dlg.galileo.usg.edu/do:gsl_borm_borm2003-2004"],"edm_is_shown_at":["https://dlg.usg.edu/record/gsl_borm_borm2003-2004"],"dcterms_temporal":["2003-07-01/2004-06-30"],"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":["Board of Regents of the University System of Georgia. Board of Regents of the University System of Georgia Meeting Minutes, 1932-2005. Office of Legal Affairs, Board of Regents of the University System of Georgia, Atlanta, Georgia."],"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["minute books"],"dcterms_extent":["746 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"geh_vhpohr_320","title":"Oral history interview of John Glustrom","collection_id":"geh_vhpohr","collection_title":"Veterans History Project: Oral History Interviews","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["France, Alsace, 48.33333, 7.43333","France, Cherbourg, 49.6425343, -1.6249565","France, Lorraine, 48.874423, 6.208093","Germany, Frankfurt am Main, 50.110922, 8.682127","Germany, Weimar, Buchenwald, 51.0195868, 11.2508336","United Kingdom, England, Salisbury Plain, 51.2486531, -1.89348305217729","United States, California, Inyo County, Death Valley, 36.44802, -116.86579","United States, Georgia, 32.75042, -83.50018","United States, Georgia, Atlanta Metropolitan Area, 33.8498, 84.4383","United States, Nevada, Death Valley, 36.42404725, -116.914043672057"],"dcterms_creator":["Wallace, Fredrick C.","Glustrom, John, 1916-2008"],"dc_date":["2003-06-18"],"dcterms_description":["In this interview, John Glustrom describes his experiences as an Army engineer during World War II. He recalls his training in Death Valley, California, and his responsibilities in England building barracks and hospitals. He describes the supply lines his unit created in Normandy after D-Day and a later encounter he had with General George Patton. Of particular interest are his memories of Buchenwald and the conditions he found there. He concludes the interview by reflecting on his work with the Civil Rights Movement in Atlanta, Georgia.","John Glustrom was an Army engineer during World War II.","FREDERICK WALLACE: Today is Wednesday, June 18, 2003. This is the beginning of an interview with Mr. John Glustrom. Mr. Glustrom is a Veteran of World War II and he saw service with the U.S. Army Engineers in England, France, and Germany during the periods from January 1941 to January 1946. The interview is being conducted at the Atlanta History Center in Atlanta, Georgia. My name is Frederick Wallace. I'm with AARP, and I am going to be the interviewer. Mr. Glustrom, as I briefed you earlier, this is your story. We want you to tell it in your own words. Take us from the day of your enlistment into the service, tell us why you enlisted, and your experience during your days in boot camp or basic training, and take us all the way through step by step until your date of separation. So, Mr. Glustrom, will you begin, please? JOHN GLUSTROM: Thank you. I have to say to begin with that there's a thread going through this narration, a thread of fortunate events that occurred in time to keep me living through the war. Many things have happened that just by a thread changed the course of my life and kept me going, though I was never wounded or injured except getting a bad case of poison ivy from going to sleep in the woods without light. Time after time very important events occurred through which I was kept alive because my service was advanced beyond a front line as it might be called and in front of the tanks many times without protection of armed troops. And with that, I'll go into the narration. I was drafted one year before Pearl Harbor. In fact, my bags were packed on the company street waiting for discharge when the Japanese took their terrible action in Pearl Harbor. And in the course of my initial time in the military I went through several units. One unit I was transferred out of was the field artillery, and that field artillery later I found went to Africa and suffered enormous casualties in Africa, but I was put into the engineers and my job was to help form and train the 333rd Engineering Regiment. FREDERICK WALLACE: Could I back you up for just a minute? JOHN GLUSTROM: Sure. FREDERICK WALLACE: Where did you go for basic training after you were enlisted? JOHN GLUSTROM: That was a -- FEMALE SPEAKER: In South Carolina. JOHN GLUSTROM: Notable point, I went to South Carolina, but I never had hardly any basic training and so I survived without it. FREDERICK WALLACE: Just a moment. Yes, go ahead. [RECORDING CUTS OFF TEMPORARILY] Okay. JOHN GLUSTROM: I was in the artillery, and as I said, I was transferred out. The reason I was transferred out was that I had gotten a real desirable job working through for a Regimental Colonel and he kept me out of basic training and kept me out of company duties in order to take over his headquarters. And by not having company duties I became sort of a bad element in the company, because everybody else was jealous. And so, one morning I was allowed to go to Atlanta. I had a weekend pass from South Carolina, Camp Claiborne and every weekend a permanent pass and it was the kind of pass that did not endear me to the Regiment, the men who were doing the dirty work to keep the Regiment going, taking care of the kitchen and the latrine. And so, one morning about five o'clock I came back from Atlanta with a load men, which I took with me and found I had been transferred. And I asked what happened to the Colonel and they said he had been sent to an officer's training course himself, and he could not longer prevent my being put out. And so, that was, as I said, one of the best things that happened because the artillery unit had tremendous casualties in Africa. And our casualties in the engineers were relatively light, but it did save my life. During the course of the time I spent in the artillery, which was well over a year I never got promoted past Private. And then when I got into the engineering outfit I began going through a series of promotions until I made Master Sergeant. As Master Sergeant I was somewhat my own boss, and I decided to stay as Master Sergeant until we were going to be sent overseas. And I got an opportunity to be made into Warrant Officer in the same Regiment at the same position I was doing this Master Sergeant. And my job was to see that the Regiment had food and clothing and ammunition and things that they needed when they needed it. And I made contact with all sorts of sources of supply. And an interesting thing happened in the engineers, another event for which I as very fortunate. We were sent to Death Valley for training. The purpose of it was in Death Valley to prepare for Africa service. And in Africa things were very, very uncertain and dangerous. The Rommel of the Germans was a very adept Commander. Any troops who opposed him had real problems. But our unit was sent to train in Death Valley and we were divided into a red army and a blue army. All the units were there training. FREDERICK WALLACE: And Death Valley, you mean Death Valley, California? JOHN GLUSTROM: In the United States. FEMALE SPEAKER: Yeah, that would be in California. JOHN GLUSTROM: California and New Mexico and Oregon, you know, and – it's an extensive dessert through many states. And we had – there, you know, the temperature was 110 or 115 during the day and it would go down near to freezing at night. And we always had to get into a sleeping bag and hope that a rattlesnake was not in there waiting for us. But they divided us into a red army and blue army and the blue army was my organization. And everything was going pretty well with us in the maneuvers until one night the red army people stormed into our headquarters and stole our battle plans, and from then on we were severely trounced in the maneuvers and the red army was sent to Africa. And as a result, I found out later on leave in Paris that the red army suffered over 80% casualties in Africa because they weren't really adept at anything but breaking and entering. And that, of course, I think was one of the things that saved my life. And when I was made an officer before going overseas that gave me a much better lifestyle and situation as an individual soldier for service in strange lands, and I was suddenly transformed from an enlisted man to an officer. In those days it was a very, very different role and lifestyle, and I had to learn to live the officer core, eat with them, sleep along side of them, and generally be one of them and have the officer's duties in additions to the duties I had as a Master Sergeant. The first place overseas we were sent was to England, and that was during the bombing raids. I don't know how many people realize, but England was almost bombed out of existence during World War II. And if they had been we would most likely have lost that war. I was there many times during the bombing raids. I once had a weekend leave to London and several bombing raids took place every night; two nights I was there. In fact, the people were so immune to the effects of the bombs that they would go outside their places where they were and look up to watch the lights of any aircraft fire and the planes dropping the bombs and there was black falling all over the streets, and they would stand foolishly and endanger their own lives from flack, which could easily kill them. The effects of the bombs really almost destroyed England as a fighting force, and it was during that time that America got into the Lend-Lease program and began to help supply England with equipment and keep them going, because Roosevelt, who was President then, had the foresight to realize what was happening with England and how badly we needed them. And then America got into the race to be the first to develop radar. We had one man here named John Lumus [phonetic] who formed a unit at his own expense with 500 physicists, and they had a location near New York City and New York State, and they developed a radar lab there. And all these physicists worked on various aspects of the radar production. FREDERICK WALLACE: Let me take you back for a moment. Where were you based in England and what was the mission of your unit? JOHN GLUSTROM: Our mission in England was to build barracks and hospitals for incoming American troops and expected casualties from American soldiers. [RECORDING CUTS OUT TEMPORARILY] The first place we were sent into England was the Salzburg plains, which is a large area in the central part of England. We never saw any towns during the day time. We would get there at night, and I got into town maybe twice during the several months. And then we went to – I got a weekend leave. I had to go to London to pick up some equipment – special equipment, and I got a weekend leave into London as a result of having to get that equipment. That's when I participated in these air raids. Now, it was a very funny feeling; I picked up a girl in London, took her out to dinner and an air raid came while we were eating dinner. And the waiter came and brought all the rest of the dinner and told us he was going down to the air raid shelter. We could stay and eat if we wanted to. [LAUGHTER] And so, we tried to stay there and eat and the bombs were dropping around us and it was a very funny feeling. Our stomachs seemed to have feathers from all the danger involved of staying there and eating this delicious food in the midst of a tremendous raid that might destroy us any second. That was a brush with death. I can still feel, to this day, the effects of sitting there and those bombs dropping all around. And then when we later on looked outside the door we saw civilian Londoners ignoring the flack and walking around the street looking up in the air like it was a giant performance for their benefit. We had the job of building these barracks and hospitals there. One of the phenomenon's that reoccurred in England at that time, in addition to sending us over to build these barracks and hospitals, they sent large numbers of American Generals and Colonels over to take over the arriving American troops. And until the troops arrived in England they had very