{"response":{"docs":[{"id":"tws_oid16_33486","title":"Henry Turleyinterview in 2007","collection_id":"tws_oid16","collection_title":"Crossroads interviews","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, Tennessee, Shelby County, Memphis, 35.14953, -90.04898"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["2007-01-09"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["video/mp4","application/pdf","image/jpeg"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":null,"dcterms_publisher":["Memphis, Tenn. : Rhodes College"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["https://vimeo.com/278551744"],"dcterms_subject":["Oral history","Interviews","Civil rights","Memphis (Tenn.)","Sanitation Workers Strike, Memphis, Tenn., 1968","AFSCME","Race relations"],"dcterms_title":["Henry Turleyinterview in 2007"],"dcterms_type":["MovingImage"],"dcterms_provenance":["Rhodes College"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://hdl.handle.net/10267/33486"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["oral histories (literary works)"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":["King, Martin Luther, Jr., 1929-1968"],"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1226","title":"Oral deposition of Ed Williams, Little Rock, Ark.","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":["Bushman Court Reporting"],"dc_date":["2007-01-09"],"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","Educational law and legislation","Court records","Education--Finance","School employees","Wakefield Elementary School (Little Rock, Ark.)","Meadowcliff Elementary School (Little Rock, Ark.)","School administrators","School management and organization"],"dcterms_title":["Oral deposition of Ed Williams, Little Rock, Ark."],"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/1226"],"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\nLittle Rock School District vs. Pulaski County Special School District\nThis transcript was created using Optical Character Recognition and may contain some errors.\nIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT vs . LRC 82--866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO . 1 , ET AL MRS . LORENE JOSHUA , ET AL KATHERINE KNIGHT , ET AL ORAL DEPOSITION OF MR. ED WILLIAMS JANUARY 9TH, 2007 BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING 620 WEST THIRD SUITE 201 LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201 (501) 372-5115 bushmanreporting@aoI . com PLAINTIFFS DEFENDANT INTERVENORS INTERVENORS RECEIV JAN 19 2001 Off\\CEOF DESEGREGAi\\ON MON\\TORI G APPEARANCE OF COUNSEL ON BEHALF OF PLAINTIFF: MR . CHRISTOPHER HELLER FRIDAY , ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK , LLP 2000 REGIONS CENTER 400 WEST CAPITOL AVENUE LITTLE ROCK , AR . 72201 ON BEHALF OF JOSHUA INTERVENORS: MR . JOHN WALKER , P .A. 1723 BROADWAY LITTLE ROCK , AR . 72206 STATE OF ARKANSAS OFFICE OF ATTY GENERAL: SCOTT P . RICHARDSON ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL 323 CENTER STREET SUITE 1100 LITTLE ROCK , AR . 72201 2 3 I N D E X STYLE AND NUMBER 1 APPEARANCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 STIPULATION PAGE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Examination by Mr . Walker ............................ 5 Examination by Mr . Heller ............................ 76 Deposition concluded ....... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77 COURT REPORTER ' S CERTIFICATE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. . . .. . 78 EXHIBITS l. PRE ' S Compliance BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501) 537 - 5110 4 ED WILLIAMS PRODUCED , SWORN , AND EXAMINED at the law office of John Walker , 1723 Broadway , in Little Rock , Arkansas , beginning at 10 : 50 a .m. on January 9th , 2007 , the above- entitled cause now pending in the United States District Court , Eastern District of Arkansas , Western Division , said deposition being taken purs  ~ , to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure , by agreement of counsel , at the instance of counsel for Joshua Intervenors . BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501 ) 537-5110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR . WALKER : Q State your name , please . A Edward Remly , R-- E- M- L--E- Y, Williams . Q Dr . Williams , how long have you worked for the Little Rock School District? A Since September 1 , 1998 . Q Have you been providing primarily statistical services for the district during that time? A I have a much more extensive job description than just that . Q I understand but would you say that your primary work has been in the area of statistics during that period of time? A Q Yes . All right . And I take it that you ' ve also been serving as director for the last six weeks? A I ' ve been interim director since December 1 , 2006 . Q Now , before you were made interim director of PRE , did you have any discussions with Mr . Hattabaugh or Dr . Roy Brooks? A Since they ' ve been in the district , yes , I ' ve had conversations with them . Q Did you have any discussions about your becoming director of PRE on an interim basis before Dr . DeJarnette was removeci from the position? A No . BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501) 537-5110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 6 Q What was your relationship with Dr . DeJarnette before she was removed from the position? A Dr . Karen DeJarnette was my immediate superior . Q And what was the nature of the working relationship between you all? A We had discussions about our roles and performing my JOC, functions . She assigned duties to me to perform and I performed them to the best of my ability . Q A Q A Q Did you get along well with her? Yes . Did you have professional respect for her? Yes . Did you ever have occasion to meet with the superintendent , outside her presence , regarding program evaluation? A I don ' t recall . Q Did you ever have occasion to meet with the superi\"~~ ~  outside her presence, regarding any subject at any time after she was hired? A Yes , I recall some instances . Q Can you begin by reporting each instance that you met with the superintendent after she was hired , without her presence? A I know of one . I 'm just trying to recall if there were others . Q A When was that meeting? The one I recall with the most detail would have taken BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501) 537-5110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 place in either April or May of 2006 . Q Did he invite you to his office? A I recall that he did , yes . Q A Q You did not take it on your own initiative to go there? No , I don ' t recal l that . What was the subject of the meeting? A It dealt with doing the statistical analysis for what I call the Meadow- Wak project but it would have been the Meadowcliff- Wakefield Teacher Merit Pay Project . Q Is that the project funded by Mr . Walter Hussman? A If I recall , that project was jointly funded by the school district and Walter Hussman . Q What is the source of your recollection? A I think , if I recall , it was just general conversation in the spring of 2000 . Although , that could have come from Dr . DeJarnette , some of that could have been board meetings . I can ' t - - I don ' t recall specifically . I think it was just general -- Q What was the statistical analysis you were called upon to perform? A Each school had a different statistical model in determining student growth so that ' s what we discussed to ma:~ sure that my role in doing that analysis was clarified. Q A Who else was present at that meeting? I don ' t recall if anyone else was present . BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501) 537 - 5110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q A Q Did he tell you the purpose of this statistical analysis? No . No, I don ' t recall that we discussed why it was done . Did you prepare a statistical analysis , pursuant to his request? A Yes , I did . Q A Q A Q Was that analysis reduced to writing? Yes , it was . Is it in a form which can be reproduced? Yes . What is it called? 8 A There were two separate reports , one for each school , and I think it was something like Meadowcliff -- I think it was either Meadowcliff and then Wakefield Teacher Pay for Performance or I don ' t think it used the term merit pay . I don ' t recall the specific title of the report but it dealt with -- it ~~- _ separate report for each school . Meadowcliff Teacher -- they changed the name of that program and it ' s called Teacher Challenge Project now but it was like Teacher Pay for -something like that. Q Okay. What was the statistical analysis methodology that you utilized in performing this task? A As I recall, we had two different models and the model at, if I recall correctly because I don't have my notes in front of me, the model at Meadowcliff looked at individual student growth on the total test battery on the Stanford 10 using national BUSHMAN COURT RSPORTING (501) 537 - 5110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 9 curve equivalent scores from the fall administration to the spring administration . The Wakefield model dealt with us i ng t he same score , total battery and national curve equivalent scores , but looked at classroom averages in growth from the fall administration to the spring administration . Q Di d you perform an analysis? A Yes . Q Did you make any conclusions when you performed your analysis? A I don ' t believe i n the report that there was a conclusion section of that report . I don ' t recall that being in there . Q A Q A Q Was this in the nature of a program assessment? No . Was this in the nature of a program evaluation? No . What was it that you were evaluating -- well , what was it that you were measuring then , other than the movement in test scores from one period in a school year to another? A As I recall , both models looked at chance in student scores from the spring to the fall . Q On that basis , was it to be determined if there were material changes this reflected the achievement of teachers for purposes of determining merit pay? A The analysis that I did was to determine the student growth from fall -- did I say spring to fall? I meant to say fall -- BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501 ) 537 - 5110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Q A You said fall to spring . Okay . Thank you . Fall to spring . teachers were paid based on a schedule . Q Who determined the schedule? From that analysis , A If I recall , for Meadowcliff we used the same schedule as 10 we did for the '04 -'05 Teacher Pay for Performance Report and the Wakefield payout -- I don ' t recall who all was involved in making that decision . I don ' t reca l l . There were a number of people involved . I was not a part of that decision- making process . Q Let me understand this . There were payments to be made to teachers , provided student -- in one situation , student average test scores increased\nis that fair to say? A Would you mind repeating that , sir? Q Yes . Teachers were to be rewarded with pay increases at one particular school for showing an average class improvement or improvement in test scores on an average basis within a class from one point in time to another point in time in the school year? A As I recall, it wasn ' t a pay increase . It would have been similar to a -- Q A bonus? A - - bonus or incentive pay . Q Okay . Now , would you not ordinarily, Dr . Williams, expe~ r children to have their averages changed as the year goes on if BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501) 537 - 5110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 any teaching is going on at all? A I would think that would be a normal expectation that scores would increase . However , based on a standardized test score , there is a little bit different look at things . Q I see . Is it fair to say that also when you were dealing with this that you were dealing with only those teachers who dealt with academic subjects? 11 A If I recall , the model included pay outs for every employee in the school , irrespective of whether they were a teacher or not . Q Okay . So if there was an improvement of students in a particular class , then irrespective of whether a person worked in any class , all the people got paid extra? A If I interpret what you ' re saying , did the janitors get paid Q A Q Yes . Yes , sir . Do you know whether the rest of PRE was involved in this statistical presentation? A You mean in their report writing? Q Anything . First of all , did you discuss what you were tasked with Dr . DeJarnette? Did you tell her what Dr . Brooks had asked you to do? A Yes , I recall I did at some point , yeah . Q Well, when you began it , did you tell her what he had asked BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501 ) 537-5110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 12 you to do? A If I recall , the initial conversation about doing the analysis included Dr . Roberts and Dr . DeJarnette and myself and maybe the whole team was there when the subject was brought up about doing the analysis . Q At that time , did Dr . Roberts -- Dr . Brooks was not present\nwas he? A No . Q Did Dr . Roberts take the lead for the district on this subject? A Yes , based on the chain of command , yes . Q I see. Now , did Dr . Roberts explain why she got you involved or why Dr . Brooks got you involved , rather than Dr. DeJarnette directly? A As I recall , the protocol was for -- just to give you some background , the previous year we had -- there was an external person that did all the data analysis and there was no oversight by anyone . Whatever they produced was what the pay out was based on . A concern was that - - and there was some timeliness in terms of getting that analysis done , if I recall . The school district wanted to do the analysis this year and then have an expert double-check the data that we had ran in terms of ~ne statistical analysis . Q My question is : How is it that Dr. DeJarnette was circumvented? BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501) 537-5110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 13 BY MR . FINLEY : Object to the form . BY MR . WALKER : Q Dr . DeJarnette was , in fact , circumvented in terms of this task being assigned to you\nisn ' t that correct? A If I interpret your question as to why Dr . DeJarnette did not do the statistical analysis herself , she typically -- over the course of her time in the district , those types of things are assigned to those people most qualified to do those kinds of jobs , a true statistician . Q In terms of protocol , since you talked about protocol , the protocol of the district is for a person to relate to that next person at the next level , isn ' t it , instead of jumping over levels and getting assignments or making reports? BY MR . FINLEY : Object to the form . That ' s a compound question . BY MR . WALKER : Q But you understand the question? That is the protocol , isn't it, Dr . Williams? A In this particular instance , with the Meadow-Wak project , Dr . DeJarnette had very little or no interest to be involved in the project at all. Q I understand. Did she tell you she had no interest in it? Did she tell you that? A That's the dialogue that I had -- that was my BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501) 537-5110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 interpretation of the dialogue that I had with Dr . DeJarnette . Q I see . Did Dr . DeJarnette make that report in your presence to either Dr . Roberts or to Dr . Brooks? A What report? That she had no interest in the project . I 'm not sure . Was this a time-consuming task of yours? 14 Q A Q A Q I would say no because it fell into my field of expertise . Didn ' t take much time? A I 'm trying to recall how much time I actually spent on tte project . The actual analysis took the least amount of time. Q Not the analysis . It ' s the data gathering\nisn ' t it? A I didn ' t gather the data . Q A Q You didn ' t gather it? No . Who gathered the data? A If I recall, whoever was the test coordinator at the time disseminated the test materials and sent the test materials to the testing company and then the testing company sent the results back to us . Q A So you made the analysis yourself? Yes, and we had an exterior statistician validate my results . Q A That analysis was computer- determined\nwasn ' t it? Yes, sir. BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501) 537-5110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 15 Q So you didn ' t really make a statistical analysis . It was a computer statistical analysis\nwasn ' t it? A Yes . We used S . P . S.S . Q So what did you do with respect to this analysis , other than program some numbers? A That would be a very simplistic way of answering what I did , yes , sir . Q And you all paid somebody the previous year a lot of money to do that? A I don ' t recall what was paid to that person . Q Who was that person the previous year , the external person? A It was a fellow that worked for the co-op in Camden . He has expertise in running the testing software and I can ' t reca1: his name right now . I 'm sorry . Maybe in a couple of hours it will pop into my brain . Sorry . Q That ' s fine . Now , let me ask : Before you became interim director , had you ever been responsible for supervising any group of employees within the Little Rock School District? A Q Not that I recall , no . So you have no previous experience in the school district or in education as a supervisor of employees? A Yes , I have extensive experience supervising employees in the education setting . Q A Can you tell me what educational setting that was? Yes , sir . I ran a three-year grant program at the BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501) 537 - 5110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 University of Arkansas-Little Rock . 16 I was the director of that project . It was called STEPS , Successful Transition to Employment for Post - Secondary Students . two people . I supervised a staff of Q Two people . Do you have any educational training in program evaluation? A Yes , I do . Q Do you have your vitae? You didn ' t bring that with you? A No , but it ' s in the 1st Quarterly Report . Q I see . Does that vitae disclose that you have training in program evaluation? A It lists my degrees and my education , yes . Q Do you recall where you took a course or courses in program evaluation and assessment? A Q A Q At the University of Arkansas at Fayetteville . Was that in your undergraduate or graduate program? Graduate program . I see . Had you ever had any responsibility for program evaluation and assessment before you became interim director? A Could you repeat that? BY MR . WALKER : Will you play the record back , please? (Record played back at this time) BY THE WITNESS : Yes . BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501) 537 - 5110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 17 BY MR . WALKER : Q When was that? A It would be in my roles and responsibilities as a research statistician and a statistician with the Little Rock School District . Q In that role , did you supervise employees? A No . Q A I see . All right . You did apply for the position I mean , that was just with my Little Rock work . I have done research and evaluation prior to coming to the Little Rock School District . Q For any public school district? A On contract with another school district , no\ndealing with data from school districts , yes . Q Did you provide the statistical data that Dr . Bonnie Leslie relied upon before 2002 , which was presented to Judge Wilson by Mr . Heller? A I 'm unclear as to the types of analysis that Bonnie Leslie I 'm uncertain of what you ' re talking about . Q Did you provide the statistics to her , with respect to student achievement , that she relied on in her presentation to the court? A I 'm not familiar with her testimony to the court so I -- Q Are you familiar with the district's report to the court on Pre- K literacy? BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501) 537-5110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 18 A Yes , I am . Q Did you provide the statistics to Dr . Leslie regarding Pre- K literacy? A I don ' t recall providing any information directly to Dr . Leslie . If I provided any information , it would have been to the person that wrote that report . Q I see . Were the data that were presented in that report accurate and complete? A I ' d have to go back and -- that ' s the one that was written by Dr . Eddie McCoy? Q Yes . A I ' d have to go back and look at that report . I 'm not up to speed on that report . It ' s been four years . Q I see . A I would say off- hand that it should have been accurate , yeah , but I don ' t know . I ' d have to go back and look at the report to lay my eyes on it again . I 'm unfamiliar with that report right now. Q All right . Have you read the court ' s order regarding program evaluation and assessment in this case? A Are you meaning the court ' s compliance report? Q It ' s called Compliance Remedy , yes . A Q A Yes , I ' ve read it . When did you first read it? Probably , well , fairly soon after it was available for BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501 ) 537 - 5110 l 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 reading . Q A Q A Q Have you had discussions regarding that with Dr . Brooks? On the Compliance Remedy? Yes . No . Have you had discussions regarding the Compliance Remedy with Dr . Roberts? A Nothing specific . Q With Mr . Hattabaugh? A No . Q I see . With Dr . DeJarnette? A Yes , extensive . Q I see . Was this one-on- one or was it in group meetings? A If I recall , it began one-on-one . When she first was hired , she and I had a meeting and went through the Compliance Remedy and then discussed those issues that came up in the Judge ' s order . Then , as the days and weeks progressed , it was less one-on-one and always with groups as those people came on board and we started to implement the Compliance Remedy . I see . Team meetings . Things like that . 19 Q A Q Do you have any experience in preparing and overseeing the preparation of formal program evaluations? A Q Yes , I have done those . Where have you done those and where can we see them? BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501) 537-5110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 20 A If I recall -- are you talking about just within the Little Rock School District? Q Well , let ' s start with Little Rock . A Let me think . I did one on HIPPY , some year - round evaluations . I did one on middle school transition . There could have been others but those are the ones I recall the most. Q Do you recall who worked under your supervision in preparing and overseeing the formal program evaluations in those areas? A Q A Q A Q I didn ' t supervise anyone . I see . Whom did you report to? Dr . Kathy Lease . That was my immediate supervisor. So you reported to Dr . Lease? Yes . Were those the program evaluations that were either lost or misplaced or not utilized in the court proceeding? A Q I 'm unsure of that question . Let me put it another way . Were they ever -- were those draft reports? A Are you talking about the 2002 -- Q Yes . A My recollection is that I turned all that information over to Dr. Kathy Lease and, what happened after that , I don't know in terms of reports to the courts . Q I see . Did you have extensive experience in overseeing the BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501) 537-5110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 21 preparation of program evaluations? That ' s yes or no . A Yes . Q Is that the experience you ' ve just described? A You aske d me about my experience in the Little Rock School District and I replied to those questions based on what I recall my experience with the Little Rock School District is in terms of program evaluation . I mean , there ' s other things . Q Are there programs in the Little Rock School District that are designed specifically to improve the achievement of AfricanAmerican students? A I didn ' t catch that. I 'm sorry . BY MR . WALKER : Could you replay that for us? (Record played back at this time) BY MR . WALKER : Q A You can answer when you want to . I lost my train of thought there . I 'm thinking all over again , sorry . The programs that we have implemented , national research and in some of the readings I have done , has shown that they have a positive impact on the achievement of AfricanAmerican students . So , to answer your question , we implemented those programs . My understanding is , we implemented those programs based on the national research but we needed to determine if those programs , while they may work in another case city in the United States , do they have the external validity in BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501) 537-5110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 22 terms of improving the academic achievement of African- American students , as the national research says they do . In a roundabout way , sir , yes , we have implemented programs that will -- we feel should impact the achievement level of AfricanAmerican students . Q Can you identify any programs that are specifically defined and designed by the Little Rock School District for the purpose of improving African- American , specifically , African-American student achievement? A If we ' re talking about the eight program evaluations that we did , all eight programs are either national research programs or based on models of national research designed to improve and impact the achievement level of African-American students . Q Do you recall reading the reports that were submitted by Mr . Heller to the court indicating that there were a number of programs that the Little Rock School District was implementing that were specifically designed to improve academic achievement of African-American students? A Q What was the date of that report , sir? 2001 - 2002 . A There ' s a possibility that I read that report . years ago. That ' s five Q Did you understand, for instance, the City- Year Tutoring Program to be designed specifically for improving African - American student achievement? BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501) 537-5110 l 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A Q 23 I 'm not familiar with that program . That ' s fine . Did you understand the 21st Century Community Learning Program in Mabelvale School to be designed specifically to improve African- American achievement? A It is my recollection , in looking at their website on the current 21st Century , that those activities are designed -- the activities that each individual school can implement are designed to improve the academic achievements . Q A Of African- American students? I believe so , yes . If I recall , looking at their current website . I ' d have to - - Q Isn ' t it true that all the programs that you all have in the district are designed to improve the academic achievement of all students rather than simply African- American students? A It is my understanding that the programs that we ' ve chosen are programs that the national research has shown to improve the academic achievement level of African-American students . It is in all likelihood that the implementations of those specific programs will have an impact on all students ' achievement . Q So your understanding is that when you focus on improving the academic achievement of African - American students , white students don't suffer\nisn ' t that correct? A I think there ' s been enough written about the data nationally and the data with the Little Rock School District to affirm that , yes, those types of programs that we are BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501 ) 537 - 5110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 implementing are having an impact on all students . Q Now , are you familiar with the various programs that are set forth in the compliance report , 2001 - 2002 , to the court? A Q A Q Yes . Wait a minute . Yes . Sorry . You just said 2001 - 2002? No , I 'm not familiar with every one of those programs . All right . Now , Have you ever had a one - on - one 24 conversation with Joy Springer regarding program assessment and evaluation? A I don ' t recall having a one - on- one conversation with Joy Springer . Q A Q A Q Have you ever had such a conversation with John Walker? One-on-one? Yes , sir . Not that I recall , no . Have you ever been privy to any one- on- one conversations regarding program assessment and evaluations between Ms . Joy Springer and Dr . Karen DeJarnette? A You mean one- on-one where it would be Joy , and Dr . DeJarnette and myself? Q A No , that ' s not what I mean but I ' ll just take that -- Okay . Then I can rescind my answer . To answer the previous two , yes , I ' ve been meetings where I responded to questions by Joy Springer and John Walker , yes . Q I see . Those have been meetings where -- BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501) 537 - 5110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 25 A I don ' t consider those one-on- one . Q Now , have you ever been in a meeting where just you and Dr . DeJarnette were present with Ms . Springer? A I don ' t recall ever being in a meeting like that . Q Or where Dr . DeJarnette and you and Mr . Walker were the only ones present? A Q A I don ' t recall , no . Has Mr . Walker ever asked you for any private information? No . The only conversation I recall ever having with Mr . Wa l ker was an FOI request . Q I see . You have passed Mr . Walker in the hall and in other places and exchanged pleasantries\nhaven ' t you? A Yes , I have . Q Now , were you informed by anyone that you were not to cooperate with ODM or Joshua in the last two years? A I don ' t recall ever being instructed not to talk to ODM. was instructed not to talk to Mr . Walker or the Joshua Intervenors unless our attorney was present . Q A Who gave you that instruction? Attorney Chris Heller . Q I see . When did he give it to you? A I don ' t recall the specific date . It was an e - mail and it I was probably in the fall of 2005 , maybe spring of 2006 . I don ' t recall exactly . Q I see . What precipitated that e-mail? BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501) 537 - 5110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 A I don ' t know . Q I see . Did you and the staff of PRE meet to discuss that e - mail from Mr . Heller? A I don ' t know if the staff discussed it . I know that Dr . DeJarnette and I had a discussion about it . Q I see . And what was the - - A I can ' t recall if we brought it up in a staff meeting . It ' s in all likelihood that we did . Q What comments did Dr . DeJarnette make about Mr . Heller ' s e - mail to you regarding that subject? A I don ' t recall any comments by Dr. DeJarnette on that . Q A Q A What comments did you make to Dr . DeJarnette on that? I just reiterated what the e - mail said in my own words . I see . Why did you do that? I just felt that it was important that we -- I just felt that it was important that that information be clarified . Q I see . Did you get clarification from Dr . DeJarnette regarding that? A No . As I said earlier, I don ' t recall her ever making a comment on my reiteration of that . Q Did you go to her to raise the subject? A If I recall , we just happened to be in the office -- well , I think she had the e - mail on her desk and showed it to me or something like that . I was in there for something else and that just came up in conversation . BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501) 537 - 5110 l l 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q 27 I see . What is the responsibility that you assumed for the 7th and 8th Quarterly Reports that were submitted to Joshua , ODM, and ultimately, the court? A I provided to Jim Wooleb any appropriate information that was pertinent to my role as the team leader and as the facilitator to any of the evaluation meetings and then was asked to peer review, if possible , the reports . Q A Q I see . You were the team leader? I was a team leader , yes , sir . I see . Why were you making these comments to Wooleb? A Mr . Wooleb was -- one of his roles was to write the quarterly reports . Q So you had no responsibility for writing the reports? A I provided him information and documents that could be inserted in the reports . Q I understand . But you had no responsibility for writing the report\ndid you? BY MR . FINLEY : Other than what he just testified to? He ' s testified he provided information and peer review\ndidn't he? BY MR . WALKER : That ' s a coaching objection . BY MR . WALKER: Q Did you have any responsibility for writing -- you BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501) 537-5110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 understand what I mean by writing? A Q Yes . Did you? 28 A I wrote -- I may have written documents that were inserted into the quarterly report but the entire report , it ' s compilation was the responsibility of Mr . Wooleb and we provided, each of us , depending on our roles , provided him with written i nformation to be inserted into the report . Q So Mr . Wooleb had the respons i bility for preparing the prel i minary draft and submitting it to Dr . DeJarnette , is that fair to say? A Q He was responsible for compiling the information . I see . Now , who had the responsibility for preparing the report , the quarterly report? A Q PRE . That ' s right . You remember the Compliance Remedy said that PRE was to prepare the compliance report\ndo you not? A Yes . Q That wasn ' t a task of Dr . Roberts\nwas it? I ' ll give you the report to refresh your memory. A PRE is an entity of the Little Rock School District and -- Q No . I 'm asking you to look at the document . Did not the judge say that that was a PRE delegated duty? That ' s different from the evaluations . Let ' s take a minute break to look at that . BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501) 537 - 5110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 (Off the record) (Back on the record and the following testimony was given , as follows , to- wit) : 29 BY MR . WALKER : Q A Q A Q A Does that refresh your recollection? Yes . Whose responsibility was it to prepare the report? The judge asked that PRE submit written quarterly updates . To whom? To the judge and to ODM and Joshua? Yes , but PRE is an entity of the Little Rock School District . I 'm not asking your interpretation. If it says PRE , it's sans LRSD . Q A Q That ' s your position . Now , nobody above Dr . DeJarnette had any responsibility for doing this task\ndid they? First of all, did anybody above Dr. DeJarnette, meaning Dr . Brooks and Mr . Hattabaugh and Dr . Roberts , participate in these meetings that were held regarding program assessment and evaluations that took place in the last two years? A Did they attend team evaluation meetings? Q Yes . A Yes . Dr . Roberts and Mr . Hattabaugh did . Q Did they do so before the year 2006? A I Id have to go back and look at the minutes of the meetings . I 'm uncertain on that . BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501) 537-5110 l 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q A Isn ' t it fair to say -- And I know Dr. Roberts accompanied Dr . DeJarnette to 30 Memphis to discuss the comprehensive program assessment process Q Well , I 'm talking about only the ones where Ms . Springer or Mr . Walker or both of them were present . Isn ' t it true that , until recently , Mr . Hattabaugh and Dr . Roberts were not present in those meetings? A As I recall , they , as did Joshua , attended more of the year two , Step II Program Evaluation meetings than in year one . Q Now , Ms . Springer has been to more of those meetings than Dr . Roberts\nhasn ' t she? A I ' d have to go Q Just on your recollection . I 'm not asking you to go and check your notes . Based on your present recollection , isn ' t that true? A In all likelihood, it probably could be . Q All right . A I did actually look at some data on that and I think that Joshua attended about 30 to 40 percent , if I recollect , I don ' t have the data in front of me but about 30 or 40 percent of the year one meetings and about 80 to 90 percent of the year two meetings . Q What caused you to make that kind of assessment? Was it in anticipation of your testimony in court? BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501) 537 - 5110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A Q 31 I was curious about attendance . What are you going to say to the court when you are called to testify , whenever you testify regarding program a s sessment and evaluation? Please just give me a statement of what it is . A What program assessment and evaluation -- Q Well , you ' re going to be called as a witness\nare you not? A Okay . Q And you were , until last night , the director? I guess you ' re still director until they let her go back to work . Have they told you that she can ' t go back to work until next week? A I 'm understanding that Dr . DeJarnette is -- I don ' t know if they used that terminology . That ' s not the terminology they used with me . Q Are you informed that she will not report to work until after the 16th of this month? A Q A Q A Q A Q I was told that she will be coming to work next Tuesday . Who told you that , by the way? Dr . Roberts . When did she tell you that? This morning . I see . What else did she tell you this morning about that? That ' s all she told me . I see . Did she tell you why she was being continued on suspension, despite the school board ' s ruling last night? A No , she didn't . BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501) 537 - 5110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 32 Q Did she tell you what you were supposed to be doing in the meantime? A Yeah , continue on with the work that we ' re doing . Q And what are you doing? A We ' re doing feasible , modified and ongoing assessments of the year one Step II evaluations . We ' re compiling data on the Vision -- data to report on Vision and we ' re starting testing , we ' re starting mid- year testing . Q You ' re also starting mid- year testing? A This week . The test data -- the test materials arrived yesterday . Q So you are in charge of that until next week? A Q A Q Yes . That ' s a responsibility of the director of PRE . Did she give you any written directions? No . Did she meet with you or did she talk with you on the telephone? A Do you mean today? Q A Q A Q A Q Yes . Both . So when did she mee~ with you? This morning . For how long? Five minutes. What did she say to you this morning? BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501) 537-5110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 33 A Just that Dr . DeJarnette would report next Tuesday and continue on with the work that you ' re doing . Q I see . Now , what will you say to the court about the program evaluations and assessments being embedded in the fabric of the school district? A That the IL- R is our comprehensive assessment process . Q I have asked a question . Would you respond to my question? Do you consider that responsive? BY MR . FINLEY : If you don ' t consider it responsive , ask him another question . BY MR . WALKER : Q Do you consider that responsive? A Yes , I do . IL- R is our comprehensive program assessment and it deeply embeds program evaluation in the Little Rock School District . Q When was that IL- R developed? A It was developed beginning with the meeting that Dr . Roberts and Dr . Karen DeJarnette had with Dr . Steve Ross per the request of the court . Q So that as of that date , the process was embedded? A No . Through work with - - Q I see . A If I recall, that process was approved by the school board in December of 2004 . BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501) 537-511 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 34 Q When did the process become embedded in the fabric of the d i strict? Can you give me a date when it became embedded? A It would be embedded when the school board approved that deeply embedded program assessment process -- Q So that ' s all the school - - is it your opinion that all the school board had to do at that point was approve the resolution? That ' s yes or no . A Their approving the regulations formalizes the deeply embedded comprehensive program assessment process . Q So that ' s all tha t needed to be done? Is that your opinion? A The district regulations are the backbone of the institutionalization of all policies and procedures in the Little Rock School District . So , yes , that is the overriding central decision that had to be made by the district board of directors to formalize the deeply embedded program assessment process or to approve the comprehensive assessment process that institutionalizes program evaluation with the Little Rock School District . That was reaffirmed at the June , July board meeting with an affirmation to continue program assessment . The combination of those two pieces , the formalization as well as the institutionalization of the comprehensive program assessment process , followed up by a commitment to resolve -- I can ' t remember the exact name of that document -- a commitment to resolve that, irrespective of what happens this month , the BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501) 537-5110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 school district will continue to evaluate programs for the expressed outcome to determine the impact of those programs on the achievement of African- American s~udents . 35 Q So your position is that the only thing that is required is f or the board to pass a resolution and then to reinforce that resolution one time\nis that fair to say? That ' s what is meant by embedding? A There were not two resolutions . One was approval to formally ins titutionalize program evaluation , i . e ., the comprehensive program assessment process within the structure of the Little Rock School District . You follow the regulations . Q I see . Are you familiar with IL- R? A Q A Q A Yes , I ' ve read it . What is meant by IL-R? Is that a board policy? It ' s a regulation . Is that a board policy? A policy/regulation , yeah . When you go to the website and look it up , that ' s what pops up . Q That ' s what pops up? A Well , you go to board -- go to the website and I think it ' s policies or something . Q Give me you opinion of the difference between a policy and a regulation . A A policy is a very broad stroke at something . Regulations are those things that will be implemented to address that broad BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501) 537 - 5110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 stroke . Q A Q Did the board approve IL- R? Yes , December of 2004 . That ' s my understanding . Or did the board approve I L? A It ' s IL- R. Q So you ' re not familiar with policy IL? 36 A That ' s the one from 2002 , I think . That ' s a former policy . Q All right . What i s meant by the term, in your opinion , to deeply embed , as used by the district court? A That an entity , an initiative , an idea is institutionalized . Q What does that mean? A That it becomes a part of the culture of an institution or entity . Q When did it become the culture -- when did program assessment -- the process that you say is underway become part of the culture of this school district? At what point? A When the board approved the regulations in December of 2004 , that institutionalized the process . Q I see . Doesn ' t part of the embedding process require that the principals be informed of it , school principals? That ' s yes or no . A My understanding , because I got something in the mail the other day , when the district approves a policy or regulation then that policy or regulation is sent to just about everybcay . BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501) 537 - 5110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 So , yeah , I guess that ' s how they send that policy out to all the principals . Q Have you ever been in any meetings by PRE with all the principals of the school district regarding the evaluation and assessment process now underway? A Yes . There have been two meetings . Both of them -- yes , 37 there were two meetings . One in January 2005 and one in January of 2006 . Q Did you conduct those meetings? A No . Q Who did? A I think it was in conjunction with Dr . Steve Ross , because , actually , Steve Ross came over and discussed the programs to be evaluated , and then the whole team was there and talked , Dr . DeJarnette , Jim Wooleb , Tracy Robinson and myself . Q Did you speak? A Q A I recall I spoke a little bit , yeah . What did you speak about? I can ' t remember . I ' d have to go back and look at my -- I don ' t know . Q A Q A Q Who is the better -- you have some notes , you say? No , I don ' t . You said you had to get them . I know . I don ' t have any . I wanted those notes . BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501) 537-5110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A I 'm sorry . I don ' t know why I said that . I don ' t have any . Q Okay . A I was thinking that they videotaped that but they didn ' t . I apologize for that mistake . Add a little humor there . I got your blood up -- Q It definitely did . Who is a better witness to talk about program evaluations in a comprehensive sense before the court , you or Dr . DeJarnette , in your opinion? A Given the communications and ongoing meetings we ' ve had, I think that any member of our team would be equally apt to give a good overview of that . I think Dr . DeJarnette would have an advantage because she has been the director for just about or right at two and half years . When you move up a level , you know you ' re what would you say -- you ' re privy to more inside and out ' s . I mean , she was privy to -- she met with Dr . Steve Ross and I didn ' t . I can ' t say actually was said in that meeting so , yeah , in a bigger picture , she could add in those nuances . Q Well , she had the responsibility for overseeing all these people in their various roles\ndidn ' t she? A Yes , she was the director . Q And you did not have that responsibility\ndid you? A That ' s correct . Q I see . So you are giving an opinion based on your observations of those other co-workers ' activities rather than intimate knowledge in association with it\nisn ' t that fair to BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501) 537-5110 l 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 39 say? A No , I -- the comments I made were based on the fact that Dr . DeJarnette was privy to more conversations with people involved like Dr . Roberts , Steve Ross , Dr . Catterall than the team was as whole . What I did say was there no reason that non~ of the team members couldn ' t give a very good overview of tha~ process . Q Are you saying that Maurecia Robinson can give the same overview of the process as you? That ' s yes or no . A I see no reason why not . She was involved in all the team meetings and she was privy to all the same information that I was . Q She never spoke with Ms . Springer\ndid she? A I don ' t know . Q And you never spoke with Ms . Springer so you can ' t give the same overviews , as Ms . Springer has so much knowledge about process . You understand that she supposedly has a lot of information about the process\nright? A Who? Q Ms . Springer . A Q I presume that she would , yes . I see . Have you read Ms . Springer ' s affidavit in this matter? A I have read a affidavit and I 'm -- oh , the one that was supplied as a court document? I think there are couple of BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501) 537-5110 the 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 40 affidavits out there . Q Can you say yes or no to the following : That Ms . Springer regularly brought to the attention of the PRE a need for program assessment to be comprehensive , focused and deeply embedded into the district ' s curriculum and instructional programs? Did she do that? A Q A I don ' t ever recall Ms . Springer using that terminology . That ' s fine . What terminology did she use? I 'm just trying to think of the comments she made . I think the comments she made were concerned about in some of the meetings we like the pre-Kone , that ' s one she asked about making sure we had a program description in there . I 'm trying to think what else she said . I don ' t recall her using that extensive terminology in terms of comments made in the meetings . Q You don ' t want to rely on your memory for what took place at any of those meetings\ndo you? A Q A Q We have notes of the meetings . You do have notes? Who has notes of the meetings? They're in quarterly reports . Other than the quarterly reports , are there any other notes? A Not that I'm aware of . Q I see . Those notes don ' t address what Ms . Springer said\ndo they? A I'd have to go back and look at the quarterly reports on BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501) 537-5110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 41 what was said but I thought there were comments in there , you know , Joshua asked this question and made a comment . I thought they were in there but I ' d have to go back and re - read them . Q Were questionnaires to be used as a part of the comprehensive assessment process of the court or required by the court? A The judge required that the data that we gathered not be only test data and that we gather a wide range of different types of data to use in that process . Survey ' s would have been one of those pieces . Q I see . Was that done before the fall of 2006? A Oh , yeah . Q So you disagree with Ms . Springer when she says it is further noted that the use of questionnaires , which the cour~ expected, Page 62 , footnote 39 of the Compliance Remedy to be a part of the comprehensive assessment process , will not be undertaken until the fall of 2006? Do you disagree with that? A When I read that -- Q Do you disagree is my question . That ' s all . I 'm not asking for an explanation . Do you disagree with her -- A Well , I have to - - if I 'm going to answer that then I need to answer with an explanation. Q Well , you can but , first of all , you can tell me whether you agree or disagree . That ' s my only question . Do you disagree with Ms . Springer? BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501) 537-5110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 BY MR . FINLEY : He can also do neither . or disagree. BY MR . WALKER : Q You can say neither . That ' s fine . 42 He doesn ' t have to agree Say neither . A I presume -- yes , because I presume what she meant dealt with the district portfolio but we have using surveys . Surveys have been an intrical part of all -- yes , all eight program evaluations so we started those surveys . If that ' s what she meant then the answer is no . If she was talking about surveys used in the eight program evaluations - - because using surveys in all eight program evaluations So you disagree with her . That ' s fine . Well , I mean , I 'm uncertain what she meant . we ' ve been Q A Q That ' s fine . Now , do you disagree with her that PRE contemplated the use of a data warehouse to either supplant or complement the use of a portfolio assessment for embedding the comprehensive assessment process into the instruction program? Do you agree or disagree with that? A That the data warehouse would supplant or what? Q A Q Complement . Complement. One or the other . The use of the portfolio assessment for embedding the comprehensive assessment process into the instruction program . Do you disagree? BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501) 537-5110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A Q A I don ' t agree with that whole statement , no . That ' s fine . What is your disagreement? Portfolio assessment . It ' s not an assessment . process . Well assessment is a process\nisn ' t it? It ' s a Q A A lot of things are a process . A portfolio is not an assessment . In that terminology , the portfolio is our process but , yes , the data warehouse can compliment and it does complement the district portfolio . Q Did Dr . DeJarnette not indicate that this data base would not be ready for some time after June 13th , 2006? A I don ' t recall her ever saying that to me . Q When will the data warehouse be ready? A The data warehouse was up and running at the end of July 2006 . Q Was Dr . DeJarnette aware of that? A I presume . She attended one of three days of training on the use of the data warehouse in the middle of July . Q A Q Did you attend that training? Yes , sir . Who else attended the training from PRE? A Maurecia Robinson , Jim Wooleb , myself . Dr . DeJarnette, like I said , attended one of three days of training . What was in the data warehouse at that time? 43 Q A We had the student demographic universe set up . I think we BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501) 537-5110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 44 had the financial informat i on , we had Crystal Reports , there was another it was just called Demographics , I think , Universe . There were some other ones also but they weren ' t appropriate for what we would use them for . There was like -- I think when I popped it up in July , there were like eight universes . Q I see . When were those universes created? A Over a period of time . From the time the school district brought in a consultant to normalize the data . When was that? I don ' t recall that exactly . What year was it? I think it was early 2006 . Q A Q A Q I see . So at least , as of early 2006 , the data were not available for use in embedding the process at least in any comprehensive form? A No . Q They were not? A Yes , the data was available . Q But it was in many sources at that time? A No , it was in -- most of the data that the district has that is embedded is stored in the district ' s mainframe computer , which we call the AS400 . That data has always been available . By the way , we ' ve had Crystal Reports since 1992 . Q I see . So there was no real need for a data warehouse then , was there? BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501) 537 - 5110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A Q Yes , there was . What is the reason? If you had all this data available , why would you need a new data warehouse? A Have you ever bought a garden house that ' s a half- inch 45 diameter and turn it on and it takes 10 minutes to fill that bucket of water? Then you go out and buy that one - inch diameter water house and it takes a minute to fill that bucket of water . Which one would you rather have? That ' s the analogy to using the AS400 compared to the data warehouse . When we did data requests for the program assessments or program evaluations , it usually took a week to get the data . With the data warehouse, seconds . Q Were you familiar with the data warehouse that was completed by Dr . Burnhart . A Other than just some sales presentations , no . Q Was she trying to make a sale? A She talked about it while were out in California and she invited - - the people from Tetra-Data attended that meeting . Q Did you ever inform anybody in the school district that she had a financial interest in selling this particular program? A I don ' t - - I know she ' s on the board of Tetra or was o~ board . Tetra was sold and I think she still has some kind of relationship with the company . She was on the board of directors of Tetra so I don ' t know what kind of -- if they were paid to be on the board or not so - - BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501) 537 - 5110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q Did you ever have a discussion regarding this with either Mr . Heller or Dr . Brooks or Dr . Roberts? A Q That she was on the board? Yes A No . I know Karen , at a meeting that we had with Mr . 46 Hattabaugh and Dr . Roberts , told them that she was on the board . Dr . DeJarnette told them that she was on the board . Q Did she say she was on the board or did she say that she was on an advisory board? A I don ' t recall . Q A I see . Now that Tetra has been sold , maybe it ' s just an advisory board . Q A Q How do you know Tetra was sold? I went to their web page and it said they were sold . I see . When did you learn that? A About a month or a month and a half ago . They were sold this summer in July or August to another larger software company . Q So that means - - do you know whether Dr . Burnhart went with the sale? A Yeah , because her name was associated with the new company ' s web page dealing with Tetra . Q What did it say about her? A I don ' t recall . I ' d have to go back and look . BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501) 537 - 5110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 47 Q But whatever it said allowed you to conclude that she was a part of the managing group of Tetra - Data? A Well , she was involved with Tetra - Data . I don ' t know what her roles and responsibilities were . Q Do you agree with Mrs . Springer that there are various factors which suggest that the vision of the current administration of LRSD de - emphasis the importance of PRE and the Compliance Remedy? A No , I don ' t agree with that . Q I see . Do you agree that , in March of 2005 , PRE did nc. any longer report to the superintendent? A The reorganization , I think , was effective July 1 of 2005 so , no , I don ' t agree with that statement . Q I see . Do you agree that Dr . Roberts and Dr . Brooks imposed additional responsibilities upon PRE that diminished the ability of PRE staff to make the Compliance Remedy their major focus? A I don ' t agree with that statement . Q What additional -- do you agree that there were some additional responsibilities imposed upon PRE afcer the tP~  of the year 2006? A Based on my interpretation of job descriptions , there were no additional job responsibilities imposed . Q I see . No adaitional tests placed by those people upon PRE? BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501) 537 - 5110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A Q A You mean in addition to our work on the Compliance Repcrc~ Yes . Yes, we had other jobs . Like I said , my interpretation of my job description , those were not additional . of our job , the work we did . They were part Q Did you have - - do you agree that the responsibilities that were placed upon PRE included the preparation of school improvement plans for a large number of schools as well as developing and carrying out surveys required as a part of the school improvement effort? Do you disagree with that? A I disagree with the terminology . Q But do you disagree with the substance of it , whatever the terms used? A Q A We did do some additional surveys . The question is : Do you disagree? That ' s all . I don ' t agree with the way the statement is written . I mean, there are some truths and non-truths in there , I think . Q Now , going back to your water hose analysis , with a small water hose you can only account for so many students , is that fair to say? A It had nothing to do with -- the analogy had nothing to do with that . It had to do with speed . Q Well , I understand . But the speed relates to students and it relates to student data\ndoesn ' t it? A With modern computers and dealing with that kind of binary BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501) 537-5110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 49 data or that kind of data , the numbers -- in other words , to transport 2 million pieces of data is milli , milli , milliseconds compared to hours . There ' s a blink of an eye to transfer a million versus a hundred thousand . Q Well , why was it so important for you all to spend -- if your data system was adequate , why was it so necessary for Dr . Roberts and the others to try to implement this new data system? BY MR . FINLEY : I 'm going to object to the form . BY MR . WALKER : Q You can still answer . A When I 'm talking about speed , I 'm talking about the speed I can get from the IRC . It ' s called a pipeline . Now , if I worked downtown , there I could get the data just as quickly but - - in other words , if I worked downtown and we didn ' t have the pipeline -- well , actually , the AS400 now is out at Metro. worked at Metro , I could get the data because that ' s where~:.