little to do, so as a result, every two or three days one of them would be inspecting the American troops that were there. And we were there then. We got an inspection almost every day. It got so bad we couldn't do any work so we set aside Company B for inspections, and all Company B did was pick up their saw dust and pick up their scraps of wood and keep the place spotlessly clean so the Generals would have a good report on the inspection. And nothing else got inspected but Company B. And we had a shortage over there because the submarines were very busy sinking American supply ships and the German submarines were very deadly. And the American supply ships were going from American to England trying to avoid being sunk. In fact, when I came across the ocean it was on a converted banana boat that hauled bananas from South America to the United States, and they converted that boat to a troop ship and took my unit over in that fashion, and we were kind of crowded on that banana boat. The boats were heavily dependant on what radar we had for warning at that time, and later on we developed, through the genius of these physicists, a very, very thorough and advanced form of radar that was able to not only pinpoint weapons after we shot them but ping back that we had hit the target. And it was radar that saved England and saved us. I might say that later on in the war there was – it was plain that American planes would do a world of bombing in Germany, and for a while they bombed civilian areas with the idea of disrupting the German war effort. And they carried on terrible bombings in German towns. The worst one was in Dresden in Germany, and I think that anybody that saw the bombing that the Germans did in England would realize that what they received in return was what they really deserved to get because of the indiscriminant bombings they themselves carried on. And so, every time someone complains to me about Dresden and the bombing of civilians and 100,000 Germans being killed in the bombing, I have to think back to the hundreds of thousands of Britain's who were killed by German bombs and how many killed us. FREDERICK WALLACE: Were you stationed in Germany at the time? JOHN GLUSTROM: No, I wasn't stationed any where more than a few days except in England. But I'll get to my German eventually. On D-Day Plus 12 I went across on Normandy Beach and when I landed off of – [RECORDER CUTS OFF TEMPORARILY] – the equipment as I took across to France was a pocket chess set and I got to play chess while we were waiting around to move. You know, they say that the Army they also serve who sit and wait, and I did my share of waiting and sitting. And so, the pocket chess set came in handy. I had a friend, a dentist named Walter Grant that I used to play chess with and I had much fun with Walter Grant. He was what we used to call a cocksman, and he would go around picking up girls in every town wherever we stopped for a day or two. He was a magician. They called it a Presto Digit Toto [phonetic], and he used to do tricks making the little knife disappear or change colors, and he would stop a young girl on the street and show her the tricks and before long he had a whole gang of young girls following him, and other people, and he invariably would end up going with the girl to her apartment. While we were in this particular town he would spent it with companionship. He was well known for that purpose. A very nice fellow and I enjoyed many a adventure with him, although I didn't need any of his dentistry attention. Now, I did go into France and after having three years in the military except for the time in England, which was about six or eight months, and I spent two years counting England, France, and Germany, and I went over to Normandy D plus 12 and we went over in these little boats they called ducks and when we finally got to the shore line the front of the boat let down and we marched down that ramp into the water by waist deep and had to walk up the shore. And at that time, D plus 12, the Germans had been beaten back, so they were only firing artillery and not firing machine guns at us. And we had a job assigned to go clear the Sherbourg Harbor. Unfortunately, we had no transportation and Sherbourg Harbor had been filled with boats. We had to hike to Sherbourg, and we went all the way to hiking day and night to the limit of our endurance. There was no – at that time, no weapon vehicles to ride in, so we took forced marches night and day to get to Sherbourg. When we got there the Germans were still firing from high peaks in Sherbourg and we had to help clear the town of Germans. And then after it was clear we realized that we could not clear the harbor in time for use, and so therefore, they had to give up on the idea of using Sherbourg for a port of debarkation. And so, we stayed there at Normandy and used Normandy Beach as a port of debarkation for supplies. Not many people realize but Normandy and Utah Beaches were massive engineering feats that were built for the purpose of invading France and then Germany. And there was storm that came up during the first few days of invasion and destroyed one of those beaches, but the other one survived and served to supply the entire American effort in France. And not many people realize that that was a thread that the American troops in France was hanging by this very thin supply line through one of the temporary beaches that were set up for supply purposes. And every GI that landed in France landed in either Normandy or Utah Beach. Later on we went there and re-visited that beach and I was a made an honorary citizen of France of Normandy Beach. And there were people swimming at the beach where we had so much misery. And I can't believe to this day that women and children were there on that beach swimming when we visited. And so, we marched to Sherbourg a new organization was set up called the Third Army, and it was primarily tank core troops in our engineering unit. And our job with the tanks core was to get out ahead of them sometimes and repair damage bombed out roads and bridges so that the tanks could be supplied with food, ammunition, and gasoline, the heavy items. And we went through France and Germany, sometimes ahead of tanks and sometimes behind them but always looking for bomb damage to repair along the way. There was little, short freight trains, must have been 20 feet shorter than American freight trains, that served throughout France and Germany and they had little box cars. In fact, one of the box cars was used by General Eisenhower to haul his own private cow around so he would have fresh milk wherever we went. And while I was in England I ran into – I was at a British supply depot hunting for special supplies for equipment and all of the sudden a jeep drove up with a 1st Lieutenant and a Technical Sergeant and driver, a Corporal driver and they'd go into the supply depot and said if you got any lacquer -- and supply -- the British soldier there at the supply depot said, of course, “we have no lacquer, there's a war going on.” And the American says, “Well, we got orders to get lacquer for General Patton's helmet. He takes 18 coats on each helmet.” And there they were with these, in a period of short supplies, using gasoline and equipment and their own time to hunt for equipment for General Patton that he really didn't need. And later on, to show us how short supplies were, one of the inspectors came to our headquarters and he looked in our trashcans and he saw where someone had thrown away the core of an apple. He reached in the garbage can and pulled out this uneaten core of apple and he started eating it. And he said, “You should not be throwing things like this away in this shortage of equipment.” But when the officer wanted lacquer for his helmet he had the time and equipment and when Eisenhower wanted the cow he had the cow. This is a couple of interesting episodes before we landed in Omaha Beach. The first thing we saw on the shore following landing in Omaha Beach was where an American soldier – a paratrooper had been caught by the Germans and he was strung up by his feet and his throat was slit and he was left hanging there so we would see what would happen to us if the Germans caught us, to scare or frighten us, but all it did was – the word spread about it all over to every American soldier in France at that time that this was what the Germans did to the American troops. And it made us hate them with a vehement passion. It didn't not frighten us to that extent, because what happened happened to someone else, and it was not, to us, personal, but it got us very, very disturbed and angry. And our anger against the Germans lasted throughout the war. In fact, some American retired troops that had gotten out of the military and back and civilian life 40 and 60 years later can remember how deep that hatred was. From Sherbourg we went – we were attached to the third Army and started a march through France. And once I needed some special equipment and I had to go to – I got a weekend leave to go to Paris, and in Paris my reception was like that of a hero and France couldn't do enough for us. In fact, one man coming running up to me with a 20 year aged bottle of Cognac, the best alcohol I've ever drank was that bottle of Cognac 20 years old. And I got back from Paris and continued with our march through France – FREDERICK WALLACE: How did you get to Buchenwald? JOHN GLUSTROM: I'm coming to that because that was deep in Germany. FREDERICK WALLACE: Okay. JOHN GLUSTROM: And it's a good question. Am I taking too long? I'm getting close to end. The first place we went was to Alsace-Lorraine, which was a territory being kicked back and forth between the Germans and the French through history. And in Alsace-Lorraine, it's around the edge of Mines River, which is about 50 feet across at that place. And I went to Alsace-Lorraine and we spent the night there. The officers were quartered in with a French family or a German family. They were betwixt France and Germany so they weren't – didn't consider themselves French or German. We were supposed to take off to Germany at three o'clock in the morning. Well, it so happens that at three o'clock the Americans didn't invade across the river. They were afraid and missed their departure and about four o'clock General Patton came rushing up with his pearl revolver and his helmet with all the lacquer and every other word a cuss word. And he says, “What the hell is going on here? Why aren't you across the river?” And they said, “We're afraid, General; the Germans may be waiting right over there with machine guns pointing at us.” And so, he says, I'm going across and any of you yellow belly sons of so-so want to go with me come along. So he takes off his boots and his helmet and dives into the river and swims across in the darkness, and he gets across and when he left to swim across then all the troops were shamed in the fact they didn't go across it, and they started swimming across with him. And that's the way they crossed the Rhine River and they established there was no Germans waiting for us, and they established the beach head there. And then by two, three hours they had a bridge across the river and that served to get our equipment and tanks over. And the first town I went to with any major consequences was Frankfurt, Germany. And I had a unique experience in Frankfurt. Two soldiers and I had gone into look at various well-to-do houses and it was getting dark. The two soldiers left for the camp ground and I was there, and I came out on the town square in the dusk, and the first thing I saw was a group of imported laborers from east Europe who had surrounded a pretty German girl with blonde hair. They were pushing her back and forth in this circle and tearing her clothes off with the idea, undoubtedly, of gang raping her. I stepped up the circle of men and I yelled at the top of my voice and pulled out my revolver and started waving it and they released the girl and she darted off like a rabbit in a distant alley and the men dispersed who were abusing her. And I saved, in spited of my feeling against the Germans, I was still feeling that I needed to save this girl from being manhandled and brutalized. And so, I – FREDERICK WALLACE: I'm going to stop you here. [TAPE CUTS OUT] JOHN GLUSTROM: -- so that desire to protect a woman from being raped by this gang of laborers – the later laborers got -- the Germans had imported impressing them into duty while the Germans were fighting their soldiers and they served all the way through Germany to run the factory and produce military equipment for the German Army. And after Americans liberated Frankfurt or any other town they would be without their German masters and they would be free and they committed atrocities against the German people in repayment for what had committed against them, and so, there was a terrible situation there. It reminds me of what's happened in Iraq where the population, some of them, seem to be uprising right now at this time. Anyway, I went all the way through Germany until about 20 miles from Berlin and on the way I had to go through the Weimar Republic near the time of Weimar and I heard that that was a – [END SIDE A] [BEGINNING SIDE B] JOHN GLUSTROM: -- go see it. And so, in Buchenwald there was a – it turned out to be a concentration camp, one of the worst. FEMALE SPEAKER: I think you [Unintelligible] because I think it's important how you – [RECORDING CUTS OFF TEMPORARILY] JOHN GLUSTROM: Buchenwald existed but as a soldier I didn't have any information on it. In the first place I didn't believe that the Germans could be so ruthless and brutal as to carry on an extermination camp as part of their system, and very few Americans believed they could do something like that. But when I got there I saw what they did and all of the sudden I began to believe it, that this was actually being carried on and all this brutality. And so, we came there April 11th, 1945 and there was a group of inmates in a half circle at the gate to welcome us in. They had about a 12 foot chain link fence all around the camp. And later on the tanks came and knocked the fence and the gates down. One person in the group caught my attention. It was a 15-year-old boy – looked 15. He looked about 12 because he looked so small. And I later found out he was Ellie Weisell, the writer who had been in Buchenwald concentration camp at that time. As we approached the camp about a half mile away the odor was so horrible we almost had to turn around and didn't go to see it. And when we got to it my two companions defected out and decided not to go in. I went in to see what was going on. In the reception room they had all these lamps which the head of the camp had made out of human skin, tattooed skin as sort of introduction to this inhuman place. And then at the hospital, which the inmates took me to, it showed the inmates of the hospital in barracks; in a room about ten feet tall like this one. And the barracks were every two foot up the wall to the ceiling and there were sick people laying in all the bunks floor to ceiling and nobody took care of them and so many of them had diarrhea and dysentery and they would have their excrement all over the place, and that's what the smell came from. Then further up the hill was a concentration camp – further up the hill was a crematorium and the crematorium had trailer with dead bodies outside stacked up like cord wood waiting to be cremated. They cremated – killed about 60 prisoners a day. The rest of them they worked to death. And later on in Allswidge [phonetic] I visited and found they cremated in 2500 a day in Allswidge, so it was a grand scale of what they did in Buchenwald. But anyway, that was the highlight of my experience and by contrast to Buchenwald, the German people were rosy cheeked and well fed and looked real reasonably happy. Right with all this going on in the midst -- the staff of Buchenwald, each eight hour shift was taken into Weimar, which was the nearest town, and a new staff was brought in on those trucks to take their place. And everybody in the town knew and talked of these staff members and knew what was going on in Buchenwald. So the Germans were well aware of what was happening in their midst. FREDERICK WALLACE: Let me ask you, how did that affect your later life? JOHN GLUSTROM: Well, when I got out of the military I decided to try to keep that sort of thing from happening over in this country. And I got involved in January of 1946 into the Civil Rights movement in Atlanta, and I became President – Vice-President of the Urban League and I served as a volunteer with the Urban League for 20 years more or less. The service with the Urban League -- started out I was the only white and they had to get a white man. They took me probably as the lesser of the evils. So anyway, I served with them. And I also got involved in the Gate City Day Nursery Association. I served as an officer and Board Member. And that was a nursery association in all the housing projects. And I also served with the Georgia Council on Human Relations as an officer. And my wife and I started the ACLU Chapter here in Atlanta, and we – FEMALE SPEAKER: He integrated with help – [RECORDING CUTS OUT] JOHN GLUSTROM: -- leading a group of the most prominent black citizens in Atlanta. They got me to come with them as their spokesman to integrated the public library, and before we went a black student would have to go and stand at the desk by the library and went and hunted the book he wanted out of the stacks. And later on, as a result of our visit, they did finally integrate the library. Then of course, the business of integrating the police force was a little bit more risky and we did get that done. But as a result of the library visit the newspaper published my name, address, and phone number on the front page and we had crosses burned on our front lawn as a result of that. And in those days, to begin with there may have been five white people involved in the Civil Rights Movement and I was one of them and my wife was another. And we became deeply involved and really whenever I see someone like you I realize, indirectly, I had a hand in your development and you've had a hand in mine. FREDERICK WALLACE: So what would you like for the younger people of America today to know about what you experienced and how they can apply your experience to their lives? JOHN GLUSTROM: Well, one thing about this experience is that at times it was as bad as it could get and life is so fragile even for the best of us that you need to live as though every moment was going to be your last minute. FREDERICK WALLACE: Very good. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Glustrom. We appreciate you sharing your experience with us. FEMALE SPEAKER: I can tell you how I feel what it was. I think he was saved to marry me, and I would not have married him had he not had that experience. I came from Minneapolis. My parents were – their friends commiserated with them that I was going to live down south, and I said “oh, but he's different.” And my mother said oh – [END TAPE] [KS]"],"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","Lend-lease operations (1941-1945)","World War, 1939-1945--Engineering and construction","Loomis, Alfred L. (Alfred Lee), 1887-1975","Wiesel, Elie, 1928-","Patton, George S. (George Smith), 1885-1945","Eisenhower, Dwight D. (Dwight David), 1890-1969","United States. Army. Engineer Special Service Regiment, 333rd"],"dcterms_title":["Oral history interview of John Glustrom"],"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/320"],"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)","hi-8"],"dcterms_extent":["1:00:58"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"vrc_pec_35840","title":"Farmville Elementary School (former), Farmville, Va., 2003","collection_id":"vrc_pec","collection_title":"Edward H. Peeples Prince Edward County (Va.) Public Schools","dcterms_contributor":["Peeples, Edward H. (Edward Harden), 1935-","James Branch Cabell Library. Special Collections and Archives","VCU Libraries"],"dcterms_spatial":["United States, Virginia, Prince Edward County, 37.2243, -78.44108","United States, Virginia, Prince Edward County, Farmville, 37.3021, -78.39194"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["2003-06-15"],"dcterms_description":["Former Farmville Elementary School for African Americans on S. Main St., Farmville, Va. It was also said to be the African American high school (first Robert R. Moton High School) prior to 1939.","37.2932921","-78.3954923","http://maps.google.com/maps?q=37.2932921,%20-78.3954923","Prince Edward Recreation Center","Farmville Elementary School (Main Street); Robert R. Moton High School (Farmville); Mary E. Branch Elementary School #1","African Americans","elementary schools"],"dc_format":["image/tiff"],"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":["Edward H. Peeples Prince Edward County (Va.) Public Schools"],"dcterms_subject":["Elementary schools","Schools--Virginia--Prince Edward County--History--Pictorial works","African American schools--Virginia--Prince Edward County--History--Pictorial works","Elementary schools--Virginia--Prince Edward County--History--Pictorial works","African American elementary schools--Virginia--Prince Edward County--History--Pictorial works","Public schools--Virginia--Prince Edward County--History--Pictorial works","School buildings--Virginia--Prince Edward County--History--Pictorial works","Farmville Elementary School (Farmville, Va.: Main St.)","Recreation centers"],"dcterms_title":["Farmville Elementary School (former), Farmville, Va., 2003"],"dcterms_type":["StillImage"],"dcterms_provenance":["James Branch Cabell Library. Special Collections and Archives"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["https://digital.library.vcu.edu/islandora/object/vcu%3A35840"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["In Copyright - Non-Commercial Use Permitted","This material is protected by copyright, and copyright is held by VCU. You are permitted to use this material in any way that is permitted by copyright. In addition, this material is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 4.0 International license (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0) (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/). Acknowledgment of Virginia Commonwealth University Libraries as a source is required."],"dcterms_medium":["color negatives"],"dcterms_extent":["6 x 9 cm."],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"vrc_pec_35954","title":"Honorary commencement ceremony at Prince Edward County High School, Va., 2003","collection_id":"vrc_pec","collection_title":"Edward H. Peeples Prince Edward County (Va.) Public Schools","dcterms_contributor":["Peeples, Edward H. (Edward Harden), 1935-","James Branch Cabell Library. Special Collections and Archives","VCU Libraries"],"dcterms_spatial":["United States, Virginia, Prince Edward County, 37.2243, -78.44108"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["2003-06-15"],"dcterms_description":["Awarding of honorary diplomas at Prince Edward County High School, Prince Edward County, Va., on June 15, 2003. Some four hundred former Prince Edward County students were awarded honorary diplomas at Prince Edward County High School, which was formerly the \"new\" Robert R. Moton High School. These students were denied education when public schools were closed by the white oligarchy for five years (1959-1964) to avoid desegregation and compliance with the 1954 U.S. Supreme Court orders.","37.2662637","-78.3994397","http://maps.google.com/maps?q=37.267097,%20-78.4033286","Prince Edward County High School","Robert R. Moton High School (Prince Edward County)"],"dc_format":["image/tiff"],"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":["Edward H. Peeples Prince Edward County (Va.) Public Schools"],"dcterms_subject":["Anniversaries","Commencement ceremonies--Virginia--Prince Edward County","Prince Edward County High School (Prince Edward County, Va.)"],"dcterms_title":["Honorary commencement ceremony at Prince Edward County High School, Va., 2003"],"dcterms_type":["StillImage"],"dcterms_provenance":["James Branch Cabell Library. Special Collections and Archives"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["https://digital.library.vcu.edu/islandora/object/vcu%3A35954"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["In Copyright - Non-Commercial Use Permitted","This material is protected by copyright, and copyright is held by VCU. You are permitted to use this material in any way that is permitted by copyright. In addition, this material is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 4.0 International license (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0) (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/). Acknowledgment of Virginia Commonwealth University Libraries as a source is required."],"dcterms_medium":["color photographs"],"dcterms_extent":["9 x 13 cm. (3 1/2 x 5 in.)"