~ AS400 is . Q Well , why is there such a controversy about which data source to use? BY MR . FINLEY : What do you mean by data source? BY MR . WALKER : If he can answer the question , that means he -BY THE WITNESS : BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501) 537-5110 1 2 j 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 50 I think he means Tetra - Data via Business Objects . BY MR . WALKER : Q You can answer . A The district has had a long standing relationship with Business Objects . We ' ve used Crystal Reports for a number of years , since 1992 . When I came on in '98 , within a few years there was a discussion about doing some kind of data warehouse and we talked with -- most of our discussions dealt with NCS , that ' s who makes the AS400 . There were then discussions aoc, doing a data warehouse , prior to 2004 when Dr . Karen DeJarnette was hired as director of PRE . One of the ideas that she brought in or one of the concepts she brought in was to fully implement a data warehouse . The idea to implement a data warehouse in its current state is Dr . DeJarnette ' s idea . Q Do you disagree with it? A No . Q Do you find utility in it? A Yes . Q Do you support it? A Yes . Q Is it necessary and important? A It ' s necessary and important in that it makes my job mu ch quicker . It ' s not necessary -- I mean , we can get the data if we want to wait for it by using a radar request through our information services department . BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501) 537 - 5110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 51 Q You are aware that a number of errors showed up in some data being submitted to the outside evaluators\nis that fair to say? A Q I 'm not clear what you ' re talking about . Do you recall taking responsibility for passing on faulty data to the evaluators? A Q A I 'm not aware of any faulty data that I passed on . That ' s fine . All the data that I passed on was approved by Dr . Karen DeJarnette . Q So if she says otherwise , y ' all have a difference of opinion? A When we did the data cleanup for the Benchmark data , I sent her the data cleanup files and asked her permission to send the data cleanup files in . That was our last chance to clea~ - data . She gave me her permission to send those cleanup data files in . So when the data files are available , yes , they had her permission . They had her approval that they could be sent on to the evaluators . Q Did you previously send data to the evaluators? A Yes . One of my roles was to do that . Q Now , had you sent data that had not been cleaned up to the evaluators? A All the data we sent to the evaluators , we made what we felt was a reasonable attempt to make sure that it was clean a nci BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501) 537-5110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 52 appropriate data . Q When you say we are you talking about you and somebody else or are you talking about yourself? A Well , no , Mr . Wooleb was involved in some of the databases that were sent out . Q Isn ' t it fair to say that on one occasion you were so busy that when some data came in that you , without checking it, forwarded it on to the evaluators? A I don ' t I 'm not saying it didn ' t happen but I don ' t recall . I don ' t recall that occurring. Q Is it fair to say that you have a reputation for being careless with your work? A No one has ever said that to me , no . Q What is the process for providing data to the evaluators? A The protocol for that begins with discussions with the, in the case , with the external evaluators to determine the types of data that they need to complete the program evaluation. Da~ a , based on those discussions and those agreements , as that data became available then it was sent to the external evaluators . Q As it became available to you? A Q Yes . Available to the PRE Department , yes . Did you share that data with Dr . DeJarnette at that point when it became available to you or did you send it on directly , yourself , to the outside evaluators? A If I recall , all the databases that I sent to the outside BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501) 537-5110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 evaluators were also sent to Dr . DeJarnette . Q You recall that? But you sent them to the outside evaluators before clearing it with her\ndid you not? A No . If we ' re talking about the data that was cleaned up the last cleanup I asked her if it was appropriate to send in the cleanup data files , which would signify that that was the last opportunity to clean the data and she gave that approval . Yes , she approved - - when the data was available , she had already given her approval that the data was cleaned so I sent it off . Q A Q Have you ever spoken personally with Dr . Catterall? Yes , I have . Have you ever met with Dr . Catterall personally? A Yes , I have . Q Has he expressed an opinion about whether the evaluation process has been embedded? 53 A I don ' t recall that part of the discussion that I had with him . Q A Have you ever had such a conversation with Dr . Ross? No , not that I recall. Q How do you know that PRE notified ODM and Joshua of the names of the eight programs selected for evaluation? How do you know that? A As I recall , I think that was a team meeting with Dr. DeJarnette. BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501) 537-5110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 I 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 54 Q Were you present in that meeting? A Yes . I mean, I think in general she just made a comment like , yeah , we made the choices now and make sure you notify the proper people . Q Did you participate in making those choices? A In making the choices? Q Yes . A I offered feedback on -- yes . Q Did you participate in making the choices? Feedback is different from being involved in the decision- making\nisn ' t it? A No . Q All right . What else will you tell the court when you testify as the district ' s expert witness? A Well , if asked to , I will describe in as much detail as I can recollect I will describe in detail with our compliance with the court ' s remedy. Q All right . Tell me what else you have done to comply with the court ' s remedy than what you ' ve already set forth that any member of the team can explain as well as you , as you said earlier . Did you not say that? A Yeah . I mean Q What else can you say? A What else can I say that the other team members can? Since they were privy to -- at least the other two team members were privy -- I 'm talking about Mr . Wooleb and Ms . Robinson -- they BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501) 537-5110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 55 were privy to the same information in terms of team meetings and the whole process . There would be an expectation that they could also describe to the court our process in complying with that remedy . Q I want you to go ahead and tell me the rest of what you will say in court . What else will you say about complying with the remedy? A Okay . I ' ll talk about revitalizing the PRE Department . We'll talk about choosing the year one and year two Step II Program evaluations . We ' ll talk about the process of how those evaluations were conducted and our interaction with the exterior evaluators . We ' ll talk about the comprehensive program assessment process was developed and institutionalized, deeply embedded by the school board ' s actions. We ' ll talk about our quarterly reports to the board . We ' ll talk about making sure that ODM and Joshua were properly notified per the remedy . Q Will you talk about the fact that the testing coordinator position was left open for approximately a year? A I don ' t think it was -- was it that long? Q Let ' s say six months . A If asked , yeah . Q I see . Was that testing coordinator position importanL L~ the work of the PRE? A Q Yes . Would six months hiatus in having that position unfilled BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501 ) 537-5110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 affect the work of PRE , in your opinion? A Given the timing of the six month hiatus , continuous , it was -- no . It wouldn ' t affect the work of PRE? Not when that position was vacant , no . it wasn ' t Q A Q I see . There was a period when a Mr . Olds was hired as a replacement for the testing coordinator\nisn ' t that correct? A Yes . 56 Q Do you agree or disagree that he resigned after about three months on the job? A Q I disagree . That ' s fine . Do you disagree that as of October of last year -- as of September of last year , the testing coordinator position had not been filled? A I agree . Q A Q A Do you disagree that that was important to the process? That there was no one there in September? Yes . No , it didn ' t impede the process , the assessment process . Q Now , is there a vacant position now for a statistician? A I wouldn ' t call it vacant . They have applied for an additional statistician , yes . Q A Q I see . How many statisticians are there right now? There are three . You and who else? BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501) 537-5110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A Mr . Wooleb and Ms . Robinson . Q I see . Who made the decision to ask for a fourth one? A I 'm uncertain . When the announcement was posted , I asked Dr . Roberts and she informed me it was an additional statistician . Q Who made the decision that it was necessary? I don ' t know . Is it , in your opinion , necessary? I think it would be extremely helpful , yes . Would it have been an extremely helpful a year ago? 57 A Q A Q A No . The department was capable -- given the frame up that we were under a year ago , we had adequate staff . Q What changed it then to make it more helpful now than a year ago? A Well , the fact that we are picking up -- we are doing the modified assessments of the year one and then we will be doing the year two and then , of course , the deeply embedded process . Q So you need more staff to deeply embed something? A Q A Q No . You don ' t? We need more staff to implement that . Well , isn ' t deeply embedding also involved with implementation? A Deeply embedding is the institutionalization of a process or initiative . That is different than implementation . BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501) 537-5110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10  11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q Do you know anything about how the process of the evaluations will be conducted in the future? A Yes , I do . Q What will happen in the future? A We will follow the comprehensive program assessment process . Q Will you continue to use outside evaluators? A I f that is an option , yes . Q Well , wait a minute . What is your understanding of what will happen? Will you be using outside evaluators or will you be using inside evaluators? A If you read the comprehensive program assessment process, 58 the role of the external evaluator is determined by the team so the role could be anywhere from a technical writer to actually completely the evaluations , like was done with Steve Ross and James Catterall . It depends on the evaluation team . That ' s a decision by the team to make . So, yes , it could run the whole continuum of being advisor to doing the whole process . there ' s seven or eight in the IR-L . I think Q Well , if there is a present need for another statistician , would not there have been a need six months ago for another statistician? BY MR . FINLEY : Object to the form . BY MR. WALKER : BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501) 537-5110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 59 Q You can answer . A Given the way the court remedy was where we -- the decision about the role of the external evaluator was decided by the court that , no , we had adequate staff to complete the court compliance remedy . Q You had adequate staff then so what happened in the intervening six months to make you not have adequate staff to complete it? BY MR . FINLEY : Object to the form . BY MR . WALKER : Q What has changed in that six month period? That would be between September and now , August and now . A Well , we just recently have completed the last program evaluation done by an external evaluator and , as we had said in both quarterly seven and eight , that we will continue on with modified , feasible and ongoing assessments of those eight program evaluations . That has changed. That is a major change . We ' re taking on that role that we didn't have in the past. Q Has ODM staff expressed to you a view that there is a problem with compliance in embedding program assessments into the curriculum and instructional programs of the district as contemplated by the court? A I don't recall either one of the individuals saying that to me. BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501) 537-5110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q A Q Do you know whether they ' ve said that to Dr . DeJarnette? No . I was not privy to that conversation . Tell me what Mr . Gene Jones has said to you about ODM ' s observations regarding program evaluation . 60 A The only thing I recall was it was an off - the - cuff comment about how we should be able to get out of court this time . Q When did he say that? A In the hallway . We were walking to a meeting , I think . Q You and who? You and Mr . Jones? A Gene was behind me . I think we were in a meeting with our departmental team and the meeting was finished and we were walking out and he made that comment . Q Who else was present? A Q A I think Karen DeJarnette , Mr . Wooleb , Maurecia Robinson . What did Dr . DeJarnette say? I don ' t recall . Q Have you met with Mr . Gene Jones as team outside the presence of Joshua regarding compliance? A Q Yes , I believe so . When did you do so? A I don ' t know the exact date . I think that day was one of them . Q What month was that? Approximately what time period was it? A It was probably in the spring of this year . BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501) 537-5110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q A Q The spring of Yeah . I 'm sorry . Spring of 2006 . Are you are that Dr . DeJarnette , upon learning that an extension of time was necessary to file certain reports , made contact with Mr . Heller regarding that? 61 A Yes , I believe that there was conversation with Mr. Heller about the fact that we probably, because the fact the data wasn ' t going to be here in time , that we possibly needed to file for an extension. Q A Q A Q A I see . Do you know what Mr . Heller ' s reaction to that was? He filed an extension . He did? That ' s my understanding . Did he promptly do so? I couldn ' t tell you when it was . timely manner . I mean , he did it in a Q What ' s the most positive thing you can say about Dr. DeJarnette ' s leadership of PRE? A Dr . DeJarnette brought in two good ideas : the data warehouse and the portfolio, and she had knowledge in working with the people that developed those and I thought those would be very helpful in supporting the infrastructure of our comprehensive program assessment process . Q What's the most positive thing you can say about her administration of the department? BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501) 537-5110 l 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 62 A She assessed the individual qualities of each of the people in the department and delegated work to those people based on those assessments . Q What ' s the most positive thing you can say about her evaluation of the staff of the PRE? A I ' ve been evaluated once . I mean , I don ' t understand that question . Q That ' s fine . A Q A She evaluated us , yeah . Did you object to her evaluation of you? No . Q What ' s the most negative thing you can say about Dr . DeJarnette ' s administration of the PRE Department? A I ' ve never framed my relationship with Dr. DeJarnette in that manner . Q So you can ' t say anything negative about her administration of the department? A About her administration of - - Q What ' s the most negative thing you can say about her qualifications? A I read her vitae . She ' s qualified to be the director . Q What is the most negative thing yo can say about her administration of the PRE Department? A Q I just never framed my relationship with her in that way . What's the most negative thing you can say about Dr . BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501) 537-5110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 DeJarnette in any way? A You ' re asking for a personal opinion there . Q Yes , sir , I am . That ' s the only opinion you can give because there is not district position on that\nis there? So what is your opinion? A I ' ve never really formed an opinion of Dr . DeJarnette . Q Well , form one now . What is your most negative opinion regarding her that you may be called upon to give in front of the court . A I guess on two occasions she said she was going to do something or she said she wasn ' t going to do something and I think it was two occasions that she didn ' t. Q What were those two occasions and what did she do? A She wasn ' t going to send the e-mail of the compliance 63 history report to the board . She told me that flat out and she did it . The other thing was something similar to that . Q When did she tell you that? A I thinks he told me on a Wednesday or a Thursday and sent it out on Friday . Q Do you know what intervened between the time you had the conversation and that Friday? A No . Q Did she tell you why she wasn ' t going to send an e-mail to the board? A I 'm sorry? BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501) 537-5110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q What was the reason that she told you that she would not send the e - mail to the board? A She had asked my opinion and I told her that I thought it was a carthetic event and that she shouldn ' t send it and she agreed with me on that . Q What was it that she was sending? A Pardon me? Q What was it that she ultimately sent to the board? mail was that? A It was an Adobe file . It was three pages long and it talked about -- I think it was titled History of Compliance or something like that . Q A Q Is this the document? Yeah . I think that is it , yeah . It looks like it is . I want you to go through this compliance history and tell me what - - first of all , had this compliance history been compiled by PRE? A No . Q Who compiled this? 64 A It was my understanding that it was compiled by Mr . Wooleb and Dr . DeJarnette . Q A Did you disagree with it? Yes. Q Did you disagree with the contents of it or did you disagree with the wisdom of sharing it? BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501) 537-5110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A Both . Q I see . I want you to go through this and bring my attention to the ones that you disagreed with , starting with Page 1 . BY MR . WALKER : We ' ll attach this as an exhibit . (Exhibit 1 marked for identification) BY MR . WALKER : Go ahead when you ' re ready . 65 Q A Okay . la . Dr . DeJarnette was on the committee that worked on the reorganization and it was her decision to do away with the secretary and the two people that were eliminated . Q Who told you that it was her decision? A She did . Q She told you it was her decision? A Q A Q A Q A Q She was on the committee and she wanted it done . She wanted it done? That ' s fine . Did she telt you that? I recollect her saying that , yeah . Okay . Go ahead . What else? lb , inadequate staff . That's on Pagel? Yes . lb . All right . That ' s fine . A That is not my understanding of whac happened with Mr5 Dillingham . BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501) 537-5110 1 2 3 4  5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 66 Q Okay . What else? A 2a . We do have a policy for managing data that begins when students register with the school district . There ' s a policy for registration . 2b is spurious . There ' s no evidence there to indicate -- where ' s the evidence that we have any data errors? Q What else? A C is -- why didn ' t Karen check and correct any old dac~ : Q When you had this conversation with Dr . DeJarnette , was it just the two of you or was Mr . Wooleb present when she said she wouldn ' t send it to the board? A I don ' t know who all was present . Mr . Wooleb may have been present . Q I see . So it becomes a question of recollection\ndoesn ' t it? Your recollection versus hers and his? A Yes , obviously . Most of this is . Q All right . Go ahead . We ' re on Page 2 now , number three . And you ' re telling me what you disagree with as a fact in her compliance history . A 3a , I 'm not aware of LRSD rejecting our plans to implement the data warehouse . at the end of July . In fact , the data warehouse was implemented Q Go ahead . What ' s next? A 3b. Data is data . Crystal Reports -- actually, Business Objects is actually used by school districts around the nation . In fact , I talked to one . I think it ' s Norfolk , Virginia that BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501) 537 - 5110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 uses Business Objects , same as we do . 67 3e, it ' s my understanding in talking with Richie Robinson , because she attended a meeting on those surveys , when she ' s talking about the surveys for Education for the Future , there is no validity or reliability on those surveys . 3f , I am not aware of any attempt by the Little Rock School District to oppose the project of doing wellness priority in the annual ACSIP plans . 4a , Dr . DeJarnette early on routinely asked Counsel Heller to review the updates and to make changes as necessary so any changes made on the 8th quarterly were just an extension of other changes that were made in other quarterly reports . Q Were you present when she asked Counsel Heller those things? A Q A I saw e-mails . Are those e - mails the best evidence of your recollection? Uh huh . Q All right. A I 'm not aware that the board did not receive copies of the draft of the 8th quarterly . In fact , 4c actually says that , PRE sent its original version to ODM and Joshua when sending it to the board for its review . Q A Let me just run through this . Do you disagree with~ ~~ You got to let me read it. Given that I did not ha ve ~ . conversations with Joshua , other than within the team meetings, I can't address the fact that there ever was a chill or the BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501) 537-5110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 68 chill went away or whatever it was . My only interaction with Joshua was in team meetings and then passing in the hall and saying hello . I did not experience any lessening of responsiveness from LRSD ' s counsel . I disagree with b . I don ' t think it was at odds with the remedy . LRSD - - okay -- Sc . L?SD Q A Do you disagree with it? I don ' t disagree with it but they ' re not part of the evaluation teams , Joshua and ODM are not part of the evaluation team . Q A Q It doesn ' t say that . C doesn ' t say that\ndoes it? I 'm just clarifying my answer . I understand that . I 'm asking if you disagree with it and it simply says LRSD and its counsel attended few evaluation sessions of which PRE notified Joshua , ODM , LRSD and its counsel . Do you disagree with that? A Joshua attended few -- I told you they only attended 30 percent of the year ones . It improved in year two . Where is the data to support that? Q We ' re just asking what you disagreed with . You understand this came from the compliance history that was submitted in the draft report . Now , obviously you ' re at odds with the people who prepared the compliance history\naren't you? BY MR . HELLER : I 'm going to object to the form of that question. BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501) 537-5110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 BY MR . WALKER : Q Let me put it another way so there won ' t be -BY MR . HELLER : My only point is , what draft? This wasn ' t part of the compliance history in any draft report . BY MR . WALKER : Q Well , let me ask you : Did you participate in developing this compliance history? No , I did not . Okay . Did she share it with you? A Q A Yes , she did . We had a discussion and she agreed with me that it was a carthetic event . Q Did she use the term carthetic? A I said that and she agreed with me . Q I see . Is that a term you normally use , Dr . Williams? A I am a licensed professional counselor . Q I understand but is that a term you normally use in your every day conversations? Yeah . Carthesis is term that I use very appropriate. 69 A Q I see . Let ' s go back . You also applied for this position that she got and you were upset when you didn ' t get it\nis 1.  that correct? A Q No . That ' s fine . Now , you ' ve got a pay increase coming as a result of taking over the interim position\ndon't you? BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501) 537-5110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A Q A I was notified on -Yesterday? -- yeah --that would probably occur , yeah . Q You were also notified that you could expect to be the director as of yesterday , weren ' t you? A No . 70 Q I see . Are you disappointed that you won ' t be the director now? A Q A Q her? A Q A No. Do you think you can work with Dr. DeJarnette? Yes . Even though you ' re saying all these negative things about These are not negative things about her . I see . Let ' s go on . As I stated , this is a carthetic letter , something that you write because of the feelings you are experiencing at the time . Typically, it has a very therapeutic -- typically , it would have a very therapeutic benefit to it . Q Are you a psychologist? A No , I'm not . Q That ' s just an opinion\nisn't it? A No . I ' m a licensed professional counselor. Psychotherapist. Q Are you trying to give a psychotherapist's opinion to her BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501) 537~5110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 71 regarding her conduct? A No . I am not her psychotherapist . Q Do you agree that the relations between -- this is Number 7 A Q A Q A Q LRSD and the PRE ' s director deteriorated? Where are we? Number 7 . Do you agree with that? My experience Yes or no . I don ' t agree with that . No , I don ' t . I understand . Do you know if she was threatened with dismissal by the superintendent? Can you answer that? A I never heard the superintendent threaten her with dismissal . Q A Q Were you present at any cabinet meetings? Have I been to any cabinet meetings? Were you present in any cabinet meetings where she was present? A No . Q A I see . Well, one . There was one cabinet meeting I was pr':::'3.,': when she was present . Q Do you disagree that LRSD counsel was unresponsive and evasive to her? A Q I disagree with that . Okay . Was LRSD counsel responsive and unevasive to you BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501) 537-5110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 when you had contact with them? A The very , very few times that I responded to Mr . Heller, was responsive to me . Q Do you know whether she engaged her own law firm to give her advice? A She said she had engaged an attorney , yes . Q Are you aware that she filed a grievance with the LRSD Human Resource Department? A Yes , Karen told us that she filed a grievance . 72 ,__ - !.i.C:: Q Do you disagree with her recommendation that it ' s important that first of all , for restoration of administrative support , in addition to test coordinators based upon a review of responsibilities , requires an administrative assistant? A Q A It ' s my understanding from what she told me -Do you disagree? That was her decision to eliminate the administrative assistant ' s job so -- Q A Q She told you that? Yes . I see . Was anybody -- oh , you said you don ' t -- that was just one-on-one between you and her? A I believe there were other people present , Mr. Wooleb and Ms . Robinson and then the committee members . Q So basically , you didn't agree with this compliance history that was prepared by her and Mr . Wooleb? BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501) 537-5110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A Q A In general , no , I did not agree wi~h it , no . I see . Now , did you prepare your own compliance history? No , I did not . 73 Q Have you prepared any writing to aid her in addressing the difficulties that she was obviously experiencing with the administration and/or Mr . Heller? A She didn ' t ask me to write anything and I didn ' t really experience -- Q Did you offer any advice to her regarding those matters? A Q A Yes . What advice did you offer to her? When we read the original the compliance report , we felt that there were some inaccuracies , possible inaccuracies in that compliance report that Attorney Heller had written . My advice was to write a very terse and direct e-mail to Mr . Heller explaining our concerns . She did that . She got an immediate reply from Mr . Heller . Q I see . So you ' re basically saying that you wouldn ' t have taken the actions that she took if you were the director A What I 'm saying is that I did not experience - - Q Please , listen to my question. Are you saying that you , based on what you know , would not have taken the actions or made the comments that she made had you been the director of the PRE Department? BY MR . FINLEY : BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501) 537-5110 ~ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 What actions and comments are we talking about? Would he have drafted the compliance history? BY MR . WALKER : 74 Yes . Thank you , Mr . Finley , you ' ve been helpful . BY THE WITNESS : I was not the director and I am not a fortune teller . I have no idea how I would have responded as director . I do have extensive management experience but I 'm not sure how I would have performed in the last two years . BY MR . WALKER : Q All right . Do you know whether LRSD had a definitive plan for the use of assessments being generated by the Compass Learning Program? A The Compass Learning Program generates results in data and that data -- Q My question -- I 'm not asking you to explain . Do you know it ' s simple -- do you know whether LRSD has a definitive plan for the use of assessments being generated by the Compass Learning Program? Do you know? A I don ' t know if they ' re using the data though . Q All right . Do you know whether the school administration has kept Joshua and ODM timely informed of the activities of PRE? Do you know? A Yes , via the quarterly reports . BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501) 537-5110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q Only by the quarterly reports? Is it your position that the only information Joshua was to get was in the quarterly reports? A Oh , no . Q I see . A You asked me how they were informed . Q All right . Now , is it your understanding that Joshua was supposed to be provided the same information as ODM? A It says right in here that as things evolve and as things are produced that we are to notify ODM and Joshua as those things evolve . Q Now , what information in PRE did you all have that can be said to be privileged and not shared with Joshua? What public information was it that you all generated that was not to be shared with Joshua? A I can ' t think of anything off- hand that would be public information that we wouldn ' t share with Joshua because it ' s public . Q Let me ask you this then : What is the harm in Joshua talking to you or Dr . DeJarnette regarding this information? BY MR . FINLEY : Object to the form . BY MR . WALKER : You can still answer . 75 Q A In an evaluation team meeting it would be appropriate since BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501) 537-5110 1 2 I 3 I 4 5  6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 you were an invited guest . Q Wait a minute . What about one - on- one? Let me put it another way . Let ' s assume somebody is just a patron , Walter Hussman , for instance , and he comes and asks you what is going on with respect to PRE , can you tell him? 76 A I would , first of all , Walter Hussman has never done that . Q Well , let ' s assume it ' s Walter Hussman . If he did that , would you tell him what he asked? It being public information? A If it ' s public information , yeah , I would discuss it with him . Q I see. Well , why would you tell Walter Hussman and not John Walker? A It was my inLerpretation that the attorneys representing Joshua are adversarial . Q That ' s right . BY MR . WALKER : I have no more questions . Thank you . CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR . HELLER : Q Referring to Exhibit 1 , Paragraph 3g , do you disagree with that statement? A Yes. LRSD has not impeded compliance with embedding assessment . Q That ' s your position? A Yes . BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501) 537-5110 I  1 2 = 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 77 Q Okay . I want to look at Paragraph Sc of the same document where Dr . DeJarnette reported that LRSD and its counsel attended few evaluation sessions . Who is LRSD? A It ' s about 4 , 000 employees . Q Okay . Well , of those 4 , 000 employees , were there several of them at every single evaluation session? A Yes . Q So it ' s true that LRSD attended every evaluation session? A Yes , if LRSD is defined as all the employees , yes . Q Do you understand that PRE is a separate entity outside of LRSD? A No . BY MR . HELLER : That ' s all I have . WHEREUPON , the deposition concluded at 1 p .m., January 9th , 2007 . BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501) 537-5110 78 C E R T I F I C A T E STATE OF ARKANSAS )ss COUNTY OF LONOKE I , KELLY S . ADCOCK , Certified Court Reporter and Notary Public , do hereby certify that the facts stated by me in the caption on the foregoing proceedings are true\nand that the foregoing proceedings were recorded verbatim through the use of the Stenomask and thereafter transcribed by me or under my direct supervision to the best of my ability , taken at the time and place set out on the caption hereto . I FURTHER CERTIFY that I am neither counsel for , related to , nor employed by any of the parties to the action in which these proceedings were taken\nand further , that I am not a relative or employee of any attorney or counsel employed by the parties hereto , nor financially interested~ or otherwise , in the outcome of this action . WITNESS MY HAND AND SEAL this 14th day of January , 2007 . KELLY ,IS . '11.DCOCK Certified Court Reporter My Commission Expires : #643 04/15/14 BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501 ) 537-5110\nThis project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resources.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\u003cdcterms_creator\u003eBushman Court Reporting\u003c/dcterms_creator\u003e\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1224","title":"Oral deposition of Olivine Roberts, Little Rock, Ark.","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":["Bushman Court Reporting"],"dc_date":["2007-01-09"],"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--Finance","Educational law and legislation","School board members","Court records","School management and organization"],"dcterms_title":["Oral deposition of Olivine Roberts, Little Rock, Ark."],"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/1224"],"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\nLittle Rock School District vs. Pulaski County Special School District\nThis transcript was created using Optical Character Recognition and may contain some errors.\nIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT vs . LRC 82--866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO . 1 , ET AL MRS . LORENE JOSHUA , ET AL KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL ORAL DEPOSITION OF OLIVINE ROBERTS JANUARY 9TH, 2007 BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING 620 WEST THIRD SUITE 201 LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201 (501) 372-5115 bushmanreporting@aoi . com PLAINTIFFS DEFENDANT INTERVENORS INTERVENORS ft~CEIVED IAN 1 9 2001 OFFICE OF DESEGREGAllOH MONllORlHG APPEARANCE OF COUNSEL ON BEHALF OF PLAINTIFF: MR . CHRISTOPHER HELLER FRIDAY , ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK , LLP 2000 REGIONS CENTER 400 WEST CAPITOL AVENUE LITTLE ROCK , AR . 72201 ON BEHALF OF JOSHUA INTERVENORS: MR . JOHN WALKER , P .A. 1723 BROADWAY LITTLE ROCK , AR . 72206 STATE OF ARKANSAS OFFICE OF ATTY GENERAL: SCOTT P. RICHARDSON ASS I STANT ATTORNEY GENERAL 323 CENTER STREET SUITE 1100 LITTLE ROCK , AR . 72201 2 STYLE AND NUMBER APPEARANCES STIPULATION PAGE I N D E X Examination by Mr. Walker .. ... . ..... . . . . .. . .. . .. . .. . . Examination by Mr . Heller .... ..... . . .. .. . .. . .... .... . Further examination by Mr . Walker . .. . .. . . . .. . . . .. . .. . Deposition concluded . .... . ... . ... . . .. . . . ... . . . . . . . . . COURT REPORTER ' S CERTIFICATE BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501) 537 - 5110 1 1 3 5 85 86 90 91 3 4 OLIVINE ROBERTS PRODUCED , SWORN , AND EXAMINED at the law office of John Walker , 1723 Broadway , in Little Rock , Arkansas , beginning at 2 p .m. on January 9th , 2007 , the above - entitled cause now pending in the United States District Court , Eastern District of Arkansas , Western Division , said deposition being taken pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure , by agreement of counsel , at the instance of counsel for Joshua Intervenors . BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501) 537 - 5110 -I I 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR . WALKER : Q State your name , please . A Q Olivine Roberts . Dr . Roberts , where did you get your doctorate degree? A University of Central Florida . Q Do you recall your dissertation? A Yes . Relationship Between Student Learning and , I think , Leadership at the High School Level , something to that effect . It was instructional leadership . The correlation between instructional leadership and the principalship at the secondary level . Q Where did you attend college? A Q A Q A Q A Q A Q A Q University of Central Florida . Where did you attend graduate school? University of Central Florida . All if it was at the same institution? Yes . Were you a cum laude graduate or above at college? For my masters and doctorate , yes\nundergrad , no. I see. When did you first meet Dr . Brooks? 2000 , if I 'm not mistaken . And where were you working at that time? For the Orange County Public School System. What was your job? BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501 ) 537 - 5110 5 I I I I 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 6 A At that time , I was the math coordinator supervisor for the district , math/science . Q Were you an area coordinator or were you city- wide coordinator? A This was for the ent i re district at the time . Q A Q A Q Was that elementary or secondary? K- 12 . Now , a coordinator is not like a director normally? No , not here -- it would not be aligned to that , no . I see . So that was a mid- level management position , would you say? A I would not say it was management . It was more a support position . Q Support . Okay . Did you report to a person with a higher sounding title? A Q A Q I reported to -- yes , the director of curriculum . Did the director of curriculum report to somebody? The associate superintendent for curriculum . Okay . Did you ever hold a position higher than coordinator when you were in Florida? A Yes . I was the senior administrator for curriculum and instruction for the south learning community. Q A Q That ' s an area? Yes . All right . So you moved from coordinator to another BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501 ) 537 - 5110 1 2 I 3 I 4 5 I 6 7 ~ 8 9 10 ~ 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 position above that? A Yes . Q Still below director of curriculum? A Yes . I reported directly to the director . Q So you were not a senior administrator when you came here? A I was a senior administrator for Orange County , yes . In terms of a senior administrator at the cabinet level? Is that what you ' re asking me? Q Yes , that ' s what I mean . A No . Q I see . So you ' ve never been in a cabinet position before you came here? A No . Q I see . How long had you been an administrator when you came here? A Four years , going on five . Q So you ' re more or less a novice? A I would not say that , no. Q All right . In the field of education , to me -- 7 A In the field of education, one to three years is considered novice. Q I see . Have you written any books or anything? A No , I ' ve not written any books, no . Q Have you published any articles in any learning journals? A No , I ' ve not published any , no . BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501) 537-5110 I I I Q 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q Have you been a co- author of anything anywhere subsequent to your dissertation ? A That was published, no . Q A Q A Q A Q A Q A Q A Q A I see . Have you conducted any studies on any subject? Yes . Are those studies reported anywhere ? University of Central Florida has copies of them . All right . So that ' s part of your dissertation? And my thesis . And your masters thesis? Yes . I see . What was your thesis? The Integration of Math and Science Curriculum . That ' s pretty general . For what purpose? To increase student learning . But that wasn ' t part of the title? No . It was to integrate the mathematics and science curriculum . At the time , integration was the focus . Q What integration are we talking about? School desegregation -- A Q A Q A No , the integration of the math and science curriculum. Meaning , both of them together and -- Yes . How do you teach them together . --causing them to be taught together? Yes . BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501) 537 - 5110 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q All right . BY MR . FINLEY : Teach them to get along . BY MR . WALTER : Teach those two subjects to get along . pretty good , Mr . Fi nley . BY MR . WALKER : Q Al l right. Have you ever taught school? Yes . Where at? Conway Middle School . I s that in Orange County Yes , it is . Seminole Community College . What did you teach at the community college? Intermediate algebra . So you ' re really a math teacher? That is my area of discipline , yes . That ' s A Q A Q A Q A Q A Q I see . Have you ever -- is the Seminole Community College a majority white community college? A I would say yes . I don ' t know the demographics of the college . Q A But the staff was mostly white\nwasn ' t it? I was an adjunct . I worked at night so I have no idea . Q And the school where you taught , was it majority white or black? BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501) 537 - 5110 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A Q Majority white . I see . So you ' ve never taught in a majority black school system before , have you? A Orange County is not a majority black system so , no . Q I see . What is your experience for dealing with 10 remediating educational disparities between African-American and white children? A Since the achievement gap is a national phenomena , we have the same phenomena in Orange County. Q No . What is your experience is my question . What is your experience in dealing with remediation of achievement disparities between African-American and white students? A In my role as the senior administrator for curriculum and instruction and also my role in supporting the mathematics curriculum, it was my charge to increase the student learning , at that time, within the district for African-American as well as Caucasian students . Q I see . It was sort of like Mr. Heller suggests, you want to improve the education of all students? A Isn ' t that why we ' re in education? Q For all students? A Isn't that why we ' re in education? Q No. No . No. We're not debating . So your emphasis was upon increasing the educational achievement of all students? A Yes . BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501 ) 537 - 5110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q I see . It wasn't focused on remediating achievement disparities that were pre-existing between black and white students? Is that fair to say? A It is fair to say that , for those students who had deficiencies , one of my responsibilities was to identify interventions that would bridge those deficiencies . Q I see . Are you aware of any school district that has effectively dealt with narrowing the achievement gap between African-American and white students? A Q Yes . Would you name some of them? 11 A Brazosport , Texas\nAldine , Texas\nI want to say Charlotte- Mecklenburg . These are the ones that I ' ve studied. Q A Q A Q A Have you read the Swann Decision? Pardon? Have you read the Swann Decision? No , I've not read the Swann Decision . You ' re not familiar with Swann versus Charlotte Mecklenburg? No . Q And it ' s your position that Charlotte had materially narrowed the achievement gap between black and white students? A There was some evidence indicating that they were on the road to closing that gap, yes , based on the articles that I've read . BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501) 537 - 5110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q A Q Are you talking about newspaper articles? No , sir . I 'm talking about journal articles . Tell me which journals you are referring to . A I would have to go back and research . I can ' t recall the 12 publication of the articles . These were a few years back when I was doing my dissertation so , if I may come back and respond to that . I do know that Brazosport , Texas has closed the -continues to narrow , I should say , not close , the achievement gap . Q Is it your position that Brazosport is a majority African- American school district? A I think there are some African-American students as well as Hispanic students . Q A Q it? A It ' s majority Hispanic\nisn ' t it? But they ' re -- Just my question. Brazosport is majority Hispanic\nisn ' t Yes , it is . Q All right . And this other Texas place is also majority Hispanic\nisn ' t it? A Q Yes, it is . Do you know any place that you have studied or received information on , other than the three that you have mentioned , where the achievement gap between African- American students and white students has been addressed effectively? BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501) 537-5110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 13 A The 90 - 90 - 90 study that was conducted by Doug Reeves identified schools , not necessarily districts . Q I 'm dealing with districts now . I ' ll just ask you to tell me the districts , any district . A I do not know the district at the moment . Q All right . Now , you can ' t say that there are no districts that have dealt with this\ncan you? A Repeat your question , please . Q You cannot say that there are no districts that have effectively dealt with addressing the achievement gap between African- American and white students\ncan you? A I cannot say that there are no districts that have not dealt with it . Q I see . Are you aware that at one time Little Rock made material gains in addressing the achievement gap between white and black students? A Q Please define that. The gap was being narrowed considerably during the time Mr. Paul Mason was here. Were you aware of that? A Was that before NCLB? Q A Q A Q National Conference of Black Administrators? What is NCLB? No Child Left Behind . No Child . Okay. That ' s Mr . Bush ' s initiative? Yes , it is . This was before then, yes . BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501) 537-5110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 14 A Okay . So therefore , the standards movement was not in affect then . Q Well , how can you say that? A Because standards did not become a national initiative unti l then . Each s tate did not have set standards across the - country . Q Did somebody tell you that? A Pardon? Q A Q A Q A Di d someone tell you that? If you do the research - - What is your research source? Pardon? What is your research source for that conclusion? If you look at the standards Q I 'm asking for your research source for the conclusion you just uttered . A In 1983 , after a Nation at Risk was published , that ' s when that became the , I would say , the catalyst for the standards movement . The NCTM , National Standards , were not published until 1989 and states did not start adopting those standards until about , I want to say , '99 , 2000 . Q That ' s your opinion . A No , those are facts . Q You don ' t know really much about the history of the educational achievement or lack of achievement in the Little BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501) 537 - 5110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 15 Rock School District\ndo you? A Before Q Before you came here . A I have looked at the data . I have studied the data and , yes , there were some spikes but , again , when you look at the NCLB , and that is critical -- when the Arkansas Department of Education changed the testing tool that was being used , we then saw a decline . When they went from the SAT 9 to the ITBS to the Benchmark , there was a very drastic decline . Q A Q A Q Decline in what? In student achievement . Whose achievement? Black or white? Both African- American students and Caucasian students . Well , there couldn ' t be a real decline . It ' s a decline in the way it ' s measured on a particular test\nisn ' t it? The achievement is the achievement . It ' s just a question of who measures it and how\nisn ' t it? A The achievement should also parallel and we saw , again , between ITBS , SAT 9 and the Benchmark assessment that there was a drastic dip when the Benchmark was first administered, in relation to the SAT 9 . Q I see . Let me go back . You don ' t hold yourself out as an expert on remediating the achievement gap between black and white students\ndo you? A I see myself as an expert in student learning . BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501) 537-5110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q A Q That ' s yes or no . I see myself as an expert -- Please answer my question . Do you hold yourself out - BY MR . FINLEY : She ' s not required to answer your questions yes or no . BY MR . WALKER : Q Yes or no . Do you hold yourself out as an expert on 16 remediating achievement disparities between Afri can- American and white students? I 'm not aski ng how you see yourself . Do you hold yourself out as having an expertise -- A I hold myself as an expert in address i ng the deficiencies of students having difficulty learning . Q I see . Now , have you read all the court decisions in the Little Rock case? A I have read some of them . Q Can you tell me the ones you ' ve read? A I ' ve read the remedy that was issued in 2002 -- was it 2002? The one that -- 2004 . I read the last court -- the one where Bonnie Leslie and -- I forgot the lady ' s name that was over PRE at the time . I read some of those transcripts . Q You read the transcripts or the decisions? A Q A I read some of the transcripts and the decisions . How do you define transcript? What the person testified to that was recorded . BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501) 537 - 5110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 II 8 9 q 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 17 Q So you read Dr . Leslie ' s testimony? A Yes . Q I see . Were you -- did you form an opinion as to whether or not much of the information presented by Dr . Leslie was based upon fabricated information? A No , I did not form an opinion . Q Let me ask you : What was your last salary in Orange County? A Approximately , $68 , 000 . Q And what was your first salary here? A I want to say 1-05 . Q That ' s a big jump . $40 , 000 . Did you know Dr . Brooks in Florida? A Yes , I did . Q What was your relationship with Dr . Brooks while you were in Florida? A He was my supervisor . Q I see . So you reported to him? A He was the area superintendent . Q That ' s yes or no . A I did not report directly to him , no . Q How many levels removed from him were you in the administration? A Three . Q So that meant that you were five from the senior administrative level of the school district? BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501) 537 - 5110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A No , I was four . It was the associate superintendent , the executive director and then myself . Three . I 'm sorry . Q Did they have area superintendent A Q A Q A Q from The executive director . Was he an area superintendent? Yes , he was . I see . Were there assistant superintendents? No . All right . That ' s fine . So you were four levels removed A No , I was three . Again , it was the area superintendent , 18 the executive director who reported to the area superintendent , and I reported to the executive director . I was the third person . Q A Q And Mr . Brooks reported to whom? The superintendent . So that meant you were at the fourth level of administration? A Q Okay . If you want to view it that way . Now , did you apply for the job here or were you pre-selected? A I had to apply . I went through an interviewing process . Q I understand you did but he told you he wanted you and asked you to apply\ndidn ' t he? A He asked me if I would think about applying for the BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501) 537 - 5110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 19 position , yes . Q I see . Now , can you tell me the worst thing that you can say about Dr . DeJarnette as a professional? A I do not speak negatively about my colleagues or people who report to me . Q Well , you have to evaluate them so , in terms of the evaluation process , what is the worst thing you can say about her in terms of her qualifications? What ' s the worst thing you can say? A The evaluations that have been done in the past have been moderately good . Q A No , I 'm not Again , I will not say anything negative about anyone . Q Doctor , you have to answer my questions . In terms of her qualifications , what qualifications does she lack in order to perform or fulfill the responsibilities that she was assigned to fulfill? A Based on her evaluation Q Qualifications . A Apparently , she was qualified because she was granted ti1~ position . Q Well , that ' s apparently . I 'm asking you . A I sat on the interviewing team . I was a member of the team so , therefore , she met the qualifications outlined in the job description and -- BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501) 537-5110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Does she still meet the qualifications? Yes , she does . 20 Q A Q Now , have her qualifications been enhanced in the last two years or diminished? A Q They ' ve remained the same . Isn ' t it true that by being on the job for two years that they had to have increased? A Not necessarily . Q I see . In your opinion , have they been enhanced in the last two years , her qualifications? A I would say that the experiences that she has had may have expanded her qualifications . That ' s yet to see . Q Have yours been expanded in the last two years? A I can speak for me . Yes . Q A I see . So you ' re just guessing for her? Well , I ' d need to talk with her and find out . Q Now , what is the worst thing that you can say about her administration of PRE? The most negative thing . I ' ll put it that way . What is the most negative thing you can say about her? A Again , based on her evaluations , I do not -- it ' s not a habit I have of criticizing the people who report to me . Q Well , this is a court proceeding and I will ask you this question there so what is the most negative thing that you can say about her qualifications at this time? BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501) 537 - 5110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 q 8 9 II 10 11 ll 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 21 BY MR . FINLEY : She ' s answered your question . She said she ' s not going to say anything negative about her . BY MR . WALKER : I heard what she said and that ' s a coaching objection . I 'm asking -- BY MR . FINLEY : If you want to ask her another question , ask her another question . BY MR . WALKER : Are you telling her not to answer? BY MR . FINLEY : She ' s already answered . BY MR . WALKER : Are you telling her not to answer? BY MR . FINLEY : She ' s already answered . BY MR . WALKER : Just a moment , Mr . Finley. Are you directing you either direct her not to answer or -- BY MR . FINLEY : You can keep asking the same question . I 'm telling her she can keep giving you the same answer . BY MR . WALKER : Well , you ' re coaching her . BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501) 537 - 5110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 II 8 9 10 11 I 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 22 BY MR . FINLEY : No , I 'm not . BY MR . WALKER : Q Was she a satisfactory administrator before she was terminated , recommended for termination? A Based on her evaluation , yes . Q Based upon your appraisal of her work . In the intervening time between her evaluat i on and the time she was walked out of PRE , was she a satisfactory employee? A No . Q All right . Now , what was it that made her unsatisfactory? A She did not comply with the chain of command . Q What else? A She was insubordinate . Q What else. A And she superceded authority . Q What else? A She lied . Q What else? What else? A I think that will suffice for now . Q I don ' t want you to suffice for now because there is a later . If you say for now , that means you can come back later . I want it all now . What else can you say? A That is it. Q That is it . All right . Now , first of all, what did she BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501) 537-5110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 lie about and when did she lie? I 'm sure there are several things so tell me what those lies were . A One , when she said that Yvette Dillingham was asked to accept an 11 month -- it was her -- let me get my thoughts together . Q This ought to be pretty clear . Didn ' t you just give testimony last night regarding this same subject? A That was a closed hearing. 23 Q Well , we ' re entitled to your testimony from there as well . So didn ' t you just give testimony there? A I did not testify to this last night . Q But you were prepared for that testimony , at least by Mr . Heller or by Mr . Finley\nweren ' t you? A They had nothing to do with last night ' s hearing. Q All right . At least you ' ve talked with them regarding this matter\nhaven ' t you? A Q Yes. All right . A No . So that means you ' ve gone over it . Q So tell me what lie she told with respect to Ms . Dillingham . A Number one , regarding the position, the length of the contract from 11 months to 12 months . She implied that Yvette Dillingham accepted the 11 month p osition and that she left the district just to accept the job in Pulaski County . The position BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (5 0 1 ) 53 7 - 5110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 u u n 24 was changed to 12 months . She also lied because she is the one who actually recommended that the position be downgraded to 11 months , from 12 months to 11 months . That was her idea . Q Go ahead . What else? A That is it regarding Ms . Dillingham . Q That ' s one lie . What ' s the next lie? You said she lied . Did she tell lies about anybody else other than Dillingham? A When she said that the superintendent threatened her , that was also a lie . Q All right . What else? A That is it . Q I see . Were you present in all the meetings that she had with the superintendent? A No . Q How can you say that - - A She said one was done in my presence and it was not done so I can speak to that one . Q So that ' s the only one that -- A That I can speak of . Q What was the date of that? A I don ' t recall . According to her, it was done sometime in the summer. Q Did you ever hear the superintendent compliment her work performance? A I can't recall a specific incident , no. BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501) 537-5110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q Did you ever complement her work performance between June and November or December , 2006? A I can ' t recall a specific incident , no . Q I see . Now , with respect to Ms . Dillingham, did Ms . Beverly Williams participate in those decisions involving Ms . Dillingham? A At the time she was the director of HR so she had some involvement . Were you present during that i nvolvement? No , not with Beverly , no . 25 Q A Q Isn ' t it true that Ms . Beverly Williams was the one who was the architect for the reorganization? A There was a transition team . Q I understand that . But the person who had the day- to-day responsibility for that and who did the work was primarily ~~ Beverly Williams\nwasn ' t it? A She did the work of the transition team, yes . Q I see . Now , a recommendation is not a decision\nis it? A No . Q So Dr . DeJarnette had no decision- making power about down grading a position\ndid she? A No . Q I see . So that meant that she made the recommendation . Who made the decision to down grade the position? Who made the decision? BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501) 537-5110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 A I would say the transition team made the recommendation to the board . The board made the final decision because the board approved the organization restructuring . Q Now , we know that basically administrations make decisions and then boards approve , except for last night . Who made the decision to chance Ms . Dillingham ' s position? Who made that decision? You said the transition team? A Made the recommendation to the board . Q Well , who decided to make the recommendation to the board? Was it you and Ms . Beverly Williams? A The person who recommends to the board is the superintendent . Q Well , who made the recommendation to the superintendent? A Q A Q The transition team . Was that you and - The transition team . Who else was on it besides you? A Beverly Williams , Karen DeJarnette , Mark Millholland , Sadie Mitchell . Q Did not you inform all of the people -- and Beverly inform all the people that there had to be departmental cuts in every department? A No . Every department did not receive a cut . Q Oh , we know they didn ' t but was not that the rhetoric and the explanation that was presented publically that every BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (50 1) 537-5110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 27 department was being cut? A That may have been the rhetoric but what we meant and we did the work , every department was not cut . Q That ' s right . Incidentally , is there any particular reason why it was virtually only black people who were cut? You heard Dr . Mitchell ' s -- A Q Which Mitchell? Board member Mitchell? Board member Mitchell . You heard her statement to the board that , of the positions that were cut , they were 90 percent or more African-American . Did you hear that? A I 'm certain if I were present I heard it . Q I see . Is there any particular reason why the impact of the reorganization fell most heavily upon African-American people at all levels? A I don ' t know of one. Q I see . Now , going back to Dillingham . She left the district just to accept a position in Pulaski County . Is it your position that Dillingham wanted to leave Little Rock? Did you ever talk to Ms . Dillingham? A Yes . Q A Was that when she met with Mr . Hattabaugh? That was on another occasion , yes . Q Did that follow the letter that I had written to Mr . Hattabaugh on her behalf? A I don ' t recall . BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501) 537 - 5110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q Were you aware that I had written a letter to Mr . Hattabaugh regarding this matter? A Yes . Q I see . And isn ' t it true that after that letter her position was restored? A That may have been the course of action . I see . Now , what authority did she supercede? Yvette Dillingham? 28 Q A Q No . No . Dr . DeJarnette . Reason number three was that Dr . DeJarnette superceded authority . I like to hear you talk because you were so forceful in saying that so I ' d like for you to forcefully tell me what authority she superceded . A One , there is a grievance policy that if there is a grievance there is a protocol that should be followed . She did not adhere to that protocol\nTwo , when she reported to the board regarding the quarterly report , the September '06 quarterly report , instead of taking it to myself , Mr . Hattabaugh , Dr . Brooks , the cabinet and then to the board , that was not followed. Q A What else? Does that have to do with the grievance? I think it led to her - - she would need to answer that . don ' t know . I Q I see . In terms of protocol , is there any writing defining this protocol? A Past practice establishes tha~ protocol . BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501) 537 - 5110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 29 Q How do you know about past practice since you haven ' t been here? A Well , since I ' ve been here for two years , that has been the practice . Q Do you know of any administrator in the two years that you ' ve been here , other than Dr . DeJarnette , to file a grievance? A Not under my command , no. Q So how could you know what the past practice is for administrators since you ' ve never seen one? A We have a grievance policy and she did not adhere to the policy . Q Well , just tell me , what is the protocol that is set forth in the policy that she failed to adhere to? A That she is to inform -- she is to take it to the supervisor . She did not do that . Q So she didn ' t come and tell you that she was grieving? A She did not come to me and say there was a problem . Q Well , isn ' t it true that before she filed this grievance that you and she had almost had a fight? A She filed the grievance -- Q A Just listen to my question . Okay . Q Isn ' t it true that you moved the gifted and talented people into part of her office space? BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501) 537 - 5110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 I 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A That was done in May , yes . Q I see . And isn ' t it true that that provoked a response that required the intervention of Mr . Hattabaugh? A A conversation was had with Mr . Hattabaugh regarding the move , yes . Q And then after that conversation with Mr . Hattabaugh , you changed your plan to give her further accommodations by way of company in her off i ce? A Again , when gifted and talented was -- Q My question was -- A No . I need to give you some background . Q I don ' t need it . I just want to know . I 'm trying to 30 establish that you had a conflict with her and that it was longstandi ng and pre - existing and that Mr . Hattabaugh intervened and after that there was some temporary resolution . That is fair\nisn ' t it? BY MR . FINLEY : Object to the form . BY THE WITNESS : There was a conversation between Dr . DeJarnette and I . Mr . Hattabaugh was engaged in that conversation regarding the move of gifted and talented into her office and then we moved them out of her office into another room . BY MR . WALKER : BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501) 537 - 5110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 31 Q I see . Before you sought to put gifted and talented into her office did you discuss that with her? A Yes , and she agreed . Q And then when you sought to implement it , she disagreed? A Yes . Q I see . Isn ' t it true that you and she screamed and yelled at each other in the building? A I had a heated conversation in my office with her, yes . One conversation . Q All right . Okay . Now , is it your position that , had she wanted to grieve that situation , she had to first tell you she was grieving? A She could have taken it to Mr . Hattabaugh and to HR and followed the process . Q All right . Did she not take it to HR? A Not this particular situation, no , she did not . Q A She took the other one to HR\ndidn ' t she? She did not take it to Mr . Hattabaugh , nor to the superintendent. Q Well , she did take it to HR\ndidn ' t she? A Q Yes, she did . And when a person has a grievance , aren't they expected to take that to HR? A Q Yes . Now , what's wrong with her going to HR with her grievance? BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501) 537-5110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A Q It was not a problem with her taking the grievance to HR . Well , what ' s the lack of protocol? 32 A When she superceded the process and took the information to the board , she did not follow the policy . Q Well , the policy says that a grievance , once filed , has to be acted upon within five days\ndoesn ' t it? A That ' s what the policy says . Q A Q Was her grievance acted upon with five days? That ' s an HR quest i on . Do you not know? I don ' t know . A Again , that is an HR question . Q Well , and it may be . But in order to determine that she didn ' t follow protocol , you have to be aware whether or not the five day rule was complied with\ndon ' t you? Don ' t you? A Again , the superceded the chain of command . Q In order to make that judgement , you have to be aware of whether the five day rule with respect to grievances was complied with\ndon ' t you? A Q If that is your inference . All right . Now , was she ever given a hearing on her grievance? A No , because she took it the board . Q I see . How much time passed between the time she filed her grievance and the time she took it to the board? A I do not know . That ' s an HR question. BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501) 537 - 5110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 33 Q I see . Let ' s go on . Is that the only authority of yours that she superceded? A That I can think of at the moment , yes . Q I see . Now , you say she was insubordinate . To whom was she insubordinate? A To myself , Mr . Hattabaugh and Dr . Brooks when she , again , superceded and went to the board -- Q So , by going to the school board A --immediately without going through the protocol , yes . Q I see . So those are one in the same . Superceded authority and being insubordinate , those are one in the same\naren ' t they? A I guess you could say they ' re parallel . Q A Q Well , if they ' re parallel that means two paths . That lead to the same course . Well , what is the other conduct that constitutes So what - - insubordination? What ' s on that other road? Or isn ' t it the same road? A When she communicated with you when she was asked to communicate with counsel before communicating with the Joshu2 Intervenors . Q A Q All right . Have you read this compliance remedy? Yes , I have . Is there anything in here that prevents her from communicating with Joshua? A And there ' s nothing in there that says she must communicate BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501) 537 - 5110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 34 with Joshua either . We must keep you informed . Q So where is it that she violated a rule when she communicated with Joshua? A When she was asked by counsel and the superintendent to -- we all were asked . Q When were you asked not to communicate with Joshua? A Q A Q A That was not what was given to us . You were asked not to communicate with Joshua? No . No . What was the directive? The directive was that if we are asked anything of Joshua , we must first send it to counsel . Q I see. So let me ask you this : School district ' s business is public\nisn ' t it? A Q Yes. And the only information regarding school affairs that ' s not public is personnel information\nisn ' t that correct? A Q Correct . So what information could she have that she could share with Joshua that was not A It ' s not that we could not share with Joshua but we needed to intervene with counsel before sharing it with Joshua . Q A For what reason? To make certain that we were not , in any way, putting the district at -- maybe you were asking for something that was not BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501) 537 - 5110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 -10 11 I 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 a part of FOIA . We don ' t know . That ' s why we have a counsel that gives us guidance . Q Let me ask you this : Do you know Walter Hussman? A I know of him . Q Have you ever met with him? A Yes . Q I see . How many times? A One . Twice , at the most . Q Where at? A In his office . 35 Q Why would you go to Mr . Hussman ' s office? He doesn ' t have anything to do with the school so why would you go to his office? A To have a conversation with him . Q For what? For what? A To meet him . Q You had two meetings so what was the second meeting there for? A A follow - up meeting . Q Oh , you wanted to meet him again? A Yes . Q For what purpose? I 'm sorry . This isn ' t amusing . I apologize . I ' ll take a minute if you want to . I ' d just like to know how Mr . Hussman can have greater access to information in this district when he has no obligation under the court order BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501) 537-5110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 than Joshua counsel . A I did not provide Mr . Hussman with any information regarding the school district . Q A Q A Q A Q A Q A At least you went to meet with him\nright? Yes . You never came to meet with Joshua counsel\ndid you? Did you invite me to come and meet with you? You ' re always welcome . But you never extended an invitation\nhe did. Well , that ' s fair . He extended an invitation? Yes . He also offered you some money\ndidn ' t he? He offered the district money . He did not offer me any money . 36 Q But that was the reason for going to meet with him\nwasn ' t it? He was offering money for a program that you wanted to implement? A That the district wanted to implement . Q Well , the district board had not said they were going to implement that program at that time\nhad it? A No . That ' s why we do research and we gather facts in order to present to the board . Q What was that program? Merit pay? A Q It dealt with the Teacher Challenge Project, yes . I see. So because he was giving you some money , you went BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501) 537 - 5110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 .11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 37 to try to find a way to get that money? A No , that ' s not why I went to try and find a way to get the money . He was already giving us the money . We did not need to motivate him to give us the money . Q All right . So what did you do at that meeting? A We talked about the project . Q A Q A Did you talk to him about program evaluation? No . Did you talk with him about unitary status? No . Q Did you talk to him about problems of remediating the student achievement disparities between black and white students? A No . Q A Q All right . Now , did you also meet with Mr . Greenburg? I don ' t know that person . He ' s the editor of the paper , the newspaper editorial section . A No , I ' ve not met him . Q I see . Now , let ' s talk about the other things . She did not comply with what? You said she didn ' t comply with -- what was it she didn ' t comply with? Ms . Springer here reminded me that she wasn ' t supposed to speak with Joshua . Doesn ' t this compliance remedy indicate that the court expected cooperation between the Little Rock School District and Joshua? BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501) 537 - 5110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A Q A Q And we have cooperated . Did you ever at any time initiate a meeting with Joshua? No . All right . Did you ever share any writing regarding any subject with Joshua? A What you have requested , we have granted to you . Q I see . Were you aware that we had a duty to be involved , just as ODM did , in what the district was doing? 38 A And we have shared t he information with you . You were part of the evaluation team meetings . Q What did you expect -- how did you interpret the court ' s statement , \" I expect Joshua to continue to fulfi ll its traditional role of monitoring LRSD ' s compliance remedy obligations? \" What did you understand that to be? A To be a part of the process of the evaluations that were being conducted . That ' s why you ' ve been extended the invitation to be a part of every team meeting that we have had . Q Do you understand monitoring to be at your invitation? Do you understand monitoring to be at your invitation? Is that the way you interpret that? We don ' t monitor unless you invite us? Is that your position? Is that your position? Will you answer that? A Q You can monitor with or without an invitation . I understand but that ' s the abstract theoretical . Did you understand that we had the obligation to monitor whether you BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501) 537 - 5110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 invited us or not? A Q A Q You can monitor with or without - - Did you understand that Joshua was obliged to monitor? It ' s in the Remedy . All right . Now , did you ever discuss with anyone the traditional role of Joshua in monitoring LRSD ' s compliance obligations? A Q Define anyone . Anybody , including Mr . Heller . Did you ever discuss that with anybody in the district? We have talked about Joshua , yes . 39 A Q No . Did you ever ascertain what Joshua ' s traditional role was in monitoring? A The conversation has been had , yes . Q When was it had and -- A I don ' t recall . Q --with whom was it had? A Dennis Glascoe , when I first arrived and information regarding the compliance remedy . Only Dennis Glascoe? And other members of the team . Who else? Susie Davis , at that time -- I wanted more Q A Q A Q You know Susie Davis wasn ' t an administrator until you all came? BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501) 537-5110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A Q A Q She was a supervisor . That ' s right . And so A supervisor is an administrator . Okay . That 's f i ne . On Susie Davis , you all created a special program for her to promote her\ndidn ' t you? 40 A No , we did not create a special program to promote her , no . Q That ' s another issue . I won ' t get into that one now . She ' s a friend of yours\ni sn ' t she? A Q She ' s a colleague . I see . She ' s K- 12 coordinator\nis that right? A She ' s a K- 12 director . Q Director . Okay . Now , let ' s go back . You indicate that Dr . DeJarnette was deficient in that she did not comply with something . What was it that she didn ' t comply with , other than what I ' ve already covered? The first thing you said was she didn ' t comply . A It basically deals with -- Q With the chain of command? A Q A Q Yes . All right . You ' ve already addressed that\nhaven ' t you? Yes . All right . Now , what is the best thing you can say about Dr . DeJarnette? Silence is an answer as well so I ' ll take that . Is that the answer? All right . BY MR . WALKER : BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501) 537 - 5110 I 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Let the record reflect -BY MR . FINLEY: Let the record reflect that you gave her about three seconds to think about that -- BY MR . WALKER : If you call that three seconds , I ' l l go -BY MR . FINLEY : --before you interrupted her the first time . BY MR . WALKER: Q Well , what ' s the best thing you can say about Dr . DeJarnette? BY MR . FINLEY : If you want to put it on the clock , we can do that . BY MR . WALKER : The judge is going to put us on the clock so we may as well do that . BY MR . WALKER : 41 Q I 'm still waiting on you to answer . This is the third time I ' ve asked the same question . A Q She takes the initiative . To do what? She takes the initiative to do what? If I walk out this door then I ' ve taken the initiative to leave . I mean , to do what , Doctor? That ' s important . Q Well , because of the prolonged silence this time , may I BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501) 537 - 5110 I 1 - 2 3 4 h ~ 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 I 42 just simply say that you don ' t want to comment on that? Is that fair to say? A If you so wish to infer that . Q Well , can you give me some other answer other than that you don ' t wish to comment on that? A You may wish to infer that . Q Thank you . Did you formulate any opinion regarding the work performance of Mr. James Wooleb? A No . Q Did you formulate any opinion regarding the work performance of Mr . Ed Williams? A I worked with Dr . Williams on a couple of projects , yes , he is a very good worker , diligent . Q I see . Is there any particular reason you chose Dr . DeJarnette or the committee chose Dr . DeJarnette over Mr. Ed Williams for the position? He was a competitor for the position\nwasn ' t he? A Yes , he also applied for the position . Q I see . And you all selected Dr . DeJarnette over him\nright? A The committee did , yes . Q What was it that caused her qualifications -- I guess it ' s a qualification driven decision -- what was it that caused her qualifications to be considered superior to his? A I would have to go back and review exactly what BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501 ) 537-5110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 43 Q You don ' t have a recollection of what took place? A I don ' t recall e xactly what gave Dr . DeJarnette , I guess , the place over Dr . Wil l iams . I do not recall . I just know that it was the consensus of the committee that she be recommended for the position . Q Di d you make the decision to summarily remove her from her position? A Did I make the decision? Q A Q A Q A Q made? A Q A Q Yes . No . Did you recommend that that decision be made? I was in collaboration with the decision being made . Did you make the initial recommendation? No . Who made the initial recommendation that that decision be My supervisor . Who is that? Hugh Hattabaugh . What did Mr . Hattabaugh say to you as his rationale for making the decision? A Basically, the points that were brought out in the grievance - - excuse me , not the grievance -- the hearing or the grounds for termination . Q Before you all terminated her and walked her out , did you BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501) 537 - 5110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 consult with counsel? A Yes . Q A Q out? Was that Counsel Heller? Yes . Why was it necessary to have security come and walk her A I was not engaged in that activity . Q Did you inform Dr . DeJarnette after the board meeting 44 yesterday or last night that she was not to return to work until next Tuesday? A Q A That is correct . On whose authority did you take this action? My own . Q Is there any regulation that says that you may overrule the board ' s decision? A The board said she was reinstated . The board did not say when she would return to work . Q I see . Do you know what the past practice of the district has been when reinstatement decisions have been made? A No . Q A Q Did it matter to you? Yes, it does matter to me . Why didn ' t you ask somebody before you made the decision to tell her not to come back to work? A If I need to - - if it ' s one that was made out of error then BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501) 537-5110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 45 it can easily be corrected but I will not be in the office the majority of this week and I need time to make certain that she ' s welcome back and that there ' s a transition between what has occurred during her absence and when she returns . I will not be in the office until Tuesday , hence the decision was made for her to return on Tuesday . Q Why is it necessary for her to be there when she returns , especially in view of the fact that you don ' t hold her in high regard anyway? A Q A Q That ' s your opinion . Didn ' t you just say that? No , I did not say that . Did you not say that she was a liar , she superceded authority and was insubordinate? A Yes , I did say that . Q I see . So doesn ' t that mean that you do not hold her in high regards? A No . You cannot draw that conclusion from those statements . Q Do you know anybody that ' s a liar that you hold in high regard? Excuse me . I apologize . (Off the record) (After the break , the following testimony was given , as follows , to- wit) : BY MR . WALKER: I want to go on record as, again , apologizing to BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501) 537-5110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 46 Dr . Roberts and to Mr . Heller and to other counsel for my response to her question when I asked the question about a liar . I 'm still of the view that I can ' t understand it but I should not have exhal ed or exploded as I did so I do apo l ogize , for the record . BY MR . WALKER : Q Now , going on . Do you hold Dr . DeJarnette in high regard as a professional? A Regarding implementing the duties and responsibilities outlined in the job description? Q A Q Yes . She ' s able to do the job , yes . All right . Now , do you know the difference between a policy and a regulation in the school district? A Q A it . Q A Yes . Is there a policy IL- R in the district? We have several of them . You need to give me the title of IL- R. Is this the one dealing with the embedding of the comprehensive assessment process? Q A Q A Right . That ' s what I mean by the title . Well , it ' s called IL- R, Comprehensive Assessment -- That ' s what I 'm talking about . This part. That ' s the BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501) 537 - 5110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 47 title . Q Is that a board policy or a regulation? A Risa regulation . Q I see . Where is the policy on this subject? A I ' d have to go back and look at the board manual that we have . Q You are aware that there is a policy IL\naren ' t you? A Yes . Q And does the policy mirror IL-R? A It addresses the assessment process . Q Who developed IL-R? A Dr . DeJarnette Q I see . A --was the main author . Q Who developed IL? A That was done before I arrived . I don ' t know . Q Are you familiar with another - - I ' ll show you another one called IL- R. A This was the one prior to my arrival . No , this is the same one , if I 'm not mistaken . It's the same one . Just different font and print . It must be the same one . May I see that form again , please? It should be the same . Just different font. Q Doctor , are you familiar with both of those things? A This is the one that is in our policy book that was reported to the court . BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501) 537 - 5110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q A Q Which one are we going to be discussing in court? The one that was reported to the court . Which is which? Both of them have the same IL - R 48 designation so which one will be going to court on? A If I 'm not mistaken , there should be a date at the bottom when it was adopted . This is December 16 , 2004 . This one is October 10th, 2002 . So this is the one we ' re using . Q 2004 . Okay . Now , these two things are different\naren ' t they? A Yes . The '04 has been updated . Q The '04 has been updated? A Yes , to address the compliance remedy . Q One of them is called Program Evaluation Agenda and the other is called Comprehensive Program Assessment Process . They have different titles so that suggests that they have two different purposes\ndoesn ' t it? A A lot of the information that is here is embedded in this so this encompasses this . Q Doctor , with the two different titles , they are different\naren ' t they? A One could infer that just from the titles but then you need to read the content . Q Now, for a thing to be embedded -- how do you know the second one to which you referred, which is the '04 document, is embedded? BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501) 537 - 5110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 49 A Well , I 'm looking at it and some of the language is the same . Q I understand some of the language is the same . A I didn ' t say they were identical . I said some of the information has been embedded . Q Well , I want you to look at these since I 'm at a loss . The int erior of the documents seem to be materially different . Look at them and tell me what is the same . I don ' t want you to deal with i t superficially with the front page -- A Q That ' s why I 'm reading them both . I 'm looking at - - Look at the third page and you ' ll see material differences . A Well , this gives you an outline to the various ways that we ' re going to perform evaluations , yes . Q A Q Did you - - It provides a checklist . Did you have anything to do with the preparation of either one of these documents? A This was brought to my attention by Dr . DeJarnette when she was doing it before we took it to the board in December so , yes , I did have knowledge and do have knowledge of that , yes . Q What did she tell you when she prepared this document dated December 16 , 2004 entitled Comprehensive Program Assessment Process? A It was to meet the compliance remedy regarding the comprehensive assessment process . BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501) 537 - 5110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 . 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 50 Q Now , do you have any identified programs that specifically address achievement of black students? Any programs in the district that are specifically designated for that purpose? A Yes . Q A Where are they found? Well , if we look at Smart , Thrive Q Where are they found? Is there a document of where they can be found? A Q A Q No . I see . So we have to search for them somewhere? No , we don ' t have to search for them. Well , let me ask you this : If I wanted to know what those programs were , as a monitor for Joshua , could I get that informaiton without going through Mr . Heller? A No . You would need to go through him . That ' s the process . Q Okay . But Mr . Hussman could get that information without going through Mr . Heller\ncouldn ' t he? A No . Q A Why couldn ' t he? He has never asked for it . Q Well , but if he asked for it then you ' d give it to him because it's public information\nisn ' ~ it? A And we would give it to you after talking with Mr . Heller , just as we have in the past. Q So , as a monitor , I 'm going to be impeded in a way that Mr . BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501) 537-5110 ' I ' 1 2 ' 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 51 Hussman of the Democrat wouldn ' t? A Well , if he wants it for a newspaper article , we ' d go through the same because we are in court , we ' re being monitored by the court so , yes , I would also run it by Mr . Heller. Q I see . Now , has the compliance remedy been implemented? A Yes . Q What was the day that you can say it was first implemented? A Well , when I came we started implementing it . I 'm certain it began before my arrival but I can only speak to since I ' ve been here . Q When was it completed? A You can ' t complete it because it ' s a comprehensive process . It ' s ongoing. Q I see . Do you think it was completed at the time that the judge entered this order? A Entered the order that we should do the eight two step evaluations? Is that what you ' re talking about? Q Yes . At the time that the judge entered this compliance remedy in 2004 , had it been implemented? A Yes . We were released from certain portions of it except for this last piece , program evaluation . Q Well, that's all we ' re talking about here\nisn ' t it? A Okay . At that time then , no . That ' s why we ' re still in court . Q Was it implemented in December of 2004? BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501) 537-5110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A Q The process had begun . When did you all make a determination that it had been completed or has that determination been made? 52 A We ' re go i ng to court because we feel we have met the spirit of the law . The piece that is ongoing is the comprehensive assessment process and , yes , we have put that in place . essence of that , yes , it ' s completed . So , in Q So you can say that the comprehensive assessment program process A Q A Q A Q Has begun . --is embedded in the fabric of the district? Has begun . No . Has it been embedded in the fabric of the district? We ' re in the process of embedding . All right . But it ' s not been embedded . Let me ask you : Have you had any if you embed something it ' s not -- I use a tick example . It ' s sort of like a tick\nisn ' t it? A tick getting into something and staying with that something until something happens . Has this been tick- liked in the district , the process? A I would say that it is in the process . Q That means then that the principals of the district , including the teachers and the administrators would all know what the process is\nwouldn ' t they? A They know pieces of the process , yes . BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501) 537 - 5110 53 1 Q How do you know that? 2 A Because I facilitate some of the workshops with the 3 principals . 4 Q So you ' ve given the workshops on that? When did you 5 facilitate those workshops? 6 A That ' s ongoing . 7 Q When is the last time you had a workshop? - 8 A This morning . 9 Q With whom? Which principals? -10 A At the assistant principals for instruction .  11 12 Q How many of them were there? A I want to say 12 . 3 Q And how many assistant principals do you have in the 14 district? 15 A Assistant principals for instruction . 16 Q How many assistant principals for instruction do you have 17 in the district? 18 A I want to say maybe nine . Seven . Seven or nine . Around 19 there . I can ' t recall without going through each school . 20 Q Are you saying that you have people who have the title of 21 assistant principal for instruction? 22 A Yes . 23 Q Are they at the high school level? 24 A And middle . Some middle schools. 25 I Q Not all? BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501) 537-5110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 I 24 25 I A No . Q Which schools do not have assistant principals for instruction? A May I give you the list of schools that do? Q Yes . A Forest Heights Middle\nMabelvale Middle\nif I 'm not mistaken , I think , Henderson . And please put a question mark there . Who else at the middle school level? At the moment , 54 those are the ones that I can think of . and look at the list in my office . I would need to go back Q Who at the high school level? A McClellan , J .A. Fair , Parkview , Central and Hall . I think the person at Hall is part-time . It ' s an assistant principal but she ' s part-time API and other duties . Q All AP . Who is that person? A I cannot think of her name at the moment . I 'm sorry . Q Is she white? A I think she ' s black . Q What was the fellow teaching who had the catastrophe of killing his child at Hall? A What is the what? Q What did he teach out at Hall? A He taught civics . Q I see . Was that AP civics? A I think it was Pre - AP , if I 'm not mistaken. BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501 ) 537-5110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q Now, so you have seven middle schools and three of them have assistant principals A Q That I can recall at the moment . I see . So not all of the middle schools have principals for instruction? A That is correct. Q How do you make a judgement on which school will and will not have an assistant principal for instruction? A This was not a directive . This was a recommendation made 55 to the schools to have someone in addition to the principals excuse me -- in addition to the principal to oversee instruction . We gave the principal the authority to select someone if they met the job description . We did put together a job description and they selected someone to oversee that . Q So that means it ' s a teacher and that person is also given the additional title of assistant principal for instruction? A No . This person is an assistant principal . It cannot be a teacher . Q So this person is beyond the numerical standards set out for principals in a school? A No. Q So I take it that each one of these places has an assistant principal for instruction and also one for discipline? A Q They may have one for discipline, yes . Okay. You said that part of Dr . DeJarnette's failings was BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501) 537-5110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 = 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 56 talking with Ms . Joy Springer? A Repeat that question , please . Q Do you contend that one of Dr . DeJarnette ' s failings wa s her speaking with Ms . Joy Springer? A If she spoke to Ms . Springer without speaking to counsel , yes . Q I see . Do you have evidence that she did that? A No . Q I see . A I do not have any . Q Did you ever ask Dr . DeJarnette if she had done so? A No . Q Did you tell the board last night that she had done so? A That ' s a closed hearing . Q I 'm just asking what you told them . A I will not give an account of the hearing , which was closed , last night . Q What ' s your authority for not answering my question? A If it were open , I would gladly respond to and give you my response to questions that were asked of me last night but this BY MR . WALKER : Mr . Finley , since you ' re handling this , are you instructing her not to answer that? BY THE WITNESS : BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (5 01 ) 537 - 5110 l 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 57 It was closed session so you can direct me either way . BY MR . FINLEY : Why don ' t you just ask her questions other than what you said at the hearing? Why don ' t you just ask her -- so she doesn ' t have to breach that confidence . BY MR . WALKER : I don ' t know that there ' s a confidence . BY MR . FINLEY : Well , if the law allows it to be a closed hearing BY MR . WALKER : Well , a subpoena -- I mean , throughout these proceedings , we ' ve been able to ask what went on in the school hearings plus the hearing transcript is something that is going to be prepared and it becomes a matter of record . BY MR . WALKER : Q Let me ask you : Have you ever told anyone that one of the reasons for recommending her termination was that she spoke with Ms . Joy Springer? A No . Q Have you ever given anyone reasons as to why she was terminated , other than the ones that you ' ve set forth here? A Just the ones that were listed in the termination letter . BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501) 537 - 5110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 58 Q Now , is it fair to say that you were never in an evaluation team meeting conducted by Dr . DeJarnette regarding program assessment and evaluation where I was present until about five months ago? A No , I think we were in others before then . Q Do you recall approximately when? A We were a part of the ones that we did before . The Compass Learni ng , the Year- Round , all of those evaluat i ons . I 'm certain I attended some of those meetings . I can ' t recall the exact dates . I ' d have to go back and look at my calendar . Q Was Ms . Springer present in any of those meetings before September? A Yes , that I was in attendance , yes . Q Where Dr . DeJarnette was the person conducting the meeting? I 'm not talking about the big meetings were you had programs . I 'm talking about those little work sessions , 12 , 15 , 20 people A Q A The evaluation team meetings? Yes . I ' ve been in meetings with Dr . DeJarnette and Ms . Springer in those meetings before September , yes . Q Did you keep minutes of those meetings? A The team kept minutes and reported -- someone from PRE was given the responsibility of keeping minutes , which were then sent to all members who were present . BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501) 537 - 5110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 I 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 59 Q Tell me what the problem is with the data warehouse . Is there now a data warehouse in the school district? A Yes . Q When was it completed? A It is still be constructed . You never complete a data warehouse because you keep adding elements . Q When was it substantially completed for present use? A I would say starting around July or August , around there . Q Who is in charge of the data warehouse? A It is housed within computer information systems , which is supervised by Nancy Morgan . Q Does Nancy Morgan report to John Ruffins? A She reports to John Ruffins , yes . Q Has Mr . Ruffins , before November or December , been involved in any of the evaluation meetings that you have held? A I have not seen him at any , no . Q I see . What is Mrs . Morgan ' s responsibility with respect to program assessment and evaluation? A She ' s in charge of housing the data and collecting data when necessary , when needed , in order to fulfill the requirements of a program evaluation . Q What is her title? A I believe she is the program information specialist , I believe . I may have to confirm that . Q Does she report directly to Mr . Ruffins? BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501) 537 - 5110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A Q A Q A Q She reports to Mr . Ruffins . And does Mr . Ruffins report directly to you? No , he does not report to me . To whom does he report? Mark Millholland . I see . What is Mr . Millholland ' s role with respect to program evaluation? A He is the chief financial officer in CIS . Computer 60 information systems is an area of responsibility for him so , in essence , that is the connection that he has . Q Has he been to any of the team meetings? A Not where I was present , no . Q I see . Now , is there anything about Ms . Springer ' s affidavit that I showed you that you would disagree with? Take a moment . If so , just draw our attention to it and explain it and then just keep going . A We ' ll speak about Number 5 . Q State your objection or disagreement with that . A She states -- again , this is just being viewed from a document that the district publications , which report activities with respect to professional development revealed no professional development regarding the area of program assessments and evaluations . The document that was asked of us was regarding professional development for the schools , for the teachers, and in that document we list content area of BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501) 537-5:10 I I I 1 2 I 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 61 professional development . That is not all the professional development that we do in the district . For example , the professional development that was rendered today is not a part of the calendar , if you will , to look at our catalog for this year . The professional development that we did when we went to every school and met with the faculty and provide training regarding how to access CIS , that ' s not a part of the catalog but that is professional development , which is centered around program assessments and evaluations . Q Did anyone from PRE go with you this morning? A No . Q Did anyone from PRE got with you any of these other times? A No. Q Do you explain what PRE is doing when you go to meet with these people? A No. The schools know the role of PRE . Q Well , do they know what the court has ordered? A Yes . And PRE has done some of these workshops . Some of them have been conducted by Dr . Williams , Maurecia and even Karen , herself , in the past . Q Well, let me ask this : Have you shared the court ' s compliance remedy with all participants in the training? A I did not specifically allude to the compliance remedy , no . Q I see. Now , go on down . That's Number 5 . What else do you disagree with? BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501) 537 - 5110 I 1 A Number 7 , regarding the data available to PRE . The PRE has 2 been able to access the data needed at any time . I 3 Q Who told you that? 4 A Dr . Williams , himself , as recently as yesterday . 5 Q I see . Before you leave that , with respect to Dr . 6 Williams , what caused you to meet with Dr . Williams yesterday? 7 A We were just having a conversat i on . We had cab i net 8 yesterday . 9 Q He ' s in cabinet now? 10 A Because he ' s the interim director , he was there 11 representing PRE . 12 Q Is that the first cabinet meeting you all have had in like 3 a month? I 'm not talking about executive cabinet . 14 A It has - - I think this was his first meeting to cabinet . 15 Q So you all haven ' t had a cabinet meeting since Dr . 16 DeJarnette was summarily removed? 17 A I cannot recall us having one where he was present . 18 Q Did you have one at all? Whether he was present or not? 19 A I believe we have had -- yes . 20 Q Did he give a report on the status of PRE at the cabinet 21 meeting yesterday? 22 A No , he did not . 23 Q Have you been the one in the past to evaluate his work 24 performance? 25 A No , he does not directly report to me . BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501) 537 - 5110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 63 Q I see . Have you been the one to approve the evaluation of his work performance or disapprove? A Q A Q I 'm not his supervisor so , no . I see . Now , go on to the next one . Number 8 , I do not understand . All right . Go on to the next one . A I would need to go back and check my calendar but , if I 'm not mistaken , I 'm almost certain that April 18th was not my first time being present at an evaluation team meeting. I would need to go back and verify this information . Again , it has been qualified where Joshua was present so maybe Joshua was not present at the meetings where I was in attendance . I would need to go back and validate that . Q All right . That ' s in 2006? A Q A Q According to this . Did you attend any evaluation team meetings in 2005? Again , I would need to go back to my calendar and check. All right . Did you ever meet with -- did you go to California to meet with Dr . Catterall? A No , I did not . Q A Q A Q Did you ever meet with Dr . Burnhart? Yes . Did you find her to be a qualified person? Yes . Did you find her to be stature in the profession with BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501) 537-5110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 64 respect to professional evaluations? A School improvement and the use of data , yes . Q I see . Did you ever tell anyone that she was not objective when it came to the use of the data warehouse being discussed at that time? Was it Tetra - Data? A Did I ever tell anyone that? Q A Q A Q A Q A Yes . No . I see . Have you ever heard any comment to that effect? Made where there may be a conflict o f interest? Yes . Yes . Who made that comment? It was made by Mr . Hattabaugh because she ' s on the board . It was stated by Dr . DeJarnette that she ' s on the board of Tetra , hence a conflict . Q Why is it a conflict? Mr . Heller represents the Public Education Foundation and the Little Rock School District . Where ' s the conflict? A He ' s not selling a product . Q Oh , he ' s selling a big product . A Q A Q What is it? Time . The board has already hired him . But they didn ' t hire him for the Public Education BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501) 537 - 5110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Foundation\ndid they? And agree to pay him? BY MR. FINLEY : Do you want her to read it or -BY MR . WALKER : 65 Yeah . I 'm just talking about -- she ' s corning up with these things about Dr . Burnhart . BY MR . WALKER : Q Go ahead . A Again , Number 10 , I would need to go back and look at the minutes. It ' s stated here that the district did not have participates at the '05- '06 meetings . I would need to go back and verify that . Q That ' s fine . Keep going . A Number 11 , the district attempted to diminish the importance of the PRE staff regarding the testing coordinator position . Q Let me ask you : Is it true that that coordinator position is very important? A It is important regarding the test administration . It is not important in terms of the compliance remedy . The compliance remedy deals with program evaluations . The testing coordinator is a part of PRE . It ' s a -- go ahead . Q No , go ahead . A Q I' rn done . I 'm listening . BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501) 537-5110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A Q A I 'm done . I ' d like for you to finish that . I 'm finished . 66 Q You ' re saying that the testing coordinator position is not integra l to the PRE Department for it to work in embedding the process? A The testing coordi nator oversees , administers the testing program in the district . The ACTAP , the DIBBLES (phonetic sp . ) , those standardized testing measures , tools . If we were to remove testing coordinator from PRE , we would still need to comply with the court remedy by evaluating programs and embedding a comprehensive assessment process . Q Okay . Keep going with the affidavit . BY MR . WALKER : Madam Court Reporter , if you ' ll just put in the record that we ' re still under the headline of Ms . Joy Springer ' s Affidavit so that , if we have to use it at trial , we will be able to do that . BY THE WITNESS : Again , Number 12 , where PRE does not have access to the data warehouse and that PRE members were not sure that they would have liberal access . PRE has the most access to the data warehouse of any department in the district . BY MR . WALKER : BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501) 537-5110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q A not . Q A Q How can you say that? Because they have full access where other departments do Have you discussed that with Dr . DeJarnette? She knows that . How do you know she knows that? 67 A PRE has received the most training of any department in the district regarding the data warehouse . Q A Q A Q A I see . Are you still using Business Objects? Yes . Is that something that you all used in Florida? No . What was the program you used in Florida? We did use Crystal Reports , yes , in Florida as the data display but it was not our data warehouse . Q Did you bring Crystal Reports here with you? A Q No , it was here when we came . I see. Keep going . A Okay . The last one , Number 15 , it appears that Dr . DeJarnette is no longer involved in PRE decisions and regarding the assessments generated by Compass . Q Was she involved in the assessments generated by Compass after July 1, 2006? A The assessments that were done by Compass Learning were done by her department . We did not hire someone else to do it . BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501) 537 - 5110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 68 Q Did they have the responsibility as a department to provide ongoing formative assessments for students , teachers and administrators? A Repeat the question , please . Q Did PRE have the responsibility for providing formative , ongoing assessments? A Q A Q A Q A No . To provide formative ongoing assessments? Yes . No . Did anyone have that obligation? To provide Yes . That would be my responsibility to ensure that schools have formative ongoing assessments and to help them create them . Q Isn ' t that part of the comprehensive assessment process? A Yes . Q Isn ' t it expected that what you do is integrated into what PRE does? A Q Yes . Has it been done? A Yes . PRE has had involvement with the analysis of the data and how to use the data to inform instruction . Yes , that has been done . Q A Explain to me what is meant by formative assessments . Those are ongoing assessments . BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501) 537 - 5110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q A What is the purpose of a formative assessment? Are you talking about formative assessments used by teachers or formative assessments in terms of an evaluation? Q Let ' s do both of those . A Okay . Formative assessments being used by teachers are 69 assessments that teachers use to assess the progress of students on an ongoing basis . Q What is their source of data? A You use those same assessments to determine what the next assessments would be . Q A Q Well , what is being used in order to make the assessment? What is currently being used? No . No . For these teacher -- what are the data that the teacher uses? A They use classroom data that they collect from their students . They can use the quarterly assessments that we have . They can use the ACTAP . They use multiple assessments to determine . Q I see . Now , are all those things contained in the database? A Some are\nsome are not . The classroom assessments would not be . Q A Q Why not? Because those are ongoing day- to - day assessments . How can make a comprehensive assessment of a child and a BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501) 537 - 5110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 70 child ' s needs without having all the data? A The teacher has that . The teacher uses those pieces of data . They will look today and say that , in terms of Olivine , this is what is I need to do differently tomorrow . The teacher is using that in-time set of data to make decisions regarding the next lesson . Q A Q A How do you monitor that? The principal monitors that . How can the principal monitor that? By classroom walk- through ' s . That ' s why we have coaches in the buildings to help go into classrooms to observe -- so we have some measures in place within the school to determine the use of data . Q Do you have any programs that are being assessed by persons outside the school district? A The evaluations that we are in the process of completing , the four evaluations . Q Anything else? A There is an evaluation that is being done on the Teacher Achievement Challenge Project . Q Who is doing that? A That is being done between a collaboration of PRE and the University of Arkansas at Fayetteville . Q A Is there a written contract to sustain that? I would need to check with Mr. Millholland to see if there BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501) 537-5110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 is a contract . Q Who entered into that agreement and when? A Again , I would need to check with Mark with that . not involved with the contractual piece of it . Q Was Dr . DeJarnette involved? I do not recall . Was Mr . Ed Williams involved? I do not recall . I was A Q A Q Are the r e any other assessments being undertaken by any other group such as the University of Arkansas? A No . Just internally . I believe the -- and this has been 71 ongoing -- the TAP program has an evaluation that is being conducted by TAP , which is the Milken Family Foundation and they do an evaluation of all schools that are involved in TAP . Q Is that keyed into the comprehensive evaluation and assessment program that Dr . DeJarnette oversees? A That piece is -- I do not believe it is . Yes , it is . We have incorporated that with the Teacher Achievement Project , the project that is being done at Wakefield , Meadowcliff and the other schools along with Stevens and Rockefeller and those are the two that are involved in TAP . Q The Wakefield Project is one financed by Mr . Democrat\nisn ' t it? A The Wakefield Project is being funded by the district . The board approved that . BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501) 537 - 5110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q A Q That ' s the one that was started by Mr . Hussman? That was funded by his -- Did you all make the commitment to Mr . Hussman that if he funded these programs then you all would pick them up? A The district did not make that commitment . Q But you did pick them up\ndidn ' t you? A The district did. The board approved that . Q Now , the district also has a number of grant programs\ndoesn ' t it? We have several grants , yes . 72 A Q And the understanding is that those grant programs will be picked up by the district , just like the Hussman program would , upon the grant running out\nisn ' t it? A Not necessarily, no . I ' d have to go back and read each grant and each RFP. Q Tell me why it is that you have these grant programs in the southwest schools that when the grants end then the programs end . A For example? Q The National Science Foundation A The National Science Foundation Q 21st Century is one . A 21st Century, we still have in place . Q Who is funding it? A 21st Century is st.ill being funded by the federal BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501) 537-5110 1 2 3 4 5 I 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 73 government . Q Doesn ' t that run out this year? A I would need to go back and check . Some schools still have it for another two or three years so I would need to go back and check . Q Well , for the ones where it has run out , has it been p i cked up by the district? A I believe all the schools that were involved in 21st Century , since my arri val , are still involved . Q Have you integrated the program -- first of all , is there any agreement between you and the Public Education Foundation to provide formative assessments? A Between me and -- Q The school district and the Public Education Foundation . A We ' re involved in a partnership with the Public Education Foundation , yes. Q Did you agree that they would be qualified to do formative assessments for the school district? A They are not doing the formative assessments . They are helping with the funding of the formative assessments . The formative assessments are being developed by another entity . Q Who is that entity? A Hot Springs Learning Institute . Q So you have an assessment relationship with the Hot Springs Learning Institute? BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501) 537 - 5110 ' ' I 1 2 - 3 4 ' 5 I 6 7 = 8 9 10 ~ 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23  24 25 74 A Yes . Q Is that integrated into what PRE is doing? A They ' re involved in the use of the data , yes . Q Who is in charge of the Hot Springs Learning Institute? A It was recently , I think , extracted from the Hot Springs School District . I believe it was a part incorporated within the Hot Springs School District . Q Who is the person responsible for that? A The superintendent . Q Which superintendent? A I cannot think of his name at the moment . I 'm sorry . He recently retired and resigned to chair that particular institute and I cannot think of his name at the moment . Q So it ' s your understanding that there is no agreement between Little Rock and the Public Education Foundation -- A Excuse me . Repeat that please . Q It ' s your understanding that there is no agreement between Little Rock and the Public Education Foundation to provide formative assessments of programs in the Little Rock School District? A There is a partnership between the Little Rock School District and the Public Education Foundation to have formative assessments be done . The Public Education Foundation does not develop the assessments . We consider it a conduit . Q Do you have anything to do with respect -- is there a BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501) 537-5110 ' ' ' 1 2 ' 3 4 ' 5 6 - 7 I 8 9 I 10 11 I 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 75 process for embedding the assessment process into ACSIP? How do you deal with ACSIP in so far as embedding the assessment process into the fabric of the district? A Well , the ACSIP is the vehicle through which we address the improvement of schools so it is a natural connection to the comprehensive assessment process because , in order for us to develop a quality improvement plan , you do need to make certain you ' re looking at every aspect of the school . You need every measure of data in order to make an informed decision as to what to do next and what remedy the deficiencies that are in the school . Q Do either you or Dr . DeJarnette or Dr . Williams or anyone else propose to use ACSIP for embedding the assessment process? A Use ACSIP as the tool for embedding? No . ACSIP can be used as a part of but ACSIP cannot be the only vehicle through which . Q I understand but is ACSIP one of te vehicles that - - A That can be used . Q Have you all agreed that it will be used? A In time, it can be used . It will be . Can be and will be . Q Have you had this discussion with Dr . DeJarnette or Dr . Williams? A Yes . That is why ACSIP was ruled under the supervision of PRE with that intent . Q Which one of them did you discuss this with? BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501) 537 - 5110 ' ' ' 1 2 ' 3 4 ' 5 - 6 7 I 8 9 I 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 76 A Dr . DeJarnette . She ' s the director of PRE . Q Well , she was until A Well , this occurred way before she was suspended . Q What dea l ings have you had with the state department regarding the embedding of the evaluation process using ACSIP? A I have not had a conversation with the ADE regarding using ACSIP as the tool for embedding . Again , it is one piece of the comprehensive assessment process . It is not the piece . Q Do you see any role that the state has in embedding the evaluation process into the fabric of the d i strict? A In terms of making certain that we ' re still in compliance with the rules and regs as mandated by the state but it ' s our responsibility to ensure that we have a comprehensive assessment process within our district . Q Of course , they can monitor it\ncan ' t they? A That is their right . That ' s their responsibility . Q Do they have to go through Mr . Heller? A They oversee the school districts . Q Now , do you disagree with the compliance history that was prepared and presented to the board? I ' ll show you . I think that is Exhibit l . Have you seen that before? A Yes . Q Did you ever prepare a document that supports that? A I did not prepare a document . Q Have you seen a document prepared that contradicts that? BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501) 537 - 5110 ' ' 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 77 A Have I seen a document that contradi cts this? Q Yes . A I do not recall at this time . I ' d have to go back and review the documents that I have . Q Do you contradict it? A Yes . Q Tell me how you contradict it . A Well , l et ' s start with Po i nt Number 1 . Again , this goes back to what was stated earlier . The removal of the secretary , the test coordinator assistant , along with the downgrade of the testing coordinator position -- these were all recommendations brought forth by Dr . DeJarnette during the reorganization of the district . No one directed Dr . DeJarnette to do this . She brought these recommendations to the table when a potential program analysis was conducted regarding the ramifications of this and Dr . DeJarnette was asked what would be the implications , what would be the consequences of these positions being removed or downgraded . She gave none . So , yes , I object to Number l . Okay . Number 2 , I believe it was in the Quattlebaum report where Dr . Ross , again , spoke that the data that he received was , I guess , quality in order to do -- that provided him the necessary information to complete the evaluations and he spoke to that in the Quattlebaum Report . Q Did he speak of that to you? A It ' s in the report . No , I did not speak to Dr . Ross , BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501) 537 - 5110 ' ' I 1 2 ' 3 4 ' 5 6 I 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 78 himself . But he has not complained to us or to me regarding the quality of the data that he has received . Q Do you understand the Quattlebaum Report is hearsay? What is your opinion regarding that report? A Since we have completed evaluations from the evaluators , I will conclude that they had quality data to complete the evaluations . Q That ' s on the assumption that they wouldn ' t do an evaluation unless they thought it was quality and correct? A In the evaluation team meetings , we were able to remedy concerns or objections or questions or concerns that they had regarding the data . Q Have you seen reports to the effect that there were as many as 15 , 000 errors in some of the data that was transmitted to Dr . Ross? A No , I did not see those reports . Number 3 , regarding the Crystal Reports . Q Do you dispute that? A (no audible response) Q That ' s fine . You can just tell me the ones you object to . You don ' t have to give an explanation . about it because of time . A Okay . 