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"vrc_pec_35955","title":"Honorary commencement ceremony at Prince Edward County High School, Va., 2003","collection_id":"vrc_pec","collection_title":"Edward H. Peeples Prince Edward County (Va.) Public Schools","dcterms_contributor":["Peeples, Edward H. (Edward Harden), 1935-","James Branch Cabell Library. Special Collections and Archives","VCU Libraries"],"dcterms_spatial":["United States, Virginia, Prince Edward County, 37.2243, -78.44108"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["2003-06-15"],"dcterms_description":["Awarding of honorary diplomas at Prince Edward County High School, Prince Edward County, Va., on June 15, 2003. Some four hundred former Prince Edward County students were awarded honorary diplomas at Prince Edward County High School, which was formerly the \"new\" Robert R. Moton High School. These students were denied education when public schools were closed by the white oligarchy for five years (1959-1964) to avoid desegregation and compliance with the 1954 U.S. Supreme Court orders.","37.2662637","-78.3994397","http://maps.google.com/maps?q=37.267097,%20-78.4033286","Prince Edward County High School","Robert R. Moton High School (Prince Edward County)"],"dc_format":["image/tiff"],"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":["Edward H. Peeples Prince Edward County (Va.) Public Schools"],"dcterms_subject":["Anniversaries","Commencement ceremonies--Virginia--Prince Edward County","Prince Edward County High School (Prince Edward County, Va.)"],"dcterms_title":["Honorary commencement ceremony at Prince Edward County High School, Va., 2003"],"dcterms_type":["StillImage"],"dcterms_provenance":["James Branch Cabell Library. Special Collections and Archives"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["https://digital.library.vcu.edu/islandora/object/vcu%3A35955"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["In Copyright - Non-Commercial Use Permitted","This material is protected by copyright, and copyright is held by VCU. You are permitted to use this material in any way that is permitted by copyright. In addition, this material is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 4.0 International license (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0) (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/). Acknowledgment of Virginia Commonwealth University Libraries as a source is required."],"dcterms_medium":["color photographs"],"dcterms_extent":["9 x 13 cm. (3 1/2 x 5 in.)"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"vrc_pec_35953","title":"Honorary commencement ceremony at Prince Edward County High School, Va., 2003","collection_id":"vrc_pec","collection_title":"Edward H. Peeples Prince Edward County (Va.) Public Schools","dcterms_contributor":["Peeples, Edward H. (Edward Harden), 1935-","James Branch Cabell Library. Special Collections and Archives","VCU Libraries"],"dcterms_spatial":["United States, Virginia, Prince Edward County, 37.2243, -78.44108"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["2003-06-15"],"dcterms_description":["Awarding of honorary diplomas at Prince Edward County High School, Prince Edward County, Va., on June 15, 2003. Some four hundred former Prince Edward County students were awarded honorary diplomas at Prince Edward County High School, which was formerly the \"new\" Robert R. Moton High School. These students were denied education when public schools were closed by the white oligarchy for five years (1959-1964) to avoid desegregation and compliance with the 1954 U.S. Supreme Court orders.","37.2662637","-78.3994397","http://maps.google.com/maps?q=37.267097,%20-78.4033286","Prince Edward County High School","Robert R. Moton High School (Prince Edward County)"],"dc_format":["image/tiff"],"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":["Edward H. Peeples Prince Edward County (Va.) Public Schools"],"dcterms_subject":["Anniversaries","Commencement ceremonies--Virginia--Prince Edward County","Prince Edward County High School (Prince Edward County, Va.)"],"dcterms_title":["Honorary commencement ceremony at Prince Edward County High School, Va., 2003"],"dcterms_type":["StillImage"],"dcterms_provenance":["James Branch Cabell Library. Special Collections and Archives"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["https://digital.library.vcu.edu/islandora/object/vcu%3A35953"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["In Copyright - Non-Commercial Use Permitted","This material is protected by copyright, and copyright is held by VCU. You are permitted to use this material in any way that is permitted by copyright. In addition, this material is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 4.0 International license (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0) (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/). Acknowledgment of Virginia Commonwealth University Libraries as a source is required."],"dcterms_medium":["color photographs"],"dcterms_extent":["9 x 13 cm. (3 1/2 x 5 in.)"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"vrc_pec_35956","title":"Honorary commencement ceremony at Prince Edward County High School, Va., 2003","collection_id":"vrc_pec","collection_title":"Edward H. Peeples Prince Edward County (Va.) Public Schools","dcterms_contributor":["Peeples, Edward H. (Edward Harden), 1935-","James Branch Cabell Library. Special Collections and Archives","VCU Libraries"],"dcterms_spatial":["United States, Virginia, Prince Edward County, 37.2243, -78.44108"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["2003-06-15"],"dcterms_description":["Awarding of honorary diplomas at Prince Edward County High School, Prince Edward County, Va., on June 15, 2003. Some four hundred former Prince Edward County students were awarded honorary diplomas at Prince Edward County High School, which was formerly the \"new\" Robert R. Moton High School. These students were denied education when public schools were closed by the white oligarchy for five years (1959-1964) to avoid desegregation and compliance with the 1954 U.S. Supreme Court orders.","37.2662637","-78.3994397","http://maps.google.com/maps?q=37.267097,%20-78.4033286","Prince Edward County High School","Robert R. Moton High School (Prince Edward County)"],"dc_format":["image/tiff"],"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":["Edward H. Peeples Prince Edward County (Va.) Public Schools"],"dcterms_subject":["Anniversaries","Commencement ceremonies--Virginia--Prince Edward County","Prince Edward County High School (Prince Edward County, Va.)"],"dcterms_title":["Honorary commencement ceremony at Prince Edward County High School, Va., 2003"],"dcterms_type":["StillImage"],"dcterms_provenance":["James Branch Cabell Library. Special Collections and Archives"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["https://digital.library.vcu.edu/islandora/object/vcu%3A35956"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["In Copyright - Non-Commercial Use Permitted","This material is protected by copyright, and copyright is held by VCU. You are permitted to use this material in any way that is permitted by copyright. In addition, this material is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 4.0 International license (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0) (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/). Acknowledgment of Virginia Commonwealth University Libraries as a source is required."],"dcterms_medium":["color photographs"],"dcterms_extent":["9 x 13 cm. (3 1/2 x 5 in.)"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"suc_p17173coll35_2756","title":"Newspaper article from The State Newspaper, Civil rights giant James McCain dies at 98, June 6, 2003","collection_id":"suc_p17173coll35","collection_title":"James T. McCain papers, 1957-1972","dcterms_contributor":["McCain, James T."],"dcterms_spatial":["United States, South Carolina, Sumter County, 33.91617, -80.38232"],"dcterms_creator":["The State Newspaper"],"dc_date":["2003-06-06"],"dcterms_description":["Article from the State Newspaper that covers the death of James T. McCain. It includes the achievements he accomplished through his involvement with the Civil Rights movement and the Freedom Rides in 1961. Friends and family send condolences and remember him for his efforts and drive."],"dc_format":["image/jpeg"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Columbia, S.C. : University of South Carolina. South Caroliniana Library"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/UND/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["James T. McCain Papers, 1957-1972","James T. McCain Papers, Box 01, Folder 15, South Caroliniana Library, University of South Carolina"],"dcterms_subject":["African Americans--Civil rights","Congress of Racial Equality","Freedom Rides, 1961"],"dcterms_title":["Newspaper article from The State Newspaper, Civil rights giant James McCain dies at 98, June 6, 2003"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["University of South Carolina. Libraries","South Caroliniana Library"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://cdm17173.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/p17173coll35/id/2756"],"dcterms_temporal":["1970/9999"],"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Copyright Not Evaluated. For further information please contact South Caroliniana Library, Columbia, SC 29208."],"dcterms_medium":["articles"],"dcterms_extent":["1 item","2 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":["McCain, James T."],"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_88","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":["2003-06","2003-07","2003-08"],"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/88"],"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.\nRaymond Simon Director s: 3te Board of Education Shelby Hillman, Chair car/isle JoNell Caldwell, Vice Chair Little Rock Luke Gordy Van Buren Robert Hackler Mountain Home Peggy Jeffries Fort Smith Calvin King Marianna MAieRebick L-ock Lewis Thompson, Jr. Texarkana Jeanna Westmoreland Arkadelphia Arkansas Department of Education #4 Capitol Mall, Little Rock, AR 72201-1071 501-682-4475 June 30, 2003 http:/ /arkedu.state.ar.us RECEIVED JUL 1- 2003 Mr. M. Samuel Jones, III Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 200 West Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Christopher Heller OFACE Of Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark DESEGREGA1l0N MON\\10RlNG Mr. John W. Walker John Walker, P.A. 1 723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell Plaza West Building 415 N. Mc.Kinley, Suite 465 Little Rock, AR 72205 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 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 June 2003 in the above-referenced case. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at your convenience. Sincerely, gL~ J)wt-L f~!vJ Scott Smith - ~ General Counsel Arkansas Department of Education SS:law cc: Mark Hagemeier RECEIVED UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUL 1- 2003 EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION 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 June 2003. Respectfully Submitted,\n6~~ 2~xttA . L Jt,tJ Scott Smith, #92251 7 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 June 30, 2003, I caused the foregoing document to be served by depo~iting a copy in the United States mail, postage prepaid, ad~~'WI-IVED each of the followmg: 11. C \\., C Mr. M. Samuel Jones, III Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 200 West Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. John W. Walker John Walker, P.A. 1 723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell Plaza West Building 415 N. McKinley, Suite 465 Little Rock, AR 72205 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 JUL 1 - 2003 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING RECEIVED IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUL 1- 2003 EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION OFACE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING 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 KA THERINE 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 June 30, 2003 ~ltll~i!l~1t~!i.!.tlW.f-illl!il~~1tiffif~ir~t~~,me 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 June 30, 2003 ~~~~1,:je~i!lif\u0026amp;ii::: ... ::/ii.il~liii:m~r-~y\n:a:uf~gq:~g!tigU\\QgjgjJqW:~J~ciIQfX C. Process and distribute State MFPA. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of June 30, 2003 i~u?]p20@:l'olstnoatlonstotsta1eTtciuattzauomEuaa,n~ffotEYrlt2.1oa.wefe mt1!?1fI!1::!I~t .. , Nbfs$P:H~::'Z1Zl1. ~tJ.\\H$4.]ij~~~I ~~~~rl.~~l~liill\niif3~~~~~ils~::: :, --:::\n::::f:::::::::-,:~lr-lfgr\nBXllP.,?ld~:'.~t'.:Mgy\n~\n,:1 ligs1lliiillil~, ecsso:M$$3i203128.1 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 June 30, 2003 ~~~ta.~~I~lf l1il!1.i11\n~~r:~pt\n:~1~Qf~t~cf~(~~yi1\n\"2q~:tQr:l:X 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 June 30, 2003 ~~~~~\n~~\n~~~i~t~r.\n1~7~1~~1~:~~\nA~~:~~i~=d~~l~~r~!\n~!~~~~~~'r~: Magnet Review Committee is reporting this information instead of the staff attorney as indicated in the Implementation Plan. F. Calculate state aid due the LRSD based upon the Magnet Operational Charge. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of June 30, 2003 iJl~111i~~i~i~flli211~1lr.!1:At2!\n~Jgy~t~ij~~t\n:M~:@,l~lz.QOO\nfQtil~ 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 June 30, 2003 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 June 30, 2003 p~fifql.\nf\naJotJ~IQ~o~\nffiioBJ\nttl8:]j~rr4cil.i\n~,aig\nimeni~'.! 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 June 30, 2003 l~i5!i~!: :+. :  e'.c.ssD i~ffili~-,.,, ................ ,,w,'~ii~a]r2fitGlP2l.o~ll~UMl1:tiffliI2.oo~mti\u0026amp;t\u0026gt;l\u0026amp;GfUitlPgni~ ERs  Nt'Rs e\u0026gt;\"\" J. Districts submit an estimated Magnet and M-to-M transportation budget to ADE. 1. Projected Ending Date 2. Ongoing, December of each year. Actual as of June 30, 2003 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 June 30, 2003 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 June 30, 2003 In January 2003, General Finance made the second one-third payment to the Districts for their FY 02/03 transportation budget. The budget is now paid out in three equal installments. At January 31, 2003, the following had been paid for FY 02/03: LRSD - $2,453,084.00 NLRSD - $469,000.00 PCSSD - $1,305,848.96 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 June 30, 2003 In August 1997, the ADE transportation coordinator reviewed each district's Magnet and M-to-M transportation costs for FY 96/97. In July 1998, each district was asked to submit an estimated budget for the 98/99 school year. In September 1998, paperwork was generated for the first payment in the 98/99 school year for the Magnet and M-to-M transportation program. School districts should receive payment by October 1, 1998 In July 1999, each district submitted an estimated budget for the 99/00 school year. In September 1999, paperwork was generated for the first payment in the 99/00 school year for the Magnet and M-to-M transportation program. In September 2000, paperwork was generated for the first payment in the 00/01 school year for the Magnet and M-to-M transportation program. In September 2001, paperwork was generated for the first payment in the 01/02 school year for the Magnet and M-to-M transportation program. In September 2002, paperwork was generated for the first payment in the 02/03 school year for the Magnet and M-to-M transportation program. 5 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) N. Purchase buses for the Districts to replace existing Magnet and M-to-M fleets and to provide a larger fleet for the Districts' Magnet and M-to-M Transportation needs. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing, as stated in Exhibit A of the Implementation Plan. 2. Actual as of June 30, 2003 In FY 94/95, the State purchased 52 buses at a cost of $1,799,431 which were added to or replaced existing Magnet and M-to-M buses in the Districts. The buses were distributed to the Districts as follows: LRSD - 32\nNLRSD - 6\nand PCSSD-14. The ADE purchased 64 Magnet and M-to-M buses at a cost of $2,334,800 in FY 95/96. The buses were distributed accordingly: LRSD - 45\nNLRSD - 7\nand PCSSD - 12. In May 1997, the ADE purchased 16 Magnet and M-to-M buses at a cost of $646,400. In July 1997, the ADE purchased 16 Magnet and M-to-M buses at a cost of $624,879. In July 1998, the ADE purchased 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses at a cost of $695,235. The buses were distributed accordingly: LRSD - 8\nNLRSD - 2\nand PCSSD-6. Specifications for 16 school buses have been forwarded to state purchasing for bidding in January, 1999 for delivery in July, 1999. 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. 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 June 30, 2003 (Continued) 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. 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. 0 . Process and distribute compensatory education payments to LRSD as required by page 23 of the Settlement Agreement. 1. Projected Ending Date July 1 and January 1, of each school year through January 1, 1999. 2. Actual as of June 30, 2003 Obligation fulfilled in FY 96/97. 7 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) P. Process and distribute additional payments in lieu of formula to LRSD as required by page 24 of the Settlement Agreement. 1. Projected Ending Date Payment due date and ending July 1, 1995. 2. Actual as of June 30, 2003 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 June 30, 2003 Final payment was distributed July 1994. R. Upon loan request by LRSD accompanied by a promissory note, the ADE makes loans to LRSD. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing through July 1, 1999. See Settlement Agreement page 24. 2. Actual as of June 30, 2003 The LRSD received $3,000,000 on September 10, 1998. As of this reporting date, the LRSD has received $20,000,000 in loan proceeds. S. Process and distribute payments in lieu of formula to PCSSD required by page 29 of the Settlement Agreement. 1. Projected Ending Date Payment due date and ending July 1, 1995. 2. Actual as of June 30, 2003 Obligation fulfilled in FY 95/96. 8 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) T. Process and distribute compensatory education payments to NLRSD as required by page 31 of the Settlement Agreement. 1. Projected Ending Date July 1 of each school year through June 30, 1996. 2. Actual as of June 30, 2003 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 June 30, 2003 Distribution in July 1997 for FY 97/98 was $75,000. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 97/98. Distribution in July 1998 for FY 98/99 was $75,000. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 98/99. Distribution in July 1999 for FY 99/00 was $92,500. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 99/00. Distribution in July 2000 for FY 00/01 was $92,500. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 00/01. Distribution in August 2001 for FY 01/02 was $92,500. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 01/02. Distribution in July 2002 for FY 02/03 was $92,500. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 02/03. V. Process and distribute payments for Office of Desegregation Monitoring. 1. Projected Ending Date Not applicable. 2. Actual as of June 30, 2003 Distribution in July 1997 for FY 97/98 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 97/98. 9 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) V. Process and distribute payments for Office of Desegregation Monitoring. (Continued) 2. Actual as of June 30, 2003 (Continued) Distribution in July 1998 for FY 98/99 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 98/99. Distribution in July 1999 for FY 99/00 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 99/00. Distribution in July 2000 for FY 00/01 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 00/01 . Distribution in August 2001 for FY 01/02 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 01/02. Distribution in July 2002 for FY 02/03 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 02/03. 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 June 30, 2003 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 June 30, 2003 (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 June 30, 2003 (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 11. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of June 30, 2003 (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 cunriculum 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 11. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of June 30, 2003 (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 11. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of June 30, 2003 (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 June 30, 2003 (Continued) On July 18, 2002, the ADE Implementation Phase Working group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Dr. Charity Smith, Assistant Director for Accountability, talked about section XV in the Project Management Tool (PMT) on Standardized Test Selection to Determine Loan Forgiveness. She said that the goal has been completed, and no additional reporting is required for section XV. Mr. Morris discussed the court case involving the LRSD seeking unitary status. He handed out a Court Order from May 9, 2002, which contained comments from U.S. District Judge Bill Wilson Jr., about hearings on the LRSD request for unitary status. Mr. Morris also handed out a document from the Secretary of Education about the No Child Left Behind Act. There was discussion about how this could have an affect on Desegregation issues. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for October 10, 2002 at 1:30 p.m. in room 201-A at the ADE. The quarterly Implementation Phase Working Group meeting was rescheduled from October 10. It will take place on October 29, 2002 in room 201-A at 1 :30 p.m. at the ADE. On October 29, 2002, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Meetings with the parties to discuss possible revisions to the ADE's monitoring plan will be postponed by request of the school districts in Pulaski County. Additional meetings could be scheduled after the Desegregation ruling is finalized. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for January 9, 2003 at 1:30 p.m. in room 201-A at the ADE. On January 9, 2003, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. No Child Left Behind and the Desegregation ruling on unitary status for LRSD were discussed. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for April 10, 2003 at 1 :30 p.m. in room 201- A at the ADE. The quarterly Implementation Phase Working Group meeting was rescheduled from April 10. It will take place on April 24, 2003 in room 201-A at 1 :30 p.m. at the ADE. 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 June 30, 2003 (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 Clarence 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. 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 June 30, 2003 Ongoing. All Court pleadings are monitored monthly. 8. Draft and file appropriate pleadings if LRSD petitions the Court for a special election. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of June 30, 2003 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 June 30, 2003 The information for this item is detailed under Section IV. E. of this report. B. Conduct a review within ADE of existing legislation and regulations that appear to impede desegregation. 1. Projected Ending Date November, 1994 2. Actual as of June 30, 2003 The information for this item is detailed under Section IV.E. of this report. C. Request of the other parties to the Settlement Agreement that they identify laws and regulations that appear to impede desegregation. 1. Projected Ending Date November, 1994 2. Actual as of June 30, 2003 The information for this item is detailed under Section IV.E. of this report. D. Submit proposals to the State Board of Education for repeal of those regulations that are confirmed to be impediments to desegregation. 1 . Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of June 30, 2003 The information for 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 June 30, 2003 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 June 30, 2003 (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 June 30, 2003 (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 June 30, 2003 (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 June 30, 2003 (Continued) On January 10, 2002, the ADE Committee to Repeal Statutes and Regulations that Impede Desegregation sent letters to the school districts in Pulaski County. The letters ask for input regarding any new laws or regulations that may impede desegregation. The districts were asked to respond by March 8, 2002. On March 5, 2002, A letter was sent from the LRSD which mentioned Act 1748 and Act 1667 passed during the 83rd Legislative Session which may impede desegregation. These laws will be researched to determine if changes need to be made. A letter was sent from the NLRSD on March 19, noting that the district did not find any laws which impede desegregation. On April 26, 2002, A letter was sent for the PCSSD to the ADE, noting that the district did not find any laws which impede desegregation except the \"deannexation\" legislation which the District opposed before the Senate committee. 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 June 30, 2003 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 June 30, 2003 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 June 30, 2003 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 ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of June 30, 2003 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 ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of June 30, 2003 (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 ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of June 30, 2003 (Continued) The Implementation Phase Working Group held its quarterly meeting on August 4, 1997 to discuss the progress made in attaining the goals set forth in the Implementation Plan and the critical areas for the current quarter. A special report regarding a historical review of the Pulaski County Settlement Agreement and the ADE's role and monitoring obligations were presented to the State Board of Education on September 8, 1997. Additionally, the July 15, 1997 Semiannual Monitoring Report was presented to the Board for their review. In October 1997, a special draft report regarding disparity in achievement was submitted to the State Board Chairman and the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee. In November 1997, the State Board of Education was provided copies of the monthly PMT and its executive summary. The Implementation Phase Working Group held its quarterly meeting on November 3, 1997 to discuss the progress made in attaining the goals set forth in the Implementation Plan and the critical areas for the current quarter. In December 1997, the State Board of Education was provided copies of the monthly PMT and its executive summary. In January 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and discussed ODM's report on the AD E's monitoring activities and instructed the Director to meet with the parties to discuss revisions to the ADE's monitoring plan and monitoring reports. In February 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and discussed the February 1998 Semiannual Monitoring Report. In March 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary and was provided an update regarding proposed revisions to the monitoring process. In April 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary. In May 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary. 29 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of June 30, 2003 (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 ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of June 30, 2003 (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 June 30, 2003 (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 ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of June 30, 2003 (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 ProjectManagementTool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of June 30, 2003 (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 ProjectManagementTool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of June 30, 2003 (Continued) On September 9, 2002, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of August. On October 14, 2002, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of September. On November 18, 2002, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of October. On December 9, 2002, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of November. On January 13, 2003, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of December. On February 10, 2003, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of January. On March 10, 2003, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of February. On April 14, 2003, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of March. On May 12, 2003, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of April. i~lt:iifill~il:fliilfi!ii\\l119n.\n::r.@w~ggtoo.,.~pprgy~~J6~ 35 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 June 30, 2003 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. 36 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 June 30, 2003 (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. 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 June 30, 2003 (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. 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 June 30, 2003 (Continued) In June 1998, the Extended COE Team Visit Reports were completed. A School Improvement Conference was held in Hot Springs on July 13-15, 1998. Major conference topics included information on the process of continuous school improvement, curriculum alignment, \"Smart Start,\" Distance Learning, using data to improve academic performance, educational technology, and multicultural education. All school districts in Arkansas were invited and representatives from Pulaski County attended. In September 1998, requests for technical assistance were received, visitation schedules were established, and assistance teams began visiting the Districts. Assistance was provided by telephone and on-site visits. The ADE provided inservice training on \"Using Data to Sharpen the Focus on Student Achievement\" at Gibbs Magnet Elementary school on October 5, 1998 at their request. The staff was taught how to increase test scores through data disaggregation, analysis, alignment, longitudinal achievement review, and use of individualized test data by student, teacher, class and content area. Information was also provided regarding the \"Smart Start\" and the \"Academic Distress\" initiatives. On October 20, 1998, ECOE technical assistance was provided to Southwest Jr. High School. B. Identify available resources for providing technical assistance for the specific condition, or circumstances of need, considering resources within ADE and the Districts, and also resources available from outside sources and experts. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of June 30, 2003 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 39 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) C. Through the ERIC system, conduct a literature search for research evaluating compensatory education programs. (Continued) 2. Actual as of June 30, 2003 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 June 30, 2003 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 June 30, 2003 The information for this item is detailed under Section VI.F. of this report. 40 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of June 30, 2003 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. 41 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of June 30, 2003 (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. 42 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of June 30, 2003 (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. 43 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of June 30, 2003 (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 ACT AAP program, and ACT 999 of 1999. On December 7, 1999, professional development on ways to increase student achievement was scheduled for Southwest Middle School in the LRSD. The workshop was also set to cover the components of the new ACT AAP program, and ACT 999 of 1999. However, Southwest Middle School administrators had a need to reschedule, therefore the workshop will be rescheduled. 44 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of June 30, 2003 (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 ACT AAP 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. 45 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of June 30, 2003 (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. 46 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of June 30, 2003 (Continued) On March 8, 2000, training was conducted for the Southwest Middle School in Little Rock, on ADD. Six people attended the training. There was follow-up training on Learning and Reading Styles on March 26. This was presented by Don Boyd - ASERC and Shelley Weir. On September 7, 2000, Autism and Classroom Accommodations for the LRSD at Chicot Elementary School was presented. Bryan Ayres and Shelley Weir were presenters. The participants were: Karen Sabo, Kindergarten Teacher\nMelissa Gleason, Paraprofessional\nCurtis Mayfield, P.E. Teacher\nLisa Poteet, Speech Language Pathologist\nJane Harkey, Principal\nKathy Penn-Norman, Special Education Coordinator\nAlice Phillips, Occupational Therapist. On September 15, 2000, the Governor's Developmental Disability Coalition Conference presented Assistive Technology Devices \u0026amp; Services. This was held at the Arlington Hotel in Hot Springs. Bryan Ayres was the presenter. On September 19, 2000, Autism and Classroom Accommodations for the LRSD at Jefferson Elementary School was presented. Bryan Ayres and Shelley Weir were presenters. The participants were: Melissa Chaney, Special Education Teacher\nBarbara Barnes, Special Education Coordinator\na Principal, a Counselor, a Librarian, and a Paraprofessional. On October 6, 2000, Integrating Assistive Technology Into Curriculum was presented at a conference in the Hot Springs Convention Center. Presenters were: Bryan Ayers and Aleecia Starkey. Speech Language Pathologists from LRSD and NLRSD attended. On October 24, 2000, Consideration and Assessment of Assistive Technology was presented through Compressed Video-Teleconference at the ADE facility in West Little Rock. Bryan Ayres was the presenter. On October 25 and 26, 2000, Alternate Assessment for Students with Severe Disabilities for the LRSD at J. A. Fair High School was presented. Bryan Ayres was the presenter. The participants were: Susan Chapman, Special Education Coordinator\nMary Steele, Special Education Teacher\nDenise Nesbit, Speech Language Pathologist\nand three Paraprofessionals. On November 14, 2000, Consideration and Assessment of Assistive Technology was presented through Compressed Video-Teleconference at the ADE facility in West Little Rock. Bryan Ayres was the presenter. On November 17, 2000, training was conducted on Autism for the LRSD at the Instructional Resource Center. Bryan Ayres and Shelley Weir were presenters. 47 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of June 30, 2003 (Continued) On December 5, 2000, Access to the Curriculum Via the use of Assistive Technology Computer Lab was presented. Bryan Ayres was the presenter of this teleconference. The participants were: Tim Fisk, Speech Language Pathologist from Arch Ford Education Service Cooperative at Plumerville and Patsy Lewis, Special Education Teacher from Mabelvale Middle School in the LRSD. On January 9, 2001, Consideration and Assessment of Assistive Technology was presented through Compressed Video-Teleconference at the ADE facility in West Little Rock. Bryan Ayres was the presenter. Kathy Brown, a vision consultant from the LRSD, was a participant. On January 23, 2001, Autism and Classroom Modifications for the LRSD at Brady Elementary School was presented. Bryan Ayres and Shelley Weir were presenters. The participants were: Beverly Cook, Special Education Teacher\nAmy Littrell, Speech Language Pathologist\nJan Feurig, Occupational Therapist\nCarolyn James, Paraprofessional\nCindy Kackly, Paraprofessional\nand Rita Deloney, Paraprofessional. The ADE provided training on Alternative Assessment Portfolio Systems for Special Education and Limited English Proficient students through teleconference broadcast on February 5, 2001. Presenters were: Charlotte Marvel, ADE\nDr. Gayle Potter, ADE\nMarcia Harding, ADE\nLynn Springfield, ASERC\nMary Steele, J. A. Fair High School, LRSD\nBryan Ayres, Easter Seals Outreach. This was provided for Special Education teachers and supervisors in the morning, and Limited English Proficient teachers and supervisors in the afternoon. The Special Education session was attended by 29 teachers/administrators and provided answers to specific questions about the alternate assessment portfolio system and the scoring rubric and points on the rubric to be used to score the portfolios. The LEP session was attended by 16 teachers/administrators and disseminated the common tasks to be included in the portfolios: one each in mathematics, writing and reading. On February 12-23, 2001, the ADE and Data Recognition Corporation personnel trained Test Coordinators in the administration of the spring Criterion-Referenced Test. This was provided in 20 sessions at 10 regional sites. Testing protocol, released items, and other testing materials were presented and discussed. The sessions provided training for Primary, Intermediate, and Middle Level Benchmark Exams as well as End of Course Literacy, Algebra and Geometry Pilot Tests. The LRSD had 2 in attendance for the End of Course session and 2 for the Benchmark session. The NLRSD had 1 in attendance for the End of Course session and 1 for the Benchmark session. The PCSSD had 1 in attendance for the End of Course session and 1 for the Benchmark session. 48 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of June 30, 2003 (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. 49 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of June 30, 2003 (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. 50 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of June 30, 2003 (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 Leaming 24-7, presented the keynote address. The day featured a series of 15 breakout sessions on best classroom practices. Representatives from all three districts in Pulaski County attended. On July 18-20, 2001 , the ADE held the Math/Science Leadership Conference at UCA. This provided services for Arkansas math and science teachers to support systemic reform in math/science and training for 8th grade Benchmark. There were approximately 300 teachers from across the state in attendance. 51 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of June 30, 2003 (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. 52 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of June 30, 2003 (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. 53 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of June 30, 2003 (Continued) The Twenty-First Annual Curriculum and Instruction Conference, cosponsored 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. 54 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of June 30, 2003 (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. 55 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of June 30, 2003 (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, how parents can help, and the Refrigerator Curriculum. Mr. Reginald Wilson, Senior Coordinator for Accountability, presented information on ACTAAP, including how to find information on the AS-IS Website and what is included in the school report cards. Donna Elam spoke on the topic \"From the School House to the Jail House\". On December 10 - 12, 2002, the Math Workshop \"Investigations in Number, Data and Space\" was held at the Clinton Elementary Magnet School in Sherwood. Training for Kindergarten and First Grade Teachers was held on December 10, and included Making Shapes and Building Blocks, Quilts, Squares and Block Towns. Training for Second and Third Grade Teachers was held on December 11, and included Shapes, Halves, Symmetry and Turtle Paths. Training for Fourth and Fifth Grade Teachers was held on December 12. Fourth grade covered Seeing Solids and Silhouettes. Fifth Grade was about Containers and Cubes. The sessions provided quality time for teachers to discuss the curriculum, reflect on implications, provide mutual support, and continue planning. The ADE provided professional development for all school districts on Alternative Assessment Portfolio Systems on January 7-9, 2003 at the Holiday Inn Airport. The LRSD had two in attendance, NLRSD had one in attendance, and the PCSSD had two in attendance. The ADE conducted the Smart Start Statewide Professional Staff Development Video Conference at the ADE/AETN Studio and at participating Education Service Cooperatives from 9:30 a.m. until 11 :30 a.m. on February 12, 2003. The ADE conducted the Smart Step Statewide Professional Staff Development Video Conference at the ADE/AETN Studio and at participating Education Service Cooperatives from 9:30 a.m. until 11 :30 a.m. on February 13, 2003. 56 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of June 30, 2003 (Continued) Test Coordinator training was provided throughout the state during the weeks starting February 10 and February 17, 2003. The training in Little Rock was February 20, 2003. The Little Rock School District had two attendees for the Benchmark, End of Course, and Stanford 9 training. The North Little Rock School District had one attendee at the Benchmark, End of Course, and Stanford 9 training. The Pulaski County Special School District had one attendee at the Benchmark, End of Course, and Stanford 9 training. Two sixth grade teachers from each district attended the Professional Development for Benchmark assessments during the week of February 17, 2003 at the Holiday Inn Airport. Two fourth and two eighth grade teachers from each district attended the Professional Development for Benchmark assessments during the week of March 3, 2003 at the Holiday Inn Airport. The ADE announces the opportunity for schools to participate in the Arkansas Literacy Coaching Model and to train a school employee to serve as a full-time literacy coach. Training will be held at the Early Literacy Training Center at UALR. A literacy coach is a site-based employee who works full time with the school staff providing professional development, technical assistance, and support to teachers. They demonstrate exemplary classroom literacy practices, observe and coach teachers, provide sustained mentoring to classroom teachers, plan and conduct professional literacy team meetings, provide workshops on the literacy framework, and maintain data on student performance. Depending on the number of qualifying school districts who agree to participate, training expenses will be funded by the ADE through the Early Literacy Training Center at UALR. Grant funds will provide graduate level training, lodging and travel expenses, and materials to establish a model classroom. 57 VII. TEST VALIDATION A. B. Using a collaborative approach, the ADE will select and contract with an independent bias review service or expert to evaluate the Stanford 8, or other monitoring instruments used to measure disparities in academic achievement between black students and white students. 1. Projected Ending Date March, 1995 2. Actual as of June 30, 2003 On March 29, 1995, letters were sent to four national experts about conducting a test bias validation of the Stanford Achievement Test, Eighth Edition, Form K (SAT-8). Dr. Paul Williams, Deputy Director of Educational Testing Service (ETS), contacted the ADE in April of 1995 concerning the proposal for validating the SAT-8 test. The ADE requested that Dr. Williams conduct a valid ity study of test items used in the SAT-8. Dr. Williams submitted a final proposal for his services. The ADE Bias Review Test Committee met Friday, July 7, 1995, and approved Dr. William's contract proposal. The final contract was forwarded to Dr. Williams for his signature. The contract was signed in August 1995, thereby, completing this goal. By April 1994, establish a bias review committee to oversee the bias review process, and invite representatives of the Districts and parties to meet with the bias review committee. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of June 30, 2003 Complete. ADE established a Bias Review Committee in April 1994. In accordance with the Implementation Plan, representatives from the Districts and the parties were invited to attend and participate in this and all meetings of the Bias Review Committee. C. Upon completion of test validation procedures by the bias review service or expert, the ADE will adopt and use a validated test as a monitoring instrument. 1. Projected Ending Date March 1995 and ongoing 58 VII. TEST VALIDATION (Continued) C. Upon completion of test validation procedures by the bias review service or expert, the ADE will adopt and use a validated test as a monitoring instrument. (Continued) 2. Actual as of June 30, 2003 Dr. Paul Williams met with the staff of the Psychological Corporation to review their methods and procedures. In August 1995, he met with the staff at Georgia State University to review the statistical methods that would be used in the analysis. Dr. Williams reported difficulty with the bias-review study in receiving the names of the bias panel and the complete SAT-8 data set from the Psychological Corporation. Dr. Williams submitted an invoice totaling $8,961 for Task I activities of the SAT-8 validity study for partial fulfillment of the test validation study. On December 6, 1995, a contract extension for Dr. Williams was reviewed by the Legislative Council. In January 1996, he indicated that he was in the final stages of the test validation, and the ADE was presented a draft report in March 1996. In May 1996, Dr. Williams stated that the wrong data sets were sent to him by the Psychological Corporation resulting in Task 3 having to be redone. A new draft of the final report was received by the ADE in July 1996. In August 1996, copies of the test validation report were provided to the State Board of Education and the ADE administrative team for their review. On September 10, 1996, the LRSD notified the ADE that they had reviewed the test validation report and would like to meet with the ADE to discuss the report. The ADE Director indicated that he would schedule a meeting with the LRSD to discuss the report. In October 1996, historical files and data were provided t\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\n "}],"pages":{"current_page":335,"next_page":336,"prev_page":334,"total_pages":6797,"limit_value":12,"offset_value":4008,"total_count":81557,"first_page?":false,"last_page?":false},"facets":[{"name":"educator_resource_mediums_sms","items":[{"value":"lesson