3F . Q All right . A Of course, 3G. I 'm not going to ask you BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501) 537-5110 I 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 I 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q Okay . A Number 4 . Q You ' ve never seen that document before? A Yes , I ' ve seen it before but every time I read it , I just get , you know . Q You get what? A Just -- Q Goose pimples? A Pardon? Q Goose pimples? A I wouldn ' t say that . - It alarms me . Q Does it make you angry? A Not angry , no . Q Upset? A No . Q Do you agree with Dr . Brooks -- BY MR . FINLEY : Are you going to let her finish it? BY MR . WALKER : Q I ' ll just assume that you disagree with most of it . A With most of it , I do , yes . Q That ' s fine . Do you agree with Dr . Brooks that the reinstatement of Dr . DeJarnette was a very sad day for the Little Rock School District? A Yes . BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501) 537-5110 79 ' I 1 2 ' 3 4 5 6 ' 7 I 8 9 I 10 11 ' 12 3 ' 14 I 15 16 I 17 18 19 20 21  22 23  24 25 80 Q Do you agree with Dr . Brooks that if the level of engagement from this community does not increase then you don ' t know what the future will hold for the Little Rock School District? Do you agree with that? A I ' d have to th i nk about that . Q Do you agree with Dr . Brooks that Mr . Daugherty should have someone to run against him for the school board in the next election? A I think during any election tnat -- that is not my opinion . Q Have you heard Dr . Brooks encourage h i s principals to solicit someone to run against Mr . Daughtery? A No , I have not been in the environment where Dr . Brooks has done that . I ' ve not been there when that was done , if it ' s been done , no , not in my presence . Q I see . Now , in all these meetings where you were incidentally , would you find that appropriate for a superintendent to do? Solicit A No , I would not find that to be appropriate , no . Q Would you feel that that would be an appropriate basis for termination of a superintendent? A That ' s for the board to decide . Q Just in your judgement . A That ' s for the board to decide . Q Now , these meetings where you were present , the evaluation team meetings , did you sign in at each of those meetings? BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501) 537 - 5110 I I I 1 2 I 3 4 I 5 6 I 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A I would have to go back and look at my data . I 'm pretty good about making certain record it on my calendar . if I 'm attending a meeting , I 81 Q I see . Can you tell me any progress that has been made in remediating or narrowing the achievement gap between black and white students in the Little Rock School District since you ' ve been here with respect to any program or test? A We ' ve not done an evaluat i on regarding the achievement gap with respect to a program so I would need to go back because the evaluations that have been done have not been in regard to closing the achievement gap . It ' s just been on the effect . Q Do you all plan to do that? Any evaluation with respect to the achievement gap being closed? A That is something that we will need to examine in the future but we have not done that . Q But for two years since you have been here , you haven ' t even addressed the subject\nis that correct? A We ' ve addressed closing the achievement gap , yes . Every day I get up and -- Q No . In terms of evaluating programs for that purpose . A For the purpose of -- Q Of closing the achievement gap . A We ' ve been addressing programs in terms of increasing the achievement of African- American students , yes . Q Do you know any one particular program that you have BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501) 537 - 5110 I ' I 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 82 initiated which has that purpose as its objective? A In increasing the achievement of African-American students? Q Specifically , not generally . A I would say that the Algebra I program that we have put in place , Transition to Advance Mathematics , has been designed to address the needs of urban school children , which are predominantly , in this school district , African- American students . Q When was that put in place? A January of '06 . Q Has that program been assessed or evaluated? A It is not currently being assessed , no , but it will be at the end of this school year because we have not had one full year of implementation . At the conclusion of this school year when we receive the ACTAP data , we will then do an evaluation , a snapshot evaluation of the project . Q Did you work with Mr . Hattabaugh before you came here? A I supported him in terms of his school was one of the schools assigned to the learning community in which I worked . Q Was he also a middle level manager? A He was the principal . Q So that would be a middle level manager? A If you so define it . Q Well , he reported to three or four levels -- A Okay . BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501) 537 - 5110 I I ' 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 83 Q Was he principal of a majority black school? A No . Q What is his experience in addressing programs to deal with the achievement gap that exists , you say universally , between African-American and white students? A I will say this : His school was a school that showed increased student achievement for African- American students as well as Caucasians so , I 'm certain that as a leader he was doino some things to improve the learning of students . Q Is there a report which demonstrates or establishes that fact? A If you were to go to the Florida DOE website and track the progress of the high school , that ' s where he was , you will see that , yes . Q I 'm asking if there is a report , an assessment or evaluation report which allows that conclusion? A No . But based on the performance of students as measured by the FCAT , the Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test, the students at Boone High School showed progress . Q That ' s your judgement\nright? A No , that ' s based on the report that they gave . Q That who gave? A The Florida DOE . Q Department of Education? A Yes . BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501) 537 - 5110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q A Q So it ' s a written report? Yes , that you can access their website and check . And how many African-American students did he have in his school? A I would have to go back and look at the numbers . Q Was it an elementary school? A No , it was a high school . Q All right . So you and Mr. Hattabaugh and Dr . Brooks were friends in Florida? A Q A Q We were not friends , no . You were professional acquaintances? We were professional colleagues . And you supported him and he supported Dr . Brooks? A He was one of the principals who reported to Dr . Brooks. Q Do you recall making a statement when you came here that the people in Arkansas were unknowledgeable about education or something to that effect? A No , I 'm sorry , I never made that statement . Q Did you ever hear (inaudible) 84 A No , because when I came here I was very impressed with what was going on in the department so I would not have made that statement . I can only speak for me . BY MR . WALKER : I don ' t have anymore questions . BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501) 537 - 5110 I I I 1 2  3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 85 CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR . HELLER : Q Concerning Ms . Springer ' s Affidavit , she talks in Paragraph 6 about the use of questionnaires which the court expected . Did we use , LRSD or its outside experts , use questionnaires or surveys in the course of preparing evaluations? A Outside -- repeat that , please . I 'm sorry . Q Did the school district or its outside evaluators use questionnaires or surveys in the course of preparing evaluations? A I believe that the outside evaluators did conduct surveys , yes . Q And then with respect to ACSIP plans , and I think that ' s what Ms . Springer is referring to in Paragraph 8 when she says PRE was assigned responsibility for preparation of school improvement plans . Would those be ACSIP plans? A It would be ACSIP plans . Q Okay . Was the ACSIP plan a legitimate part of PRE ' s responsibilities? A Yes , it is . Q Has it worked to use data to improve the achievement of students in the district? A Yes , it is . Q With respect to programs that Mr . Walker was asking you about at the end of your deposition , are there programs which BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501) 537 - 5110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 86 have been evaluated by the district which have been shown by those evaluations to improve the achievement of African- Ameri can students? A Q A Yes . What are some of those programs? The Pre - K literacy , Reading Recovery , Smart , Year- Round . believe all the others were inconclusive . BY MR HELLER : That ' s all I have . FURTHER DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR . WALKER : Q How many children were involved in Year- Round , whatever that means? I ' ll just use your term . What is the population that was involved? A I would need to go back . I do not recall the exact number of students were involved in the intercessions or involved in Year- Round is a school (inaudible) program so I ' d need to go back to the evaluation report . Q There are only several schools that participated in that\nisn ' t that fair to say? A There were three schools that participated . Q A Q What were they? Woodruff , Steven , and Mabelvale Elementary Schools . All those together don ' L have more than 1 , 500 students\nis that fair to say? BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501) 537 - 5110 I I ' 87 ' 1 2 A Yes . Q Were all of them involved in Year- Round? ' 3 A All three schools were involved in Year- Round , yes . 4 Q Were all the students within the school involved in Year- I 5 Round? 6 A I do not believe all the students went to intercession . 7 Q I see . How many were? 8 A Again , I would need to look at the report . 9 Q I see . And how many schools were involved with Reading 10 Recovery? 11 A If I am not mistaken , I think at the time , 10 or 12 12 schools . I don ' t remember . 3 Q Were they all elementary? 14 A Yes , it ' s a program designed for early literacy . 15 Q How many students participated in those programs? 16 A Again , I would need to go back to the report . 17 Q How much disparity was overcome by use of those programs 18 that evaluations reveal? 19 A I recall it was statistically significant . I cannot recall 20 the P value if that ' s what you are asking for or the level of 21 confidence . I would need to go back and look at the report . I 22 do recall that it was statistically significant . 23 Q Was that judgment made before the end of the last school 24 year? 25 A Because the report was conducted , yes , during that time . BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501) 537 - 5110 ' ' ' 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 88 Q Did you expand reading and recovery to other schools ba sed on those facts? A Yes , we did add some schools . Q How many schools have been added? A I believe we added two or three schools this year . Q Why didn ' t you add the rest of them? A Cost . Q I see . Do you have any idea how much this DeJarnette proceeding has cost the district? A No , I do not . Q You understand that every time you have both these lawyers involved that it cost about 5 to $8 , 000 a day? A No , I do not know their fees . Q Do you not understand that the Quattlebaum report cost at least $20 , 000? A No . Q What kind of costs would have been involved in expanding the reading recovery program to more schools? Per school , how much more cost would be involved? A Each time you add a reading recovery program, you ' re adding a teacher and that Q I see . That would be $35 , 000 to $50 , 000? A Approximately . Q I see . Do you call pre- K literacy a program or is that a strategy? BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501) 537 - 5110 I II I 1 2 3 4 5 ~ 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 89 A The Pre-K literacy program is a program . Q It is a program? A Uh huh . Q How many schools is it in? A All of our pre-K . I Id say a majority of our elementary schools have a pre- K program . Q Are you saying that in the pre- k literacy program that the African- American students did materially better than they did in the ones that did not have a pre-k literacy? A There was not a control study that was done but the ones that were in that we have shown that students who participated in pre-k have been successful after leaving pre- k as well . The studies show that . Q Well , that may be so but in order to determine whether they ' re effective , you have to at least do a control study\ndon't you? A But you can also look at the effect after they leave the program to see if it has been sustained . Q Well , that ' s an opinion . Can you tell me any research source that agrees with your conclusion? A Well, apparently, the evaluators did . They reported it . Q I understand they reported it . Can you tell me any source that said that? A Not at this time . Q I see. Do you like Arkansas? BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501 ) 537 - 5110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A Q A I 'm enjoying my stay here . Thank you . You ' re welcome . WHEREUPON , the deposition concluded at 4 : 45 p .m., January 9th , 2007 . BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501) 537 - 5110 90 91 C E R T I F I C A T E STATE OF ARKANSAS )ss COUNTY OF LONOKE I , KELLY S . ADCOCK , Certified Court Reporter and Notary Public , do hereby certify that the facts stated by me in the caption on the foregoing proceedings are true\nand that the foregoing proceedings were recorded verbatim through the use of the Stenomask and thereafter transcribed by me or under my direct supervision to the best of my ability , taken at the time and place set out on the caption hereto . I FURTHER CERTIFY that I am neither counsel for , related to , nor employed by any of the parties to the action in which these proceedings were taken\nand further , that I am not a relative or employee of any attorney or counsel employed by the parties hereto , nor financially interested, or otherwise , in the outcome of this action . WITNESS MY HAND AND SEAL this 14th day of January , 2007 . KELL y' S :(\n:: ADCOCK ~ Certified Court Reporter My Commission Expires : #643 04 / 15/14 BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501 ) 537-5110 ,._ :\\, .... -. ,..:. . .. :,., '  .!\n3 .. _~:.,:~- , .... ,.,-: ~\nThis project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resources.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\u003cdcterms_creator\u003eBushman Court Reporting\u003c/dcterms_creator\u003e\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n "},{"id":"suc_tomcrosbystr_80","title":"Dill Gamble oral history interview, 2007 January 8, part 1 of 2","collection_id":"suc_tomcrosbystr","collection_title":"Tom Crosby’s Rosenwald School Oral History Collection, 2006-2011","dcterms_contributor":["Crosby, Tom, 1940-","South Caroliniana Library. Office of Oral History"],"dcterms_spatial":["United States, South Carolina, Clarendon County, 33.66581, -80.2164","United States, South Carolina, Clarendon County, Sardinia, Melina High School","United States, South Carolina, Newberry County, Newberry, Drayton Street High School"],"dcterms_creator":["Gamble, Dill, Jr., 1934-"],"dc_date":["2007-01-08"],"dcterms_description":["In this oral history interview, Dill Gamble discusses his experiences attending Melina, a Rosenwald school located in Clarendon County, South Carolina, and Drayton Street High School in Newberry County, South Carolina, commenting specifically on the activities, chores, and spelling bees at Melina School. He discusses the evolution of these schools, explaining when and where they were built and what they are called now or what stands in their place. More generally, Gamble discusses Jeanes teachers, Rosenwald schools and the educational opportunities they provided African Americans, and the differences in education between blacks and whites in Clarendon and Newberry Counties in terms of teacher salaries, school terms, facilities, and transportation. Dill Gamble was born in 1934 in Sardinia, Clarendon County, South Carolina. Tom Crosby interviewed Dill Gamble, on January 8, 2007. Interview covers Gamble's education at Melina High School (grades 1-9 in the town of Sardinia, S.C.) from 1941 to 1950 and Drayton Street High School from 1950 to 1953."],"dc_format":["audio/mpeg"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Columbia, S.C. : University of South Carolina. South Caroliniana Library"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Tom Crosby oral history collection, 2006-2011","Gamble, Dill 08Jan2007 CROS 003 trk 1 of 2"],"dcterms_subject":["Gamble, Dill, Jr., 1934---Interviews","Negro Rural School Fund, Inc.","Julius Rosenwald Fund","African Americans--Social life and customs--20th century","African American schools--South Carolina--Clarendon County--History--20th century","African American schools--South Carolina--Newberry County--History--20th century","African Americans--Education--South Carolina--History--20th century","African Americans--South Carolina--Interviews"],"dcterms_title":["Dill Gamble oral history interview, 2007 January 8, part 1 of 2"],"dcterms_type":["Sound"],"dcterms_provenance":["South Caroliniana Library"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://digital.tcl.sc.edu/cdm/ref/collection/tomcrosbystr/id/80"],"dcterms_temporal":["1939/1945","1946/1954"],"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Copyright: University of South Carolina. The transcript and audio are provided for individual Research Purposes Only; for all other uses, including publication, reproduction, and quotation beyond fair use, permission must be obtained in writing from: The South Caroliniana Library, University of South Carolina, 910 Sumter Street, Columbia, SC 29208"],"dcterms_medium":["oral histories (literary works)"],"dcterms_extent":["1 sound disc (84 min., 40 sec.) : digital, stereo. ; 4 3/4 in.;1 audiocassette (84 min., 40 sec.) : stereo. ; 3 7/8 x 2 1/2 in."],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"suc_tomcrosbystr_87","title":"Dill Gamble oral history interview, 2007 January 8, part 2 of 2","collection_id":"suc_tomcrosbystr","collection_title":"Tom Crosby’s Rosenwald School Oral History Collection, 2006-2011","dcterms_contributor":["Crosby, Tom, 1940-","South Caroliniana Library. Office of Oral History"],"dcterms_spatial":["United States, South Carolina, Clarendon County, 33.66581, -80.2164","United States, South Carolina, Clarendon County, Sardinia, Melina High School","United States, South Carolina, Newberry County, Newberry, Drayton Street High School"],"dcterms_creator":["Gamble, Dill, Jr., 1934-"],"dc_date":["2007-01-08"],"dcterms_description":["In this oral history interview, Dill Gamble discusses his experiences attending Melina, a Rosenwald school located in Clarendon County, South Carolina, and Drayton Street High School in Newberry County, South Carolina, commenting specifically on the activities, chores, and spelling bees at Melina School. He discusses the evolution of these schools, explaining when and where they were built and what they are called now or what stands in their place. More generally, Gamble discusses Jeanes teachers, Rosenwald schools and the educational opportunities they provided African Americans, and the differences in education between blacks and whites in Clarendon and Newberry Counties in terms of teacher salaries, school terms, facilities, and transportation. Dill Gamble was born in 1934 in Sardinia, Clarendon County, South Carolina. Tom Crosby interviewed Dill Gamble, on January 8, 2007. Interview covers Gamble's education at Melina High School (grades 1-9 in the town of Sardinia, S.C.) from 1941 to 1950 and Drayton Street High School from 1950 to 1953."],"dc_format":["audio/mpeg"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Columbia, S.C. : University of South Carolina. South Caroliniana Library"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Tom Crosby oral history collection, 2006-2011","Gamble, Dill 08Jan2007 CROS 003 trk 2 of 2;"],"dcterms_subject":["Gamble, Dill, Jr., 1934---Interviews","Negro Rural School Fund, Inc.","Julius Rosenwald Fund","African Americans--Social life and customs--20th century","African American schools--South Carolina--Clarendon County--History--20th century","African American schools--South Carolina--Newberry County--History--20th century","African Americans--Education--South Carolina--History--20th century","African Americans--South Carolina--Interviews"],"dcterms_title":["Dill Gamble oral history interview, 2007 January 8, part 2 of 2"],"dcterms_type":["Sound"],"dcterms_provenance":["South Caroliniana Library"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://digital.tcl.sc.edu/cdm/ref/collection/tomcrosbystr/id/87"],"dcterms_temporal":["1939/1945","1946/1954"],"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Copyright: University of South Carolina. The transcript and audio are provided for individual Research Purposes Only; for all other uses, including publication, reproduction, and quotation beyond fair use, permission must be obtained in writing from: The South Caroliniana Library, University of South Carolina, 910 Sumter Street, Columbia, SC 29208"],"dcterms_medium":["oral histories (literary works)"],"dcterms_extent":["1 sound disc (84 min., 40 sec.) : digital, stereo. ; 4 3/4 in.;1 audiocassette (84 min., 40 sec.) : stereo. ; 3 7/8 x 2 1/2 in."],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1222","title":"Little Rock School District, school board meeting minutes and correspondence","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":["Little Rock School District"],"dc_date":["2007-01-08/2007-02-23"],"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","Educational planning","School boards","School board members","School management and organization","Meetings"],"dcterms_title":["Little Rock School District, school board meeting minutes and correspondence"],"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/1222"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["documents (object genre)"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\nThe transcript for this item was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.\nLITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS MINUTES SPECIAL BOARD MEETING January 8, 2007 RECEIVED FEB 2 - 2007 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING The Board of Directors of the Little Rock School District held a special meeting at 5:00 p.m. on Monday, January 08, 2007, in the Boardroom of the Administration Building, 810 West Markham Street, Little Rock, Arkansas. President Katherine Mitchell presided. MEMBERS PRESENT: Katherine Mitchell Charles Armstrong Melanie Fox Larry Berkley Dianne Curry Robert M. Daugherty Baker Kurrus MEMBERS ABSENT: None ALSO PRESENT: Roy G. Brooks, Superintendent of Schools Beverly Griffin, Recorder of Minutes Leon Johnson, Attorney for the LRSD Administration John Burnette, Attorney for Karen DeJarnette Stephanie Branton, Court Reporter I. CALL TO ORDER/ ROLL CALL Dr. Mitchell called the meeting to order at 5:25 p.m. All members of the board were present at roll call. II. PURPOSE OF THE MEETING The meeting was called for the purpose of conducting an employee hearing for Dr. Karen DeJarnette, Director of Planning, Research and Evaluation, who was recommended for termination by the administration. Dr. DeJarnette requested that the hearing be closed. The board contracted with attorney Leon Johnson to represent the administration\nJohn Burnett represented Dr. DeJarnette. Special Board Meeting January 8, 2007 Page 2 Witnesses called by Mr. Johnson in support of the administration's recommendation for termination included: - Roy Brooks, Superintendent - Hugh Hattabaugh, Deputy Superintendent - Olivine Roberts, Associate Superintendent - Ed Williams, Interim Director of PRE The board recessed at 6:30 p.m. and returned at 6:50 p.m. After the break, Mr. Hattabaugh was recalled by Attorney Johnson. Mr. Burnett called Karen DeJarnette. Mr. Johnson called an additional witness, Attorney Chris Heller, and recalled Hugh Hattabaugh. Ill. ACTION The board convened an executive session for deliberations at 10:00 p.m. They returned from executive session at 10:20 p.m. and reported that no action was taken. Mr. Armstrong made a motion to reinstate Dr. DeJarnette with attorney's fees. Ms. Curry seconded the motion. No vote was taken on the motion\nthe motion was not withdrawn. A second motion was placed on the floor: Dr. Daugherty stated that it was found that the facts were inconsistent with the testimony. He moved that the finding of fact was not discovered. Mr. Armstrong seconded the motion. The motion carried 4-3, with Mr. Kurrus, Ms. Fox and Mr. Berkley voting \"no.\" Mr. Armstrong moved to pay Dr. DeJarnette's attorney's fees and reinstate her to her position. Dr. Daugherty seconded the motion. There was no vote on the motion as stated and the motion was not withdrawn, but was restated as a new motion. Mr. Kurrus made a motion to separate the two actions\nMr. Berkley seconded the motion and it carried 5-2 with Dr. Daugherty and Mr. Armstrong voting \"no.\" Mr. Armstrong made a motion to reinstate Dr. DeJarnette to her position\nMs. Curry seconded the motion. It carried 4-3 with Mr. Kurrus, Ms. Fox, and Mr. Berkley voting \"no.\" Mr. Armstrong moved that the district pay Dr. DeJarnette's attorney's fees. Ms. Curry seconded the motion. Dr. Daugherty asked for an amendment to the motion to include the payment of \"reasonable\" attorney's fees. He suggested that the attorneys meet to determine an amount that is considered \"reasonable.\" Mr. Armstrong moved to include an amendment to his previous motion to allow the attorneys to negotiate \"reasonable\" attorney's fees. Ms. Curry seconded the amended motion, and it carried 5-2, with Mr. Berkley and Ms. Fox voting \"no.\" Special Board Meeting January 8, 2007 Page 3 Ill. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business before the board, Ms. Fox moved to adjourn at 10:24 p.m. Mr. Kurrus seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. Court reporter Stephanie Branton recorded the full hearing and a complete transcript will be made part of the official record. APPROVED: j-\n).5 .D? Katfi'enne rtcei.resident ',~fu\\ftw -EJx Melanie Fox, Secretary'C:, . LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT RECEIVED 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS FEB 2 - 2007 MINUTES OFFICE OF SPECIAL BOARD MEETING DESEGREGATION MONITORING January 12, 2007 The Board of Directors of the Little Rock School District held a special meeting at 5:00 p.m. on Friday, January 12, 2007, in the Boardroom of the Administration Building, 810 West Markham Street, Little Rock, Arkansas. President Katherine Mitchell presided. MEMBERS PRESENT: Katherine Mitchell Charles Armstrong Melanie Fox Larry Berkley Dianne Curry Robert M. Daugherty Baker Kurrus MEMBERS ABSENT: None ALSO PRESENT: Roy G. Brooks, Superintendent of Schools Beverly Griffin, Recorder of Minutes I. CALL TO ORDER/ ROLL CALL Dr. Mitchell called the meeting to order at 5:06 p.m. All members of the board were present at roll call. II. PURPOSE OF THE MEETING The meeting was called by the board for the purpose of discussing personnel matters. Ill. EXECUTIVE SESSION Dr. Mitchell requested a motion to convene an executive session. Dr. Daugherty made the requested motion\nMs. Curry seconded the motion. There was no vote taken. The board returned from executive session at 7:05 p.m. and reported that no action was taken. .. Special Board Meeting January 12, 2007 Page 2 IV. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business before the board, Dr. Daugherty moved to adjourn at 7:05 p.m. Melanie Fox seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. APPROVED: /  o1,S ,D 7 \\i~tfl~ Kather\\ne Mitchell, President Melanie rox, Secretary d LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREEi' LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS MINUTES SPECIAL BOARD MEETING January 17, 2007 RECEIVED FEB 2 - 2007 OFACEOF DESEGREGATION MONITORING The Board of Directors of the Little Rock School District held a special meeting at 5:30 p.m. on Wednesday, January 17, 2007, in the Boardroom of the Administration Building, 810 West Markham Street, Little Rock, Arkansas. President Katherine Mitchell presided. MEMBERS PRESENT: Katherine Mitchell Charles Armstrong Melanie Fox Larry Berkley Dianne Curry Baker Kurrus MEMBERS ABSENT: Robert M. Daugherty ALSO PRESENT: Roy G. Brooks, Superintendent of Schools Beverly Griffin, Recorder of Minutes I. CALL TO ORDER / ROLL CALL Dr. Mitchell called the meeting to order at 5:30 p.m. Six members of the board were present at roll call\nDr. Daugherty was absent. II. PURPOSE OF THE MEETING Dr. Mitchell opened the meeting by stating the purpose: to review a discussion held at the Office of Desegregation Monitoring on Tuesday, January 16, 2007, which included Attorney Chris Heller, Attorney John Walker, Board President Katherine Mitchell, and monitors from ODM. Dr. Mitchell provided a written report of items discussed at that meeting for the board's review. Special Board Meeting January 17, 2007 Page 2 Mr. Heller addressed the board regarding the compliance remedy of 2004 which resulted in the hearing now scheduled for the weekends of January 20 - 21 , and January 27 - 28. Regarding the notes provided to board members by Dr. Mitchell, Mr. Heller stated that it would be the responsibility of the board to agree to items proposed by Mr. Walker outside the realm of the federal court hearing, and that although all of the items presented were important, none of them were related to the remaining issue before the court - - that of program monitoring. Mr. Walker stated his belief that the LRSD had not complied with the court's order of 2004: \"What was promised has not been delivered.\" He encouraged the board to withdraw their request for unitary status, and to reorganize their relationship with the Planning, Research and Evaluation office in order to receive information directly on the issues regarding narrowing the achievement gap. He stated that the programs implemented in the district which were intended to narrow the gap have not been effective and that the achievement gap had widened. Mr. Heller reminded the board that the remaining issue before the court was not related to the achievement disparity or about narrowing the achievement gap. The court found previously that we are unitary in all areas with the exception of program assessment. He emphasized that remaining under court supervision ould not remedy the achievement disparity. Mr. Walker questioned whether the district administration could be trusted to implement directives in good faith without the supervision of the court and stated emphatically that the benefit of staying in court provided a way of making the administration accountable for implementation of programs to address disparities. He asked the board to ensure that the administration is held accountable for remediation of the achievement gap. Board members were given an opportunity to ask questions of Attorneys Walker and Heller. Mrs. Fox asked Mr. Walker about the timing of his current request to delay the hearing. She noted previous directions from the Judge to bring concerns or questions to the court as soon as they arise. She also asked about the impact of state funding on the magnet programs. Mr. Heller reminded the board that it is the responsibility of the court to return local school operations to the local community once the requirements of the court order have been met. The Pulaski County Special School District has not yet been found unitary in the area of student assignment\nthe Little Rock and North Little Rock districts have been found unitary in this area. All three districts have found the magnet school programming to be beneficial to maintaining desegregated schools, and continuation of the magnet programs will be up to the local school districts whether federal court supervision continues or not. In addition, state funding for magnet programs is an issue that will continue to be before the state legislature. Mr. Walker disagreed with this response and suggested that the State of Arkansas will discontinue funding the magnet programs once the districts are found to be unitary. Special Board Meeting January 17, 2007 Page 3 - Ms. Curry asked Mr. Heller to discuss the \"pro's and con's\" of getting out of court. A written summary had been provided for the board's review. Again, Mr. Heller stated that it is the local school board's responsibility to make sure that district administrators follow court orders and that it is Judge Wilson's responsibility to assess whether that has been done. Mr. Berkley stated that the LRSD had been supervised by the federal court system for many years, and that if indeed Mr. Walker's argument were true - - that we had not met the requirement to reduce the achievement disparity - - that issue would still be before the court. He reminded the board that the only remaining issue is whether the district has embedded an assessment process to insure that the programs implemented are effective in meeting the needs of underachieving students. Mr. Berkley continued by saying that the Judge, board members, administrators, and members of the community, want the same thing . .. to provide additional assistance to the children who need it the most. He asked Mr. Walker and board members to allow the district to use the funds that we spend on court supervision to direct student instruction. Mr. Kurrus referred to the list of suggestions provided by Dr. Mitchell, and stated that all of the items on the list could be accomplished regardless of whether we are under court supervision, with the majority being \"things that we have done, supported, or would support.\" He continued by saying the antagonism between the parties is fruitless, especially in light of the fact that everyone wants improved student achievement. He questioned Mr. Walker's reasons for wanting the district to remain under court supervision and stated that he wouldn't make a motion for a continuance, nor would he support anything that would prevent the district from letting the court make the ultimate decision. Dr. Mitchell asked Mr. Heller to address her concerns regarding how the district will appear in court in light of recent internal problems within the PRE department. Mr. Heller responded by saying that he didn't believe the Judge would base his decision on our internal problems, but would make his decision by remaining focused on the only issue before the court - - that of whether we have deeply embedded a comprehensive evaluation process. Mr. Heller continued by reminding the board that the evaluation process was adopted by the board and presented to the court for approval. The Joshua lntervenors did not object to the process at that time, nor have they filed objections since that time. He continued by reviewing the evaluation process which includes an annual adoption by the board of an evaluation agenda to facilitate future evaluations. In addition, a data warehouse is being developed to ensure that PRE staff and other evaluators will have access to accurate data when they need it. Mr. Heller reminded the board that they approved a resolution in November which stated intent to continue to evaluate programs annually and in good faith. Evaluations and assessments will continue after release from federal court supervision. In response to questions from Mr. Walker regarding development of school portfolios, Mr. Heller reported that Judge Wilson had never ordered school portfolios to be implemented in the LRSD. He reported that the decision to use portfolios had merit, and that district staff had begun the process of establishing a portfolio system. In addition, district administrators Special Board Meeting January 17, 2007 Page 4 - had stated intent to put in place school portfolios regardless of whether they were required by the court because it is a useful process to assist in making data-driven decisions. Mr. Walker stated that monitors from the Office of Desegregation Monitoring and Dr. Karen DeJarnette would testify that they don't believe a process for evaluating the district's programs have been \"deeply embedded.\" He asked what proof exists that there is a process in place. Mr. Armstrong called for the board to join efforts as a community and to become color blind. He stated \"we should forget about the color of our skin and make our decisions based on what is best for all the children in Little Rock.\" Ms. Curry asked if it was possible to ask Judge Wilson for a continuance if for no other reason than to allow the new board members additional time to review information they had recently received. Mr. Heller responded that it would be possible to ask for a brief continuance but that he didn't believe the Judge would look favorably on the request. The fact that the hearings were. scheduled on the weekend was an indication that the Judge believed it was important to bring the matter to a close as soon as possible. Mr. Walker objected to asking for a \"brief' delay, suggesting that no less than a year was needed. Ms. Curry made a motion to have the attorneys file a joint motion between all parties involved to ask the judge for a continuance to allow time to pool efforts and come together as a community and agree to the issues before the court. Mr. Armstrong seconded the motion. Discussion continued. Mr. Berkley expressed concerns regarding Mr. Walker's expectations compared to the district's obligations under the court order. He objected to committing in federal court to things that we can't guarantee. Mr. Kurrus agreed, and further expressed a willingness and desire to renew the board's commitment, but would not support broadening or limiting the obligations that the court has previously imposed. Mr. Heller emphasized his previous statement - - \"it will be up to the judge to decide the length of the continuance.\" He stated that it isn't within our authority to tell Judge Wilson how long we wish to continue, and that whether we are in litigation or released from supervision, it will remain the continuing responsibility of the board to improve the education of the students in the district. He asked the board for direction regarding their reasons for asking for a continuance. Mr. Kurrus stated that the parties had been antagonistic for years and that a declaration of unitary status would provide a window of opportunity to put the antagonism behind and to work together in the best interest of all children in the school district. He agreed with comments made by Mr. Armstrong. Mr. Berkley agreed and expressed his desire to do what is in the best interest of all students in the community. He noted that the district has an obligation to the state regarding efforts to seek unitary status and to prove good faith in complying with our commitment. \"We have been diligent in our efforts to become unitary.\" Special Board Meeting January 17, 2007 Page 5 - On the motion made previously by Ms. Curry, the vote was 5-1 , with Ms. Fox casting the \"no\" vote. EXECUTIVE SESSION Ms. Fox made a motion to convene an executive session to discuss a personnel issue. Mr. Berkley seconded the motion, and the board went into closed session at 7:30 p.m. The board returned from executive session at 8: 12 p.m. and reported that no action was taken. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business before the board, Ms. Fox moved to adjourn at 8: 12 p.m. Ms. Curry seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. APPROVED: /  :l S  O? \"'K~ Katherine Mitchell, Presiaent Melanie Fox, Secretary LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 81 ') WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201 MINUTES REGULAR BOARD MEETING January 25, 2007 The Board of Directors of the Little Rock School District held their regular board meeting at 5:30 p.m. on Thursday, January 25, 2007, in the Boardroom of the Administration Building , 810 West Markham Street, Little Rock, Arkansas. President Katherine Mitchell presided. MEMBERS PRESENT: Katherine Mitchell Charles Armstrong Melanie Fox Larry Berkley Dianne Curry Robert M. Daugherty Baker Kurrus MEMBERS ABSENT: None ALSO PRESENT: Roy G. Brooks, Superintendent of Schools Beverly Griffin, Recorder of Minutes I. CALL TO ORDER / ROLL CALL RECEIVED FEB 2 6 2007 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING Dr. Mitchell called the meeting to order at 5:30 p.m. All members of the Board were present at roll call. Ex officio representatives for the month of January were also present, Kevin Kim, student from Parkview Magnet High School, and Andre Warren, teacher from Mabelvale Elementary School. Dr. Mitchell welcomed members of the audience and asked Dr. Brooks to proceed with the citations. 11. REPORTS/RECOGNITIONS/PUBLIC COMMENTS: A. Superintendent's Citations \u0026amp; Commendations The first citation was presented to Beverly Cook, a special education teacher at Brady Elementary School, who was recently named the Elementary Language Arts Teacher of the Year by the Arkansas Council of Teachers of English and Language Arts. Ms. Cook had received her award in November at the council's annual convention. Vanessa Cleaver, Accelerated Student Achievement Program Project Coordinator for the District, was recognized for being selected to serve as the chairperson of the Nominations Committee of the Executive Board of the National Council of Supervisors of Mathematics. Board Meeting January 25, 2007 Page 2 Dr. Brooks announced that twenty-four (24) LRSD teachers had recently earned National Board Certification, bringing the district total to more sixty National Board Certified teachers. These teachers were present and received a superintendent's citation in recognition of their hard work and dedicated effort to complete the National Board requirements. In addition, Dr. Brooks announced that the CT A was recently given a check in the amount of $33,900 to supplement registration fees for teachers who need financial assistance in order to retake the National Board examination. The newest National Board Certified teachers were announced: Leonard Bryan, Mabelvale Magnet Middle School\nKimberly Collins, Franklin Elementary\nSusan Daniel, Carver Magnet Elementary\nWilliam Felton, M.L. King Magnet Elementary\nShirley Ferguson, McClellan Magnet High School\nKathy Gates, Central High School\nSusan Hestir, Gibbs Magnet Elementary\nAnn Inman, Romine Elementary\nPatricia Jackson, Booker Magnet Elementary\nSheryl Jackson, Mabelvale Elementary\nWanda Keith, McClellan Magnet High School\nEmily Lewis, Parkview Magnet High School\nKelly Long, Williams Magnet Elementary\nKelly Navin, Rockefeller Elementary\nLinda Neal, Franklin Elementary\nJennifer Newborn Thomas, Carver Magnet Elementary\nMonica Norwood, Romine Elementary\nCarol Overton, McClellan Magnet High School\nTamara Ringler, Booker Magnet Elementary\nJohn Scott, Parkview Magnet High School\nRichelle Thomas, M.L. King Magnet Elementary\nApril Thompson, Parkview Magnet High School\nMichelle Vire, Mabelvale Magnet Middle School\nand Mindy Williams, Forest Heights Middle School. Superintendent's Quality Customer Service Awards - Celestine Piggee, Assistant Principal at Parkview Magnet High School, was nominated by Ms. Karen Keyes Diner to receive a quality customer service award. Ms. Diner wrote: \"I want to commend Ms. Piggee and I want you to know how lucky you are to have her on your team. Ms. Piggee exhibits genuine concern for her students and is dedicated to and passionate about her job.\" - Pam Neal, Network Specialist in the Computer Information Services Department, was nominated by the staff of the superintendent's office. She voluntarily assumed the responsibilities associated with the technology requirements of the on-line agenda in January 2006, making sure that everything is in working order before every board meeting. - Certificates of appreciation were awarded to ex-officios for the month of January, Kevin Kim, student at Parkview Magnet High School, and Andre Warren, teacher at Mabelvale Elementary. B. Partners in Education Debbie Milam introduced a new partnership between Brady Elementary School and Big Brothers - Big Sisters of Pulaski County. Mr. Berkley made a motion to accept the partnership\nDr. Daugherty seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. In addition, Ms. Milam announced that January was national mentoring month and that the district would be initiating efforts to recru it new mentors for students in our schools. She discussed Project 67, a collaborative effort between the LRSD, Pfeifer Camp, and New Futures for Youth, and she invited community groups to partner with the district in providing adult mentors for our students who need role models. Board Meeting January 25, 2007 Page 3 C. Little Rock Housing Authority Presentation Ms. Shelly Ehenger, Executive Director of the Little Rock Housing Authority, presented a check in the amount of $166,269 to the LRSD representing the Housing Authority's PILOT (payment in lieu of taxes) agreement. Ms. Ehenger announced that seventeen single family homes would be built across the street from Washington Elementary School where a housing project was recently demolished, and she offered the assistance of the Housing Authority in working for LRSD students who live in city housing. She closed by thanking the board and the administration for the recent sale of the district's old annex building to the Housing Authority, noting that the address would be changed from 100 South Arch Street to 601 West Markham. D. Remarks from Citizens Brenda Thomas introduced herself as a teacher from Baseline Elementary School. She read letters from students on the topic of being compared to Meadowcliff Elementary School in studies regarding merit pay, and expressed distress in being labeled low-performing when Baseline has not been designated on the state's School Improvement list. Cathy Koehler delivered a letter to board members regarding the issue of merit pay. She questioned the reasons for including Baseline in the evaluation study, especially in light of the fact that Baseline isn't on the state's school improvement list. Teresa Gray commended Dr. Brooks for his commitment to moving the district forward with the proposal to build a school in west Little Rock. She thanked the administration and board members for their dedication to making every decision based on what is best for the children and for acknowledging accountability for decisions made. She encouraged the board to move forward without delay to build the west LR school. E. PT A Council Bernadette Turner, PT A Council President, thanked the board for funding the construction at Forest Heights Middle School, and expressed excitement at the groundbreaking ceremony recently held. She congratulated Katherine Mitchell on her recent recognition by the Martin Luther King Commission. The Jefferson PT A hosted the January PT A Council meeting where the winners of the essay and art contests were announced. Ms. Turner reminded board members that the State PTA would host legislative day on February 8th and that the annual Founder's Day luncheon would be held on Tuesday, Feb 13th at The Women's City Club. She encouraged the board, administrators, parents and community members to move forward united and as a team. F. Little Rock Classroom Teachers Association Katherine Wright Knight acknowledged the National Board Certified teachers who were recognized earlier in the agenda. Ms. Knight thanked Dr. Brooks, Mr. Hattabaugh and Mr. Milhollen for providing funds for national board certification testing re-takes and she stressed the importance of providing the additional financial support to teachers who may need to retake one or more sections of the test. Board Meeting January 25, 2007 Page 4 Ms. Knight reminded the board that the CTA had received grant funds to assist approximately thirty first-time testing candidates. She provided statistical information regarding the number of teachers across the state and the nation who are now national board certified and noted that Arkansas ranks11 th nationwide, a 56% increase over 2006. Ms. Knight addressed concerns regarding merit pay and the research study completed by the University of Arkansas. She stated that the findings were modest, extremely limited and that it was impossible to measure effectiveness of merit pay based on one study. She suggested that merit pay issues be subject to independent study and evaluation with the district's Planning, Research and Evaluation office involved in internally comparing test scores of students in schools with merit pay. She also discussed concerns from teachers who were unhappy about having to enter SOAR data along with end of semester grades. She reminded employees that the district has a mental health program and she encouraged teachers to take advantage of that program when they feel overwhelmed. IV. REPORTS AND COMMUNICATIONS: A. Remarks from Board Members Mr. Kurrus congratulated Dr. Mitchell on her receipt of the King Commission Salute to Greatness Award. He also congratulated Mr. Felton, one of the newly board certified teachers, for a recent television news report on the EAST lab initiative at King Elementary School. Mr. Kurrus expressed pride in the progress at Forest Heights Middle School, especially the groundbreaking for the new construction project at that school. He reminded the board that Matson Construction Company completed the original facility at Forest Heights in 1954, and he expressed pleasure that they would be involved in the new growth at that building. He thanked Bernadette Turner for her contributions to the success at Forest Heights and Fulbright and he asked the board and the community to continue to commit, with conviction and passion, to building schools where they are needed. Ms. Curry congratulated the national board certified teachers who were introduced earlier in the agenda. She encouraged more teachers to participate in the national board process. Ms. Curry committed to working toward a united effort to move the district forward, stating \"We need to be about what we can do for the children in the district.\" Ms. Fox also congratulated the teachers recognized earlier in the agenda and she thanked the audience for attending the board meeting and for their comments and input on the topics before the board. Mr. Berkley thanked the audience and stated that it is \"wonderful to see the level of attention in the community by the attendance at this meeting.\" He congratulated the national board certified teachers and thanked the administration for making funds available to help the teachers who need financial assistance. Dr. Daugherty referred to comments regarding tension among board members and stated his belief that it is healthy to disagree and to discuss topics that bring to the forefront the issues that are critical to running a school district. He reminded the listeners that board members don't receive any compensation and that comments that they don't care about kids are out of line. He stated that his twelve years on the board were provided as a service to the children of the district and that the voters in zone 2 supported him as their representative. He committed to voting his conscious and to listening to the community members who elected him. Board Meeting January 25, 2007 Page 5 Mr. Armstrong agreed with comments made by Dr. Daugherty and stated that the voters in zone 6 have a vision for the LR education system and look forward to the day when the people are united and focused on one cause. Andre Warren, the teacher ex-officio representative, thanked the board for the opportunity to serve and to \"see how things work.\" He noted that Mabelvale Elementary had implemented a merit pay program this year, and that he had not noticed any difference in the attitude of the teachers based on this implementation. He expressed doubts about the effectiveness of merit pay, and interest in seeing the results at his school. He questioned the reasons for not including secondary schools in merit pay programs. Kevin Kim, student ex officio from Parkview Magnet School, thanked the board for giving him the opportunity to serve, stating that it was an honor to add the student voice to the agenda. He encouraged the board to listen to the students, and announced that he would be leaving the meeting early to participate in a presentation on racial equity at a conference at the Peabody Hotel scheduled for later in the evening. Kevin asked the board to ensure that new school construction takes environmental concerns into consideration. He provided information and reports on environmental techniques for construction and energy efficient design. Dr. Mitchell invited Kevin to remain active and to participate in the committee working on the west Little Rock School. Dr. Mitchell thanked board members and district staff who attended the Salute to Greatness awards ceremony sponsored by the King Commission. She congratulated the national board certified teachers, expressing understanding for the difficult and rigorous process that was required to achieve this designation. She encouraged the CT A to continue to support the teachers who are participating in this process and she thanked Lou Ethel Nauden for her assistance to the teachers. Regarding the comments made earlier in the agenda by Dr. Daugherty, she noted that she had served on the board for eighteen years because she loves working for the children of the district. She stated that it was her commitment, passion and compassion to provide a quality education for all students. She acknowledged that it would take courage, strength, wisdom and prayer and that the board would need to respect each other and to be honest, open and truthful during the difficult times. She encouraged the board to continue to cooperate to and to work together to accomplish what is best for the children. Dr. Mitchell closed by commending Murphy Oil Company for their commitment to the students in El Dorado and she challenged other foundations to make the same kind of commitment to students in the state. B. Budget Update There was no formal budget report, but Mr. Milhollen was present and available to respond to questions. C. Student Assignment Report Dr. Brooks announced that this had been \"Check Us Out\"week in all district schools, where members of the community were invited to drop in to tour the district's schools. He also reminded the board that open enrollment for the 2007-2008 school year would begin on Monday, January 29th and end on February 9th . Dr. Watson was present to respond to questions. Board Meeting January 25, 2007 Page 6 D. Internal Auditors Report Mr. Becker's monthly report was included in the agenda. There were no questions or comments. E. University of Arkansas Evaluation Report Dr. Gary Ritter from the University of Arkansas had attended the January agenda meeting to provide a preliminary report on the evaluation of the Achievement Challenge Pilot Project in the LRSD. The full report was provided on January 16th to the Arkansas State Legislature. A copy of the full evaluation report was attached to the board's agenda, and Dr. Ritter was present as requested by the board to provide an overview and to respond to questions. F. Construction Report - Bond Projects The monthly construction report was provided in the agenda and Mr. Goodman was present. G. West Little Rock School Update Mr. Hugh Hattabaugh provided a brief summary report regarding the study of the 75-acres on Rahling Road which had been proposed as the site of the new west Little Rock school. Mr. Hattabaugh reviewed an architect's rendering of the property and announced that the property owners had been properly notified of a community meeting at the Thompson Library, 38 Rahling Circle, at 6:00 p.m. on Tuesday, January 30, 2007. This meeting is required as a preliminary step to presenting the district's proposal to the city Planning Commission for rezoning, a conditional use permit, and approval of the site plan. Representatives from the Mehlberger Firm and from Wittenberg, Delany \u0026amp; Davidson were present. Mr. Berkley asked that the timeline of the proposed west Little Rock School project be posted at the district's website so that the public can have access to the process. Brad Chilcote, representing the Mehlberger Firm, responded to questions regarding the size of the facility, approximately 200,000 square feet, and the anticipated capacity of 1,300 students in grades Pre-K through eighth grade. Dr. Daugherty exited the meeting at 7:50 p.m. V. APPROVAL OF ROUTINE MATTERS: A. Minutes Minutes from the regular board meeting held on December 14, 2006, and from special meetings held on December 12, 2006, December 21 , 2006, January 8, 2007, January 12, 2007 and January 17, 2007 were presented for review and approval. Mr. Armstrong moved to accept the minutes as written\nMs. Curry seconded the motion. The minutes were unanimously approved. Board Meeting January 25, 2007 Page 7 VI. BOARD POLICY AND REGULATIONS REVIEW: A. Second Reading - Wellness Policy The district's Nutrition and Physical Activity Advisory Committee proposed operational guidelines and a Wellness Policy to meet federal mandates in compliance with the Child Nutrition Reauthorization Act of 2004. The policy was approved on first reading at the December board meeting, and was presented at this time for approval on second reading. Mr. Kurrus moved to approve the policy on second reading. Mr. Berkley seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. Dr. Daugherty returned at 8:00 p.m. VII. EDUCATIONAL SERVICES A. Elementary Science Textbook Adoption The district's elementary textbook committee prepared a recommendation for science textbook adoptions, which will become effective with the 2007-2008 school year. Ms. Suzi Davis and members of the textbook adoption committee were present, and Mr. Glasgow was available to respond to questions. Examples of the materials were displayed for the board and the audience to review. Mr. Kurrus moved to approve the recommended textbooks for adoption. Ms. Curry seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. The board took a brief recess at 8:02 p.m. and returned at 8:15 p.m. VIII. HUMAN RESOURCES A. Personnel Changes Routine personnel matters were listed in the board's agenda and the superintendent requested approval. Mr. Kurrus moved to approve the recommendations\nMr. Berkley seconded the motion. The motion carried 6-0-1, with Dr. Daugherty abstaining. Dr. Mitchell requested information from Mr. Mittiga regarding the evaluation of the reorganization. Mr. Mittiga reported that an outline of the planned study had been forwarded to board members which included a timeline on the completion of the study. There was a question as to whether the board members had received the outline and timeline, and Mr. Mittiga offered to resend the information for the board's review and direction. VIII. FINANCE \u0026amp; SUPPORT SERVICES A. Donations of Property The Board was asked to accept recent donations to the District. Dr. Daugherty read the listed donations. Ms. Curry made a motion to accept the donations as listed\nMs. Fox seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously. Donations are listed in the following chart: Board Meeting January 25, 2007 Page 8 IX. DONATIONS SCHOOL/DEPARTMENT ITEM DONOR Bale Elementary School Physical Fitness equipment, valued at UALR / Children's International $6,000 for the school wellness project Booker Arts Magnet Elementary Baldwin Model \"M\" 5'2\" Baby Grand Dr. George and Mrs. Kathleen School piano, valued at $12,000 Paddock Henderson Health Science Magnet $200.00 cash for the athletic program Twin City Bank / Chenal Branch School Romine Elementary School Toys and books valued at American Association of approximately $130.00 and $107.00 University Women cash to assist students during the holiday season B. Monthly Financial Reports The monthly financial reports were provided in the agenda. Mr. Milhollen was present, but no additional information was requested. CLOSING REMARKS Dr. Mitchell announced the upcoming Parent Institute, scheduled for Saturday, February 3, from 8:30 a.m. to 1 :30 p.m. at McClellan High School. She encouraged parents to attend. Dr. Brooks reminded board members that the hearing in Judge Wilson's court would resume al 9:00 a.m. on Saturday, January 27. X. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business before the board, the meeting adjourned at 8:25 p.m. on a APPRO~::,n: M~ :~\n:nded by DJ'~ Katherine P. Mitchell, President ~Melanie Fox,~ Secretary \u0026lt;-:. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS February 8, 2007 5:00 p.m. The Board of Directors of the Little Rock School District held a special meeting immediately following the regular agenda meeting on Thursday, February 8, 2007, in the Boardroom of the Administration Building , 810 West Markham Street, Little Rock, Arkansas. President Katherine Mitchell presided. MEMBERS PRESENT: Katherine Mitchell Charles Armstrong Melanie Fox Larry Berkley Dianne Curry Robert M. Daugherty Baker Kurrus MEMBERS ABSENT: None - ALSO PRESENT: Roy G. Brooks, Superintendent of Schools Beverly Griffin, Recorder of Minutes I. CALL TO ORDER / ROLL CALL RECEIVED FEB 2 6 2007 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING Dr. Mitchell called the meeting to order at 6:10 p.m. All members of the Board were present at roll call. The ex officio student representative for the month of February was also present: Stacy Barker, student from Central High School. The teacher representative did not attend. II. PURPOSE OF THE MEETING The meeting was called for the purpose of hearing a report from the School Services Department and for taking action on a proposal to purchase land near Forest Park Elementary School. Ill. ACTION AGENDA A. Update: Scholastic Audit Reports \u0026amp; Schools on Year 4 \u0026amp; 5 of School Improvement Dr. Sadie Mitchell provided an overview of the Scholastic Audit reports which were provided for the board as an attachment to the agenda. She noted one item that draws concern and attention - - that of the high rate of teacher absenteeism. Special Board Meeting February 8, 2007 Page 2 Katherine Mitchell expressed concern regarding the allocation of needed resources to the schools and asked if the school staffs had been involved in determining the resources provided. Dr. Sadie Mitchell reported that the principals work with their staffs to prioritize the strategies they want to use in their schools and then notify the administration regarding their needs. B. Properties Adjacent to Forest Park Elementary School The administration presented a recommendation to purchase properties across the street from Forest Park Elementary School which would allow the district to meet the current needs for additional space at Forest Park, and provide land for future growth and development. Hugh Hattabaugh provided a brief summary of the proposal and responded to questions from the board members. Mr. Kurrus moved to approve the purchase of property near Forest Park Elementary School\nMr. Berkley seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business before the board, Dr. Daugherty moved to adjourn at 6:45 p.m. Mr. Berkley seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. APPROVED: cl, -~-0) ,s!~ Katherine P. Mitchell, President ~~ Melanie Fox, Secretary LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDENT RECEIVED January 31 , 2007 FEB 2 - 2007 OFACEOF DESEGREGATION MONITORING Office of Desegregation Monitoring One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear ODM Staff: I am enclosing minutes of the LRSD Board of Directors meetings held on December 12, 14 and 21 , 2006\nJanuary 8, 12 and 17, 2007. Please let me know if you have any questions or if I can provide additional information. Enclosure Sincerely, C4Y~ Charlotte Marks Administrative Assistant to the Superintendent From: $Return ~ Keep or Toss O [ Post-lr 7668 C!M 1993 810 West Markham Street  Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  (501) 447-1002 V,,1\n-tU J LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT ~ OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDENT RECEIVED February 23, 2007 FEB 2 6 2007 omcEOF DESEGREGATION MONITORING Office of Desegregation Monitoring One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear ODM Staff: I am enclosing minutes of the LRSD Board of Directors meetings held on January 25th and February 8, 2007. Please let me know if you have any questions or if I can provide additional information. Enclosure Sincerely, Charlotte Marks Administrative Assistant to the Superintendent 810 West Markham Street .  Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  (501) 447-1002\nThis project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resources.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\u003cdcterms_creator\u003eLittle Rock School District\u003c/dcterms_creator\u003e\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n "},{"id":"suc_tomcrosbystr_48","title":"Lugene Gist oral history interview, 2007 January 6","collection_id":"suc_tomcrosbystr","collection_title":"Tom Crosby’s Rosenwald School Oral History Collection, 2006-2011","dcterms_contributor":["Crosby, Tom, 1940-","South Caroliniana Library. Office of Oral History"],"dcterms_spatial":["United States, South Carolina, Newberry County, Whitmire, Greenbrier School","United States, South Carolina, Union County, 34.68928, -81.61942","United States, South Carolina, Union County, Union, Poplar Grove School, 34.63125, -81.54066"],"dcterms_creator":["Gist, Lugene, 1915-"],"dc_date":["2007-01-06"],"dcterms_description":["In this oral history interview, Lugene Gist discusses her educational experiences attending Greenbrier School and night school at Poplar Grove School (both in Union County), her father and other local men's physical efforts to build schools in the area, walking to school and May Day games played with her classmates, and recalling the names of some other local schools in Union County including Puppy Town (Tinker Creek), Oak Grove, and Red Point. Lugene Gist was born May 4, 1915 in Carlisle, South Carolina (Union County). Tom Crosby interviewed Lugene Gist in Santuck, South Carolina, on January 6, 2007. Interview covers Gist's education at the Greenbrier School(Town of Whitmire, S.C.) in the early 1920s and Poplar Grove School during the 1930s."],"dc_format":["audio/mpeg"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Columbia, S.C. : University of South Carolina. South Caroliniana Library"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Tom Crosby oral history collection, 2006-2011","Gist, Lugene 06Jan2007 CROS 002"],"dcterms_subject":["Gist, Lugene, 1915---Interviews","African Americans--Social life and customs--20th century","African American schools--South Carolina--Union County--History--20th century","African Americans--Education--South Carolina--History--20th century","African Americans--South Carolina--Interviews"],"dcterms_title":["Lugene Gist oral history interview, 2007 January 6"],"dcterms_type":["Sound"],"dcterms_provenance":["South Caroliniana Library"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://digital.tcl.sc.edu/cdm/ref/collection/tomcrosbystr/id/48"],"dcterms_temporal":["1919/1929","1930/1938"],"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Copyright: University of South Carolina. The transcript and audio are provided for individual Research Purposes Only; for all other uses, including publication, reproduction, and quotation beyond fair use, permission must be obtained in writing from: The South Caroliniana Library, University of South Carolina, 910 Sumter Street, Columbia, SC 29208"],"dcterms_medium":["oral histories (literary works)"],"dcterms_extent":["1 audio disc (35 min., 58 sec.) : digital, stereo. ; 4 3/4 in.;1 audiocassette (35 min., 58 sec.) : stereo. ; 3 7/8 x 2 1/2 in."],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"earch_eacr_741","title":"Aaron v. Cooper","collection_id":"earch_eacr","collection_title":"Encyclopedia of Arkansas History \u0026 Culture","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":["Foster, Lynn"],"dc_date":["2007"],"dcterms_description":["Entry describing the court case Aaron v. Cooper, a follow-up desegregation case that laid out a course of action for implementing desegregation in public schools.  This landmark case that thwarted attempts by Southern politicians, such as Orval Faubus, to stall desegregation. Includes photograph.","The Civil Rights Digital Library received support from a National Leadership Grant for Libraries awarded to the University of Georgia by the Institute of Museum and Library Services for the aggregation and enhancement of partner metadata."],"dc_format":null,"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":null,"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":null,"dcterms_subject":["Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka","African Americans--Education--United States","Segregation--Southern States","Segregation in education--Law and legislation--United States","United States. Supreme Court","National Association for the Advancement of Colored People","African Americans--Civil rights--United States","Civil rights movements--United States","School integration--United States","School integration--Massive resistance movement","Federal-city relations","Intervention (Federal government)","Segregation in education--Arkansas--Little Rock","Central High School (Little Rock, Ark.)"],"dcterms_title":["Aaron v. Cooper"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Encyclopedia of Arkansas History \u0026 Culture"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://www.encyclopediaofarkansas.net/encyclopedia/entry-detail.aspx?search=1\u0026entryID=741"],"dcterms_temporal":["1954/1961"],"dcterms_rights_holder":["copyright Encyclopedia of Arkansas History \u0026 Culture 2007"],"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["articles","black-and-white photographs"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":["Faubus, Orval Eugene, 1910-1994","Aaron, John--Trials, litigation, etc.","Cooper, William G.--Trials, litigation, etc."],"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_925","title":"Analysis of Disciplinary Actions, District Level","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":["North Little Rock School District"],"dc_date":["2007/2008"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--21st Century","School districts--Arkansas--North Little Rock","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Educational statistics","School discipline"],"dcterms_title":["Analysis of Disciplinary Actions, District Level"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/925"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["documents (object genre)"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\nThe transcript for this item was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.\n] ] NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT J ANALYSIS OF DISCIPLINARY ACTIONS 2007-2008 District Level FRANCICAL J. JACKSON Director of Student Affairs JAN 1 2010 OFFIOCFE DESEGREGMAOTNIOITNO RING North Little Rock Public Schools 3Analysiso f DisciplineA ctions 3SchooYl ear 2007-2008 3 District Level 3 Elementary 3Middle Schools 3High Schools 10 Year Comparison [ [ ] ] ] J ] In School Susp Home Suspension ASAC Intervention Class Expulsion In School Suso Home Susoension ASAC Intervention Class Expulsion In School Susp Home Suspension ASAC Intervention Class Expulsion # Ref # Stu 1974 702 719 366 329 183 227 138 3 3 # Ref # Stu 2122 695 342 220 234 147 87 57 11 6 # Ref # Stu 148 -7 -377 -146 -95 -36 -140 -81 8 3 North Little Rock School District Analysis of Disciplinary Actions DISTRICT LEVEL From August to May 2006-2007 BM BF NBM % # Ref % # Ref % # Stu # Stu 53.22% 1121 30.22% 441 11.89% 485 237 65.54% 281 25.62% 71 6.47% 164 51 66.73% 110 22.31% 38 7.71% 80 27 69.21% 67 20.43% 27 8.23% 44 14 33.33% 0 0.00% 3 33.33% 0 3 2007-2008 BM BF NBM % # Ref % # Ref % # Stu # Stu 52.69% 1310 32.53% 446 11.08% 514 228 62.75% 137 25.14% 57 10.46% 83 40 59.09% 112 28.28% 32 8.08% 71 23 55.41% 46 29.30% 18 11.46% 26 12 78.57% 0 0.00% 3 21.43% 0 0 COMPARISON BM BF NBM % # Ref % # Ref % # Stu # Stu 7.50% 189 16.86% 5 1.13% 29 -9 -52.43% -144 -51.25% -14 -19.72% -81 -11 -28.88% 2 1.82% -6 -15.79% -9 -4 -61.67% -21 -31.34% -9 -33.33% -18 -2 266.67% 0 0 0.00% 0 -3 NSF Total # Ref % # Ref # Stu # Stu 173 4.66% 3709 102 1526 26 2.37% 1097 11 592 16 3.25% 493 14 304 7 2.13% 328 7 203 3 33.33% 9 3 9 NSF Total # Ref % # Ref # Stu # Stu 149 3.70% 4027 88 1525 9 1.65% 545 6 349 18 4.55% 396 14 255 6 3.82% 157 3 98 0 0.00% 14 0 6 NSF Total # Ref % # Ref # Stu # Stu -24 -13.87% 318 -14 -1 -17 -65.38% -552 -5 -243 2 12.50% -97 0 -49 -1 -14.29% -171 -4 -105 -3 -100.00% 5 -3 -3 In School Susp Home Susoension ASAC Intervention Class Expulsion In School Susp Home Suspension ASAC Intervention Class Expulsion In School Susp Home Suspension ASAC Intervention Class Expulsion BM # Ref % # Stu 0 0 267 162 0 0 227 138 0 0 BM North Little Rock School District Analysis of Disciplinary Actions ELEMENTARY K-5 From August to May 2006-2007 BF NBM # Ref % # Ref % # Stu # Stu 0 0 0 0 75.00% 57 16.01% 31 8.71% 48 19 0 0 0 0 69.21% 67 20.43% 27 8.23% 44 14 0 0 0 0 2007-2008 BF NBM # Ref % # Ref % # Ref % # Stu # Stu # Stu 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0 0 209 66.14% 53 16.77% 49 15.51% 132 34 32 0 0 0 0 0 0 87 55.41% 46 29.30% 18 11.46% 57 26 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 COMPARISON BM BF NBM # Ref % # Ref % # Ref % # Stu # Stu # Stu 0 0 0 0 0 0 -58 -21.72% -4 -7.02% 18 58.06% -30 -14 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 -140 -61.67% -21 -31.34% -9 -33.33% -81 -18 -2 0 0 0 0 0 0 NBF Total # Ref % # Ref # Stu # Stu 0 0 0 0 1 0.28% 356 1 230 0 0 0 0 7 2.13% 328 7 203 0 0 0 0 NBF Total # Ref % # Ref # Stu # Stu 0 0.00% 0 0 0 5 1.58% 316 2 200 0 0 0 0 6 3.82% 157 3 98 0 0 0 0 NBF Total # Ref % # Ref # Stu # Stu 0 0 0 0 4 ##### -40 1 -30 0 0 0 0 -1 -14.29% -171 -4 -105 0 0 0 0 [ # Ref # Stu In School Susp 1171 381 Home Suspension 231 102 ASAC 238 110 Intervention Class 0 0 Expulsion 1 1 # Ref # Stu In School Susp 1330 373 Home Suspension 76 45 ASAC 159 90 Intervention Class 0 0 Expulsion 0 0 # Ref # Stu In School Susp 159 -8 Home Suspension -155 -57 ASAC -79 -20 Intervention Class 0 0 Expulsion -1 -1 North Little Rock School District Analysis of Disciplinary Actions MIDDLE SCHOOLS From August to May 2006-2007 BM BF NBM % # Ref % # Ref % # Stu # Stu 53.96% 696 32.07% 215 9.91% 262 114 63.46% 94 25.82% 17 4.67% 50 14 71.47% 75 22.52% 15 4.50% 54 11 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0 50.00% 0 0.00% 1 50.00% 0 1 2007-2008 BM BF NBM % # Ref % # Ref % # Stu # Stu 55.12% 781 32.37% 247 10.24% 259 119 58.46% so 38.46% 3 2.31% 24 3 59.77% 68 25.56% 28 10.53% 38 19 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 COMPARISON BM BF NBM % # Ref % # Ref % # Stu # Stu 13.58% 85 12.21% 32 14.88% -3 5 -67.10% -44 -46.81% -14 -82.35% -26 -11 -33.19% -7 -9.33% 13 86.67% -16 8 0 0 0 0 -100.00% 0 -1 -100.00% 0 -1 NBF Total # Ref % # Ref # Stu # Stu 88 4.06% 2170 45 802 22 6.04% 364 7 173 5 1.50% 333 4 179 0 0.00% 0 0 0 0 0.00% 2 0 2 NBF Total # Ref % # Ref # Stu # Stu 55 2.28% 2413 32 783 1 0.77% 130 1 73 11 4.14% 266 7 154 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 NBF Total # Ref % # Ref # Stu # Stu -33 -37.50% 243 -13 -19 -21 -95.45% -234 -6 -100 6 ##### -67 3 -25 0 0 0 0 0 -2 0 -2 # Ref # Stu In School Susp 803 321 Home Susoension 221 102 ASAC 91 73 Intervention Class 0 0 Expulsion 2 2 # Ref # Stu In School Susp 792 322 Home Suspension 57 43 ASAC 75 57 Intervention Class 0 0 Expulsion 11 6 # Ref # Stu In School Susp -11 1 Home Susoension -164 -59 ASAC -16 -16 Intervention Class 0 0 Expulsion 9 4 North Little Rock School District Analysis of Disciplinary Actions HIGH SCHOOLS From August to May 2006-2007 BM BF NBM % # Ref % # Ref % # Stu # Stu 52.18% 425 27.62% 226 14.68% 223 123 58.62% 130 34.48% 23 6.10% 66 18 56.88% 35 21.88% 23 14.38% 26 16 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0 28.57% 0 0.00% 2 28.57% 0 2 2007-2008 BM BF NBM % # Ref % # Ref % # Stu # Stu 49.07% 529 32.78% 199 12.33% 255 109 57.58% 34 34.34% 5 5.05% 25 5 57.69% 44 33.85% 4 3.08% 33 4 0 0 0 0 78.57% 0 0.00% 3 21.43% 0 0 COMPARISON BM BF NBM % # Ref % # Ref % # Stu # Stu -1.37% 104 24.47% -27 -11.95% 32 -14 -74.21% -96 -73.85% -18 -78.26% -41 -13 -17.58% 9 25.71% -19 -82.61% 7 -12 0 0 0 0 450.00% 0 1 50.00% 0 -2 NBF Total # Ref % # Ref # Stu # Stu 85 5.52% 1539 57 724 3 0.80% 377 3 189 11 6.88% 160 10 125 0 0.00% 0 0 0 3 42.86% 7 3 7 NBF Total # Ref % # Ref # Stu # Stu 94 5.82% 1614 56 742 3 3.03% 99 3 76 7 5.38% 130 7 101 0 0 0 0 0 0.00% 14 0 6 NBF Total # Ref % # Ref # Stu # Stu 9 10.59% 75 -1 18 0 0.00% -278 0 -113 -4 -36.36% -30 -3 -24 0 0 0 0 -3 -100.00% 7 -3 -1 In School Susp Home Suspension ASAC Intervention Class Expulsion In School Susp Home Suspension ASAC Intervention Class Expulsion In School Susp Home Suspension ASAC Intervention Class Expulsion North Little Rock School District Analysis of Disciplinary Actions AMBOY ELEMENTARY From August to May 2006-2007 BM BF NBM # Ref % # Ref % # Ref % # Stu # Stu # Stu 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0 0 5 55.56% 3 33.33% 1 11.11% 4 2 1 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0 0 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0 0 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0 0 2007-2008 BM BF NBM # Ref % # Ref % # Ref % # Stu # Stu # Stu 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 75.00% 0 0.00% 4 25.00% 10 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 72.73% 2 18.18% 1 9.09% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 COMPARISON BM BF NBM # Ref % # Ref % # Ref % # Stu # Stu # Stu 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 140.00% -3 -100.00% 3 300.00% 6 -2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 NBF Total # Ref % # Ref # Stu # Stu 0 0.00% 0 0 0 0 0.00% 9 0 7 0 0.00% 0 0 0 0 0.00% 0 0 0 0 0.00% 0 0 0 NBF Total # Ref % # Ref # Stu # Stu 0 0 0 0 0 0.00% 16 0 11 0 0 0 0 0 0.00% 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 NBF Total # Ref % # Ref # Stu # Stu 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 . I - I .. In School Susp Home Suspension ASAC Intervention Class Expulsion In School Susp Home Suspension ASAC Intervention Class Expulsion In School Susp Home Suspension ASAC Intervention Class Expulsion # Ref # Stu 0 0 7 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 # Ref # Stu 0 0 4 4 0 0 8 7 0 0 # Ref # Stu 0 0 -3 -1 0 0 8 7 0 0 North Little Rock School District Analysis of Disciplinary Actions BELWOOD ELEMENTARY From August to May 2006-2007 BM BF NBM % # Ref % # Ref % # Stu # Stu 0 0 0 0 87.50% 0 0.00% 1 12.50% 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2007-2008 BM BF NBM % # Ref % # Ref % # Stu # Stu 0 0 0 0 80.00% 0 0.00% 1 20.00% 0 1 0 0 0 0 72.73% 2 18.18% 1 9.09% 2 1 0 0 0 0 COMPARISON BM BF NBM % # Ref % # Ref % # Stu # Stu 0 0 0 0 -42.86% 0 0 0.00% 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 2 1 0 0 0 0 NBF Total # Ref % # Ref # Stu # Stu 0 0 0 0 0 0.00% 8 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 NBF Total # Ref % # Ref # Stu # Stu 0 0 0 0 0 0.00% 5 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0.00% 11 0 10 0 0 0 0 NBF Total # Ref % # Ref # Stu # Stu 0 0 0 0 0 -3 0 -1 0 0 0 0 0 11 0 10 0 0 0 0 # Ref # Stu In School Susp 0 0 Home Suspension 8 7 ASAC 0 0 Intervention Class 43 27 Expulsion 0 0 # Ref # Stu In School Susp 0 0 Home Suspension 1 1 ASAC 0 0 Intervention Class 33 18 Expulsion 0 0 # Ref # Stu In School Susp 0 0 Home Susoension -7 -6 ASAC 0 0 Intervention Class -10 -9 Expulsion 0 0 North Little Rock School District Analysis of Disciplinary Actions BOONE PARK ELEMENTARY From August to May 2006-2007 BM BF NBM % # Ref % # Ref % # Stu # Stu 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0 80.00% 2 20.00% 0 0.00% 2 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0 81.13% 9 16.98% 1 1.89% 8 1 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0 2007-2008 BM BF NBM % # Ref % # Ref % # Stu # Stu 0 0 0 0 25.00% 2 50.00% 1 25.00% 2 1 0 0 0 0 63.46% 19 36.54% 0 0.00% 11 0 0 0 0 0 COMPARISON BM BF NBM % # Ref % # Ref % # Stu # Stu 0 0 0 0 -87.50% 0 0.00% 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 -23.26% 10 111.11% -1 -100.00% 3 -1 0 0 0 0 NBF Total # Ref % # Ref # Stu # Stu 0 0.00% 0 0 0 0 0.00% 10 0 9 0 0.00% 0 0 0 0 0.00% 53 0 36 0 0.00% 0 0 0 NBF Total # Ref % # Ref # Stu # Stu 0 0 0 0 0 0.00% 4 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0.00% 52 0 29 0 0 0 0 NBF Total # Ref % # Ref # Stu # Stu 0 0 0 0 0 -6 0 -5 0 0 0 0 0 -1 0 -7 0 0 0 0 # Ref # Stu In School Susp 0 0 Home Suspension 10 6 ASAC 0 0 Intervention Class 0 0 Expulsion 0 0 # Ref # Stu In School Susp 0 0 Home Suspension 19 10 ASAC 0 0 Intervention Class 5 4 Expulsion 0 0 # Ref # Stu In School Susp 0 0 Home Susoension 9 4 ASAC 0 0 Intervention Class 5 4 Expulsion 0 0 North Little Rock School District Analysis of Disciplinary Actions CRESTWOOD ELEMENTARY From August to May 2006-2007 BM BF NBM % # Ref % # Ref % # Stu # Stu 0 0 0 0 71.43% 1 7.14% 2 14.29% 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2007-2008 BM BF NBM % # Ref % # Ref % # Stu # Stu 0 0 0 0 45.24% 5 11.90% 14 33.33% 4 11 0 0 0 0 45.45% 2 18.18% 3 27.27% 2 2 0 0 0 0 COMPARISON BM BF NBM % # Ref % # Ref % # Stu # Stu 0 0 0 0 90.00% 4 ##### 12 600.00% 3 9 0 0 0 0 2 3 2 2 0 0 0 0 NBF Total # Ref % # Ref # Stu # Stu 0 0 0 0 1 7.14% 14 1 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 NBF Total # Ref % # Ref # Stu # Stu 0 0 0 0 4 9.52% 42 1 26 0 0 0 0 1 9.09% 11 1 9 0 0 0 0 NBF Total # Ref % # Ref # Stu # Stu 0 0 0 0 3 300.00% 28 0 16 0 0 0 0 1 11 1 9 0 0 0 0 # Ref # Stu In School Susp 0 0 Home Susoension 56 30 ASAC 0 0 Intervention Class 0 0 Expulsion 0 0 # Ref # Stu In School Susp 0 0 Home 5usoension 29 19 ASAC 0 0 Intervention Class 0 0 Expulsion 0 0 # Ref # Stu In School Susp 0 0 Home Susoension -27 -11 ASAC 0 0 Intervention Class 0 0 Expulsion 0 0 North Little Rock School District Analysis of Disciplinary Actions GLENVIEW ELEMENTARY From August to May 2006-2007 BM BF NBM % # Ref % # Ref % # Stu # Stu 0 0 0 0 72.73% 8 10.39% 13 16.88% 7 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2007-2008 BM BF NBM % # Ref % # Ref % # Stu # Stu 0 0 0 0 78.38% 7 18.92% 1 2.70% 7 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 COMPARISON BM BF NBM % # Ref % # Ref % # Stu # Stu 0 0 0 0 -48.21% -1 -12.50% -12 -92.31% 0 -8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 NBF Total # Ref % # Ref # Stu # Stu 0 0 0 0 0 0.00% 77 0 46 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 NBF Total # Ref % # Ref # Stu # Stu 0 0 0 0 0 0.00% 37 0 27 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 NBF Total # Ref % # Ref # Stu # Stu 0 0 0 0 0 -40 0 -19 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 # Ref # Stu In School Susp 0 0 Home Susoension 13 9 ASAC 0 0 Intervention Class 0 0 Expulsion 0 0 # Ref # Stu In School Susp 0 0 Home Susoension 3 3 ASAC 0 0 Intervention Class 0 0 Expulsion 0 0 # Ref # Stu In School Susp 0 0 Home Suspension -10 -6 ASAC 0 0 Intervention Class 0 0 Expulsion 0 0 North Little Rock School District Analysis of Disciplinary Actions INDIAN HIL:LSE LEMENTARY From August to May 2006-2007 BM BF NBM % # Ref % # Ref % # Stu # Stu 0 0 0 0 46.43% 9 32.14% 6 21.43% 6 5 0 0 0 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 1 100.00% 0 1 0 0 0 0 2007-2008 BM BF NBM % # Ref % # Ref % # Stu # Stu 0 0 0 0 42.86% 0 0.00% 4 57.14% 0 4 0 0 0 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 1 100.00% 0 1 0 0 0 0 COMPARISON BM BF NBM % # Ref % # Ref % # Stu # Stu 0 0 0 0 -76.92% -9 -100.00% -2 -33.33% -6 -1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00% 0 0 0 0 0 0 NBF Total # Ref % # Ref # Stu # Stu 0 0 0 0 0 0.00% 28 0 20 0 0 0 0 0 0.00% 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 NBF Total # Ref % # Ref # Stu # Stu 0 0 0 0 0 0.00% 7 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 0.00% 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 NBF Total # Ref % # Ref # Stu # Stu 0 0 0 0 0 -21 0 -13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 [ [ In School Suso Home Susoension ASAC Intervention Class Expulsion In School Susp Home Suspension ASAC Intervention Class Expulsion In School Susp Home Susoension ASAC Intervention Class Expulsion # Ref # Stu 0 0 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 # Ref # Stu 0 0 12 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 # Ref # Stu 0 0 North Little Rock School District Analysis of Disciplinary Actions LAKEWOOD ELEMENTARY From August to May 2006-2007 BM BF NBM % # Ref % # Ref % # Stu # Stu 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0 60.00% 2 40.00% 0 0.00% 2 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0 2007-2008 BM BF NBM % # Ref % # Ref % # Stu # Stu 0 0 0 0 70.59% 4 23.53% 1 5.88% 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 COMPARISON BM BF NBM % # Ref % # Ref % # Stu # Stu 0 0 0 0 9 300.00% 2 100.00% 1 5 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 NBF Total # Ref % # Ref # Stu # Stu 0 0.00% 0 0 0 0 0.00% 5 0 5 0 0.00% 0 0 0 0 0.00% 0 0 0 0 0.00% 0 0 0 NBF Total # Ref % # Ref # Stu # Stu 0 0 0 0 0 0.00% 17 0 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 NBF Total # Ref % # Ref # Stu # Stu 0 0 0 0 0 12 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 # Ref # Stu In School Susp 0 0 Home Susoension 47 26 ASAC 0 0 Intervention Class 105 63 Expulsion 0 0 # Ref # Stu In School Susp 0 0 Home Susoension 43 22 ASAC 0 0 Intervention Class 3 3 Expulsion 0 0 # Ref # Stu In School Susp 0 0 Home Suspension -4 -4 ASAC 0 0 Intervention Class -102 -60 Expulsion 0 0 North Little Rock School District Analysis of Disciplinary Actions LYNCH DRIVE ELEMENTARY From August to May 2006-2007 BM BF NBM % # Ref % # Ref % # Stu # Stu 0 0 0 0 90.38% 2 3.85% 3 5.77% 2 1 0 0 0 0 69.08% 31 20.39% 13 8.55% 15 6 0 0 0 0 2007-2008 BM BF NBM % # Ref % # Ref % # Stu # Stu 0 0 0 0 79.63% 9 16.67% 2 3.70% 5 2 0 0 0 0 75.00% 1 25.00% 0 0.00% 1 0 0 0 0 0 COMPARISON BM BF NBM % # Ref % # Ref % # Stu # Stu 0 0 0 0 -8.51% 7 350.00% -1 -33.33% 3 1 0 0 0 0 -97.14% -30 -96.77% -13 -100.00% -14 -6 0 0 0 0 NBF Total # Ref % # Ref # Stu # Stu 0 0 0 0 0 0.00% 52 0 29 0 0 0 0 3 1.97% 152 3 87 0 0 0 0 NBF Total # Ref % # Ref # Stu # Stu 0 0 0 0 0 0.00% 54 0 29 0 0 0 0 0 0.00% 4 0 4 0 0 0 0 NBF Total # Ref % # Ref # Stu # Stu 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 -3 -100.00% -148 -3 -83 0 0 0 0 # Ref # Stu In School Susp 0 0 Home Suspension 52 30 ASAC 0 0 Intervention Class 0 0 Expulsion 0 0 # Ref # Stu In School Susp 0 0 Home Suspension 52 31 ASAC 0 0 Intervention Class 3 3 Expulsion 0 0 # Ref # Stu In School Susp 0 0 Home Susoension 0 1 ASAC 0 0 Intervention Class 3 3 Expulsion 0 0 North Little Rock School District Analysis of Disciplinary Actions MEADOW PARK ELEMENTARY From August to May 2006-2007 BM BF NBM % # Ref % # Ref % # Stu # Stu 0 0 0 0 72.22% 19 26.39% 1 1.39% 16 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2007-2008 BM BF NBM % # Ref % # Ref % # Stu # Stu 0 0 0 0 57.78% 21 23.33% 17 18.89% 8 8 0 0 0 0 60.00% 2 40.00% 0 0.00% 2 0 0 0 0 0 COMPARISON BM BF NBM % # Ref % # Ref % # Stu # Stu 0 0 0 0 0.00% 2 10.53% 16 1600.00% -8 7 0 0 0 0 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 NBF Total # Ref % # Ref # Stu # Stu 0 0 0 0 0 0.00% 72 0 47 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 NBF Total # Ref % # Ref # Stu # Stu 0 0 0 0 0 0.00% 90 0 47 0 0 0 0 0 0.00% 5 0 5 0 0 0 0 NBF Total # Ref % # Ref # Stu # Stu 0 0 0 0 0 18 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 0 # Ref # Stu In School Susp 0 0 Home Susoension 12 8 ASAC 0 0 Intervention Class 45 26 Expulsion 0 0 # Ref # Stu In School Susp 0 ] 0 Home Susoension 10 9 ASAC 0 0 Intervention Class 27 22 Expulsion 0 0 # Ref # Stu In School Susp 0 0 Home Suspension -2 1 ASAC 0 0 Intervention Class -18 -4 Expulsion 0 0 North Little Rock School District Analysis of Disciplinary Actions NORTH HEIGHTS ELEMENTARY From August to May 2006-2007 BM BF NBM % # Ref % # Ref % # Stu # Stu 0 0 0 0 75.00% 3 18.75% 1 6.25% 3 1 0 0 0 0 70.31% 15 23.44% 3 4.69% 11 3 0 0 0 0 2007-2008 BM BF NBM % # Ref % # Ref % # Stu # Stu 0 0 0 0 83.33% 1 8.33% 1 8.33% 1 1 0 0 0 0 43.55% 18 29.03% 12 19.35% 8 8 0 0 0 0 COMPARISON BM BF NBM % # Ref % # Ref % # Stu # Stu 0 0 0 0 -16.67% -2 -66.67% 0 0.00% -2 0 0 0 0 0 -40.00% 3 20.00% 9 300.00% -3 5 0 0 0 0 NBF Total # Ref % # Ref # Stu # Stu 0 0 0 0 0 0.00% 16 0 12 0 0 0 0 1 1.56% 64 1 41 0 0 0 0 NBF Total # Ref % # Ref # Stu # Stu 0 0 0 0 0 0.00% 12 0 11 0 0 0 0 5 8.06% 62 2 40 0 0 0 0 NBF Total # Ref % # Ref # Stu # Stu 0 0 0 0 0 -4 0 -1 0 0 0 0 4 400.00% -2 1 -1 0 0 0 0 # Ref # Stu In School Susp 0 0 Home Suspension 6 6 ASAC 0 0 Intervention Class 0 0 Expulsion 0 0 # Ref # Stu In School Susp 0 0 Home Suspension 11 6 ASAC 0 0 Intervention Class 0 [ 0 Expulsion 0 0 # Ref # Stu In School Susp 0 0 Home Susoension 5 0 ASAC 0 0 Intervention Class 0 0 Expulsion 0 0 North Little Rock School District Analysis of Disciplinary Actions PARK HILL ELEMENTARY From August to May 2006-2007 BM BF NBM % tf Ref % # Ref % # Stu # Stu 0 0 0 0 75.00% 2 25.00% 0 0.00% 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2007-2008 BM BF NBM % # Ref % # Ref % # Stu # Stu 0 0 0 0 57.89% 4 21.05% 3 15.79% 4 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 COMPARISON BM BF NBM % # Ref % # Ref % # Stu # Stu 0 0 0 0 83.33% 2 100.00% 3 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 NBF Total # Ref % # Ref # Stu # Stu 0 0 0 0 0 0.00% 8 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 NBF Total # Ref % # Ref # Stu # Stu 0 0 0 0 1 5.26% 19 1 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 NBF Total # Ref % # Ref # Stu # Stu 0 0 0 0 1 11 1 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 . I # Ref # Stu In School Susp 0 0 Home Susoension 23 17 ASAC 0 0 Intervention Class 34 23 Expulsion 0 0 # Ref # Stu In School Susp 0 0 Home Suspension 10 8 ASAC 0 0 Intervention Class 0 0 Expulsion 0 0 # Ref # Stu In School Susp 0 0 Home Susoension -13 -9 ASAC 0 0 Intervention Class -34 -23 Expulsion 0 0 North Little Rock School District Analysis of Disciplinary Actions PIKE VIEW ELEMENTARY From August to May 2006-2007 BM BF NBM % # Ref % # Ref % # Stu # Stu 0 0 0 0 74.19% 5 16.13% 3 9.68% 5 1 0 0 0 0 58.62% 12 20.69% 9 15.52% 10 3 0 0 0 0 2007-2008 BM BF NBM % # Ref % # Ref % # Stu # Stu 0 0 0 0 100.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 COMPARISON BM BF NBM % # Ref % # Ref % # Stu # Stu 0 0 0 0 -56.52% -5 -100.00% -3 -100.00% -5 -1 0 0 0 0 -100.00% -12 -100.00% -9 -100.00% -10 -3 0 0 0 0 NBF Total # Ref % # Ref # Stu # Stu 0 0 0 0 0 0.00% 31 0 23 0 0 0 0 3 5.17% 58 3 39 0 0 0 0 NBF Total # Ref % # Ref # Stu # Stu 0 0 0 0 0 0.00% 10 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 NBF Total # Ref % # Ref # Stu # Stu 0 0 0 0 0 -21 0 -15 0 0 0 0 -3 -100.00% -58 -3 -39 0 0 0 0 In School Susp Home Suspension ASAC Intervention Class Expulsion In School Susp Home Susoension ASAC Intervention Class Expulsion In School Susp Home Suspension ASAC Intervention Class Expulsion # Ref # Stu 0 0 25 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 # Ref # Stu 0 0 North Little Rock School District Analysis of Disciplinary Actions SEVENTH STREET ELEMENTARY From August to May 2006-2007 BM BF NBM % # Ref % # Ref % # Stu # Stu 0 0 0 0 96.15% 1 3.85% 0 0.00% 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2007-2008 BM BF NBM % # Ref % # Ref % # Stu # Stu 0 0 0 0 3 100.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 COMPARISON BM BF NBM # Ref % # Ref % # Ref % # Stu # Stu # Stu 0 0 0 0 0 0 -22 -88.00% -1 -100.00% 0 -14 -1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 NBF Total # Ref % # Ref # Stu # Stu 0 0 0 0 0 0.00% 26 0 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 NBF Total # Ref % # Ref # Stu # Stu 0 0 0 0 0 0.00% 3 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 NBF Total # Ref % # Ref # Stu # Stu 0 0 0 0 0 -23 0 -15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 # Ref # Stu In School Susp 262 18 Home Susoension 1 1 ASAC 72 36 Intervention Class 0 0 Expulsion 0 0 # Ref # Stu In School Susp 266 106 Home Susoension 0 0 ASAC 52 33 Intervention Class 0 0 Expulsion 0 0 # Ref # Stu In School Susp 4 88 Home Suspension -1 -1 ASAC -20 -3 Intervention Class 0 0 Expulsion 0 0 North Little Rock School District Analysis of Disciplinary Actions POPLAR STREET MIDDLE SCHOOL From August to May 2006-2007 BM BF NBM % # Ref % # Ref % # Stu # Stu 60.79% 138 26 71 22 50.00% 1 50.00% 0 0.00% 1 0 80.90% 15 16.85% 2 2.25% 11 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2007-2008 BM BF NBM % # Ref % # Ref % # Stu # Stu 52.16% 173 33.92% 59 11.57% 75 30 0 0 0 0 54.74% 25 26.32% 9 9.47% 14 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 COMPARISON BM BF NBM % # Ref % # Ref % # Stu # Stu 1.53% 35 25.36% 33 126.92% 4 8 -100.00% -1 -100.00% 0 -1 0 -27.78% 10 66.67% 7 350.00% 3 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 NBF Total # Ref % # Ref # Stu # Stu 5 431 4 115 0 0.00% 2 0 2 0 0.00% 89 0 48 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 NBF Total # Ref % # Ref # Stu # Stu 12 2.35% 510 8 219 0 0 0 0 9 9.47% 95 5 57 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 NBF Total # Ref % # Ref # Stu # Stu 7 140.00% 79 4 104 0 -2 0 -2 9 6 5 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 # Ref # Stu In School Susp 343 93 Home Susoension 3 3 ASAC 92 27 Intervention Class 0 0 Expulsion 0 0 [ # Ref # Stu In School Susp 249 70 Home Susoension 1 1 ASAC 32 17 Intervention Class 0 0 Expulsion 0 0 # Ref # Stu In School Susp -94 -23 Home Susoension -2 -2 ASAC -60 -10 Intervention Class 0 0 Expulsion 0 0 North Little Rock School District Analysis of Disciplinary Actions LAKEWOOD MIDDLE SCHOOL From August to May 2006-2007 BM BF NBM % # Ref % # Ref % # Stu # Stu 51.81% 156 116 49 56 42.86% 3 42.86% 0 0.00% 3 0 70.23% 26 19.85% 10 7.63% 17 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2007-2008 BM BF NBM % # Ref % # Ref % # Stu # Stu 49.40% 113 22.42% 117 23.21% 42 64 50.00% 0 0.00% 1 50.00% 0 1 60.38% 11 20.75% 9 16.98% 8 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 COMPARISON BM BF NBM % # Ref % # Ref % # Stu # Stu -27.41% -43 -27.56% 1 0.86% -7 8 -66.67% -3 -100.00% 1 -3 1 -65.22% -15 -57.69% -1 -10.00% -9 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 NBF Total # Ref % # Ref # Stu # Stu 47 662 23 221 1 14.29% 7 1 7 3 2.29% 131 3 54 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 NBF Total # Ref % # Ref # Stu # Stu 25 4.96% 504 16 192 0 0.00% 2 0 2 1 1.89% 53 1 35 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 NBF Total # Ref % # Ref # Stu # Stu -22 -46.81% -158 -7 -29 -1 -100.00% -5 -1 -5 -2 -66.67% -78 -2 -19 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 In School Susp Home Suspension ASAC Intervention Class Expulsion In School Susp Home Suspension ASAC Intervention Class Expulsion In School Susp Home Susoension ASAC Intervention Class Expulsion North Little Rock School District Analysis of Disciplinary Actions RIDGEROAD MIDDLE CHARTER SCHOOL From August to May 2006-2007 BM BF NBM # Ref % # Ref % # Ref % # Stu # Stu # Stu 401 50.44% 294 65 122 111 33 105 58.99% 49 27.53% 14 7.87% 50 29 12 31 62.00% 18 36.00% 1 2.00% 18 12 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 50.00% 0 0.00% 1 50.00% 1 0 1 2007-2008 BM BF NBM # Ref % # Ref % # Ref % # Stu # Stu # Stu 550 59.14% 318 34.19% 50 5.38% 128 95 17 29 52.73% 25 45.45% 0 0.00% 18 14 0 21 55.26% 16 42.11% 1 2.63% 17 8 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 COMPARISON BM BF NBM # Ref % # Ref % # Ref % # Stu # Stu # Stu 149 37.16% 24 8.16% -15 -23.08% 6 -16 -16 -76 -72.38% -24 -48.98% -14 -100.00% -32 -15 -12 -10 -32.26% -2 -11.11% 0 0.00% -1 -4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -1 -100.00% 0 -1 -100.00% -1 0 -1 NBF Total # Ref % # Re.f # Stu # Stu 35 795 17 283 10 5.62% 178 5 96 0 0.00% 50 0 31 0 0 0 0 0 0.00% 2 0 2 NBF Total # Ref % # Ref # Stu # Stu 12 1.29% 930 5 245 1 1.82% 55 1 33 0 0.00% 38 0 26 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 NBF Total # Ref % # Ref # Stu # Stu -23 -65.71% 135 -12 -38 -9 -90.00% -123 -4 -63 0 -12 0 -5 0 0 0 0 0 -2 0 -2 # Ref # Stu In School Susp 165 58 Home Susoension 120 48 ASAC 44 31 Intervention Class 0 0 Expulsion 0 0 # Ref # Stu In School Susp 265 69 Home Susoension 46 26 ASAC 54 23 Intervention Class 0 0 Expulsion 0 0 # Ref # Stu In School Susp 100 11 Home Suspension -74 -22 ASAC 10 -8 Intervention Class 0 0 Expulsion 0 0 North Little Rock School District Analysis of Disciplinary Actions ROSE CITY MIDDLE SCHOOL From August to May 2006-2007 BM BF NBM % # Ref % # Ref % # Stu # Stu 58.30% 108 8 37 4 68.18% 42 23.86% 3 1.70% 19 3 68.75% 16 25.00% 2 3.13% 14 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2007-2008 BM BF NBM % # Ref % # Ref % # Stu # Stu 56.50% 177 37.74% 21 4.48% 47 8 63.01% 25 34.25% 2 2.74% 10 2 67.50% 16 20.00% 9 11.25% 8 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 COMPARISON BM BF NBM % # Ref % # Ref % # Stu # Stu 60.61% 69 63.89% 13 162.50% 10 4 -61.67% -17 -40.48% -1 -33.33% -9 -1 22.73% 0 0.00% 7 350.00% -6 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 NBF Total # Ref % # Ref # Stu # Stu 2 283 2 101 11 6.25% 176 1 71 2 3.13% 64 1 48 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 NBF Total # Ref % # Ref # Stu # Stu 6 1.28% 469 3 127 0 0.00% 73 0 38 1 1.25% 80 1 36 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 NBF Total # Ref % # Ref # Stu # Stu 4 200.00% 186 1 26 -11 -100.00% -103 -1 -33 -1 -50.00% 16 0 -12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 In School Susp Home Suspension ASAC Intervention Class Expulsion In School Susp Home Suspension ASAC Intervention Class Expulsion In School Susp Home Suspension ASAC Intervention Class Expulsion # Ref # Stu 504 180 23 22 54 40 0 0 2 2 # Ref # Stu 494 181 17 13 39 31 0 0 North Little Rock School District Analysis of Disciplinary Actions NLRHS EAST CAMPUS HIGH SCHOOL From August to May 2006-2007 BM BF NBM % # Ref % # Ref % # Stu # Stu 49.12% 300 165 144 87 36.51% 28 44.44% 9 14.29% 23 9 47.37% 33 28.95% 16 14.04% 24 11 0 0 0 0 33.33% 0 0.00% 1 16.67% 0 1 2007-2008 BM BF NBM % # Ref % # Ref % # Stu # Stu 46.08% 358 33.40% 150 13.99% 147 79 54.84% 9 29.03% 3 9.68% 7 3 56.52% 21 30.43% 4 5.80% 18 4 0 0 0 0 6 100.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 6 0 0 COMPARISON BM BF NBM # Ref % # Ref % # Ref % # Stu # Stu # Stu -10 -1.98% 58 19.33% -15 -9.09% 1 3 -8 -6 -26.09% -19 -67.86% -6 -66.67% -9 -16 -6 -15 -27.78% -12 -36.36% -12 -75.00% -9 -6 -7 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 200.00% 0 -1 -100.00% 4 0 -1 NBF Total # Ref % # Ref # Stu # Stu 57 1026 35 446 3 4.76% 63 3 57 11 9.65% 114 10 85 0 0 0 0 3 50.00% 6 3 6 NBF Total # Ref % # Ref # Stu # Stu 70 6.53% 1072 40 447 2 6.45% 31 2 25 5 7.25% 69 5 58 0 0 0 0 0 0.00% 6 0 6 NBF Total # Ref % # Ref # Stu # Stu 13 22.81% 46 5 1 -1 -33.33% -32 -1 -32 -6 -54.55% -45 -5 -27 0 0 0 0 -3 -100.00% 0 -3 0 # Ref # Stu In School Susp 299 141 Home Susoension 25 23 ASAC 30 26 Intervention Class 0 0 Expulsion 0 0 # Ref # Stu In School Susp 298 141 Home Susoension 40 30 ASAC 36 26 Intervention Class 0 0 Expulsion 5 0 # Ref # Stu In School Susp -1 0 Home Susoension 15 7 ASAC 6 0 Intervention Class 0 0 Expulsion 5 0 North Little Rock School District Analysis of Disciplinary Actions NLRHS WEST CAMPUS HIGH SCHOOL From August to May 2006-2007 BM BF NBM % # Ref % # Ref % # Stu # Stu 58.40% 125 61 79 36 69.44% 7 19.44% 4 11.11% 7 4 78.95% 1 2.63% 7 18.42% 1 5 0 0 0 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 1 100.00% 0 1 2007-2008 BM BF NBM % # Ref % # Ref % # Stu # Stu 54.98% 171 31.55% 49 9.04% 108 30 58.82% 25 36.76% 2 2.94% 18 2 59.02% 23 37.70% 0 0.00% 15 0 0 0 0 0 62.50% 0 0.00% 3 37.50% 0 0 COM PARIS.ON BM BF NBM % # Ref % # Ref % # Stu # Stu -0.33% 46 36.80% -12 -19.67% 29 -6 60.00% 18 257.14% -2 -50.00% 11 -2 20.00% 22 2200.00% -7 -100.00% 14 -5 0 0 0 0 0 2 200.00% 0 -1 NBF Total # Ref % # Ref # Stu # Stu 27 512 21 277 0 0.00% 36 0 34 0 0.00% 38 0 32 0 0 0 0 0 0.00% 1 0 1 NBF Total # Ref % # Ref # Stu # Stu 24 4.43% 542 16 295 1 1.47% 68 1 51 2 3.28% 61 2 43 0 0 0 0 0 0.00% 8 0 0 NBF Total # Ref % # Ref # Stu # Stu -3 -11.11% 30 -5 18 1 32 1 17 2 23 2 11 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 -1 2 2 1 1 North Little Rock Public Schools Analysis of Disciplinary Actions District Level In School Suspensions 500-' c::::::::::? 000- / ..t=. 500- ,,- c:::::::\n? c::: 000- ,,- - 500- ,,- '--- ~ 0 I\n~ I\n,___ I\n,___ ,\nu r 1L BM BF NBM NBF D 06-07 1974 1121 441 173 D 07-08 2122 1310 446 149  06-07  07-08 North Little Rock Public Schools Analysis of Disciplinary Actions District Level Home Suspensions 800-\" .:::\n700- ,,,- 600- ,,,- 500- ,,,- 400- ,,,- .!...=.\n, 300- ,,- ~ 200- v- - ~ 100- v- - .- 0 - - LJ ~ - BM BF NBM NBF C 06-07 719 281 71 26 D 07-08 342 137 57 9 06-07  07-08 North Little Rock Public Schools Analysis of Disciplinary Actions District Level ASAC 350- ~ 300- ,,.. ... 250- ,,- '=7 200- ,,- 150- ,,- .I ~ 100- ,,- - 50- ,,- - .---::a ~,, I - Cl. 0 - - .,.- -L__J I BM BF NBM NBF E 06-07 329 110 38 16 D 07-08 234 112 32 18 06-07 007-08 -1  I : I . , ~ I J'  I  ~  ] . J North Little Rock Public Schools Analysis of Disciplinary Actions District Level Intervention Class 250-/ ~ 200- v\u0026gt;-- 150- /- 100- /- _7 ~1 50- /- - ~ 0 L,~ L\n~ ~lnL-I 0-, BM BF NBM NSF 006-07 227 67 27 7 007-08 87 46 18 6  06-07  07-08 North Little Rock Public Schools Analysis of Disciplinary Actions District Level Expulsion 12-/ ~ 10-\" 8-/ ~ 6_/ 4_,, c=. - / ,, :::jj 2- 1/,- - 0 ~ .... , 1.. ....__ , ~ BM BF NBM NBF IC 06-07 3 0 3 3  07-08 11 0 3 0 06-07  07-08 North Little Rock Public Schools Analysis of Disciplinary Actions Elementary K-5 In School Suspensions 1 _/ 0.9_/ o.a-v 0.1-v 0.6_v 0.5-' 0.4_/ 0.3-' 0.2_/ 0.1-v 0 ,, I I I I I I I 7 / ~ ~ I BM BF NBM NBF  06-07 0 0 0 0 D 07-08 0 0 0 0 I 06-07 007-08 [ IJ IJ j] IJ IJ ] J l J l J l J J [ ] North Little Rock Public Schools Analysis of Disciplinary Actions Elementary K-5 Home Suspension 300-\" ,::\n250- v- _:::::::::? 200- ,,- 150- ,,- 100- ,,- ~ 50- ,,- ~ ,c__,\n1 tiCZ. I ' _r-\"71 0 - ~ ~ BM BF NBM NBF C 06-07 267 57 31 1 D 07-08 209 53 49 5 - 06-07 D 07-08 J J J J J J J J [ J [ I J [ I J J J J J ] j J ] North Little Rock Public Schools Analysis of Disciplinary Actions Elementary K-5 ASAC 1-  0.9-v 0.8-v 0.7-\" 0.6-  o.s-  0.4-  0.3-/ 0.2-  0.1-  0 BM BF NBM NBF Cl 06-07 0 0 0 0  07-08 0 0 0 0 06-07  07-08 North Little Rock Public Schools Analysis of Disciplinary Actions Elementary K-5 Intervention Class 250-/ :::j 200- vf--- 150- /f- 100- ,,- ..::::::::7 50- - ~1 ,,- !.__7 0 - ~ rrn_~_ _. ~ ~ I 71_ BM BF NBM NBF ID 06-07 227 67 27 7 D 07-08 87 46 18 6 06-07  07-08 ] J . ] ]  ] IJ , r ] - ] IJ _J ] ~ l J -I J 1 j ] ] . ] North Little Rock Public Schools Analysis of Disciplinary Actions Elementary K-5 Expulsion 1 _/ 0.9-/ o.a-  o. 7 _,, 0.6_v o.s- 0.4---- 0.3-  0.2-  0.1-v 0 \" I I I I I I I I I I , I BM BF NBM NBF 006-07 0 0 0 0 007-08 0 0 0 0  06-07  07-08 North Little Rock Public Schools Analysis of Disciplinary Actions Middle Schools In School Suspensions 1400 1200 1000 800 600 400 200 0 BM  06-07 1171 D 07-08 1330 - . - . BF NBM 696 215 781 247 NBF 88 55  06-07  07-08 North Little Rock Public Schools Analysis of Disciplinary Actions Middle Schools Home Suspension __..,......,.,... .... ...___-~-~ - -----=--------~-~- ._. ~J ---------- ' 250 200 150 100 50 0 BM  06-07 231  07-08 76 BF NBM 94 17 50 3 NBF 22 1  06-07  07-08 : l J  J IJ IJ : I J IJ J ] J ] ] J LJ J J J ] J IT 1 250 200 150 100 50 0  06-07  07-08 North Little Rock Public Schools Analysis of Disciplinary Actions Middle Schools ASAC BM BF NBM NBF 238 75 15 5 159 68 28 11  06-07  07-08 North Little Rock Public Schools Analysis of Disciplinary Actions Middle Schools Intervention Class .... - 1 _/ 0.9_v o.a-v 0.7_v 0.6-V 0.5-/ 0.4-  0.3-/ 0.2-  0.1 _,, 0 BM BF NBM NBF  06-07 0 0 0 0 D 07-08 0 0 0 0  06-07  07-08 1 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0  06-07 D 07-08 North Little Rock Public Schools Analysis of Disciplinary Actions Middle Schools Expulsion BM BF NBM NBF 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0  06-07  07-08 900 800 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0  06-07 D 07-08 North Little Rock Public Schools Analysis of Disciplinary Actions High Schools In School Suspensions - - . BM BF NBM NBF 803 425 226 85 792 529 199 94  06-07  07-08 250 [] 200 ] 150 ]] 100 50 ] 0  06-07 D 07-08 North Little Rock Public Schools Analysis of Disciplinary Actions High Schools Home Suspension ... . .,,\n\u0026gt;-\n,....--...,---- -. \n. \"'-----'-'- ~-~~---~--..::. :...-,-..  06-07  07-08 BM BF NBM NBF 221 130 23 3 57 34 5 3 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 North Little Rock Public Schools Analysis of Disciplinary Actions High Schools ASAC --.  ' ::.. ... - ... BM BF NBM NBF  06-07 91 35 23 11 D 07-08 75 44 4 7 --  06-07  07-08 North Little Rock Public Schools Analysis of Disciplinary Actions High Schools Intervention Class 1 _/ 0.9_v 0.8-V 0.7-v 0.6-\" 0.5-'/ 0.4-v 0.3Y 0.2-v 0.1 _,, 0 BM BF NBM NBF  06-07 0 0 0 0 D 07-08 0 0 0 0  06-07  07-08 12 10 8 6 4 2 0  06-07  07-08 North Little Rock Public Schools Analysis of Disciplinary Actions High Schools Expulsion BM BF NBM NBF 2 0 2 3 11 0 3 0  06-07  07-08 : l J : I J : ] I l J J \"] North Little Rock Public Schools Analysis of Disciplinary Actions 10 Year Comparison In School Suspension ., .. ..,. 2500~-----------~ 1500 1000 500 0 BM BF NBM NBF  98-99 1443 718 458 138  99-00 1468 662 401 139  00-01 1092 556 267 69 D 01-02 1276 574 354 107  02-03 1903 1050 512 172 D 03-04 1961 980 394 220  04-05 1560 860 390 172 D 05-06 1843 1189 471 158  06-07 1974 1121 441 173  07-08 2122 1310 446 149  98-99  99-00  00-01 D 01-02  02-03 D 03-04  04-05 D 05-06  06-07  07-08 [J J :J J :J] r ] - ] ] North Little Rock Public Schools Analysis of Disciplinary Actions 10 Year Comparison Home Suspension 1200 1000 800 600- 4001 200- 0- ) lb. t--...i. BM BF NBM NBF  98-99 566 141 125 22  99-00 406 113 102 18 D 00-01 385 92 64 7  01-02 692 234 92 21 D 02-03 522 193 63 13 ll!!I0 3-04 469 157 66 18  04-05 753 325 111 43 D 05-06 1166 565 208 54  06-07 719 281 71 26  n7.na ~,t? 1~7 57 9  98-99  99-00 D 00-01  01-02 D 02-03 03-04  04-05 D 05-06  06-07  07-08 North Little Rock Public Schools Analysis of Disciplinary Actions 10 Year Comparison ASAC 400 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 BM BF NBM NBF  98-99 359 148 88 22  99-00 351 129 90 27  00-01 325 136 56 12 D 01-02 210 83 52 11  02-03 244 86 83 25 D 03-04 316 155 51 16 04-05 3 1 0 0  05-06 40 15 9 5 D 06-07 329 110 38 16  07-08 234 112 32 18  98-99  99-00  00-01 D 01-02  02-03 D 03-04 04-05  05-06 D 06-07  07-08 - ] I North Little Rock Public Schools Analysis of Disciplinary Actions 10 Year Comparison Intervention Class 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 BM BF NBM NBF  98-99 211 106 27 6  99-00 246 63 75 16  00-01 162 55 40 21 D 01-02 342 164 67 29  02-03 252 97 52 11  03-04 195 70 18 11  04-05 110 30 11 1  05-06 84 38 13 3 D 06-07 227 67 27 7  07-08 87 46 18 6  98-99  99-00  00-01 D 01-02  02-03 D 03-04  04-05  05-06 D 06-07  07-08 North Little Rock Public Schools Analysis of Disciplinary Actions 10 Year Comparison Expulsion 12- 10- ,, 8 6- I--- 4 2-I i I- 0- J 11 BM BF NBM NBF  98-99 7 2 1 1  99-00 3 0 2 0  00-01 3 0 5 3  01-02 1 0 2 1  02-03 2 0 2 0  03-04 2 0 2 0  04-05 11 0 9 1  05-06 4 2 5 2  06-07 3 0 3 3 I -- nn .... n st n  98-99  99-00  00-01  01-02  02-03  03-04 04-05  05-06  06-07  07-08\nThis project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resoources.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\u003cdcterms_creator\u003eNorth Little Rock School District\u003c/dcterms_creator\u003e\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_37","title":"Arkansas Department of Education's (ADE's) Project Management Tool","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118"],"dcterms_creator":["Arkansas. Department of Education"],"dc_date":["2007-01"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Education--Arkansas","Little Rock (Ark.). Office of Desegregation Monitoring","School integration--Arkansas","Arkansas. Department of Education","Project managers--Implements"],"dcterms_title":["Arkansas Department of Education's (ADE's) Project Management Tool"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/37"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["documents (object genre)"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\nARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF Dr. T. Kenneth James, Commissioner .EducatiWn 4 State Capitol Mall  Little Rock, AR 72201-1071 (501) 682-4475 http://ArkansasEd.org January 30, 2007 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 400 West Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 Mr. John W. Walker John Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Mr. Mark Burnette Mitchell, Blackstock, Barnes, Wagoner, Ivers \u0026amp; Sneddon P. 0. Box 1510 Little Rock, AR 72203-1510 Office of Desegregation Monitoring One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 RECEIVED Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones 425 West Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. M. Samuel Jones III FEB 2 - 2007 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING Mitchell, Williams, Selig, Gates \u0026amp; Woodyard 425 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 1800 Little Rock, AR 72201 RE: Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District, et al. US. District Court No. 4:82-CV-866 WRW Dear Gentlemen: Per an agreement with the Attorney General's Office, I am filing the Arkansas Department of Education's Project Management Tool for the month of January 2007 in the above-referenced case. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at your convenience. Sincerely, General Counsel Arkansas Department of Education SS:law cc: Scott Richardson, Attorney General's Office STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION: Chair: Diane Tatum, Pine Bluff  Vice Chair: Randy Lawson, Bentonville Members: Sherry Burrow, Jonesboro  Dr. Calvin King, Marianna  Dr. Tim Knight, Arkadelphia Dr. Ben Mays, Clinton  MaryJane Rebick, Little Rock  Dr. Naccaman Williams, Springdale An Equal Opportunity Employer UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. No. LR-C-82-866 WRW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al DEFENDANTS NOTICE OF FILING In accordance with the Court's Order of December 10, 1993, the Arkansas Department of Education hereby gives notice of the filing of the ADE's Project Management Tool for January 2007. Respectfully Submitted, General Counsel Arkansas Department of Education #4 Capitol Mall, Room 404-A Little Rock, AR 72201 501 -682-4227 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Scott Smith, certify that on January 30, 2007, I caused the foregoing document to be served by depositing a copy in the United States mail, postage prepaid, addressed to each of the following: Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 400 West Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 Mr. John W. Walker John Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Mr. Mark Burnette Mitchell, Blackstock, Barnes Wagoner, Ivers \u0026amp; Sneddon P. 0. Box 1510 Little Rock, AR 72203-1510 Office of Desegregation Monitoring One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones 425 West Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. M. Samuel Jones, III Mitchell, Williams, Selig, Gates \u0026amp; Woodyard 425 West Capitol, Suite 1800 Little Rock, AR 72201 t.d~ RECEIVED IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FEB 2 - 2007 EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL PLAINTIFFS V. NO. LR-C-82-866 WRW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENORS KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS ADE'S PROJECT MANAGEMENT TOOL In compliance with the Court's Order of December 10, 1993, the Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) submits the following Project Management Tool to the parties and the Court. This document describes the progress the ADE has made since March 15, 1994, in complying with provisions of the Implementation Plan and itemizes the ADE's progress against timelines presented in the Plan. - IMPLEMENTATION PHASE ACTIVITY I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS A. Use the previous year's three quarter average daily membership to calculate MFPA (State Equalization) for the current school year. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of January 31, 2007 B. Include all Magnet students in the resident District's average daily membership for calculation. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued} B. Include all Magnet students in the resident District's average daily membership for calculation. (Continued) 2. Actual as of January 31, 2007 C. Process and distribute State MFPA. 1 . Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of January 31, 2007 D. Determine the number of Magnet students residing in each District and attending a Magnet School. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of January 31, 2007 E. Desegregation Staff Attorney reports the Magnet Operational Charge to the Fiscal Services Office. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing, as ordered by the Court. 2 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) E. Desegregation Staff Attorney reports the Magnet Operational Charge to the Fiscal Services Office. (Continued) 2. Actual as of January 31, 2007 It should be noted that currently the Magnet Review Committee is reporting this information instead of the staff attorney as indicated in the Implementation Plan. F. Calculate state aid due the LRSD based upon the Magnet Operational Charge. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of January 31, 2007 G. Process and distribute state aid for Magnet Operational Charge. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of January 31, 2007 H. Calculate the amount of M-to-M incentive money to which each school district is entitled. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of January 31, 2007 Calculated for FY 06/07, subject to periodic adjustments. 3 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) I. Process and distribute M-to-M incentive checks. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, September - June. 2. Actual as of January 31, 2007 J. Districts submit an estimated Magnet and M-to-M transportation budget to ADE. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing, December of each year. 2. Actual as of January 31, 2007 In September 2002, the Magnet and M-to-M transportation budgets for FY 02/03 were submitted to the ADE by the Districts. K. The Coordinator of School Transportation notifies General Finance to pay districts for the Districts' proposed budget. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing, annually. 2. Actual as of January 31, 2007 In January 2006, General Finance was notified to pay the second one-third payment for FY 05/06 to the Districts. In September 2006, General Finance was notified to pay the third one-third payment for FY 05/06 to the Districts. In September 2006, General Finance was notified to pay the first one-third payment for FY 06/07 to the Districts. It should be noted that the Transportation Coordinator is currently performing this function instead of Reginald Wilson as indicated in the Implementation Plan. 4 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) L. ADE pays districts three equal installments of their proposed budget. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing, annually. 2. Actual as of January 31, 2007 In February 2006, General Finance made the second one-third payment to the Districts for their FY 05/06 transportation budget. The budget is now paid out in three equal installments. At February 2006, the following had been paid for FY 05/06: LRSD - $2,831,266.66 NLRSD - $569,433.04 PCSSD - $1,948,253.16 In September 2006, General Finance made the last one-third payment to the Districts for their FY 05/06 transportation budget. The budget is now paid out in three equal installments. At September 2006, the following had been paid for FY 05/06: LRSD - $4,200,321.00 NLRSD - $975,891.96 PCSSD - $3,062,606.93 In September 2006, General Finance made the first one-third payment to the Districts for their FY 06/07 transportation budget: The budget is now paid out in three equal installments. At September 2006, the following had been paid for FY 06/07: LRSD - $1,413,384.34 NLRSD - $333,217.73 PCSSD - $1,074,447.23 M. ADE verifies actual expenditures submitted by Districts and reviews each bill with each District's transportation coordinator. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing, annually. 2. Actual as of January 31, 2007 5 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) M. ADE verifies actual expenditures submitted by Districts and reviews each bill with each District's transportation coordinator. (Continued) 2. Actual as of January 31, 2007 (Continued) In August 1997, the ADE transportation coordinator reviewed each district's Magnet and M-to-M transportation costs for FY 96/97. In July 1998, each district was asked to submit an estimated budget for the 98/99 school year. In September 1998, paperwork was generated for the first payment in the 98/99 school year for the Magnet and M-to-M transportation program. School districts should receive payment by October 1, 1998 In September 1999, paperwork was generated for the first payment in the 99/00 school year for the Magnet and M-to-M transportation program. In September 2000, paperwork was generated for the first payment in the 00/01 school year for the Magnet and M-to-M transportation program. In September 2001, paperwork was generated for the first payment in the 01/02 school year for the Magnet and M-to-M transportation program. In September 2002, paperwork was generated for the first payment in the 02/03 school year for the Magnet and M-to-M transportation program. - . . In September 2003, paperwork was generated for the first payment in the 03/04 school year for the Magnet and M-to-M transportation program. In September 2004, paperwork was generated for the first payment in the 04/05 school year for the Magnet and M-to-M transportation program. In October 2005, paperwork was generated for the first payment in the 05/06 school year for the Magnet and M-to-M transportation program. In September 2006, paperwork was generated for the first payment in the 06/07 school year for the Magnet and M-to-M transportation program. N. Purchase buses for the Districts to replace existing Magnet and M-to-M fleets and to provide a larger fleet for the Districts' Magnet and M-to-M Transportation needs. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing, as stated in Exhibit A of the Implementation Plan. 2. Actual as of January 31, 2007 6 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) N. Purchase buses for the Districts to replace existing Magnet and M-to-M fleets and to provide a larger fleet for the Districts' Magnet and M-to-M Transportation needs. (Continued) 2. Actual as of January 31, 2007 (Continued) In FY 94/95, the State purchased 52 buses at a cost of $1,799,431 which were added to or replaced existing Magnet and M-to-M buses in the Districts. The buses were distributed to the Districts as follows: LRSD - 32\nNLRSD - 6\nand PCSSD - 14. The ADE purchased 64 Magnet and M-to-M buses at a cost of $2,334,800 in FY 95/96. The buses were distributed accordingly: LRSD - 45\nNLRSD - 7\nand PCSSD - 12. In May 1997, the ADE purchased 16 Magnet and M-to-M buses at a cost of $646,400. In July 1997, the ADE purchased 16 Magnet and M-to-M buses at a cost of $624,879. In July 1998, the ADE purchased 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses at a cost of $695,235. The buses were distributed accordingly: LRSD - 8\nNLRSD - 2\nand PCSSD -6. Specifications for 16 school buses have been forwarded to state purchasing for bidding in January, 1999 for delivery in July, 1999. In July 1999, the ADE purchased 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses at a cost of $718,355. The buses were distributed accordingly: LRSD - 8\nNLRSD - 2\nand PCSSD -6. In July 2000, the ADE purchased 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses at a cost of $724,165. The buses were distributed accordingly: LRSD - 8\nNLRSD - 2\nand PCSSD - 6. The bid for 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses was let by State Purchasing on February 22, 2001. The contract was awarded to Ward Transportation Services, Inc. The buses to be purchased include two 47 passenger buses for $43,426.00 each and fourteen 65 passenger buses for $44,289.00 each. The buses will be distributed accordingly: LRSD - 8 of the 65 passenger\nNLRSD - 2 of the 65 passenger\nPCSSD - 2 of the 47 passenger and 4 of the 65 passenger buses. On August 2, 2001, the ADE took possession of 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses. The total amount paid was $706,898. 7 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) N. Purchase buses for the Districts to replace existing Magnet and M-to-M fleets and to provide a larger fleet for the Districts' Magnet and M-to-M Transportation needs. (Continued) 2. Actual as of January 31, 2007 (Continued) In June 2002, a bid for 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses was awarded to Ward Transportation Services, Inc. The buses to be purchased include five 47 passenger buses for $42,155.00 each, ten 65 passenger buses for $43,850.00 each, and one 47 passenger bus with a wheelchair lift for $46,952.00. The total amount was $696,227. In August of 2002, the ADE purchased 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses. The total amount paid was $696,227. In June 2003, a bid for 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses was awarded to Ward Transportation Services, Inc. The buses to be purchased include 5 - 47 passenger buses for $47,052.00 each, and 11 - 65 passenger buses for $48,895.00 each. The total amount was $773,105. The buses will be distributed accordingly: LRSD - 8 of the 65 passenger\nNLRSD - 2 of the 65 passenger\nPCSSD - 5 of the 47 passenger and 1 of the 65 passenger buses. In June 2004, a bid for 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses was awarded to Ward Transportation Services, Inc. The price for the buses was $49,380 each for a total cost of $790,080. The buses will be distributed accordingly: LRSD - 8, NLRSD - 2, and PCSSD - 6. In June 2005, a bid for 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses was awarded to Ward Transportation Services, Inc. The buses for the LRSD include 8 - 65 passenger buses for $53,150.00 each. The buses for the NLRSD include 1 - 47 passenger bus for $52,135.00, and 1 - 65 passenger bus for $53,150.00. The buses for the PCSSD include 6 - 65 passenger buses for $53, 150.00 each. The total amount was $849,385.00. In March 2006, a bid for 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses was awarded to Central States Bus Sales. The buses for the LRSD include 8 - 65 passenger buses for $56,810.00 each. The buses for the NLRSD include 1 - 47 passenger bus for $54,990.00, and 1 - 65 passenger bus for $56,810.00. The buses for the PCSSD include 6 - 65 passenger buses for $56,810.00 each. The total amount was $907,140.00. 8 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) 0. Process and distribute compensatory education payments to LRSD as required by page 23 of the Settlement Agreement. 1. Projected Ending Date July 1 and January 1, of each school year through January 1, 1999. 2. Actual as of January 31, 2007 Obligation fulfilled in FY 96/97. P. Process and distribute additional payments in lieu of formula to LRSD as required by page 24 of the Settlement Agreement. Q. 1. Projected Ending Date Payment due date and ending July 1, 1995. 2. Actual as of January 31, 2007 Obligation fulfilled in FY 95/96. Process and distribute payments to PCSSD as required by Page 28 of the Settlement Agreement. 1. Projected Ending Date Payment due date and ending July 1, 1994. 2. Actual as of January 31, 2007 Final payment was distributed July 1994. R. Upon loan request by LRSD accompanied by a promissory note, the ADE makes loans to LRSD. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing through July 1, 1999. See Settlement Agreement page 24. 2. Actual as of January 31, 2007 The LRSD received $3,000,000 on September 10, 1998. As of this reporting date, the LRSD has received $20,000,000 in loan proceeds. 9 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) S. Process and distribute payments in lieu of formula to PCSSD required by page 29 of the Settlement Agreement. 1. Projected Ending Date Payment due date and ending July 1, 1995. 2. Actual as of January 31, 2007 Obligation fulfilled in FY 95/96. T. Process and distribute compensatory education payments to NLRSD as required by page 31 of the Settlement Agreement. 1. Projected Ending Date July 1 of each school year through June 30, 1996. 2. Actual as of January 31, 2007 Obligation fulfilled in FY 95/96. U. Process and distribute check to Magnet Review Committee. 1. Projected Ending Date Payment due date and ending July 1, 1995. 2. Actual as of January 31, 2007 Distribution in July 1997 for FY 97/98 was $75,000. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 97/98. Distribution in July 1998 for FY 98/99 was $75,000. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 98/99. Distribution in July 1999 for FY 99/00 was $92,500. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 99/00. Distribution in July 2000 for FY 00/01 was $92,500. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 00/01. Distribution in August 2001 for FY 01/02 was $92,500. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 01/02. Distribution in July 2002 for FY 02/03 was $92,500. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 02/03. 10 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) U. Process and distribute check to Magnet Review Committee. (Continued) 2. Actual as of January 31, 2007 (Continued) Distribution in July 2003 for FY 03/04 was $92,500. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 03/04. Distribution in July 2004 for FY 04/05 was $92,500. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 04/05. Distribution in July 2005 for FY 05/06 was $92,500. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 05/06. Distribution in July 2006 for FY 06/07 was $92,500. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 06/07. V. Process and distribute payments for Office of Desegregation Monitoring. 1. Projected Ending Date Not applicable. 2. Actual as of January 31, 2007 Distribution in July 1997 for FY 97/98 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 97/98. Distribution in July 1998 for FY 98/99 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 98/99. Distribution in July 1999 for FY 99/00 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 99/00. Distribution in July 2000 for FY 00/01 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 00/01. Distribution in August 2001 for FY 01 /02 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 01/02. Distribution in July 2002 for FY 02/03 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 02/03. Distribution in July 2003 for FY 03/04 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 03/04. Distribution in July 2004 for FY 04/05 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 04/05. 11 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) V. Process and distribute payments for Office of Desegregation Monitoring. (Continued) 2. Actual as of January 31, 2007 (Continued) Distribution in July 2005 for FY 05/06 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 05/06. Distribution in July 2006 for FY 06/07 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 06/07. 12 11. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. 1. Projected Ending Date January 15, 1995 2. Actual as of January 31, 2007 In May 1995, monitors completed the unannounced visits of schools in Pulaski County. The monitoring process involved a qualitative process of document reviews, interviews, and observations. The monitoring focused on progress made since the announced monitoring visits. In June 1995, monitoring data from unannounced visits was included in the July Semiannual Report. Twenty-five per cent of all classrooms were visited, and all of the schools in Pulaski County were monitored. All principals were interviewed to determine any additional progress since the announced visits. The July 1995 Monitoring Report was reviewed by the ADE administrative team, the Arkansas State Board of Education, and the Districts and filed with the Court. The report was formatted in accordance with the Allen Letter. In October 1995, a common terminology was developed by principals from the Districts and the Lead Planning and Desegregation staff to facilitate the monitoring process. The announced monitoring visits began on November 14, 1995 and were completed on January 26, 1996. Copies of the preliminary Semiannual Monitoring Report and its executive summary were provided to the ADE administrative team and the State Board of Education in January 1996. A report on the current status of the Cycle 5 schools in the ECOE process and their school improvement plans was filed with the Court on February 1, 1996. The unannounced monitoring visits began in February 1996 and ended on May 10, 1996. In June 1996, all announced and unannounced monitoring visits were completed, and the data was analyzed using descriptive statistics. The Districts provided data on enrollment in compensatory education programs. The Districts and the ADE Desegregation Monitoring staff developed a definition for instructional programs. 13 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of January 31, 2007 (Continued) The Semiannual Monitoring Report was completed and filed with the Court on July 15, 1996 with copies distributed to the parties. Announced monitoring visits of the Cycle 1 schools began on October 28, 1996 and concluded in December 1996. In January 1997, presentations were made to the State Board of Education, the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee, and the parties to review the draft Semiannual Monitoring Report. The monitoring instrument and process were evaluated for their usefulness in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on achievement disparities. In February 1997, the Semiannual Monitoring Report was filed. Unannounced monitoring visits began on February 3, 1997 and concluded in May 1997. In March 1997, letters were sent to the Districts regarding data requirements for the July 1997 Semiannual Monitoring Report and the additional discipline data element that was requested by the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee. Desegregation data collection workshops were conducted in the Districts from March 28, 1997 to April 7, 1997. A meeting was conducted on April 3, 1997 to finalize plans for the July 15, 1997 Semiannual Monitoring Report. Onsite visits were made to Cycle 1 schools who did not submit accurate and timely data on discipline, M-to-M transfers, and policy. The July 15, 1997 Semiannual Monitoring Report and its executive summary were finalized in June 1997. In July 1997, the Semiannual Monitoring Report and its executive summary were filed with the court, and the ADE sponsored a School Improvement Conference. On July 10, 1997, copies of the Semiannual Monitoring Report and its executive summary were made available to the Districts for their review prior to filing it with the Court. In August 1997, procedures and schedules were organized for the monitoring of the Cycle 2 schools in FY 97/98. 14 11. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of January 31, 2007 (Continued) A Desegregation Monitoring and School Improvement Workshop for the Districts was held on September 10, 1997 to discuss monitoring expectations, instruments, data collection and school improvement visits. On October 9, 1997, a planning meeting was held with the desegregation monitoring staff to discuss deadlines, responsibilities, and strategic planning issues regarding the Semiannual Monitoring Report. Reminder letters were sent to the Cycle 2 principals outlining the data collection deadlines and availability of technical assistance. In October and November 1997, technical assistance visits were conducted, and announced monitoring visits of the Cycle 2 schools were completed. In December 1997 and January 1998, technical assistance visits were conducted regarding team visits, technical review recommendations, and consensus building. Copies of the infusion document and perceptual surveys were provided to schools in the ECOE process. The February 1998 Semiannual Monitoring Report was submitted for review and approval to the State Board of Education, the Director, the Administrative Team, the Attorney General's Office, and the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee. Unannounced monitoring visits began in February 1998, and technical assistance was provided on the school improvement process, external team visits and finalizing school improvement plans. On February 18, 1998, the representatives of all parties met to discuss possible revisions to the ADE's monitoring plan and monitoring reports. Additional meetings will be scheduled. Unannounced monitoring visits were conducted in March 1998, and technical assistance was provided on the school improvement process and external team visits. In April 1998, unannounced monitoring visits were conducted, and technical assistance was provided on the school improvement process. 15 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of January 31, 2007 (Continued) In May 1998, unannounced monitoring visits were completed, and technical assistance was provided on the school improvement process. On May 18, 1998, the Court granted the ADE relief from its obligation to file the July 1998 Semiannual Monitoring Report to develop proposed modifications to ADE's monitoring and reporting obligations. In June 1998, monitoring information previously submitted by the districts in the Spring of 1998 was reviewed and prepared for historical files and presentation to the Arkansas State Board. Also, in June the following occurred: a) The Extended COE Team Visit Reports were completed, b) the Semiannual Monitoring COE Data Report was completed, c) progress reports were submitted from previous cycles, and d.) staff development on assessment (SAT-9) and curriculum alignment was conducted with three supervisors. In July, the Lead Planner provided the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Committee with ( 1) a review of the court Order relieving ADE of its obligation to file a July Semiannual Monitoring Report, and (2) an update of ADE's progress toward work with the parties and ODM to develop proposed revisions to ADE's monitoring and reporting obligations. The Committee encouraged ODM, the parties and the ADE to continue to work toward revision of the monitoring and reporting process. In August 1998, the ADE Implementation Phase Working group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. The Assistant Attorney General, the Assistant Director for Accountability and the Education Lead Planner updated the group on all relevant desegregation legal issues and proposed revisions to monitoring and reporting activities during the quarter. In September 1998, tentative monitoring dates were established and they will be finalized once proposed revisions to the Desegregation Monitoring Plan are finalized and approved. In September/October 1998, progress was being made on the proposed revisions to the monitoring process by committee representatives of all the Parties in the Pulaski County Settlement Agreement. While the revised monitoring plan is finalized and approved, the ADE monitoring staff will continue to provide technical assistance to schools upon request. 16 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of January 31, 2007 (Continued) In December 1998, requests were received from schools in PCSSD regarding test score analysis and staff Development. Oak Grove is scheduled for January 21, 1999 and Lawson Elementary is also tentatively scheduled in January. Staff development regarding test score analysis for Oak Grove and Lawson Elementary in the PCSSD has been rescheduled for April 2000. Staff development regarding test score analysis for Oak Grove and Lawson Elementary in the PCSSD was conducted on May 5, 2000 and May 9, 2000 respectively. Staff development regarding classroom management was provided to the Franklin Elementary School in LRSD on November 8, 2000. Staff development regarding ways to improve academic achievement was presented to College Station Elementary in PCSSD on November 22, 2000. On November 1, 2000, the ADE Implementation Phase Working group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. The Assistant Director for Accountability updated the group on all relevant desegregation legal issues and discussed revisions to monitoring and reporting activities during the quarter. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for February 27, 2001 in room 201-A at the ADE. The Implementation Phase Working Group meeting that was scheduled for February 27 had to be postponed. It will be rescheduled as soon as possible. The quarterly Implementation Phase Working Group meeting is scheduled for June 27, 2001. The quarterly Implementation Phase Working Group meeting was rescheduled from June 27. It will take place on July 26, 2001 in room 201-A at 1 :30 p.m. at the ADE. 17 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of January 31, 2007 (Continued) On July 26, 2001, the ADE Implementation Phase Working group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE l,.ead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Mr. Mark Hagemeier, Assistant Attorney General, and Mr. Scott Smith, ADE Staff Attorney, discussed the court case involving the LRSD seeking unitary status. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for October 11, 2001 in room 201-A at the ADE. On October 11, 2001, the ADE Implementation Phase Working group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Mr. Scott Smith, ADE Staff Attorney, discussed the ADE's intent to take a proactive role in Desegregation Monitoring. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for January 10, 2002 in room 201-A at the ADE. The Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting that was scheduled for January 10 was postponed. It has been rescheduled for February 14, 2002 in room 201-A at the ADE. On February 12, 2002, the ADE Implementation Phase Working group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie  Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation\nupdated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Mr. Mark Hagemeier, Assistant Attorney General, discussed the court case involving the LRSD seeking unitary status. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for April 11, 2002 in room 201-A at the ADE. On April 11, 2002, the ADE Implementation Phase Working group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Mr. Mark Hagemeier, Assistant Attorney General, discussed the court case involving the LRSD seeking unitary status. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for July 11, 2002 in room 201-A at the ADE. 18 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of January 31, 2007 (Continued) On July 18, 2002, the ADE Implementation Phase Working group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Dr. Charity Smith, Assistant Director for Accountability, talked about section XV in the Project Management Tool (PMT) on Standardized Test Selection to Determine Loan Forgiveness. She said that the goal has been completed, and no additional reporting is required for section XV. Mr. Morris discussed the court case involving the LRSD seeking unitary status. He handed out a Court Order from May 9, 2002, which contained comments from U.S. District Judge Bill Wilson Jr., about hearings on the LRSD request for unitary status. Mr. Morris also handed out a document from the Secretary of Education about the No Child Left Behind Act. There was discussion about how this could have an affect on Desegregation issues. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for October 10, 2002 at 1 :30 p.m. in room 201-A at the ADE. The quarterly Implementation Phase Working Group meeting was rescheduled from October 10. It will take place on October 29, 2002 in room 201-A at 1 :30 p.m. at the ADE. On October 29, 2002, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Meetings with the parties to discuss possible revisions to the ADE's monitoring plan will be postponed by request of the school districts in Pulaski County. Additional meetings could be scheduled after the Desegregation ruling is finalized. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for January 9, 2003 at 1 :30 p.m. in room 201-A at the ADE. On January 9, 2003, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. No Child Left Behind and the Desegregation ruling on unitary status for LRSD were discussed. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for April 10, 2003 at 1 :30 p.m. in room 201-A at the ADE. The quarterly Implementation Phase Working Group meeting was rescheduled from April 10. It will take place on April 24, 2003 in room 201-A at 1 :30 p.m. at the ADE. 19 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of January 31, 2007 (Continued) On April 24, 2003, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Laws passed by the legislature need to be checked to make sure none of them impede desegregation. Ray Lumpkin was chairman of the last committee to check legislation. Since he left, we will discuss the legislation with Clearence Lovell. The Desegregation ruling on unitary status for LRSD was discussed. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for July 10, 2003 at 1 :30 p.m. in room 201-A at the ADE. On August 28, 2003, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. The Desegregation ruling on unitary status for LRSD was discussed. The LRSD has been instructed to submit evidence showing progress in reducing disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. This is supposed to be done by March of 2004, so that the LRSD can achieve unitary status. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for October 9, 2003 at the ADE. On October 9, 2003, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Mark Hagemeier, Assistant Attorney General, discussed the Desegregation ruling on unitary status for LRSD. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for January 8, 2004 at the ADE. On October 16, 2003, ADE staff met with the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee at the State Capitol. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, and Dr. Charity Smith, Assistant Director for Accountability, presented the Chronology of activity by the ADE in complying with provisions of the Implementation Plan for the Desegregation Settlement Agreement. They also discussed the role of the ADE Desegregation Monitoring Section. Mr. Mark Hagemeier, Assistant Attorney General, and Scott Smith, ADE Staff Attorney, reported on legal issues relating to the Pulaski County Desegregation Case. Ann Marshall shared a history of activities by ODM, and their view of the activity of the school districts in Pulaski County. John Kunkel discussed Desegregation funding by the ADE. 20 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of January 31, 2007 (Continued) On November 4, 2004, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. The ADE is required to check laws that the legislature passes to make sure none of them impede desegregation. Clearence Lovell was chairman of the last committee to check legislation. Since he has retired, the ADE attorney will find out who will be checking the next legislation. The Desegregation ruling on unitary status for LRSD was discussed. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for January 6, 2005 at 1 :30 p.m. in room 201-A at the ADE. On May 3, 2005, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. The PCSSD has petitioned to be released from some desegregation monitoring. There was discussion in the last legislative session that suggested all three districts in Pulaski County should seek unitary status. Legislators also discussed the possibility of having two school districts in Pulaski County instead of three. An Act was passed by the Legislature to conduct a feasability study of having only a north school district and a south school district in Pulaski County. Removing Jacksonville from the PCSSD is also being studied. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for July 7, 2005 at 1 :30 p.m. in room 201-A at the ADE. On June 20, 2006, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. ADE staff from the Office of Public School Academic Accountability updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. The purpose, content, and due date for information going into the Project Management Tool and its Executive Summary were reported. There was discussion about the three districts in Pulaski County seeking unitary status. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for October 17, 2006 at 1 :30 p.m. in room 201-A at the ADE. 21 Ill. A PETITION FOR ELECTION FOR LRSD WILL BE SUPPORTED SHOULD A MILLAGE BE REQUIRED A. Monitor court pleadings to determine if LRSD has petitioned the Court for a special election. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing. 2. Actual as of January 31, 2007 Ongoing. All Court pleadings are monitored monthly. B. Draft and file appropriate pleadings if LRSD petitions the Court for a special election. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of January 31, 2007 To date, no action has been taken by the LRSD. 22 IV. REPEAL STATUTES AND REGULATIONS THAT IMPEDE DESEGREGATION A. Using a collaborative approach, immediately identify those laws and regulations that appear to impede desegregation. 1. Projected Ending Date December, 1994 2. Actual as of January 31, 2007 The information for this item is detailed under Section IV.E. of this report. B. Conduct a review within ADE of existing legislation and regulations that appear to impede desegregation. C. 1. Projected Ending Date November, 1994 2. Actual as of January 31, 2007 The information for this item is detailed under Section IV.E. of this report. Request of the other parties to the Settlement Agreement that they identify laws and regulations that appear to impede desegregation. 1. Projected Ending Date November, 1994 2. Actual as of January 31, 2007 The information for this item is detailed under Section IV.E. of this report. D. Submit proposals to the State Board of Education for repeal of those regulations that are confirmed to be impediments to desegregation. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of January 31, 2007 The information for this item is detailed under Section IV.E. of this report. 23 IV. REPEAL STATUTES AND REGULATIONS THAT IMPEDE DESEGREGATION (Continued) E. Submit proposals to the Legislature for repeal of those laws that appear to be impediments to desegregation. 2. Actual as of January 31, 2007 A committee within the ADE was formed in May 1995 to review and collect data on existing legislation and regulations identified by the parties as impediments to desegregation. The committee researched the Districts' concerns to determine if any of the rules, regulations, or legislation cited impede desegregation. The legislation cited by the Districts regarding loss funding and worker's compensation were not reviewed because they had already been litigated. In September 1995, the committee reviewed the following statutes, acts, and regulations: Act 113 of 1993\nADE Director's Communication 93-205\nAct 145 of 1989\nADE Director's Memo 91-67\nADE Program Standards Eligibility Criteria for Special Education\nArkansas Codes 6-18-206, 6-20-307, 6-20-319, and 6-17- 1506. In October 1995, the individual reports prepared by committee members in their areas of expertise and the data used to support their conclusions were submitted to the ADE administrative team for their review. A report was prepared and submitted to the State Board of Education in July 1996. The report concluded that none of the- items reviewed impeded desegregation. As of February 3, 1997, no laws or regulations have been determined to impede desegregation efforts. Any new education laws enacted during the Arkansas 81 st Legislative Session will be reviewed at the close of the legislative session to ensure that they do not impede desegregation. - In April 1997, copies of all laws passed during the 1997 Regular Session of the 81 st General Assembly were requested from the office of the ADE Liaison to the Legislature for distribution to the Districts for their input and review of possible impediments to their desegregation efforts. In August 1997, a meeting to review the statutes passed in the prior legislative session was scheduled for September 9, 1997. 24 IV. REPEAL STATUTES AND REGULATIONS THAT IMPEDE DESEGREGATION (Continued) E. Submit proposals to the Legislature for repeal of those laws that appear to be impediments to desegregation. (Continued) 2. Actual as of January 31, 2007 (Continued) On September 9, 1997, a meeting was held to discuss the review of the statutes passed in the prior legislative session and new ADE regulations. The Districts will be contacted in writing for their input regarding any new laws or regulations that they feel may impede desegregation. Additionally, the Districts will be asked to review their regulations to ensure that they do not impede their desegregation efforts. The committee will convene on December 1, 1997 to review their findings and finalize their report to the Administrative Team and the State Board of Education. In October 1997, the Districts were asked to review new regulations and statutes for impediments to their desegregation efforts, and advise the ADE, in writing, if they feel a regulation or statute may impede their desegregation efforts. In October 1997, the Districts were requested to advise the ADE, in writing, no later than November 1, 1997 of any new law that might impede their desegregation efforts. As of November 12, 1997, no written responses were received from the Districts. The ADE concludes that the Districts do not feel that any new law negatively impacts their desegregation efforts. The committee met on December 1, 1997 to discuss their findings regarding statutes and regulations that may impede the desegregation efforts of the Districts. The committee concluded that there were no laws or regulations that impede the desegregation efforts of the Districts. It was decided that the committee chair would prepare a report of the committee's findings for the Administrative Team and the State Board of Education. The committee to review statutes and regulations that impede desegregation is now reviewing proposed bills and regulations, as well as laws that are being signed in, for the current 1999 legislative session. They will continue to do so until the session is over. The committee to review statutes and regulations that impede desegregation will meet on April 26, 1999 at the ADE. The committee met on April 26, 1999 at the ADE. The purpose of the meeting was to identify rules and regulations that might impede desegregation, and review within the existing legislation any regulations that might result in an impediment to desegregation. This is a standing committee that is ongoing and a report will be submitted to the State Board of Education once the process is completed. 25 IV. REPEAL STATUTES AND REGULATIONS THAT IMPEDE DESEGREGATION (Continued) E. Submit proposals to the Legislature for repeal of those laws that appear to be impediments to desegregation. (Continued) 2. Actual as of January 31, 2007 (Continued) The committee met on May 24, 1999 at the ADE. The committee was asked to review within the existing legislation any regulations that might result in an impediment to desegregation. The committee determined that Mr. Ray Lumpkin would contact the Pulaski County districts to request written response to any rules, regulations or laws that might impede desegregation. The committee would also collect information and data to prepare a report for the State Board. This will be a standing committee. This data gathering will be ongoing until the final report is given to the State Board. On July 26, 1999, the committee met at the ADE. The committee did not report any laws or regulations that they currently thought would impede desegregation, and are still waiting for a response from the three districts in Pulaski County. The committee met on August 30, 1999 at the ADE to review rules and regulations that might impede desegregation. At that time, there were no laws under review that appeared to impede desegregation. In November, the three districts sent letters to the ADE stating that they have reviewed the laws passed by the 82nd legislative session as well as current rules \u0026amp; regulations and district policies to ensure that they have no ill effect on desegregation efforts. There was some concern from PCSSD concerning a charter school proposal in the Maumelle area. The work of the committee is on-going each month depending on the information that comes before the committee. Any rules, laws or regulations that would impede desegregation will be discussed and reported to the State Board of Education. On October 4, 2000, the ADE presented staff development for assistant superintendents in LRSD, NLRSD and PCSSD regarding school laws of Arkansas. The ADE is in the process of forming a committee to review all Rules and Regulations from the ADE and State Laws that might impede desegregation. The ADE Committee on Statutes and Regulations will review all new laws that might impede desegregation once the 83rd General Assembly has completed this session. The ADE Committee on Statutes and Regulations will meet for the first time on June 11, 2001 at 9:00 a.m. in room 204-A at the ADE. The committee will review all new laws that might impede desegregation that were passed during the 2001 Legislative Session. 26 IV. REPEAL STATUTES AND REGULATIONS THAT IMPEDE DESEGREGATION (Continued) E: Submit proposals to the Legislature for repeal of those laws that appear to be impediments to desegregation. (Continued) 2. Actual as of January 31, 2007 (Continued) The ADE Committee on Statutes and Regulations rescheduled the meeting that was planned for June 11, in order to review new regulations proposed to the State Board of Education. The meeting will take place on July 16, 2001 at 9:00 a.m. at the ADE. The ADE Committee to Repeal Statutes and Regulations that Impede Desegregation met on July 16, 2001 at the ADE. The following Items were discussed: (1) Review of 2001 state laws which appear to impede desegregation. (2) Review of existing ADE regulations which appear to impede desegregation. (3) Report any laws or regulations found to impede desegregation to the Arkansas State Legislature, the ADE and the Pulaski County school districts. The next meeting will take place on August 27, 2001 at 9:00 a.m. at the ADE. The ADE Committee to Repeal Statutes and Regulations that Impede Desegregation met on August 27, 2001 at the ADE. The Committee is reviewing all relevant laws or regulations produced by the Arkansas State Legislature, the ADE and the Pulaski County school districts in FY 2000/2001 to determine if they may impede desegregation. The next meeting will take place on September 10, 2001 in Conference Room 204-B at 2:00 p.m. at the ADE. The ADE Committee to Repeal Statutes and Regulations that Impede Desegregation met on September 10, 2001 at the ADE. The Committee is reviewing all relevant laws or regulations produced by the Arkansas State Legislature, the ADE and the Pulaski County school districts in FY 2000/2001 to determine if they may impede desegregation. The next meeting will take place on October 24, 2001 in Conference Room 204-B at 2:00 p.m. at the ADE. The ADE Committee to Repeal Statutes and Regulations that Impede Desegregation met on October 24, 2001 at the ADE. The Committee is reviewing all relevant laws or regulations produced by the Arkansas State Legislature, the ADE and the Pulaski County school districts in FY 2000/2001 to determine if they may impede desegregation. On December 17, 2001, the ADE Committee to Repeal Statutes and Regulations that Impede Desegregation composed letters that will be sent to the school districts in Pulaski County. The letters ask for input regarding any new laws or regulations that may impede desegregation. Laws to review include those of the 83rd General Assembly, ADE regulations, and regulations of the Districts. 27 IV. REPEAL STATUTES AND REGULATIONS THAT IMPEDE DESEGREGATION (Continued) E. Submit proposals to the Legislature for repeal of those laws that appear to be impediments to desegregation. (Continued) 2. Actual as of January 31, 2007 (Continued) On January 10, 2002, the ADE Committee to Repeal Statutes and Regulations that Impede Desegregation sent letters to the school districts in Pulaski County. The letters ask for input regarding any new laws or regulations that may impede desegregation. The districts were asked to respond by March 8, 2002. On March 5, 2002, A letter was sent from the LRSD which mentioned Act 1748 and Act 1667 passed during the 83rd Legislative Session which may impede desegregation. These laws will be researched to determine if changes need to be made. A letter was sent from the NLRSD on March 19, noting that the district did not find any laws which impede desegregation. On April 26, 2002, A letter was sent for the PCSSD to the ADE, noting that the district did not find any laws which impede desegregation except the \"deannexation\" legislation which the District opposed before the Senate committee. On October 27, 2003, the ADE sent letters to the school districts in Pulaski County asking if there were any new laws or regulations that may impede desegregation. The districts were asked to review laws passed during the 84th Legislative Session, any new ADE rules or regulations, and district policies. 28 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES A. Through a preamble to the Implementation Plan, the Board of Education will reaffirm its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement and outcomes of programs intended to apply those principles. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of January 31, 2007 The preamble was contained in the Implementation Plan filed with the Court on March 15, 1994. B. Through execution of the Implementation Plan, the Board of Education will continue to reaffirm its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement and outcomes of programs intended to apply those principles. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of January 31, 2007 Ongoing C. Through execution of the Implementation Plan, the Board of Education will continue to reaffirm its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement by actions taken by ADE in response to monitoring results. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of January 31, 2007 Ongoing D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 29 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of January 31, 2007 At each regular monthly meeting of the State Board of Education, the Board is provided copies of the most recent Project Management Tool (PMT) and an executive summary of the PMT for their review and approval. Only activities that are in addition to the Board's monthly review of the PMT are detailed below. In May 1995, the State Board of Education was informed of the total number of schools visited during the monitoring phase and the data . collection process.  Suggestions were presented to the State Board of Education on how recommendations could be presented in the monitoring reports. In June 1995, an update on the status of the pending Semiannual Monitoring Report was provided to the State Board of Education. In July 1995, the July Semiannual Monitoring Report was reviewed by the State Board of Education. On August 14, 1995, the State Board of Education was informed of the need to increase minority participation in the teacher scholarship program and provided tentative monitoring dates to facilitate reporting requests by the ADE administrative team and the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee. In September 1995, the State Board of Education was advised of a change in the PMT from a table format to a narrative format. The Board was also briefed about  a meeting with the Office of Desegregation Monitoring regarding the PMT. ~ In October 1995, the State Board of Education was updated on monitoring timelines. The Board was also informed of a meeting with the parties regarding a review of the Semiannual Monitoring Report and the monitoring process, and the progress of the test validation study. In November 1995, a report was made to the State Board of Education regarding the monitoring schedule and a meeting with the parties concerning the development of a common terminology for monitoring purposes. In December 1995, the State Board of Education was updated regarding announced monitoring visits. In January 1996, copies of the draft February Semiannual Monitoring Report and its executive summary were provided to the State Board of Education. 30 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of January 31, 2007 (Continued) During the months of February 1996 through May 1996, the PMT report was the only item on the agenda regarding the status of the implementation of the Monitoring Plan. In June 1996, the State Board of Education was updated on the status of the bias review study. In July 1996, the Semiannual Monitoring Report was provided to the Court, the parties, ODM, the State Board of Education, and the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee. In August 1996, the State Board of Education and the ADE administrative team were provided with copies of the test validation study prepared by Dr. Paul Williams. During the months of September 1996 through December 1996, the PMTwas the only item on the agenda regarding the status of the implementation of the Monitoring Plan. On January 13, 1997, a presentation was made to the State Board of Education regarding the February 1997 Semiannual Monitoring Report, and copies of the report and its executive summary were distributed to all Board members. The Project Management Tool and its executive summary were addressed at the February 10, 1997 State Board of Education meeting regarding the ADE's progress in fulfilling their obligations as set forth in the Implementation Plan. In March 1997, the State Board of Education was notified that historical information in the PMT had been summarized at the direction of the Assistant Attorney General in order to reduce the size and increase the clarity of the report. The Board was updated on the Pulaski County Desegregation Case and reviewed the Memorandum Opinion and Order issued by the Court on February 18, 1997 in response to the Districts' motion for summary judgment on the issue of state funding for teacher retirement matching contributions. During the months of April 1997 through June 1997, the PMT was the only item on the agenda regarding the status of the implementation of the Monitoring Plan. The State Board of Education received copies of the July 15, 1997 Semiannual Monitoring Report and executive summary at the July Board meeting. 31 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project ManagementTool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of January 31, 2007 (Continued) The Implementation Phase Working Group held its quarterly meeting on August 4, 1997 to discuss the progress made in attaining the goals set forth in the Implementation Plan and the critical areas for the current quarter. A special report regarding a historical review of the Pulaski County Settlement Agreement and the ADE's role and monitoring obligations were presented to the State Board of Education on September 8, 1997. Additionally, the July 15, 1997 Semiannual Monitoring Report was presented to the Board for their review. In October 1997, a special draft report regarding disparity in achievement was submitted to the State Board Chairman and the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee. In November 1997, the State Board of Education was provided copies of the monthly PMT and its executive summary. The Implementation Phase Working Group held its quarterly meeting on November 3, 1997 to discuss the progress made in attaining the goals set forth in the Implementation Plan and the critical areas for the current quarter. In December 1997, the State Board of Education was provided copies of the monthly PMT and its executive summary. In January 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and discussed ODM's report on the AD E's monitoring activities and instructed the Director to meet with the parties to discuss revisions to the ADE's monitoring plan and monitoring reports. In February 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and discussed the February 1998 Semiannual Monitoring Report. In March 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary and was provided an update regarding proposed revisions to the monitoring process. In April 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary. In May 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary. 32 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of January 31, 2007 (Continued) In June 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary. The State Board of Education also reviewed how the ADE would report progress in the PMT concerning revisions in ADE's Monitoring Plan. In July 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary. The State Board of Education also received an update on Test Validation, the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Committee Meeting, and revisions in ADE's Monitoring Plan. In August 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary. The Board also received an update on the five discussion points regarding the proposed revisions to the monitoring and reporting process. The Board also reviewed the basic goal of the Minority Recruitment Committee. In September 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed the proposed modifications to the Monitoring plans by reviewing the common core of written response received from the districts. The primary commonalities were (1) Staff Development, (2) Achievement Disparity and (3) Disciplinary Disparity. A meeting of the parties is scheduled to be conducted on Thursday, September 17, 1998. The Board encouraged the Department to identify a deadline for Standardized Test Validation and Test Selection. In October 1998, the Board received the progress report on Proposed Revisions to the Desegregation Monitoring and Reporting Process (see XVIII). The Board also reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary. In November, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board also received an update on the proposed revisions in the Desegregation monitoring Process and the update on Test validation and Test Selection provisions of the Settlement Agreement. The Board was also notified that the Implementation Plan Working Committee held its quarterly meeting to review progress and identify quarterly priorities. In December, the State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board also received an update on the joint motion by the ADE, the LRSD, NLRSD, and the PCSSD, to relieve the Department of its obligation to file a February Semiannual Monitoring Report. The Board was also notified that the Joshua lntervenors filed a motion opposing the joint motion. The Board was informed that the ADE was waiting on a response from Court. 33 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of January 31, 2007 (Continued) In January, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board also received an update on the joint motion of the ADE, LRSD, PCSSD, and NLRSD for an order relieving the ADE of filing a February 1999 Monitoring Report. The motion was granted subject to the following three conditions: (1) notify the Joshua intervenors of all meetings between the parties to discuss proposed changes, (2) file with the Court on or before February 1, 1999, a report detailing the progress made in developing proposed changes and (3) identify ways in which ADE might assist districts in their efforts to improve academic achievement. In February, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board was informed that the three conditions: (1) notify the Joshua lntervenors of all meetings between the parties to discuss proposed changes, (2) file with the Court on or before February 1, 1999, a report detailing the progress made in developing proposed changes and (3) identify ways in which ADE might assist districts in their efforts to improve academic achievement had been satisfied. The Joshua lntervenors were invited again to attend the meeting of the parties and they attended on January 13, and January 28, 1999. They are also scheduled to attend on February 17, 1998. The report of progress, a collaborative effort from all parties was presented to court on February 1, 1999. The Board was also informed that additional items were received for inclusion in the revised report, after the deadline for the submission of the progress report and the ADE would: (1) check them for feasibility, and fiscal impact if any, and (2) include the items in future drafts of the report. In March, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board also received and reviewed the Desegregation Monitoring and Assistance Progress Report submitted to Court on February 1, 1999. On April 12, and May 10, 1999, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board also was notified that once the financial section of the proposed plan was completed, the revised plan would be submitted to the board for approval. On June 14, 1999, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board also was notified that once the financial section of the proposed plan was completed, the revised plan would be submitted to the board for approval. 34 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of January 31, 2007 (Continued) On July 12, 1999, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board also was notified that once the financial section of the proposed plan was completed, the revised plan would be submitted to the board for approval. On August 9, 1999, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board was also notified that the new Desegregation Monitoring and Assistance Plan would be ready to submit to the Board for their review \u0026amp; approval as soon as plans were finalized. On September 13, 1999, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board was also notified that the new Desegregation Monitoring and Assistance Plan would be ready to submit to the Board for their review \u0026amp; approval as soon as plans were finalized. On October 12, 1999, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board was notified that on September 21, 1999 that the Office of Education Lead Planning and Desegregation Monitoring meet before the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee and presented them with the draft version of the new Desegregation Monitoring and Assistance Plan. The State Board was notified that the plan would be submitted for Board review and approval when finalized. On November 8, 1999, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of October. On December 13, 1999, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of November. On January 10, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of December. On February 14, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of January. On March 13, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of February. On April 10, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of March. 35 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of January 31, 2007 (Continued) On May 8, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of April. On June 12, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of May. On July 10, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of June. On August 14, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of July. On September 11, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of August. On October 9, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of September. On Novembe.r 13, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of October. On December 11, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of November. On January 8, 2001, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of December. On February 12, 2001, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of January. On March 12, 2001, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of February. On April 9, 2001, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of March. On May 14, 2001, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of April. On June 11, 2001, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of May. 36 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of January 31, 2007 (Continued) On July 9, 2001, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of June. On August 13, 2001, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of July. On September 10, 2001, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of August. On October 8, 2001, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of September. On November 19, 2001, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of October. On December 10, 2001, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of November. On January 14, 2002, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of December. On February 11, 2002, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of January. On March 11, 2002, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of February. On April 8, 2002, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of March. On May 13, 2002, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of April. On June 10, 2002, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of May. On July 8, 2002, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of June. On August 12, 2002, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of July. 37 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of January 31, 2007 (Continued) On September 9, 2002, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of August. On October 14, 2002, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of September. On November 18, 2002, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of October. On December 9, 2002, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of November. On January 13, 2003, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of December. On February 10, 2003, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of January. On March 10, 2003, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of February. On April 14, 2003, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of March. On May 12, 2003, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of April. On June 9, 2003, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of May. On August 11, 2003, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the months of June and July. On September 8, 2003, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of August. On October 13, 2003, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of September. On November 10, 2003, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of October. 38 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of January 31, 2007 (Continued) On January 12, 2004, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of December. On February 9, 2004, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of January. On March 8, 2004, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of February. On April 12, 2004, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of March. On May 10, 2004, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of April. On June 14, 2004, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of May. On August 9, 2004, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the months of June and July. On September 12, 2004, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of August. On October 11, 2004, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of September.  On November 8, 2004, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of October. On January 10, 2005, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the months of November and December. On February 14, 2005, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of January. On March 14, 2005, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of February. On April 11, 2005, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of March. 39 . e V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of January 31, 2007 (Continued) On May 9, 2005, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of April. On June 13, 2005, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of May. On July 11, 2005, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of June. On August 8, 2005, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of July. On September 12, 2005, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of August. On October 10, 2005, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of September . On November 14, 2005, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of October. On January 9, 2006, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the months of November and December. On February 13, 2006, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of January. On March 13, 2006, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of February. On April 10, 2006, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of March. On May 8, 2006, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of April. On June 12, 2006, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of May. On July 10, 2006, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of June. 40 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of January 31, 2007 (Continued) On August 14, 2006, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of July. On September 11, 2006, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of August. On October 9, 2006, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of September. On November 13, 2006, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of October. On December 11, 2006, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of November.  1,l~lt1~~ ~1.v.i ~\nr:r. 41 VI. REMEDIATION A. Through the Extended COE process, the needs for technical assistance by District, by School, and by desegregation compensatory education programs will be identified. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of January 31, 2007 During May 1995, team visits to Cycle 4 schools were conducted, and plans were developed for reviewing the Cycle 5 schools. In June 1995, the current Extended COE packet was reviewed, and enhancements to the Extended COE packet were prepared. In July 1995, year end reports were finalized by the Pulaski County field service specialists, and plans were finalized for reviewing the draft improvement plans of the Cycle 5 schools. In August 1995, Phase I - Cycle 5 school improvement plans were reviewed. Plans were developed for meeting with the Districts to discuss plans for Phase II - Cycle 1 schools of Extended COE, and a school improvement conference was conducted in Hot Springs. The technical review visits for the FY 95/96 year and the documentation process were also discussed. In October 1995, two computer programs, the Effective Schools Planner and the Effective Schools Research Assistant, were ordered for review, and the first draft of a monitoring checklist for Extended COE was developed. Through the Extended COE process, the field service representatives provided technical assistance based on the needs identified within the Districts from the data gathered. In November 1995, ADE personnel discussed and planned for the FY 95/96 monitoring, and onsite visits were conducted to prepare schools for the FY 95/96 team visits. Technical review visits continued in the Districts. In December 1995, announced monitoring and technical assistance visits were conducted in the Districts. At December 31, 1995, approximately 59% of the schools in the Districts had been monitored. Technical review visits were conducted during January 1996. In February 1996, announced monitoring visits and midyear monitoring reports were completed, and the field service specialists prepared for the spring NCA/COE peer team visits. 42 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) A. Through the Extended COE process, the needs for technical assistance by District, by School, and by desegregation compensatory education programs will be identified. (Continued) 2. Actual as of January 31, 2007 (Continued) In March 1996, unannounced monitoring visits of Cycle 5 schools commenced, and two-day peer team visits of Cycle 5 schools were conducted. Two-day team visit materials, team lists and reports were prepared. Technical assistance was provided to schools in final preparation for team visits and to schools needing any school improvement information. In April and May 1996, the unannounced monitoring visits were completed. The unannounced monitoring forms were reviewed and included in the July monitoring report. The two-day peer team visits were completed, and annual COE monitoring reports were prepared. In June 1996, all announced and unannounced monitoring visits of the Cycle 5 schools were completed, and the data was analyzed. The Districts identified enrollment in compensatory education programs. The Semiannual Monitoring Report was completed and filed with the Court on July 15, 1996, and copies were distributed to the parties. During August 1996, meetings were held with the Districts to discuss the monitoring requirements. Technical assistance meetings with Cycle 1 schools were planned for 96/97. The Districts were requested to record discipline data in accordance with the Allen Letter. In September 1996, recommendations regarding the ADE monitoring schedule for Cycle 1 schools and content layouts of the semiannual report were submitted to the ADE administrative team for their review. Training materials were developed and schedules outlined for Cycle 1 schools. In October 1996, technical assistance needs were identified and addressed to prepare each school for their team visits. Announced monitoring visits of the Cycle 1 schools began on October 28, 1996. In December 1996, the announced monitoring visits of the Cycle 1 schools were completed, and technical assistance needs were identified from school site visits. In January 1997, the ECOE monitoring section identified technical assistance needs of the Cycle 1 schools, and the data was reviewed when the draft February Semiannual Monitoring Report was presented to the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee, the State Board of Education, and the parties. 43 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) A. Through the Extended COE process, the needs for technical assistance by District, by School, and by desegregation compensatory education programs will be identified. (Continued) 2. Actual as of January 31, 2007 (Continued) In February 1997, field service specialists prepared for the peer team visits of the Cycle 1 schools. NCA accreditation reports were presented to the NCA Committee, and NCA reports were prepared for presentation at the April NCA meeting in Chicago. From March to May 1997, 111 visits were made to schools or central offices to work with principals, ECOE steering committees, and designated district personnel concerning school improvement planning. A workshop was conducted on Learning Styles for Geyer Springs Elementary School. A School Improvement Conference was held in Hot Springs on July 15-17, 1997. The conference included information on the process of continuous school improvement, results of the first five years of COE, connecting the mission with the school improvement plan, and improving academic performance. Technical assistance needs were evaluated for the FY 97/98 school year in August 1997. From October 1997 to February 1998, technical reviews of the ECOE process were conducted by the field service representatives. Technical assistance was provided to the Districts through meetings with the ECOE steering committees, assistance in analyzing perceptual surveys, and by providing samples of school improvement plans, Gold File catalogs, and web site addresses to schools visited. Additional technical assistance was provided to the Districts through discussions with the ECOE committees and chairs about the process. In November 1997, technical reviews of the ECOE process were conducted by the field service representatives in conjunction with the announced monitoring visits. Workshops on brainstorming and consensus building and asking strategic questions were held in January and February 1998. In March 1998, the field service representatives conducted ECOE team visits and prepared materials for the NCA workshop. Technical assistance was provided in workshops on the ECOE process and team visits. In April 1998, technical assistance was provided on the ECOE process and academically distressed schools. In May 1998, technical assistance was provided on the ECOE process, and team visits were conducted . 44 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) A. Through the Extended COE process, the needs for technical assistance by District, by School, and by desegregation compensatory education programs will be identified. (Continued) 2. Actual as of January 31, 2007 (Continued) In June 1998, the Extended COE Team Visit Reports were completed. A School Improvement Conference was held in Hot Springs on July 13-15, 1998. Major conference topics included information on the process of continuous school improvement, curriculum alignment, \"Smart Start,\" Distance Learning, using data to improve academic performance, educational technology, and multicultural education. All school districts in Arkansas were invited and representatives from Pulaski County attended. In September 1998, requests for technical assistance were received, visitation schedules were established, and assistance teams began visiting the Districts. Assistance was provided by telephone and on-site visits. The ADE provided inservice training on \"Using Data to Sharpen the Focus on Student Achievement\" at Gibbs Magnet Elementary school on October 5, 1998 at their request. The staff was taught how to increase test scores through data disaggregation, analysis, alignment, longitudinal achievement review, and use of individualized test data by student, teacher, class and content area. Information was also provided regarding the \"Smart Start\" and the \"Academic Distress\" initiatives. On October 20, 1998, ECOE technical assistance was provided to Southwest Jr. High School. B. Identify available resources for providing technical assistance for the specific condition, or circumstances of need, considering resources within ADE and the Districts, and also resources available from outside sources and experts. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of January 31, 2007 The information for this item is detailed under Section VI.F. of this report. C. Through the ERIC system, conduct a literature search for research evaluating compensatory education programs. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 45 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) C. D. Through the ERIC system, conduct a literature search for research evaluating compensatory education programs. (Continued) 2. Actual as of January 31, 2007 An updated ERIC Search was conducted on May 15, 1995 to locate research on evaluating compensatory education programs. The ADE received the updated ERIC disc that covered material through March 1995. An ERIC search was conducted in September 30, 1996 to identify current research dealing with the evaluation of compensatory education programs, and the articles were reviewed. An ERIC search was conducted in April 1997 to identify current research oncompensatory education programs and sent to the Cycle 1 principals and the field service specialists for their use. An Eric search was conducted in October 1998 on the topic of Compensatory Education and related descriptors. The search included articles with publication dates from 1997 through July 1998. Identify and research technical resources available to ADE and the Districts through programs and organizations such as the Desegregation Assistance Center in San Antonio, Texas. 1. Projected Ending Date Summer 1994 2. Actual as of January 31, 2007 The information for this item is detailed under Section VI.F. of this report. E. Solicit, obtain, and use available resources for technical assistance. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of January 31, 2007 The information for this item is detailed under Section VI.F. of this report. 46 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of January 31, 2007 From March 1995 through July 1995, technical assistance and resources were obtained from the following sources: the Southwest Regional Cooperative\nUALR regarding training for monitors\nODM on a project management software\nADHE regarding data review and display\nand Phi Delta Kappa, the Desegregation Assistance Center and the Dawson Cooperative regarding perceptual surveys. Technical assistance was received on the Microsoft Project software in November 1995, and a draft of the PMT report using the new software package was presented to the ADE administrative team for review. In December 1995, a data manager was hired permanently to provide technical assistance with computer software and hardware. In October 1996, the field service specialists conducted workshops in the Districts to address their technical assistance needs and provided assistance for upcoming team visits. In November and December 1996, the field service specialists addressed technical assistance needs of the schools in the Districts as they were identified and continued to provide technical assistance for the upcoming team visits. In January 1997, a draft of the February 1997 Semiannual Monitoring Report was presented to the State Board of Education, the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee, and the parties. The ECOE monitoring section of the report included information that identified technical assistance needs and resources available to the Cycle 1 schools. Technical assistance was provided during the January 29-31, 1997 Title I MidWinter Conference. The conference emphasized creating a learning community by building capacity schools to better serve all children and empowering parents to acquire additional skills and knowledge to better support the education of their children. In February 1997, three ADE employees attended the Southeast Regional Conference on Educating Black Children. Participants received training from national experts who outlined specific steps that promote and improve the education of black children. 47 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of January 31, 2007 (Continued) On March 6-9, 1997, three members of the AD E's Technical Assistance Section attended the National Committee for School Desegregation Conference. The participants received training in strategies for Excellence and Equity: Empowerment and Training for the Future. Specific information was received regarding the current status of court-ordered desegregation, unitary status, and resegregation and distributed to the Districts and ADE personnel. The field service specialists attended workshops in March on ACT testing and school improvement to identify technical assistance resources available to the Districts and the ADE that will facilitate desegregation efforts. ADE personnel attended the Eighth Annual Conference on Middle Level Education in Arkansas presented by the Arkansas Association of Middle Level Education on April 6-8, 1997. The theme of the conference was Sailing Toward New Horizons. In May 1997, the field service specialists attended the NCA annual conference and an inservice session with Mutiu Fagbayi. An Implementation Oversight Committee member participated in the Consolidated COE Plan inservice training. In June and July 1997, field service staff attended an SAT-9 testing workshop and participated in the three-day School Improvement Conference held in Hot Springs. The conference provided the Districts with information on the COE school improvement process, technical assistance on monitoring and assessing achievement, availability of technology for the classroom teacher, and teaching - strategies for successful student achievement. In August 1997, field service personnel attended the ASCD Statewide Conference and the AAEA Administrators Conference. On August 18, 1997, the bi-monthly Team V meeting was held and presentations were made on the Early Literacy Learning in Arkansas (ELLA) program and the Schools of the 21st Century program. In September 1997, technical assistance was provided to the Cycle 2 principals on data collection for onsite and offsite monitoring. ADE personnel attended the Region VI Desegregation Conference in October 1997. Current desegregation and educational equity cases and unitary status issues were the primary focus of the conference. On October 14, 1997, the bi-monthly Team V meeting was held in Paragould to enable members to observe a 21st Century school and a school that incorporates traditional and multi-age classes in its curriculum. 48 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of January 31, 2007 (Continued) In November 1997, the field service representatives attended the Governor's Partnership Workshop to discuss how to tie the committee's activities with the ECOE process. In March 1998, the field service representatives attended a school improvement conference and conducted workshops on team building and ECOE team visits. Staff development seminars on Using Data to Sharpen the Focus on Student Achievement are scheduled for March 23, 1998 and March 27, 1998 for the Districts. In April 1998, the Districts participated in an ADE seminar to aid them in evaluating and improving student achievement. In August 1998, the Field Service Staff attended inservice to provide further assistance to schools, i.e., Title I Summer Planning Session, ADE session on Smart Start, and the School Improvement Workshops. All schools and districts in Pulaski County were invited to attend the \"Smart Start\" Summit November 9, 10, and 11 to learn more about strategies to increase student performance. \"Smart Start\" is a standards-driven educational initiative which emphasizes the articulation of clear standards for student achievement and accurate measures of progress against those standards through assessments, staff development and individual school accountability. The Smart Start Initiative focused on improving reading and mathematics achievement for all students in Grades K-4. Representatives from all three districts attended. On January 21, 1998, the ADE provided staff development for the staff at Oak Grove Elementary School designed to assist them with their efforts to improve student achievement. Using achievement data from Oak Grove, educators reviewed trends in achievement data, identified areas of greatest need, and reviewed seven steps for improving student performance. On February 24, 1999, the ADE provided staff development for the administrative staff at Clinton Elementary School regarding analysis of achievement data. On February 15, 1999, staff development was rescheduled for Lawson Elementary School. The staff development program was designed to assist them with their efforts to improve student achievement using achievement data from Lawson, educators reviewed the components of the Arkansas Smart Initiative, trends in achievement data, identified areas of greatest need, and reviewed seven steps for improving student performance. Student Achievement Workshops were rescheduled for Southwest Jr. High in the Little Rock School District, and the Oak Grove Elementary School in the Pulaski County School District. 49 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of January 31, 2007 (Continued} On April 30, 1999, a Student Achievement Workshop was conducted for Oak Grove Elementary School in PCSSD. The Student Achievement Workshop for Southwest Jr. High in LRSD has been rescheduled. On June 8, 1999, a workshop was presented to representatives from each of the Arkansas Education Service Cooperatives and representatives from each of the three districts in Pulaski County. The workshop detailed the Arkansas Comprehensive Testing, Assessment and Accountability Program (ACTAAP). On June 18, 1999, a workshop was presented to administrators of the NLRSD. The workshop detailed the Arkansas Comprehensive Testing, Assessment and Accountability Program (ACT AAP). On August 16, 1999, professional development on ways to increase student achievement and the components of the new ACTAAP program was presented during the preschool staff development activities for teaching assistant in the LRSD. On August 20, 1999, professional development on ways to increase student achievement and the components of the new ACT AAP program was presented during the preschool staff development activities for the Accelerated Learning Center in the LRSD. On September 13, 1999, professional development on ways to increase student achievement and the components of the new ACTAAP program were presented to the staff at Booker T. Washington Magnet Elementary School. On September 27, 1999, professional development on ways to increase student achievement was presented to the Middle and High School staffs of the NLRSD. The workshop also covered the components of the new ACTAAP program, and ACT 999 of 1999. On October 26, 1999, professional development on ways to increase student achievement was presented to LRSD personnel through a staff development training class. The workshop also covered the components of the new ACT AAP program, and ACT 999 of 1999. On December 7, 1999, professional development on ways to increase student achievement was scheduled for Southwest Middle School in the LRSD. The workshop was also set to cover the components of the new ACTAAP program, and ACT 999 of 1999. However, Southwest Middle School administrators had a need to reschedule, therefore the workshop will be rescheduled. 50 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of January 31, 2007 (Continued) On January 10, 2000, professional development on ways to increase student achievement was conducted for both Dr. Martin Luther King Magnet Elementary School \u0026amp; Little Rock Central High School. The workshops also covered the components of the new ACTAAP program, and ACT 999 of 1999. On March 1, 2000, professional development on ways to increase student achievement was conducted for all principals and district level administrators in the PCSSD. The workshop also covered the components of the new ACTAAP program, and ACT 999 of 1999. On April 12, 2000, professional development on ways to increase student achievement was conducted for the LRSD. The workshop also covered the components of the new ACT AAP program, and ACT 999 of 1999. Targeted staffs from the middle and junior high schools in the three districts in Pulaski County attended the Smart Step Summit on May 1 and May 2. Training was provided regarding the overview of the \"Smart Step\" initiative, \"Standard and Accountability in Action,\" and \"Creating Learning Environments Through Leadership Teams.\" The ADE provided training on the development of alternative assessment September 12-13, 2000. Information was provided regarding the assessment of Special Education and LEP students. Representatives from each district were provided the opportunity to select a team of educators from each school within the district to participate 'in professional development regarding Integrating Curriculum and Assessment K-12. The professional development activity was directed by the national consultant, Dr. Heidi Hays Jacobs, on September 14 and 15, 2000. The ADE provided professional development workshops from October 2 through October 13, 2000 regarding, \"The Write Stuff: Curriculum Frameworks, Content Standards and Item Development.\" Experts from the Data Recognition Corporation provided the training. Representatives from each district were provided the opportunity to select a team of educators from each school within the district to participate. The ADE provided training on Alternative Assessment Portfolio Systems by video conference for Special Education and LEP Teachers on November 17, 2000. Also, Alternative Assessment Portfolio System Training was provided for testing coordinators through teleconference broadcast on November 27, 2000. 51 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of January 31, 2007 (Continued) On December 12, 2000, the ADE provided training for Test Coordinators on end of course assessments in Geometry and Algebra I Pilot examination. Experts from the Data Recognition Corporation conducted the professional development at the Arkansas Teacher Retirement Building. The ADE presented a one-day training session with Dr. Cecil Reynolds on the Behavior Assessment for Children (BASC). This took place on December 7, 2000 at the NLRSD Administrative Annex. Dr. Reynolds is a practicing clinical psychologist. He is also a professor at Texas A \u0026amp; M University and a nationally known author. In the training, Dr. Reynolds addressed the following: 1) how to use and interpret information obtained on the direct observation form, 2) how to use this information for programming, 3) when to use the BASC, 4) when to refer for more or additional testing or evaluation, 5) who should complete the forms and when, (i.e., parents, teachers, students), 6) how to correctly interpret scores. This training was intended to especially benefit School Psychology Specialists, psychologists, psychological examiners, educational examiners and counselors. During January 22-26, 2001 the ADE presented the ACT MP Intermediate (Grade 6) Benchmark Professional Development Workshop on Item Writing. Experts from the Data Recognition Corporation provided the training. Representatives from each district were invited to attend. On January 12, 2001 the ADE presented test administrators training for mid-year End -of Course (Pilot) Algebra I and Geometry exams. This was provided for schools with block scheduling. On January 13, 2001 the ADE presented SmartScience Lessons and worked with teachers to produce curriculum. This was shared with eight Master Teachers. The SmartScience Lessons were developed by the Arkansas Science Teachers Association in conjunction with the Wilbur Mills Educational Cooperative under an Eisenhower grant provided by the ADE. The purpose of SmartScience is to provide K-6 teachers with activity-oriented science lessons that incorporate reading, writing, and mathematics skills. The following training has been provided for educators in the three districts in Pulaski County by the Division of Special Education at the ADE since January 2000: On January 6, 2000, training was conducted for the Shannon Hills Pre-school Program, entitled \"Things you can do at home to support your child's learning.\" This was presented by Don Boyd - ASERC and Shelley Weir. The school's director and seven parents attended. 52 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of January 31, 2007 (Continued) On March 8, 2000, training was conducted for the Southwest Middle School in Little Rock, on ADD. Six people attended the training. There was follow-up training on Learning and Reading Styles on March 26. This was presented by Don Boyd - ASERC and Shelley Weir. On September 7, 2000, Autism and Classroom Accommodations for the LRSD at Chicot Elementary School was presented. Bryan Ayres and Shelley Weir were presenters. The participants were: Karen Sabo, Kindergarten Teacher\nMelissa Gleason, Paraprofessional\nCurtis Mayfield, P.E. Teacher\nLisa Poteet, Speech Language Pathologist\nJane Harkey, Principal\nKathy Penn-Norman, Special Education Coordinator\nAlice Phillips, Occupational Therapist. On September 15, 2000, the Governor's Developmental Disability Coalition Conference presented Assistive Technology Devices \u0026amp; Services. This was held at the Arlington Hotel in Hot Springs. Bryan Ayres was the presenter. On September 19, 2000, Autism and Classroom Accommodations for the LRSD at Jefferson Elementary Sc~ool was presented. Bryan Ayres and Shelley Weir were presenters. The participants were: Melissa Chaney, Special Education Teacher\nBarbara Barnes, Special Education Coordinator\na Principal, a Counselor, a Librarian, and a Paraprofessional. On October 6, 2000, Integrating Assistive Technology Into Curriculum was presented at a conference in the Hot Springs Convention Center. Presenters were: Bryan Ayers and Aleecia Starkey. Speech Language Pathologists from LRSD and NLRSD attended. On October 24, 2000, Consideration and Assessment of Assistive Technology was presented through Compressed Video-Teleconference at the ADE facility in West Little Rock. Bryan Ayres was the presenter. On October 25 and 26, 2000, Alternate Assessment for Students with Severe Disabilities for the LRSD at J. A. Fair High School was presented. Bryan Ayres was the presenter. The participants were: Susan Chapman, Special Education Coordinator\nMary Steele, Special Education Teacher\nDenise Nesbit, Speech Language Pathologist\nand three Paraprofessionals. On November 14, 2000, Consideration and Assessment of Assistive Technology was presented through Compressed Video-Teleconference at the ADE facility in West Little Rock. Bryan Ayres was the presenter. On November 17, 2000, training was conducted on Autism for the LRSD at the Instructional Resource Center. Bryan Ayres and Shelley Weir were presenters. 53 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of January 31, 2007 (Continued) On December 5, 2000, Access to the Curriculum Via the use of Assistive Technology Computer Lab was presented. Bryan Ayres was the presenter of this teleconference. The participants were: Tim Fisk, Speech Language Pathologist from Arch Ford Education Service Cooperative at Plumerville and Patsy Lewis, Specic!I Education Teacher from Mabelvale Middle School in the LRSD. On January 9, 2001, Consideration and Assessment of Assistive Technology was presented through Compressed Video-Teleconference at the ADE facility in West Little Rock. Bryan Ayres was the presenter. Kathy Brown, a vision consultant from the LRSD, was a participant. On January 23, 2001, Autism and Classroom Modifications for the LRSD at Brady Elementary School was presented. Bryan Ayres and Shelley Weir were presenters. The participants were: Beverly Cook, Special Education Teacher\nAmy Littrell, Speech Language Pathologist\nJan Feurig, Occupational Therapist\nCarolyn James, Paraprofessional\nCindy Kackly, Paraprofessional\nand Rita Deloney, Paraprofessional. The ADE provided training on Alternative Assessment Portfolio Systems for Special Education and Limited English Proficient students through teleconference broadcast on February 5, 2001. Presenters were: Charlotte Marvel, ADE\nDr. Gayle Potter, ADE\nMarcia Harding, ADE\nLynn Springfield, ASERC\nMary Steele, J. A. Fair High School, LRSD\nBryan Ayres, Easter Seals Outreach. This was provided for Special Education teachers and supervisors in the morning, and Limited English Proficient teachers and supervisors in the afternoon. The Special Education session was attended by 29 teachers/administrators and  provided answers to specific questions about the alternate assessment portfolio system and the scoring rubric and points on the rubric to be used to score the portfolios. The LEP session was attended by 16 teachers/administrators and disseminated the common tasks to be included in the portfolios: one each in mathematics, writing and reading. On February 12-23, 2001, the ADE and Data Recognition Corporation personnel trained Test Coordinators in the administration of the spring Criterion-Referenced Test. This was provided in 20 sessions at 10 regional sites. Testing protocol, released items, and other testing materials were presented and discussed. The sessions provided training for Primary, Intermediate, and Middle Level Benchmark Exams as well as End of Course Literacy, Algebra and Geometry Pilot Tests. The LRSD had 2 in attendance for the End of Course session and 2 for the Benchmark session. The NLRSD had 1 in attendance for the End of Course session and 1 for the Benchmark session. The PCSSD had 1 in attendance for the End of Course session and 1 for the Benchmark session. 54 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued} 2. Actual as of January 31, 2007 (Continued) On March 15, 2001, there was a meeting at the ADE to plan professional development for staff who work with Limited English Proficiency (LEP) students. A $30,000 grant has been created to provide LEP training at Chicot Elementary for a year, starting in April 2001. A $40,000 grant was created to provide a Summer English as Second Language (ESL) Academy for the LRSD from June 18 through 29, 2001. Andre Guerrero from the ADE Accountability section met with Karen Broadnax, ESL Coordinator at LRSD, Pat Price, Early Childhood Curriculum Supervisor at LRSD, and Jane Harkey, Principal of Chicot Elementary. On March 1-2 and 8-29, 2001, ADE staff performed the following activities: processed registration for April 2 and 3 Alternate Portfolio Assessment video conference quarterly meeting\nanswered questions about Individualized Educational Plan (IEP) and LEP Alternate Portfolio Assessment by phone from schools and Education Service Cooperatives\nand signed up students for alternate portfolio assessment from school districts. On March 6, 2001, ADE staff attended a Smart Step Technology Leadership Conference at the State House Convention Center. On March 7, 2001, ADE staff attended a National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) Regional Math Framework Meeting about the Consensus Project 2004. On March 8, 2001, there was a one-on-one conference with Carole Villarreal from Pulaski County at the ADE about the LEP students with portfolios. She was given pertinent data, including all the materials that have been given out at the video conferences. The conference lasted for at least an hour. On March 14, 2001, a Test Administrator's Training Session was presented specifically to LRSD Test Coordinators and Principals. About 60 LRSD personnel attended. The following meetings have been conducted with educators in the three districts in Pulaski County since July 2000. On July 10-13, 2000 the ADE provided Smart Step training. The sessions covered Standards-based classroom practices. 55 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of January 31, 2007 (Continued) On July 19-21, 2000 the ADE held the Math/Science Leadership Conference at UCA. This provided services for Arkansas math and science teachers to support systemic reform in math/science and training for 8th grade Benchmark. There were 200 teachers from across the state in attendance. On August 14-31 , 2000 the ADE presented Science Smart Start Lessons and worked with teachers to produce curriculum. This will provide K-6 teachers with activity-oriented science lessons that incorporate reading, writing , and mathematics skills. On September 5, 2000 the ADE held an Eisenhower Informational meeting with Teacher Center Coordinators. The purpose of the Eisenhower Professional Development Program is to prepare teachers, school staff, and administrators to help all students meet challenging standards in the core academic subjects. A summary of the program was presented at the meeting. On November 2-3, 2000 the ADE held the Arkansas Conference on Teaching. This presented curriculum and activity workshops. More than 1200 attended the conference. On November 6, 2000 there was a review of Science Benchmarks and sample model curriculum. A committee of 6 reviewed and revised a drafted document. The committee was made up of ADE and K-8 teachers. On November 7-10, 2000 the ADE held a meeting of the Benchmark and End of Course Mathematics Content Area Committee. Classroom teachers reviewed items for grades 4, 6, 8 and EOC mathematics assessment. There were 60 participants. On December 4-8, 2000 the ADE conducted grades 4 and 8 Benchmark Scoring for Writing Assessment. This professional development was attended by approximately 750 teachers. On December 8, 2000 the ADE conducted Rubric development for Special Education Portfolio scoring. This was a meeting with special . education supervisors to revise rubric and plan for scoring in June. On December 8, 2000 the ADE presented the Transition Mathematics Pilot Training Workshop. This provided follow-up training and activities for fourth-year mathematics professional development. On December 12, 2000 the ADE presented test administrators training for midyear End of Course (Pilot) Algebra I and Geometry exams. This was provided for schools with block scheduling. 56 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of January 31, 2007 (Continued) The ADE provided training on Alternative Assessment Portfolio Systems for Special Education and Limited English Proficient students through teleconference broadcasts on April 2-3, 2001 . Administration of the Primary, Intermediate, and Middle Level Benchmark Exams as well as End of Course Literacy took place on April 23-27, 2001. Administration of the End of Course Algebra and Geometry Exams took place on May 2-3, 2001. Over 1,100 Arkansas educators attended the Smart Step Growing Smarter Conference on July 10 and 11, 2001, at the Little Rock Statehouse Convention Center. Smart Step focuses on improving student achievement for Grades 5-8. The Smart Step effort seeks to provide intense professional development for teachers and administrators at the middle school level, as well as additional materials and assistance to the state's middle school teachers. The event began with opening remarks by Ray Simon, Director of the ADE. Carl Boyd, a longtime educator and staff consultant for Learning 24-7, presented the first keynote address on \"The Character-Centered Teacher\". Debra Pickering, an education consultant from Denver, Colorado, presented the second keynote address on \"Characteristics of Middle Level Education\". Throughout the Smart Step conference, educators attended breakout sessions that were grade-specific and curriculum area-specific. Pat Davenport, an education consultant from Houston, Texas, delivered two addresses. She spoke on \"A Blueprint for Raising Student Achievement\". Representatives from all three districts in Pulaski County attended. Over 1,200 Arkansas teachers and administrators attended the Smart Start Conference on July 12, 2001, at the Little Rock Statehouse Convention Center. Smart Start is a standards-driven educational initiative which emphasizes the articulation of clear standards for student achievement and accurate measures of progress against those standards through assessments, staff development and individual school accountability. The Smart Start Initiative focused on improving reading and mathematics achievement for all students in Grades K-4. The event began with opening remarks by Ray Simon, Director of the ADE. Carl Boyd, a longtime educator and staff consultant for Learning 24-7, presented the keynote address. The day featured a series of 15 breakout sessions on best classroom practices. Representatives from all three districts in Pulaski County attended. On July 18-20, 2001, the ADE held the Math/Science Leadership Conference at UCA. This provided services for Arkansas math and science teachers to support systemic reform in math/science and training for 8th grade Benchmark. There were approximately 300 teachers from across the state in attendance. 57 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of January 31, 2007 (Continued) The ADE and Harcourt Educational Measurement conducted Stanford 9 test administrator training from August 1-9, 2001. The training was held at Little Rock, Jonesboro, Fort Smith, Forrest City, Springdale, Mountain Home, Prescott, and Monticello. Another session was held at the ADE on August 30, for those who were unable to attend August 1-9. The ADE conducted the Smart Start quarterly meeting by video conference at the Education Service Cooperatives and at the ADE from 9:00 a.m. until 11 :30 a.m. on September 5, 2001. The ADE released the performance of all schools on the Primary and Middle Level Benchmark Exams on September 5, 2001. The ADE conducted Transition Core Teacher In-Service training for Central in the LRSD on September 6, 2001. The ADE conducted Transition Checklist training for Hall in the LRSD on September 7, 2001. The ADE conducted Transition Checklist training for McClellan in the LRSD on September 13, 2001 . The ADE conducted Basic Co-teaching training for the LRSD on October 9, 2001 . The ADE conducted training on autism spectrum disorder for the PCSSD on October 15, 2001 . Professional Development workshops (1 day in length) in scoring End of Course assessments in algebra, geometry and reading were provided for all districts in the state. Each school was invited to send three representatives (one for each of the sessions). LRSD, NLRSD, and PCSSD participated. Information and training materials pertaining to the Alternate Portfolio Assessment were provided to all districts in the state and were supplied as requested to LRSD, PCSSD and David 0 . Dodd Elementary. On November 1-2, 2001 the ADE held the Arkansas Conference on Teaching at the Excelsior Hotel \u0026amp; Statehouse Convention Center. This presented sessions, workshops and short courses to promote exceptional teaching and learning. Educators could become involved in integrated math, science, English \u0026amp; language arts and social studies learning_. The ADE received from the schools selected to participate in the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), a list of students who will take the test. 58 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of January 31, 2007 (Continued) On December 3-7, 2001 the ADE conducted grade 6 Benchmark scoring training for reading and math. Each school district was invited to send a math and a reading specialist. The training was held at the Holiday Inn Airport in Little Rock. On December 4 and 6, 2001 the ADE conducted Mid-Year Test Administrator Training for Algebra and Geometry. This was held at the Arkansas Activities Association's conference room in North Little Rock. On January 24, 2002, the ADE conducted the Smart Start quarterly meeting by ADE compressed video with Fred Jones presenting. On January 31, 2002, the ADE conducted the Smart Step quarterly meeting by NSCI satellite with Fred Jones presenting. On February 7, 2002, the ADE Smart Step co-sponsored the AR Association of Middle Level Principal's/ADE curriculum, assessment and instruction workshop with Bena Kallick presenting. On February 11-21, 2002, the ADE provided training for Test Administrators on the Primary, Intermediate, and Middle Level Benchmark Exams as well as End of Course Literacy, Algebra and Geometry Exams. The sessions took place at Forrest City, Jonesboro, Mountain Home, Springdale, Fort Smith, Monticello, Prescott, Arkadelphia and Little Rock. A make-up training broadcast was given at 15 Educational Cooperative Video sites on February 22. During February 2002, the LRSD had two attendees for the Benchmark Exam training and one attendee for the End of Course Exam training. The NLRSD and PCSSD each had one attendee at the Benchmark Exam training and one attendee for the End of Course Exam training. The ADE conducted the Smart Start quarterly meeting by compressed interactive video at the South Central Education Service Cooperative from 9:30 a.m. until 11 :30 a.m. on May 2, 2002. Telecast topics included creating a standards-based classroom and a seven-step implementat\nThis project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resoources.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\u003cdcterms_creator\u003eArkansas. Department of Education\u003c/dcterms_creator\u003e\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_863","title":"\"Board of Education Meeting Agenda,'' North Little Rock School District","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["2007-01/2007-06"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--21st Century","School districts--Arkansas--North Little Rock","Education--Arkansas","Education--Finance","Educational planning","School boards","School employees","School improvement programs"],"dcterms_title":["\"Board of Education Meeting Agenda,'' North Little Rock School District"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/863"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["documents (object genre)"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\nThe transcript for this item was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.\n BOARD oF EDUCATION MEETING AGENDA RECEIVED JAN1 7 2007 OfflCEOF DESEGREGOANTIITOONR ING ass North Little Rock School District Thursday, January 18, 2007 5:00 P.M. NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDENT AGENDA REGULAR MEETING, BOARD OF EDUCATION Administration Building, 2700 Poplar North Little Rock, Arkansas 72115 Thursday, January 18, 2007 - 5:00 P.M. PUBLIC COMMENTS I. CALL TO ORDER, Trent Cox, President II. INVOCATION, Marshalluna Land, NLRHS Senior, daughter of III. FLAG SALUTE IV. ROLL CALL OF MEMBERS Trent Cox, President Scott Teague, Vice President Marty Moore, Secretary Dorothy Williams, Disbursing Officer John Riley, Parliamentarian Darrell Montgomery, Member Margo Tenner, Member V. RECOGNITION OF PEOPLE/EVENTS/PROGRAMS A. Special Recognition - S. Brazear 1. New National Board Certified Teachers Ms. Eldra Land a. Takecia Cox - Ridgeroad Middle Charter b. Kay Ewart - NLRHS West Campus c. Melissa Herring - Crestwood Elementary d. Kathy Holland- NLRHS West Campus e. Angie Hutson - NLRHS West Campus f. Jennifer Kimbrell - Crestwood Elementary g. Kendra Leirer - NLRHS East Campus - VI. Page 2 - Board Agenda January 18, 2007 DISPOSITION OF MINUTES OF PRIOR MEETINGS A. Thursday, December 14, 2006 5:00 P.M. (Regular)-Page A - 1 VII. ACTION ITEMS - UNFINISHED BUSINESS None VIII. ACTION ITEMS - NEW BUSINESS A. B. C. D. E. F, G. Consider Certified Personnel Policies Committee Report - M. Snider Consider Classified Personnel Policies Committee Report- G. Tucker Consider Revisions to Board Policies 4.22 Weapons and Dangerous Instruments and 4.43 Bullying - Page B - 1 - B. Acklin Consider Revisions to Board Policies 3.6 Certified Personnel Employee Training\n3.6 - CL Classified Personnel Employee Training\n5.4 Professional Development and 5 .15 Grading - Page C - 1 - A. 0 lsen Consider Elementary Textbook Committee's Recommendation - Page D - 1 - K. Lowe Consider Approval of Secondary Textbook Adoption Committee - Page E - 1 - R. Dickey Consider Crestwood Elementary Bid Proposal - Page F - 1 - J. Massey H. Consider Motion for Consent Agenda - K. Kirspel 1. Consider monthly financial report - Page O - 1 2. Consider employment of personnel - Page P - 1 3. Consider bid items - Page S - 1 4. Consider payment of regular bills - Page T - 1 IX. INFORMATIONAL ITEMS None X. CALENDAR OF EVENTS A. Board Workshop - Saturday, January 27, 2007 9:00 A.M. B. Regular Board Meeting-Thursday, February 15, 2007 5 P.M. XI. XII. XIII. STUDENT EXPULSION Page 3 - Board Agenda January 18, 2007 SUPERINTENDENT'S ANNUAL PERFORMANCE REVIEW ADJOURNMENT NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Office of the Superintendent REGULAR MEETING, BOARD OF EDUCATION MINUTES December 14, 2006 The North Little Rock School District Board met in regular session on Thursday, December 14, 2006 in the Board Room of the Administration Building of the North Little Rock School District, 2700 Poplar Street, North Little Rock, Arkansas. Lynne Looney, NLRSD Teacher, addressed the Board to express her concerns about the hiring of administrators in the district. President Trent Cox called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. Rebecca Galloway, Park Hill Elementary School fifth grader, gave the invocation. The flag salute followed. ROLL CALL OF MEMBERS Present Trent Cox, President Scott Teague, Vice President Marty Moore, Secretary Dorothy Williams, Disbursing Officer John Riley, Parliamentarian Darrell Montgomery, Member Absent Margo Tenner, Member Others Present Mr. Ken Kirspel, Superintendent\nBobby Acklin, Assistant Superintendent for Desegregation\nGreg Daniels, Chief Financial and Information Services Officer\nDr. Angela Olsen, Assistant Superintendent for Curriculum and Instruction\npress\nother staff members and Darlene Holmes, Superintendent's secretary were also present. Billy Duvall (audio) taped the meeting. RECOGNITION OF PEOPLE/EVENTS/PROGRAMS Superintendent's Honor Roll: Shara Brazear, Communication Specialist, introduced Dr. Macy Purtle, NLRHS West Campus media specialist, as a new member. Dr. Purtle was nominated by Anita Cameron, NLRHS West Campus Principal for her work with students and staff, her leadership in beginning several book clubs and her work with the remediation classes. John Riley presented Dr. Purtle with a plaque thanking her for her dedication to our district. Lisa Gray, Argenta Academy paraprofessional, nominated by A-1 Charles Jones, Argenta Academy principal, for her dedication to the Argenta students. Ms. Gray worked off contract this summer helping register students and is a great asset - for her work as Argenta's parent coordinator. Darrell Montgomery presented Ms. Gray with a plaque in appreciation for her work at Argenta Academy. DISPOSITION OF MINUTES OF PRIOR MEETING MOTION Dorothy Williams moved to accept the minutes of the November 16, 2006 (Regular) meeting as printed. Scott Teague seconded the IJ?Otion. YEAS: NAYS: Cox, Montgomery, Moore, Riley, Teague, and Williams None (Tenner - absent) OLD BUSINESS None NEW BUSINESS Certified Personnel Policies Committee Report Margie Snider, Certified Personnel Policies Committee Chair, stated the certified personnel had voted and approved the changes to Board Policy CA-Personnel Policies Committee and the teacher and administrator salary schedule revisions. Classified Personnel Policies Committee Report Glenda Tucker, Classified Personnel Policies Committee Chair, stated the classified personnel had voted and approved all of the classified salary schedule revisions. Mrs. Tucker stated the committee proposed to add Board Policy CEB Personal Leave as a classified policy adding CL to the title with the following revisions: adding the words \"or building administrator\" in the first sentence of the second paragraph after the word \"principal\"\ninserting the following sentence as the fifth sentence of the paragraph: \"Part time employee(s) personal leave will be prorated according to the number of hours worked per day\"\nand to delete the sentence \"This policy does not apply to twelve month Administrative personnel.\" from the end of the policy. MOTION John Riley moved to return policy CFEB - CL to the Classified Personnel Policies Committee for modifications of the revisions. Scott Teague seconded the motion. YEAS: NAYS: Cox, Montgomery, Moore, Riley, Teague, and Williams None (Tenner- absent) A-2 Consent Agenda Mr. Kirspel requested approval of the consent agenda as printed on pages O - 1 through T- 17. MOTION John Riley moved for the Board to enter into executive session. Scott Teague seconded the motion. YEAS: NAYS: Cox, Montgomery, Moore, Riley, Teague, and Williams None (Tenner- absent) The Board entered into an executive session at 5:23 p.m. The Board reconvened in open session at 5.35 p.m. MOTION Darrell Montgomery moved to accept the consent agenda as presented. Scott Teague seconded the motion. YEAS: NAYS: Cox, Montgomery, Moore, Riley, Teague, and Williams None (Tenner - absent) INFORMATIONAL ITEMS Jerry Massey, Plant Services Director, updated the Board on the proposed construction projects of Lakewood Middle School and Crestwood Elementary. He stated the Lakewood Middle School bids would be ready and in order for the February Board meeting. Mr. Massey explained that bids for Crestwood Elementary addition would be opened on January 9, 2007 and he would bring a recommendation at the January Board meeting. He stated an appeal has been filed for additional monies due to the work that needs be done on the slope of the ground at Crestwood Elementary. The Board agreed to set a Board Workshop on Saturday, January 27, 2007 at 9 a.m. at the J.W. Nutt Company on Crestwood Road. ADJOURNMENT MOTION Marty Moore moved to adjourn the meeting. Dorothy Williams seconded the motion. YEAS: NAYS: Cox, Montgomery, Moore, Riley, Teague, and Williams None (Tenner - absent) President Cox declared the meeting adjourned at 5:55 p.m. A-3 Trent Cox, President Marty Moore, Secretary A-4 PROPOSED REVISED BOARD POLICY ADDITIONS UNDERLINEDDELETIONS STRIKETHROUGHS 1-18-07 4.22-WEAPONS AND DANGEROUS INSTRUMENTS No student shall possess a weapon, display what appears to be a weapon, or threaten to use a weapon while in school, on or about school property, before or after school, in attendance at school or any school sponsored activity, en route to or from school or any school sponsored activity, off the school grounds at any school bus stop, or at any school sponsored activity or event. Military personnel, such as ROTC cadets, acting in the course of their official duties are excepted. A weapon is defined as any knife, gun, pistol, revolver, shotgun, BB gun, rifle, pellet gun, raz.or, ice pick, dirk, box cutter, nun chucks, pepper spray or other noxious spray, explosive, or any other instrument or substance capable of causing bodily harm. Possession means having a weapon, as defined in this policy, on the student's body or in an area under his/her control. If, prior to any questioning or search by any school personnel, a student discovers that he/she has accidentally brought a weapon to school including a weapon that is in a vehicle on school grounds, and the student informs the principal or a staff person immediately, the student will not be considered to be in possession of a weapon. The weapon shall be confiscated and held in the office until such time as the student's parent/legal guardian shall pick up the weapon from the school's office. Repeated offenses are unacceptable and shall be grounds for disciplinary action against the student as otherwise provided for in this policy. Students found to be in possession on the school campus of a fireann shall be recommended for expulsion for a period of not less than one year. The School Board shall have the discretion to modify such expulsion recommendation for a student on a case-by-case basis. By using the case by case exception, the School Board will be able to discipline students with disabilities in accordance with the requirements of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). Parents or legal guardians of students expelled under this policy shall be given a copy of the current laws regarding the possibility of parental responsibility for allowing a child to possess a weapon on school property. Parents or legal guardians shall sign a statementa cknowledgingt hat they have read and understands aid laws prior to readmitting the student. Parents or legal guardians of a student enrolling from another school after the expiration of an expulsion period for a weapons policy violation shall also be given a copy of the current laws regarding the possibility of parental responsibility for allowing a child to possess a weapon on school property.T he parentso r legal guardianss hall sign a statementa cknowledgingth at they have read and understand said laws prior to the student being enrolled in school. A report will be given to the North Little Rock Police Department and criminal charges may be filed following an investigation. Legal References: AC.A. 6-18-502 (c) (2)(A)(B) AC.A. 6-18-507 (e) (1)(2) AC.A.  6 17 113 AC.A.  5-27-206 20 uses 8921 Date Adopted: 9/26/95 Last Revised: 12/18/03 B-1 CURRENT BOARD POLICY 4.22-WEAPONS AND DANGEROUS INSTRUMENTS No student shall possess a weapon, display what appears to be a weapon, or threaten to use a weapon while in school, on or about school property, before or after school, in attendance at school or any school sponsored activity, en route to or from school or any school sponsored activity, off the school grounds at any school bus stop, or at any school sponsored activity or event. A weapon is defined as any knife, gun, pistol, revolver, shotgun, BB gun, rifle, pellet gun, razor, ice pick, dirk, box cutter, nun chucks, pepper spray or other noxious spray, explosive, or any other instrument or substance capable of causing bodily harm. Possession means having a weapon, as defined in this policy, on the student's body or in an area under his/her control. If, prior to any questioning or search by any school personnel, a student discovers that he/she has accidentallyb rought a weapon to school includinga weapon that is in a vehicle on school grounds, and the student informs the principal or a staff person immediately, the student will not be considered to be in possession of a weapon. The weapon shall be confiscated and held in the office until such time as the student's parent/legal guardian shall pick up the weapon from the school's office. Repeated offenses are unacceptable and shall be grounds for disciplinary action against the student as otherwise provided for in this policy. Students found to be in possession on the school campus of a firearm shall be recommended for expulsion for a period of not less than one year. The School Board shall have the discretion to modify such expulsion recommendationf or a student on a case-by-caseb asis. Parents or legal guardians of students expelled under this policy shall be given a copy of the current laws regarding the possibility of - parental responsibilityf or allowing a child to possess a weapon on school property. Parents or legal guardians shall sign a statementa cknowledgingt hat they have read and understands aid laws prior to readmitting the student. Parents or legal guardians of a student enrolling from another school after the expiration of an expulsion period for a weapons policy violation shall also be given a copy of the current laws regarding the. possibilityo f parental responsibilityf or allowing a child to possess a weapon on school property.T he parentso r legal guardianss hall sign a statementa cknowledgingth at they have read and understand said laws prior to the student being enrolled in school. A report will be given to the North Little Rock Police Department and criminal charges may be filed following an investigation. Legal References: A.CA 6-18-502 (c) (2)(A)(B) AC.A. 6-18-507 (e) (1)(2) AC.A. 6-17-113 20 uses  8921 Date Adopted: 9/26/95 Last Revised: 12/18/03 B-2 PROPOSED REVISED BOARD POLICY ADD~TIONS UNDERLINEDDELETIONS STRIKETHROUGHS 1-18-07 4.43-BULL YING Respect for the dignity of others is a cornerstone of civil society. Bullying creates an atmosphere of fear and intimidation, robs a person of their dignity, detracts from the safe environment necessary to promote student learning, and will not be tolerated by the Board of Directors. Students who bully another person shall be held accountable for their actions whether it occurs on the school grounds\noff school grounds at a school sponsored or approved function, activity, or event\nor going to or from school or a school activity in a school vehicle or school bus\nor at designated school bus stops. Definition: Bullying is any pattern of behavior by a student, or a group of students, that is intended to harass, intimidate, ridicule, humiliate, or instill fear in another child or group of children. Bullying behavior can be a threat of, or actual, physical harm or it can be verbal abuse of the child. Bullying also includes unacceptable behavior identified in this policy which is electronically transmitted. Bullying is a series of recurring actions committed over a period of time directed toward one student, or successive, separate actions directed against multiple students. Examples of \"bullying\" may include but are not limited to a pattern of behavior involving one or more of the following: I. Sarcastic \"compliments\" about another student's personal appearance\n2. Pointed questions intended to embarrass or humiliate\n3. Mocking, taunting or belittling\n4. Non-verbal threats and/or intimidation such as \"fronting\" or \"chesting\" a person\n5. Demeaning humor relating to a student's race, gender, ethnicity or personal characteristics\n6. Blackmail, extortion, demands for protection money or other involuntary donations or loans\n7. Blocking access to school property or facilities\n8. Deliberate physical contact or injury to person or property\n9. Stealing or hiding books or belongings\nand/or 10. Threats of harm to student(s), possessions, or others. B-3 PROPOSED REVISED BOARD POLICY ADDITIONS UNDERLINEDDELETIONS STRIKETHROUGHS 1-18-07 Students are encouraged to report behavior they consider to be bullying, including a single action which if allowed to continue would constitute bullying, to their teacher or the building principal. The report may be made anonymously. Teachers and other school employees who have witnessed, or are reliably informed that, a student has been a victim of behavior they consider to be bullying, including a single action which if allowed to continue would constitute bullying, shall report the incident(s) to the principal. Parents or legal guardians may submit to the principal written reports of incidents they feel constitute bullying, or if allowed to continue wottld constitute bullying. The principal shall be responsible for investigating the incident( s) to determine if disciplinary action is warranted. The person or persons r@rting behavior they consider to be bullying shall not be subject to retaliation or reprisal in any form. Students found to be in violation of this policy shall be subject to disciplinary action up to and including expulsion. In determining the appropriate disciplinary action, consideration may be given to other violations of the student handbook which may have simultaneously occurred. Notice of what constitutes bullying, the District's prohibition against bullying, and the consequences for students who bully shall be conspicuously posted in every classroom, cafeteria, restroom, gymnasium, auditorium, and school bus. Parents, students, school volunteers, and employees shall be given copies of the notice. Copies of this policy shall be available upon request. Legal Reference: Act 681 of2003 A.C.A.  6-18-514 Last Revised: 12/18/03 B-4 CURRENT BOARD POLICY 4.43-BULL YING Respect for the dignity of others is a cornerstone of civil society. Bullying creates an atmosphere of fear and intimidation, robs a person of their dignity, detracts from the safe environment necessary to promote student learning, and will not be tolerated by the Board of Directors. Students who bully another person shall be held accountable for their actions whether it occurs on the school grounds\noff school grounds at a school sponsored or approved function, activity, or event\nor going to or from school or a school activity. Definition: Bullying is any pattern of behavior by a student, or a group of students, that is intended to harass, intimidate, ridicule, humiliate, or instill fear in another child or group of children. Bullying behavior can be a threat of, or actual, physical harm or it can be verbal abuse of the child. Bullying is a series of recurring actions committed over a period of time directed toward one student, or successive, separate actions directed against multiple students. Examples of \"bullying\" may include but are not limited to a pattern of behavior involving one or more of the following: 1. Sarcastic \"compliments\" about another student's personal appearance\n2. Pointed questions intended to embarrass or humiliate\n3. Mocking, taunting or belittling\n4. Non-verbal threats and/or intimidation such as \"fronting\" or \"chesting\" a person\n5. Demeaning humor relating to a student's race, gender, ethnicity or personal characteristics\n6. Blackmail, extortion, demands for protection money or other involuntary donations or loans\n7. Blocking access to school property or facilities\n8. Deliberate physical contact or injury to person or property\n9. Stealing or hiding books or belongings\nand/or 10. Threats of harm to student(s), possessions, or others. B-5 Students are encouraged to report behavior they consider to be bullying, including a single action which if allowed to continue would constitute bullying, to their teacher or the building principal. 