plans","hits":319},{"value":"teaching guides","hits":53},{"value":"timelines (chronologies)","hits":43},{"value":"online exhibitions","hits":38},{"value":"bibliographies","hits":15},{"value":"study guides","hits":11},{"value":"annotated bibliographies","hits":9},{"value":"learning modules","hits":6},{"value":"worksheets","hits":6},{"value":"slide shows","hits":4},{"value":"quizzes","hits":1}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":16,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"type_facet","items":[{"value":"Text","hits":40428},{"value":"StillImage","hits":35298},{"value":"MovingImage","hits":4529},{"value":"Sound","hits":3226},{"value":"Collection","hits":41},{"value":"InteractiveResource","hits":25}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":16,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"creator_facet","items":[{"value":"Peppler, Jim","hits":4965},{"value":"Phay, John E.","hits":4712},{"value":"University of Mississippi. Bureau of Educational Research","hits":4707},{"value":"Baldowski, Clifford H., 1917-1999","hits":2599},{"value":"Mississippi State Sovereignty Commission","hits":2255},{"value":"Thurmond, Strom, 1902-2003","hits":2077},{"value":"WSB-TV (Television station : Atlanta, Ga.)","hits":1475},{"value":"Newman, I. DeQuincey (Isaiah DeQuincey), 1911-1985","hits":1003},{"value":"The State Media Company (Columbia, S.C.)","hits":926},{"value":"Atlanta Journal-Constitution","hits":844},{"value":"Herrera, John J.","hits":778}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"subject_facet","items":[{"value":"African Americans--Civil rights","hits":9445},{"value":"Civil rights","hits":8328},{"value":"African Americans","hits":5912},{"value":"Mississippi--Race relations","hits":5750},{"value":"Race relations","hits":5604},{"value":"Education, Secondary","hits":5083},{"value":"Education, Elementary","hits":4729},{"value":"Segregation in education--Mississippi","hits":4727},{"value":"Education--Pictorial works","hits":4707},{"value":"Civil rights demonstrations","hits":4440},{"value":"Civil rights workers","hits":3536}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"subject_personal_facet","items":[{"value":"Smith, Lillian (Lillian Eugenia), 1897-1966--Correspondence","hits":1888},{"value":"King, Martin Luther, Jr., 1929-1968","hits":1815},{"value":"Meredith, James, 1933-","hits":1709},{"value":"Baker, Augusta, 1911-1998","hits":1495},{"value":"Herrera, John J.","hits":1312},{"value":"Parks, Rosa, 1913-2005","hits":1071},{"value":"Jordan, Barbara, 1936-1996","hits":858},{"value":"Young, Andrew, 1932-","hits":814},{"value":"Smith, Lillian (Lillian Eugenia), 1897-1966","hits":719},{"value":"Mizell, M. Hayes","hits":674},{"value":"Silver, James W. (James Wesley), 1907-1988","hits":626}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"name_authoritative_sms","items":[{"value":"Smith, Lillian (Lillian Eugenia), 1897-1966","hits":2598},{"value":"King, Martin Luther, Jr., 1929-1968","hits":1915},{"value":"Meredith, James, 1933-","hits":1704},{"value":"Herrera, John J.","hits":1331},{"value":"Parks, Rosa, 1913-2005","hits":1070},{"value":"Jordan, Barbara, 1936-1996","hits":856},{"value":"Young, Andrew, 1932-","hits":806},{"value":"Silver, James W. (James Wesley), 1907-1988","hits":625},{"value":"Connor, Eugene, 1897-1973","hits":605},{"value":"Snelling, Paula","hits":580},{"value":"Williams, Hosea, 1926-2000","hits":440}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"event_title_sms","items":[{"value":"Martin Luther King, Jr.'s Nobel Prize","hits":1769},{"value":"Ole Miss Integration","hits":1670},{"value":"Housing Act of 1961","hits":969},{"value":"Little Rock Central High School Integration","hits":853},{"value":"Memphis Sanitation Workers Strike","hits":366},{"value":"Selma-Montgomery March","hits":337},{"value":"Freedom Summer","hits":306},{"value":"Freedom Rides","hits":214},{"value":"Poor People's Campaign","hits":180},{"value":"University of Georgia Integration","hits":173},{"value":"University of Alabama Integration","hits":140}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"location_facet","items":[{"value":"United States, 39.76, -98.5","hits":17987},{"value":"United States, Georgia, Fulton County, Atlanta, 33.749, -84.38798","hits":5437},{"value":"United States, Alabama, Montgomery County, Montgomery, 32.36681, -86.29997","hits":5151},{"value":"United States, Georgia, 32.75042, -83.50018","hits":4847},{"value":"United States, South Carolina, 34.00043, -81.00009","hits":4599},{"value":"United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","hits":4328},{"value":"United States, Alabama, 32.75041, -86.75026","hits":3948},{"value":"United States, Mississippi, 32.75041, -89.75036","hits":2910},{"value":"United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","hits":2580},{"value":"United States, Tennessee, Shelby County, Memphis, 35.14953, -90.04898","hits":2580},{"value":"United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959","hits":2536}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"us_states_facet","items":[{"value":"Georgia","hits":12823},{"value":"Alabama","hits":11313},{"value":"Mississippi","hits":10220},{"value":"South Carolina","hits":8493},{"value":"Arkansas","hits":4733},{"value":"Texas","hits":4399},{"value":"Tennessee","hits":3786},{"value":"Florida","hits":2602},{"value":"Ohio","hits":2403},{"value":"North Carolina","hits":1875},{"value":"New York","hits":1840}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"year_facet","items":[{"value":"1966","hits":10632},{"value":"1963","hits":10287},{"value":"1965","hits":10218},{"value":"1956","hits":9840},{"value":"1955","hits":9619},{"value":"1964","hits":9365},{"value":"1968","hits":9345},{"value":"1962","hits":9247},{"value":"1967","hits":8897},{"value":"1957","hits":8523},{"value":"1961","hits":8282},{"value":"1958","hits":8259},{"value":"1959","hits":8061},{"value":"1960","hits":7948},{"value":"1969","hits":7348},{"value":"1954","hits":7240},{"value":"1950","hits":7118},{"value":"1953","hits":6969},{"value":"1970","hits":6835},{"value":"1971","hits":6425},{"value":"1977","hits":6367},{"value":"1972","hits":6254},{"value":"1952","hits":6162},{"value":"1951","hits":6046},{"value":"1975","hits":5894},{"value":"1976","hits":5863},{"value":"1974","hits":5849},{"value":"1973","hits":5689},{"value":"1979","hits":5416},{"value":"1978","hits":5405},{"value":"1980","hits":5366},{"value":"1995","hits":4885},{"value":"1981","hits":4811},{"value":"1994","hits":4704},{"value":"1948","hits":4597},{"value":"1949","hits":4573},{"value":"1996","hits":4542},{"value":"1982","hits":4417},{"value":"1947","hits":4317},{"value":"1985","hits":4313},{"value":"1998","hits":4281},{"value":"1983","hits":4261},{"value":"1997","hits":4258},{"value":"1984","hits":4152},{"value":"1999","hits":4074},{"value":"1946","hits":4047},{"value":"1945","hits":4018},{"value":"1986","hits":4006},{"value":"1990","hits":3988},{"value":"1943","hits":3900},{"value":"1944","hits":3896},{"value":"2000","hits":3894},{"value":"2001","hits":3876},{"value":"1942","hits":3868},{"value":"1940","hits":3765},{"value":"1941","hits":3758},{"value":"1987","hits":3744},{"value":"2002","hits":3624},{"value":"1991","hits":3553},{"value":"1936","hits":3507},{"value":"1939","hits":3501},{"value":"1992","hits":3500},{"value":"2003","hits":3489},{"value":"1993","hits":3478},{"value":"1938","hits":3466},{"value":"1937","hits":3450},{"value":"1989","hits":3441},{"value":"1930","hits":3378},{"value":"1988","hits":3355},{"value":"1935","hits":3307},{"value":"1933","hits":3271},{"value":"1934","hits":3271},{"value":"1932","hits":3255},{"value":"1931","hits":3240},{"value":"2005","hits":3143},{"value":"2004","hits":2995},{"value":"2006","hits":2860},{"value":"1929","hits":2790},{"value":"1928","hits":2272},{"value":"1921","hits":2124},{"value":"1925","hits":2040},{"value":"1927","hits":2026},{"value":"1924","hits":2012},{"value":"2016","hits":2011},{"value":"1926","hits":2010},{"value":"1920","hits":1976},{"value":"1923","hits":1955},{"value":"1922","hits":1929},{"value":"2007","hits":1715},{"value":"2008","hits":1664},{"value":"2011","hits":1661},{"value":"2009","hits":1624},{"value":"2019","hits":1623},{"value":"2015","hits":1613},{"value":"2013","hits":1604},{"value":"2010","hits":1601},{"value":"2014","hits":1567},{"value":"2012","hits":1553},{"value":"1919","hits":1533},{"value":"1918","hits":1531}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":100,"offset":0,"prefix":null},"min":"0193","max":"2035","count":506439,"missing":56},{"name":"medium_facet","items":[{"value":"photographs","hits":10710},{"value":"correspondence","hits":9628},{"value":"black-and-white photographs","hits":7678},{"value":"negatives (photographs)","hits":7513},{"value":"documents (object genre)","hits":4462},{"value":"letters (correspondence)","hits":3623},{"value":"oral histories (literary works)","hits":3607},{"value":"black-and-white negatives","hits":2771},{"value":"editorial cartoons","hits":2620},{"value":"newspapers","hits":1955},{"value":"manuscripts (documents)","hits":1692}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"rights_facet","items":[{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/","hits":41201},{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/","hits":17721},{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/UND/1.0/","hits":8830},{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/CNE/1.0/","hits":7090},{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/NoC-US/1.0/","hits":2186},{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-NC/1.0/","hits":1778},{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/NoC-CR/1.0/","hits":1115},{"value":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/","hits":145},{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/NKC/1.0/","hits":60},{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-RUU/1.0/","hits":51},{"value":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/","hits":27}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"collection_titles_sms","items":[{"value":"Jim Peppler Southern Courier Photograph Collection","hits":4956},{"value":"John E. Phay Collection ","hits":4706},{"value":"John J. Herrera Papers","hits":3288},{"value":"Baldy Editorial Cartoons, 1946-1982, 1997: Clifford H. Baldowski Editorial Cartoons at the Richard B. Russell Library.","hits":2607},{"value":"Sovereignty Commission Online","hits":2335},{"value":"Strom Thurmond Collection, Mss 100","hits":2068},{"value":"Alabama Media Group Collection","hits":2067},{"value":"Black Trailblazers, Leaders, Activists, and Intellectuals in Cleveland","hits":2033},{"value":"Rosa Parks Papers","hits":1948},{"value":"Isaiah DeQuincey Newman, (1911-1985), Papers, 1929-2003","hits":1904},{"value":"Lillian Eugenia Smith Papers (circa 1920-1980)","hits":1887}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"provenance_facet","items":[{"value":"John Davis Williams Library. Department of Archives and Special Collections","hits":8885},{"value":"Alabama. Department of Archives and History","hits":8153},{"value":"South Caroliniana Library","hits":4251},{"value":"Atlanta University Center Robert W. Woodruff Library","hits":4102},{"value":"University of North Texas. Libraries","hits":3854},{"value":"University of South Carolina. Libraries","hits":3438},{"value":"Hargrett Library","hits":3292},{"value":"Richard B. Russell Library for Political Research and Studies","hits":2874},{"value":"Mississippi. Department of Archives and History","hits":2825},{"value":"Butler Center for Arkansas Studies","hits":2785},{"value":"Rhodes College","hits":2264}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"class_name","items":[{"value":"Item","hits":81102},{"value":"Collection","hits":455}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":100,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"educator_resource_b","items":[{"value":"false","hits":81360},{"value":"true","hits":197}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":100,"offset":0,"prefix":null}}]}}