4 report may be made anonymously. Teachers and other school employees who have witnessed, or are reliably informed that, a student has been a victim of behavior they consider to be bullying, including a single action which if allowed to continue would constitute bullying, shall report the incident(s) to the principal. Parents or legal guardians may submit to the principal written reports of incidents they feel constitute bullying, or if allowed to continue would constitute bullying. The principal shall be responsible for investigating the incident(s) to determine if disciplinary action is warranted. Students found to be in violation of this policy shall be subject to disciplinary action up to and including expulsion. In determining the appropriate disciplinary action, consideration may be given to other violations of the student handbook which may have simultaneously occurred. Notice of what constitutes bullying, the District's prohibition against bullying, and the consequences for students who bully shall be conspicuously posted in every classroom, cafeteria, restroom, gymnasium, auditorium, and school bus. Parents, students, school volunteers, and employees shall be given copies of the notice. Legal Reference: Act 681 of2003 Last Revised: 12/18/03 B-6 PROPOSED REVISED BOARD POLICY ADDITIONS UNDERLINEDDELETIONS STRIKETHROUGHS 1-18-07 3.6- CERI'IF'IEDP ERSONNELE MPLOYEET RAINING The district administration and the building principal have the authority to require attendance at specific professional development activities in conjunction with state law and ADE Rules Governing Professional Development. PD PLAN The District shall develop and implement a plan for the professional development of its certified employees. The district's plan shall, in part, align district resources to address the professional development activities identified in each school's ACSIP. Each certified employee shall receive a minimum of sixty (60) hours of professional development annually which must be approved b( the district and :fulfilled between July 1 !lfid Me 30 or Jlllle 1 and May 31, to be determiRed annually. Professional development hours earned in excess of sixty ( 60) in the designated year cannot be carried over to the next year. The goal of all professional development activities shall be improved student achievement and academic performance that results in individual, school-wide, and system-wide improvement designed to ensure that all students demonstrate proficiency on the state criterion-referenced assessments. The district's professional development plan shall demonstrate scientifically research-based best practice, and shall be based on student achievement data and in alignment with the ADE Rules Governing Professional Development and current Arkansas code. Teachers and administrators shall be involved in the design, implementation, and evaluation of the plan for their own professional development. The results of the evaluation made by the participants in each program shall be used to continuously improve the district's professional development offerings and to - revise the school improvement plan. PD FLEX Flexible professional development hours (flex hours) are those hours which an employee is allowed to substitute professional development activities, different than those offered by the district, but which still meet criteria of either the employee's Individual Improvement Plan or the school's ACSIP, or both. The district shall determine on an annual basis how many, if any, flex hours of professional development it will allow to be substituted for district scheduled professional development offerings. The determination may be made at an individual building, a grade, or by subject basis. Employees must receive advance approval from the building principal or district designee for activities they wish to have qualify for flex professional development hours. To the fullest extent possible, professional development activities are to be scheduled and attended such that teachers do not miss their regular teaching assignments. Six (6) approved flex hours credited toward fulfilling the sixty (60) hour requirement shall equal one contract day. Hours of professional development earned by an employee in excess of sixty (60) or not pre-approved by the building principal shall not be credited toward fulfilling the required number of contract days for that employee. Hours earned that count toward the required sixty (60) also count toward the required number of contract days for that employee. C-1 PROPOSED REVISED BOARD POLICY ADDITIONS UNDERLINEDDELETIONS STRIKETHROUGHS 1-18-07 PD MAKEUP Teachers and administrators who, for any reason, miss part or all of any scheduled professional development activity they were required to attend, must make up the required hours in comparable activities which are to be pre-approved by the building principal or district designee. PD CREDIT To receive credit for his/her professional development activity each employee is responsible for obtaining and submitting documents of attendance for each professional development activity he/she attends. Documentation is to be submitted to the building principal or district designee. REQUIRED PD SESSIONS Teachers and administrators are required to obtain sixty (60) hours of approved professional development annually over a five-year period as part oflicensure renewal requirements. At least six (6) of the sixty (60) annual hours shall be in the area of educational technology. Teachers are required to receive at least two hours annually of their sixty (60) required hours of professional development designed to enhance their understanding of effective parental involvement strategies. Teachers who provide instruction in Arkansas history shall receive at least two (2) hours of professional development in Arkansas history as part of the sixty (60) hours required annually. Teachers are to obtain professional development in classroom management and health and physical activity annually. Administrators are required to receive at least three hours annually of their sixty (60) required hours of professional development designed to enhance their understanding of effective parental involvement strategies and the importance of administrative leadership in setting expectations and creating a climate conducive to parental participation. Each administrator's professional development is required to also include training in data disaggregation, instructional leadership, and fiscal management ADDIDONALPDOPPORTUNITIES Each hour of approved training received by certified personnel related to teaching an advance placement class for a subject covered by the College Board or Educational Testing Service, shall receive up to thirty (30) hours of credit which may be applied toward the sixty (60) hours of professional development required annually. Certified personnel may be entitled to up to twelve (12) hours of professional development for time spent planning and preparing curriculum or developing other instructional materials in their instructional classroom, office or media center prior to the first day of student/teacher interaction provided the time is spent in accordance with the state law and current ADE rules that deal with professional development. C-2 PROPOSED REVISED BOARD POLICY ADDITIONS UNDERLINEDDELETIONS STRIKETHROUGHS 1-18-07 Certified personnel are eligible to receive fifteen (15) professional development hours for a college course 1hat meets the criteria identified in law and the applicable ADE rules. Upon ADE approval, the district shall determine if the hours earned apply toward the required sixty (60). A maximum of thirty (30) hours may be applied toward the sixty ( 60) hours of professional development required annually. PD DOCUMENTATION Employees who do not receive or furnish documentation of the required annual professional development jeopardize the accreditation of their school and academic achievement of their students. Failure of an employee to receive sixty (60) hours of professional development in any given year may be grounds for disciplinary action up to and including termination. APPROVED PD ACTMTIES AND AREAS Approved professional development activities may include conferences, workshops, institutes, individual learning, mentoring, peer coaching, study groups, National Board for Professional Teaching Standards Certification, distance learning, internships, district/school programs, and approved college/university course work. Professional development activities should be consistent with the objectives developed by the National Staff Development Council Standards. Professional development activities shall relate to the following areas: content (K-12)\ninstructional strategies\nassessment\nadvocacy/leadership\nsystemic change process\nstandards, frameworks, and curriculum alignment\nsupervision\nmentoring/coaching\neducational technology\nprinciples of learning/developmental stages\ncognitive research\nand building a collaborative learning community. Nete!r.-1 The Rules Goerrnng Professional DeelOJ3men4t .02 require the district to ehoose the option it will follow and \"doeument'' its ehoice. The documentation may be noted by the selection chosen for this policy aad also iH the district's ''plea\" for professional deelopment required b~ A.C.A.  6 17 704(e)(l). Cross-Reference: Legal References: Policy 5.4- PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT Arkansas State Board of Education: Standards of Accreditation 15.04 ADE Rules Governing Professional Development A.CA. 6-15-404(f)(2) AC.A. 6-17-703 AC.A. 6-17-704 A.CA. 6-17-705 A.CA. 6-15-1004(c) AC.A. 6-15-1703 A.CA. 6-20-2303(14) Date Adopted: March 21, 2005 Last Revised: November 16, 2006 C-3 CURRENT BOARD POLICY 3.6-- CERTIFIED PERSONNEL EMPLOYEE TRAINING The district administrationa nd the buildingp rincipalh ave the authorityt o require attendancea t specific professionald evelopmenta ctivitiesi n conjunctionw ith state law and ADE Rules GoverningP rofessional Development. PD PLAN The District shall develop and implement a plan for the professional development of its certified employees.T he district'sp lan shall,i n part, align districtr esourcest o addresst he professionald evelopment activitiesi dentifiedi n each school's ACSIP.E ach pertifiede mployees hall receivea minimumo f sixty (6 0) hours of professional development annually which must be approved by the district and fulfilled between July 1 and June 30 or June 1 and May 31, to be determined annually. 1 Professional development hours earnedi n excesso f sixty (60) in the designatedy ear cannotb e carriedo ver to the next year. The goal of all professionald evelopmenta ctivitiess hallb e improveds tudenta chievementa nd academicp erformancet hat results in individual, school-wide, and system-wide improvement designed to ensure that all students demonstrate proficiency on the state criterion-referenced assessments. The district's professional developmentp lan shall demonstrates cientificallyr esearch-basedb est practice, and shall be based on studenta chievementd ata and in alignmentw ith the ADE Rules GoverningP rofessionalD evelopmenta nd current Arkansas code. Teachersa nd administrators hallb e involvedi n the design,i mplementationa, nd evaluationo f the plan for their own professional development. The results of the evaluation made by the participants in each program shall be used to continuouslyi mprove the district's professionald evelopmento fferingsa nd to reviset he schooli mprovemenpt lan. PD FLEX Flexible professional development hours (flex hours) are those hours which an employee is allowed to substitute professional development activities, different than those offered by the district, but which still meet criteria of either the employee's Individual Improvement Plan or the school's ACSIP, or both. The districts hall determineo n an annualb asis how many, if any, flex hours of professionald evelopmenti t will allow to be substitutedf or districts cheduledp rofessionald evelopmento fferings.T he determinationm ay be made at an individualb uilding,a grade,o r by subjectb asis. Employeesm ust receivea dvancea pproval from the buildingp rincipalo r districtd esigneef or activitiest hey wish to have qualifyf or flex professional developmenth ours. To the fulleste xtentp ossible,p rofessionald evelopmenta ctivitiesa re to be scheduled and attendeds uch that teachersd o not miss their regulart eachinga ssignments.S ix (6 ) approvedf lex hours credited toward fulfilling the sixty (60) hour requirement shall equal one contract day. Hours of professionald evelopmente arned by an employee in excess of sixty (60) or not pre-approved~ byt he building principal shall not be credited toward fulfilling the required number of contract days for that employee. Hours earned that count toward the required sixty (60) also count toward the required number of contract days for that employee. PD MAKEUP Teachers and administrators who, for any reason, miss part or all of any scheduled professional development activity they were required to attend, must make up the required hours in comparable activitiesw hich are to be pre-approvedb y the buildingp rincipalo r districtd esignee. C-4 CURRENT BOARD POLICY PD CREDIT To receive credit for his/her professional development activity each employee is responsible for obtaining and submitting documents of attendance for each professional development activity he/she attends. Documentation is to be submitted to the building principal or district designee. REQUIRED PD SESSIONS Teachers and administrators are required to obtain sixty (60) hours of approved professional development annually over a five-year period as part oflicensure renewal requirements. At least six (6) of the sixty (60) annual hours shall be in the area of educational technology. Teachers are required to receive at least two hours annually of their sixty (60) required hours of professional development designed to enhance their understanding of effective parental involvement strategies. Teachers who provide instruction in Arkansas history shall receive at least two (2) hours of professional development in Arkansas history as part of the sixty (60) hours required annually. Teachers are to obtain professional development in classroom management and health and physical activity annually. Administrators are required to receive at least three hours annually of their sixty ( 60) required hours of professional development designed to enhance their understanding of effective parental involvement strategies and the importance of administrative leadership in setting expectations and creating a climate conducive to parental participation. Each administrator's professional development is required to also include training in data disaggregation, instructional leadership, and fiscal management. ADDITIONAL PD OPPORTUNITIES Each hour of approved training received by certified personnel related to teaching an advance placement class for a subject covered by the College Board or Educational Testing Service, shall receive up to thirty (30) hours of credit which may be applied toward the sixty (60) hours of professional development required annually. Certified personnel may be entitled to up to twelve (12) hours of professional development for time spent planning and preparing curriculum or developing other instructional materials in their instructional classroom, office or media center prior to the first day of student/teacher interaction provided the time is spent in accordance with the state law and current ADE rules that deal with professional development Certified personnel are eligible to receive fifteen (15) professional development hours for a college course that meets the criteria identified in law and the applicable ADE rules. Upon ADE approval, the district shall determine if the hours earned apply toward the required sixty (60). A maximum of thirty (30) hours may be applied toward the sixty (60) hours of professional development required annually. C-5 CURRENT BOARD POLICY PD DOCUMENTATION Employees who do not receive or furnish documentation of the required annual professional development - jeopardize the accreditation of their school and academic achievement of their students. Failure of an employee to receive sixty (60) hours of professional development in any given year may be grounds for disciplinary action up to and including termination. APPROVED PD ACTMTIES AND AREAS Approved professional development activities may include conferences, workshops, institutes, individual learning, mentoring, peer coaching, study groups, National Board for Professional Teaching Standards Certification, distance learning, internships, district1/schoolp rograms, and approved college/university course work. Professional development activities should be consistent with the objectives developed by the National Staff Development Council Standards. Professional development activities shall relate to the following areas: content (K-12)\ninstructional strategies\nassessment\nadvocacy/leadership\nsystemic change process\nstandards, frameworks, and curriculum alignment\nsupervision\nmentoring/coaching\neducational technology\nprinciples of learning/developmental stages\ncognitive research\nand building a collaborative learning community. Notes: 1 The Rules Governing Professional Development 4.02 require the district to choose the option it will follow and \"document'' its choice. The documentation may be noted by the selection chosen for this policy and also in the distrjct's ''plan\" for professional development required by A.C.A.  6-17-704(c)(l). - Cross-Reference: Legal References: Policy 5.4- STAFF DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM Arkansas State Board of Education: Standards of Accreditation 15.04 ADE Rules Governing Professional Development A.C.A.  6-15-404()(2) A.C.A.  6-17-703 A.CA. 6-17-704 A.C.A.  6-17-705 A.C.A.  6-15-1004(c) A.C.A.  6-15-1703 A.C.A.  6-20-2303(14) Date Adopted: March 21, 2005 Last Revised: November 16, 2006 C-6 PROPOSED REVISED BOARD POLICY ADDITIONS UNDERLINEDDELETIONS STRIKETHROUGHS 1-18-07 3.6 CL- CLASSIFIED PERSONNEL EMPLOYEE TRAINING All employeess hall attenda ll districtp rofessionald evelopments essionsa s directedb y a supervisor. The District shall develop and implement a plan for the professional development of its classified employees. The district's plan shall, in part, align district resources to address the professional development activities identified in each school's ACSIP. Each classified employee shall participate in professional development annually designed by the district as it pertains to each department's needs. The professional development is to be fulfilled between July 1 and June 30 or June 1 and May 31, to be detennined ar.IR-Jal1l y. The district's plan shall be in alignment with the ADE Rules Governing Professional Development and current Arkansas code. Representativeso f each departments hall be involvedi n the design,i mplementationa, nd evaluationo f the plan for their own professionald evelopmentT. he resultso f the evaluationm ade by the participantsi n each program shall be used to continuously improve the district's professional development offerings and to revise the schooli mprovementp lan. Classifiede mployeesa re not eligiblef or flexiblep rofessionald evelopmenth ours (flex hours) The dis1rict administrationa nd the departmentd irectorsh ave the authorityt o requirea ttendancea t specificp rofessional development activities. If a classified employee, for any reason, misses part or all of any scheduled professional development activity they were required to attend, they must make up the required hours in comparable activities which are to be pre-approvedb y the departmentd irectoro r districtd esignee. To receive credit for his/herp rofessionald evelopmenta ctivitye ach employeei s responsiblef or obtaining and submitting documents of attendance for each professional development activity he/she attends. Documentationi s to be submittedt o the departmentd irectoro r districtd esignee. The chief financiala nd informations erviceso fficer and the administratived irectoro f finance, audit, and purchasing are required to obtain 4 hours of professional development in fiscal management annually. Other classified employees who manage substantial budgets are required to obtain training in fiscal management as well with the exception of a time requirement. All classified employees inclusive of substitute teachers are to obtain professional development in classroom management annually. Employeesw ho do not receive or furnishd ocumentationo f the requireda nnualp rofessionald evelopment jeopardize the accreditation of their school and academic achievement of their students. Failure of an employeet o attendr equiredp rofessionald evelopmenti n any given year shall be grounds for disciplinary action up to and including termination. C-7 PROPOSED REVISED BOARD POLICY ADDITIONS UNDERLINEDDELETIONS STRIKETHROUGHS 1-18-07 Approved professional development activities may include conferences, workshops, institutes, individual learning,m entoring,p eer coaching,s tudy groups,d istancel earning,i nternships,d istrict/schoopl rograms, and approved college/universityco urse work Professionald evelopmenta ctivitiess hould be consistent with the objectivesd evelopedb y the NationalS taffD evelopmenCt ouncilS tandards. Professional development activities shall relate to' the following areas: content\nadvocacy/leadership\nsystemic change process\nsupervision\nmentoring/coaching\neducational technology\nprinciples of learning/developmentaslt ages\nc ognitiver esearch\na nd buildinga collaborativele arningc ommunity. Netw.-1- The Rules GoverningP ffifessionaDl eo\nelopmen4t .02 require the districtt o choose the option it will followa nd \"doeument''i ts ehoiee.T he doeumootatiOmB ay be noted by the selectione hosen fur this policy and also in the district's ''plan\" for professionald e,,,elopmenrte quiredb y AC.A.  6 17 704(e)(l). Cross-Reference: Legal References: Policy5 .4- ProfessionaDl evelopment ArkansasS tateB oard ofEducation:S tandardso f Accreditation1 5.04 ADE RulesG overningP rofessionaDl evelopment Date Adopted: December 15, 2005 Last Revised: November 16, 2006 C-8 CURRENT BOARD POLICY 3.6 CL- PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT All employeess hall attenda ll districtp rofessionald evelopments essionsa s directedb y a supervisor. The District shall develop and implement a plan for the professional development of its classified employees. The district's plan shall, in part, align district resources to address the professional development activities identified in each school's ACSIP. Each classified employee shall participate in professional development annually designed by the district as it pertains to each department's needs. The professional development is to be fulfilled between July 1 and June 30 or June 1 and May 31, to be determined annually: The district's plan shall be in alignment with the ADE Rules Governing Professional Development and current Arkansas code. Representativeso f each departments hall be involvedi n the design,i mplementationa, nd evaluationo f the plan for their own professionald evelopment.T he results of the evaluationm ade by the participantsi n each program shall be used to continuously improve the district's professional development offerings and to reviset he schooli mprovemenpt lan. Classified employees are not eligible for flexible professional development hours (flex hours) The district administrationa nd the departmentd irectorsh ave the authorityt o requirea ttendancea t specificp rofessional development activities. If a classified employee, for any reason, misses part or all of any scheduled professional development activity they were required to attend, they must make up the required hours in comparable activities which are to be pre-approvedb y the departmentd irectoro r districtd esignee. To receive credit for his/her professional development activity each employee is responsible for obtaining and submitting documents of attendance for each professional development activity he/she attends. Documentationi s to be submittedt o the departmentd irectoro r districtd esignee. The chief financiala nd informations erviceso fficer and the administratived irector of finance, audit, and purchasing are required to obtain 4 hours of professional development in fiscal management annually. Other classified employees who manage substantial budgets are required to obtain training in fiscal management as well with the exception of a time requirement. All classified employees inclusive of substitute teachers are to obtain professional development in classroom management annually. Employeesw ho do not receive or furnish documentationo f the requireda nnual professionald evelopment jeopardize the accreditation of their school and academic achievement of their students. Failure of an employee to attend required professional development in any given year shall be grounds for disciplinary action up to and including termination. Approved professionald evelopmenta ctivitiesm ay include conferences,w orkshops,i nstitutes,i ndividual learning,m entoring,p eer coaching,s tudy groups, distancel earning,i nternships,d istrict/schoolp rograms, and approved college/universityc ourse work. Professionald evelopmenta ctivitiess hould be consistent with the objectives developed by the National Staff Development Council Standards. C-9 CURRENT BOARD POLICY Professional development activities shall relate to the following areas: content\nadvocacy/leadershipA\nsystemic change process\nsupervision\nmentoring,'coaching\ne ducational technology\nprinciples of W learning,'developmentsatla ges\nc ognitiver esearch\na nd buildinga collaborativel earningc ommunity. Notes: 1 The Rules GoverningP rofessionalD evelopment4 .02 require the district to choose the option it will follow and \"document''i ts choice.T he documentationm ay be noted by the selectionc hosen for this policy and also in the district's' 'plan\" for professionald evelopmentr equiredb y A.CA.  6-17-704(cX1). Cross-Reference: Legal References: Policy 5.4--STAFF DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM Arkansas State Board of Education: Standards of Accreditation 15.04 ADE Rules GoverningP rofessionalD evelopment Date Adopted: December 15, 2005 Last Revised: November 16, 2006 C-10 CURRENT BOARD POLICY 3.6 CL- CLASSIFIED PERSONNEL EMPLOYEE TRAJNING All employeess hall attenda ll districtp rofessionald evelopments essionsa s directedb y a supervisor. The District shall develop and implement a plan for the professional development of its classified employees.T he district'sp lan shall,i n part, align districtr esourcest o addresst he professionald evelopment activities identified in each school's ACSIP. Each classified employee shall participate in professional development annually designed by the district as it pertains to each department's needs. The professional development is to be fulfilled between July 1 and June 30 or June 1 and May 31, to be determined annually.1 The district's plan shall be in alignment with the ADE Rules Governing Professional Development and current Arkansas code. Representativeso f each departments hall be involvedi n the design,i mplementationa, nd evaluationo f the plan for their own professionald evelopmentT he resultso f the evaluationm ade by the participantsi n each program shall be used to continuously improve the district's professional development offerings and to reviset he schooli mprovemenpt lan. Classifiede mployeesa re not eligiblef or flexiblep rofessionald evelopmenth ours (flex hours) The district administrationa nd the departmentd irectorsh ave the authorityt o requirea ttendancea t specificp rofessional development activities. If a classified employee, for any reason, misses part or all of any scheduled professional development activityt hey were requiredt o attend,t hey must make up the requiredh ours in comparablea ctivitiesw hich are to be pre-approvedb y the departmentd irectoro r districtd esignee. To receivec redit for his/herp rofessionald evelopmenta ctivitye ach employeei s responsiblef or obtaining and submitting documents of attendance for each professional development activity he/she attends. Docwnentationi s to be submittedt o the departmentd irectoro r districtd esignee. The chief :financiaal nd informations erviceso fficera nd the administratived irectoro f finance,a udit, and purchasing are required to obtain 4 hours of professional development in fiscal management annually. Other classified employees who manage substantial budgets are required to obtain training in fiscal management as well with the exception of a time requirement All classified employees inclusive of substitute teachers are to obtain professional development in classroom management annually. Employeesw ho do not receiveo r furnishd ocumentationo f the requireda nnualp rofessionald evelopment jeopardize the accreditation of their school and academic achievement of their students. Failure of an employeet o attend requiredp rofessionald evelopmenti n any given year shall be groundsf or disciplinary action up to and including termination. Approvedp rofessionald evelopmenta ctivitiesm ay include conferences,w orkshops,i nstitutes,i ndividual learning,m entoring,p eer coaching,s tudy groups,d istancel earning,i nternshipsd, istrict/schoopl rograms, and approvedc ollege/universityco urse work. Professionald evelopmenta ctivitiess hould be consistent with the objectivesd evelopedb y the NationalS taffD evelopmentC ouncilS tandards. C-9 CURRENT BOARD POLICY Professional development activities shall relate to the following areas: content\nadvocacy/leadership\nA systemic change process\nsupervision\nmentoring/coaching\neducational technology\nprinciples of W learning/developmental stages\ncognitive research\nand building a collaborative learning community. Notes: 1 The Rules Governing Professional Development 4.02 require the district to choose the option it will follow and \"document'' its choice. The documentation may be noted by the selection chosen for this policy and also in the district's \"plan\" for professional development required by A.CA.  6-l 7-704(c)(l). Cross-Reference: Legal References: Policy 5.4-- STAFF DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM Arkansas State Board of Education: Standards of Accreditation 15.04 ADE Rules Governing Professional Development Date Adopted: December 15, 2005 Last Revised: November 16, 2006 C-10 PROPOSED REVISED BOARD POLICY ADDITIONS UNDERLINEDDELETIONS STRIKETHROUGHS 1-18-07 5.4-- PROFESSIONALD EVELOPMENT The district administrationa nd the buildingp rincipalh ave the authorityt o require attendance at specific professionald evelopmenta ctivitiesi n conjunctionw ith state law and ADE Rules GoverningP rofessional Development. PD PLAN The District shall develop and implement a plan for the professional development of its certified employees.T he district'sp lan shall,i n part, align districtr esourcest o addresst he professionald evelopment activitiesi dentifiedi n each school's ACSIP.E ach certifiede mployees hall receivea minimumo f sixty (60) hours of professionald evelopmenta nnuallyw hich must be approvedb r the district and :fulfilledb etween My 1 aad June 30 or June 1 and May 31, to be determined annually. Professional development hours earned in excesso f sixty (60) in the designatedy ear cannotb e carried over to the next year. The goal of all professionald evelopmenta ctivitiess hallb e improveds tudenta chievementa nd academicp erformancet hat results in individual, school-wide, and system-wide improvement designed to ensure that all students demonstrate proficiency on the state criterion-referenced assessments. The district's professional developmentp lan shall demonstrates cientificallyr esearch-basedb est practice, and shall be based on studenta chievementd ata and in alignmentw ith the ADE Rules GoverningP rofessionalD evelopmenta nd current Arkansas code. Teachersa nd administratorss hall be involvedi n the design,i mplementationa, nd evaluationo f the plan for their own professional development. The results of the evaluation made by the participants in each program shall be used to continuously improve the district's professional development offerings and to revise the schooli mprovemenpt lan. PD FLEX Flexible professional development hours (flex hours) are those hours which an employee is allowed to substitute professional development activities, different than those offered by the district, but which still meet criteria of either the employee's Individual Improvement Plan or the school's ACSIP, or both. The districts hall determineo n an annualb asis how many, if any, flex hours of professionald evelopmenti t will allow to be substituted for district scheduled professional development offerings. The determination may be made at an individual building, a grade, or by subject basis. Employees most receive advance approval from the buildingp rincipalo r districtd esigneef or activitiest hey wish to have qualifyf or flex professional development hours. To the fullest extent possible, professional development activities are to be scheduled and attendeds uch that teachersd o not miss their regulart eachinga ssignments.S ix (6 ) approvedf lex hours credited toward fulfilling the sixty (60) hour requirement shall equal one contract day. Hours of professional development earned by an employee in excess of sixty (60) or not pre-approved by the building principal shall not be credited toward fulfilling the required number of contract days for that employee. Hours earned that count toward the required sixty (60) also count toward the required number of contract days for that employee. C-11 PROPOSED REVISED BOARD POLICY ADDITIONS UNDERLINEDDELETIONS STRIKETHROUGHS 1-18-07 PD MAKEUP Teachers and administrators who, for any reason, miss part or all of any scheduled professional development activity they were required to attend, must make up the required hours in comparable activities which are to be pre-approved by the building principal or district designee. PD CREDIT To receive credit for his/her professional development activity each employee is responsible for obtaining and submitting documents of attendance for each professional development activity he/she attends. Documentation is to be submitted to the building principal or district designee. REQUIRED PD SESSIONS Teachers and administrators are required to obtain sixty (60) hours of approved professional development annually over a five-year period as part oflicensure renewal requirements. At least six (6) of the sixty (60) annual hours shall be in the area of educational technology. Teachers are required to receive at least two hours annually of their sixty (60) required hours of professional development designed to enhance their understanding of effective parental involvement strategies. Teachers who provide instruction in Arkansas history shall receive at least two (2) hours of professional A development in Arkansas history as part of the sixty ( 60) hours required annually. W Teachers are to obtain professional development in classroom management and health and physical activity annually. ' Administrators are required to receive at least three hours annually of their sixty (60) required hours of professional development designed to enhance their understanding of effective parental involvement strategies and the importance of administrative leadership in setting expectations and creating a climate conducive to parental participation. Each administrator's professional development is required to also include training in data disaggregation, instructional leadership, and fiscal management. ADDIDONAL PD OPPORTUNITIES Each hour of approved training received by certified personnel related to teaching an advance placement class for a subject covered by the College Board or Educational Testing Service, shall receive up to thirty (30) hours of credit which may be applied toward the sixty (60) hours of professional development required annually. Certified personnel may be entitled to up to twelve (12) hours of professional development for time spent planning and preparing curriculum or developing other instructional materials in their instructional classroom, office or media center prior to the first day of student/teacher interaction provided the time is spent in accordance with the state law and current ADE rules that deal with professional development. C-12 . . . PROPOSED REVISED BOARD POLICY ADDITIONS UNDERLINEDDELETIONS STRIKETHROUGHS 1-18-07 Certified personnel are eligible to receive fifteen (15) professional development hours for a college course that meets the criteria identified in law and the applicable ADE rules. Upon ADE approval, the district shall determine if the hours earned apply toward the required sixty (60). A maximum of thirty (30) hours may be applied toward the sixty ( 60) hours of professional development required annually. PD DOCUMENTATION Employees who do not receive or furnish documentation of the required annual professional development jeopardize the accreditation of their school and academic achievement of their students. Failure of an employee to receive sixty (60) hours of professional development in any given year may be grounds for disciplinary action up to and including termination. APPROVED PD ACTMTIES AND AREAS Approved professional development activities may include conferences, workshops, institutes, individual learning, mentoring, peer coaching, study groups, National Board for Professional Teaching Standards Certification, distance learning, internships, district/school programs, and approved college/university course work Professional development activities should be consistent with the objectives developed by the National Staff Development Council Standards. Professional development activities shall relate to the following areas: content (K-12)\ninstructional strategies\nassessment\nadvocacy/leadership\nsystemic change process\nstandards, frameworks, and curriculum alignment\nsupervision\nmentoring/coaching\neducational technology\nprinciples of learning/developmental stages\ncognitive research\nand building a collaborative learning community. Nete\u0026amp;.--T-1h e Rules Govemmg Professional Development 4.02 reqtJiret he distriet to ehoose the option it will follow and \"doeument'' its ehoiee. The doeU1Hentatiomn ay be noted by the selection ehosen for this policy and also in the district's ''plan\" for pFOfessiona:d1e velopment required by A.C.A.  6 17 704(e)(l). Cross-Reference: Policy 3.6 - CERTIFIED PERSONNEL EMPLOYEE TRAINING Policy 3.6 - CL CLASSISIFED PERSONNEL EMPLOYEE TRAINING Legal References: Arkansas State Board of Education: Standards of Accreditation 15.04 ADE Rules Governing Professional Development A.CA. 6-15-404(f)(2) A.CA 6-17-703 A.CA 6-17-704 A.CA 6-17-705 A.CA 6-15-1004(c) A.CA 6-15-1703 A.CA 6-20-2303(14) Date Adopted: June 26, 1986 Last Revised: November 16, 2006 C-13 CURRENT BOARD POLICY 5.4-PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT The district administrationa nd the buildingp rincipalh ave the authorityt o require attendancea t specific professionald evelopmenta ctivitiesi n conjunctionw ith state law and ADE Rules GoverningP rofessional Development PD PLAN The District shall develop and implement a plan, for the professional development of its certified employees.T he district'sp lan shall,i n part, alignd istrictr esourcest o addresst he professionald evelopment activitiesi dentifiedi n each school's ACSIP.E ach certifiede mployees hall receivea minimumo f sixty (60) hours of professional development annually which must be approved by the district and fulfilled between July I and June 30 or June I and May 31, to be determined annually.1 Professional development hours earnedi n excesso f sixty (60) in the designatedy ear cannotb e carriedo ver to the next year. The goal of all professionald evelopmenta ctivitiess hall be improveds tudenta chievementa nd academicp erformancet hat results in individual, school-wide, and system-wide improvement designed to ensure that all students demonstrate proficiency on the state criterion-referenceda ssessments. The district's professional development plan shall demonstrates cientificallyr esearch-basedb est practice, and shall be based on studenta chievementd ata and in alignmentw ith the ADE Rules GoverningP rofessionalD evelopmenta nd current Arkansas code. Teachersa nd administrators hall be involvedi n the design,i mplementationa, nd evaluationo f the plan for their own professional development. The results of the evaluation made by the participants in each A program shall be used to continuously improve the district's professional development offerings and to W revise the schooli mprovemenpt lan. PD FLEX Flexible professional development hours (flex hours) are those hours which an employee is allowed to substitute professional development activities, different than those offered by the district, but which still meet criteria of either the employee's Individual Improvement Plan or the school's ACSIP, or both. The districts hall determineo n an annualb asis how many,i f any, flex hours of professionald evelopmenti t will allow to be substitutedf or districts cheduledp rofessionald evelopmento fferings.T he determinationm ay be made at an individualb uilding,a grade,o r by subjectb asis. Employeesm ust receivea dvancea pproval from the building principal or district designee for activities they wish to have qualified for flex professionald evelopmenth ours. To the fulleste xtent possible,p rofessionald evelopmenta ctivitiesa re to be scheduled and attended such that teachers do not miss their regular teaching assignments. Six (6) approvedf lex hours creditedt owardf ulfillingt he sixty (60) hour requirements hall equal one contractd ay. Hours of professionald evelopmente arnedb y an employeei n excess of sixty (6 0) or not pre-approvedb y the building principal shall not be credited toward fulfilling the required number of contract days for that employee. Hours earned that count toward the required sixty (60) also count toward the required number of contract days for that employee. C-14 CURRENT BOARD POLICY POMA.KEUP Teachers and administrators who, for any reason, miss part or all of any scheduled professional development activity they were required to attend, must make up the required hours in comparable activities which are to be pre-approved by the building principal or district designee. PD CREDIT To receive credit for his/her professional development activity each employee is responsible for obtaining and submitting documents of attendance for each professional development activity he/she attends. Documentation is to be submitted to the building principal or district designee. REQUIRED PD SESSIONS Teachers and administrators are required to obtain sixty (60) hours of approved professional development annually over a five-year period as part oflicensure renewal requirements. At least six (6) of the sixty (60) annual hours shall be in the area of educational technology. Teachers are required to receive at least two hours annually of their sixty (60) required hours of professional development designed to enhance their understanding of effective parental involvement strategies. Teachers who provide instruction in Arkansas history shall receive at least two (2) hours of professional development in Arkansas history as part of the sixty ( 60) hours required annually. Teachers are to obtain professional development in classroom management and health and physical activity annually. Administrators are required to receive at least three hours annually of their sixty (60) required hours of professional development designed to enhance their understanding of effective parental involvement strategies and the importance of administrative leadership in setting expectations and creating a climate conducive to parental participation. Each administrator's professional development is required to also include training in data disaggregation, instructional leadership, and fiscal management ADDIDONAL PD OPPORTUNITIES Each hour of approved training received by certified personnel related to teaching an advance placement class for a subject covered by the College Board or Educational Testing Service, shall receive up to thirty (30) hours of credit which may be applied toward the sixty (60) hours of professional-development required annually. Certified personnel may be entitled to up to twelve (12) hours of professional development for time spent planning and preparing curriculum or developing other instructional materials in their instructional classroom, office or media center prior to the first day of student/teacher interaction provided the time is spent in accordance with the state law and current ADE rules that deal with professional development. C-15 CURRENT BOARD POLICY Certifiedp ersonnela re eligiblet o receivef ifteen( 15) professionald evelopmenth ours for a collegec ourse that meets the criteria identified in law and the applicable ADE rules. Upon ADE approval, the district - shall detennine if the hours earned apply toward the required sixty (60). A maxirrnnn of thirty (30) hours may be appliedt owardt he sixty( 6 0) hourso f professionald evelopmentr equireda nnually. PD DOCUMENTATION Employeesw ho do not receiveo r furnishd ocmnentationo f the requireda nnualp rofessionald evelopment jeopardize the accreditation of their school and academic achievement of their students. Failure of an employeet o receive sixty (60) hours of professionald evelopmenti n any given year may be groundsf or disciplinarya ctionu p to and includingt ermination. ' APPROVED PD ACTMTIES AND AREAS Approvedp rofessionald evelopmenta ctivitiesm ay include conferences,w orkshops,i nstitutes,i ndividual learning, mentoring, peer coaching, study groups, National Board for Professional Teaching Standards Certification, distance learning, internships, district/school programs, and approved college/university coursew ork. Professionald evelopmenta ctivitiess houldb e consistentw ith the objectivesd evelopedb y the NationalS taffD evelopmentC ouncilS tandards. Professional development activities shall relate to the following areas: content (K-12)\ninstructional strategies\nassessment\nadvocacy/leadership\ns ystemic change process\nstandards, frameworks, and curriculmn alignment\nsupervision\nmentoring/coaching\neducational technology\nprinciples of learning/developmentaslt ages\nc ognitiver esearch\na nd buildinga collaborativele arningc ommunity. Notes: 1 The Rules GoverningP rofessionalD evelopment4 .02 requiret he districtt o choose the option it A will follow and \"docmnent''i ts choice.T he docmnentationm ay be noted by the selectionc hosen  for this policy and also in the district's\" plan\" for professionald evelopmentr equiredb y A.CA  6-l 7-704(c)(l ). Cross-Reference: Legal References: Policy3 .6---CERTIFIEDP ERSONNELE MPLOYEET RAINING Arkansas State Board of Education: Standards of Accreditation 15.04 ADE Rules GoverningP rofessionalD evelopment A.CA 6-15-404(f)(2) A.CA. 6-17-703 A.CA. 6-17-704 A.CA. 6-17-705 A.CA. 6-15-1004(c) A.CA. 6-15-1703 A.CA. 6-20-2303(14) Date Adopted: June 26, 1986 Last Revised: November 16, 2006 C-16 PROPOSED REVISED BOARD POLICY . ADDITIONS UNDERLINEDDELETIONS STRIKETHROUGHS 1-18-07 5.15--GRADING Parents or guardians shall be kept informed concerning the progress of their student Parent-teacher conferences are encouraged and may be requested by parents, guardians, or teachers. If the progress of a student is unsatisfactory in a subject, the teacher shall attempt to schedule a parent-teacher conference. In the conference, the teacher shall explain the reasons for difficulties and shall develop, cooperatively with the parents, a plan for remediation which may enhance the probability of the student succeeding. The school shall also send timely progress reports midway of each quarter and issue grades for each nine-week grading period to keep parents/guardians informed of their student's progress. The evaluation of each student's performance on a regular basis serves to give the parents/guardians, students, and the school necessary information to help effect academic improvement Students' grades shall reflect only the extent to which a student has achieved the expressed educational objectives of the course. Students in grades Kl-6 will be graded each nine weeks. Students in grades 7-8 will receive four nine weeks grades and two semester averages. Students in grades 9-12 will receive four quarterly grades, semester exam grades, and two semester averages. For students in grades 9-12, the two quarterly grades shall equal 80% of the semester average, and the semester test shall equal 20% of the semester average. Semester test must be taken before credit in a course is awarded. The grading scale for all schools in the district shall be as follows. A=l00-90 B=89-80 C=79-70 D=69-60 F = 59 and below For the purpose of determining grade point averages, the numeric value of each letter grade shall be A=4points B= 3 points C=2 points D= 1 point F=0 points Grade point average is computed for each student at the secondary level based on all letter grades the student has received for each semester's work using the above four point scale carried to two decimal places. A semester grade point average is computed on the grades from the two nine weeks' grading periods and the semester test grade. C-17 PROPOSED REVISED BOARD POLICY ADDITIONS UNDERLINEDDELETIONS STRIKETHROUGHS 1-18-07 The grade point values for AP and approved honor courses shall be one point greater than for regular courses with the exception that an F shall still be worth O points. A checklistw ill be used in kindergartena t the end of each nine weeks. An I (introducing)D, (develwing), P (proficient),o r N (needs improvement}w ill be given'i n kindergarteni n the areas of reading, writing, socials kills/workh abits,s ocials tudies,s cience/healthm. ath. art, physicale ducation,a nd music. An S (satisfactory) or N (needs improvement) is given in grades 1-5 for handwriting, art, music, and physical education. Legal References: Date Adopted: Last Revised: AC.A. 6-15-902 StateB oard of Education:S tandardso f Accreditation1 2.02 Arkansas Department of Education Rules and Regulations Governing Uniform Grading Scales for Public Secondary Schools February 27, 1996 November 16, 2006 C-18 CURRENT BOARD POLICY 5.15-GRADING Parents or guardians shall be kept informed concerning the progress of their student Parent-teacher conferences are encouraged and may be requested by parents, guardians, or teachers. If the progress of a student is unsatisfactoryin a subject,t he teachers hall attemptt o schedulea parent-teacherc onference.I n the conference,t he teachers hall explaint he reasons for difficultiesa nd shall develop,c ooperativelyw ith the parents, a plan for remediation which may enhance the probability of the student succeeding. The school shall also send timely progress reports midway of each quarter and issue grades for each nine-week gradingp eriodt o keep parents/guardianisn formedo f their student'sp rogress. The evaluation of each student's performance on a regular basis serves to give the parents/guardians, students, and the school necessary information to help effect academic improvement. Students' grades shall reflect only the extent to which a student has achieved the expressed educational objectives of the course. Students in grades K-6 will be graded each nine weeks. Students in grades 7-8 will receive four nine weeks grades and two semester averages. Students in grades 9-12 will receive four quarterly grades, semester exam grades, and two semester averages. For students in grades 9-12, the two quarterly grades shall equal 80% of the semester average, and the semester test shall equal 20% of the semester average. Semester test must be taken before credit in a course is awarded. The grading scale for all schools in the district shall be as follows. A=l00-90 B= 89-80 C=79-70 D= 69-60 F = 59 and below For the purposeo f determiningg radep ointa verages,t he numericv alueo f each letterg rade shall be A=4points B = 3 points C=2 points D= 1 point F= 0 points Grade point average is computed for each student at the secondary level based on all letter grades the student has received for each semester's work using the above four point scale carried to two decimal places. A semester-grade point average is computed on the grades from the two nine weeks' grading periods and the semester test grade. C-19 CURRENT BOARD POLICY The grade point values for AP and approved honor courses shall be one point greater than for regular A courses with the exception that an F shall still be worth O points. W Legal References: A.CA. 6-15-902 State Board of Education: Standards of Accreditation 12.02 Arkansas Department of Education Rules and Regulations Governing Unifonn Grading Scales for Public Secondary Schools Date Adopted: February27, 1996 Last Revised: November 16, 2006 C-20 NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT TO: Ken Kirspel, Superintendent of Schools FROM: Kaye Lowe, Administrative Director of Elementary Education SUBJECT: Recommendation ofK-5 Science/Health Adoption Date: January 11, 2007 The K-5 Elementary Science Adoption Committee recommends the following for Science and Health for the beginning of the 2007-08 school year: Grades K-5 K-5 Title and/or Series Science - See learning in a whole new light Kids For Health Publisher Scott Foresman Kids For Health The committee's recommendation of the above materials was based on the following criteria:  Framework alignment  Direct, guided and full inquiries  Efficient lab set ups  Variety of writing prompts  ESL components at the end of each lesson for all learners  Literacy and math integrated with science  Comprehensive assessments. D-1 -TO: FROM: NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT KEN KIRSPEL, SUPERINTENDENT OF SCHOOLS RHONDA DICKEY, ADMINISTRATIVE DIRECTOR OF SECONDARY EDUCATION SUBJECT: SECONDARY SCIENCE/HEAL TH TEXTBOOK ADOPTION COMMITTEE DATE: JANUARY 11, 2007 ' Recommendation for the Secondary Science/Health Adoption Committee 2006-2007 Name Subject School Joyce Lofton Physical Science East Cynthia Kirby Biology (Chair) East Karen White Parent East David Wallace Health (Chair) East Rebecca Priester Chemistry West Steve Boutwell Zoology West AbbraBest Anatomy \u0026amp; Physiology West Glen Amis Physics (Chair) West Gwen Wiggins Principles of Technology West Janet Garrison Special Education West Stacy Cochran Biology/Environ. Science Argenta John Talley Physical Science Argenta Cathy Alexander Science Poplar Street MaryBalest Health Poplar Street Sharla Smith Parent Poplar Street Amber Gereaux Science (Chair) Lakewood Cassandra Peck Science (Chair) Ridgeroad Brock Moore Health Ridgeroad Jennifer Conner Science (Chair) Rose City Rellia Dillinger Special Education Administration Paulette Blevins Instr. Science Specialist Administration Rhonda Dickey Admin. Dir. of Sec. Ed. Administration Angela Olsen Assistant Superintendent Administration Curriculum \u0026amp; Instruction E-1 Class North Little Rock School District 2700 Poplar Street P.O. Box 687  North Little Rock, Arkansas 72115-0687 501.771.8000  www.nlrsd.k12.ar.us MEMO TO: Ken Kirspel, Superintendent FROM: Jerry Massey, Director of Plant Services SUBJECT: Crestwood Elementary Bid Recommendation DATE: January 10, 2007 Attached is the bid tabulation. The lowest responsive bid has yet to be determined. A recommendation will be made at the Board Meeting on January 18, 2007. Below is a budget summary of the Construction Funds based on the Flynco bid which is the most expensive recommendat,ion expected. Construction funds Available June 27, 2006 Transitional Projects District Share (Roofing) Crestwood Addition Bid $2,862,000.00 Fees $ 243,270.00 District $ 60,000.00 State Facilities Contribution Lakewood Middle Addition Estimated State Facilities Contribution Balance $7,415,000.00 - $3,149,503.54 - $3,165,270.00 + $ 792,084.00 - $2,157,565.00 + 597,730.00 $ 332,475.46 \"World Class Schools for World Class Students\" An Equal Opportunity Employer F-1 NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT BID SUMMARY MEDIA CENTER AND CLASSROOM ADDITION CRESTWOOD ELEMENTARY SCHOOL Bell Construction Flynco, Inc. G.A.G. Builders Hydco, Inc. J and D Construction CBM Construction CWR Construction DAYCO F-2 $2,950,484.00 $2,862,000.00 $2,940,000.00 $3,139,960.00 $3,067,000.00 $2,863,000.00 $2,898,000.00 $2,447,000.00 I North Llttle Rock School District Local Revenue Current Taxes Pullback Delinquent Taxes Excess Commissions Land Redemption Penalties \u0026amp; Interest on Taxes Tuition-Summer School/Day Care Interest on Investments Soft Drink Sales Misc Rev From Local Total Local Revenue Revenue From Intermediate Source !Severance Tax Revenue from State Sources-Unrestricted State Equalization Aid Student Growth Funding 0th Unrestr Grants-in-Aid Revenue from State Sources-Restricted ReQular Education Special Education Early Childhood M-to-M Non-Instr Pgms Misc State .. tal Revenu e State TOTAL REVE Building Fun Capital Outla Food Service Federal TOTAL REVE NUE OPERATIONS d y s NUE DECEMBER2 006 2006-2007 Current Month Budget Actual YT-OActual $12,510,000.00 $7,203,785.40 $10,977,197.18 $6,250,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 $1,471,000.00 $230,692.00 $978,717.05 $310,000.00 .. $0.00 $0.00 $185,000.00 $17,489.63 $104,262.72 $62,000.00 $13,059.98 $27,928.84 $105,000.00 $3,063.53 $22,700.67 $900,000.00 $91,471.76 $551,332.82 $79,000.00 $0.00 $22,767.51 $84,460.00 $8,044.55 $93,506.11 $21,956,460.00 $7,567,606.85 $12,778,412.90 $10,100.00! $0.00! $4,806.57! $35,477,276.00 $3,225,207.00 $16,126,034.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $2,000.00 $0.00 $2,100.00 $534,639.00 $0.00 $458,020.51 $4,903,623.00 $236,247.00 $1,372,686.00 $2,213,250.00 $0.00 $1,146,732.49 $6,980,000.00 $0.00 $2,315,724.81 $381,715.00 $13,323.80 $202,530.80 $52,500.00 $9,785.00 $55,991.22 $50,545,003.00 $3,484,562.80 $21,679,819.83 $72,511,563.00 $11,052,169.65 $34,463,039.30 $233,000.00 $28,548.49 $204,045.31 $1,550,000.00 $567,414.13 $912,499.24 $3,669,000.00 $323,813.38 $1,479,361.09 $7,181,864.00 $342,804.85 $1,305,334.53 $85,145,427.00 $12,314,750.50 $38,364,279.47 0-1 %YTD Budget Balance Actual/Bud $1,532,802.82 87.75% $6,250,000.00 0.00% $492,282.95 66.53% $310,000.00 0.00% $80,737.28 56.36% $34,071.16 45.05% $82,299.33 21.62% $348,667.18 61.26% $56,232.49 28.82% -$9,046.11 110.71% $9,178,047.10 58.20% $5,293.43! 47.59%! $19,351,242.00 45.45% $0.00 -$100.00 105.00% $76,618.49 85.67% $3,530,937.00 27.99% $1,066,517.51 51.81% $4,664,275.19 33.18% $179,184.20 53.06% -$3,491.22 106.65% $28,865, 183.17 42.89% $38,048,523.70 47.53% $28,954.69 87.57o/e $637,500.76 58.87% $2,189,638.91 40.32/o $5,876,529.47 18.18% $46,781,147.53 45.06% Expenditure Category CERTIFIED SALARIES CERTIFIED BENEFITS CLASSIFIED SALARIES CLASSIFIED BENEFITS TOTAL SALARIES \u0026amp; BENEFITS Purchased-Prof fr ech Services Purchased Prooerty Services Other Purchased Services Supplies and Materials Property Other Objects Debt Service Total Other Expenditures OPERATING FUND CAPITAL OUTLAY FUND BUILDING FUND FEDERAL FUND FOOD SERVICE FUND TOTAL EXPENDITURES North Llttle Rock School District DECEMBER20 06 2006-2007 Current Month Budget Actual Y-T-0 Actual $37,526,650.00 . $3,716,755.25 $14,886,428.60 $9,846,135.00 768,346.10 $3,104,411.61 $9,779,440.00 $1,279,505.59 $4,987,489.90 $3,975,887.00 $340,739.86 $1,455,859.42 $61,128,112.00 $6,105,346.80 $24,434,189.53 $1,421,058.00 $52,222.82 $337,383.35 $980,780.60 $49,526.94 $405,069.49 $2,600,000.00 $708,134.66 $1,292,845.13 $4,250,000.00 $314,932.33 $2,150,607.01 $2,208,614.00 $5,175.06 $2,024,320.23 $700,000.00 $5,940.50 $736,524.47 $1,110,370.00 $0.00 $218.32 $13,270,822.60 $1,135,932.31 $6,946,968.00 $74,398,934.60 $7,241,279.11 $31,381,157.53 $1,791,824.00 $46,143.31 $694,557.23 $5,530,900.00 $519,880.63 $3,257,190.87 $7,751,725.93 $694,503.65 $2,496,056.37 $3,212,423.00 $413,974.20 $1,685,165.76 $92,685,807.53 $8,915,780.90 $39,514,127.76 0-2 %Yid Budget Balance ActuaL'Bud $22,640,221.40 39.67% $6,741,723.39 50.65% $4,791,950.10 14.89% $2,520,027.58 36.62% $36,693,922.47 39.97o/, $1,083,674.65 23.74% $575,711.11 41.30% $1,307,154.87 49.72% $2,099,392.99 50.60% $184,293.77 91.66% -$36,524.47 105.22% $1,110,151.68 0.02% $6,323,854.60 52.35% $43,017,777.07 42.18% $1,097,266.77 38.76o/, $2,273,709.13 58.89% $5,255,669.56 32.20% $1,527,257.24 52.46% $53,171,679.77 42.63% Function Category 11 XX ReQular ProQrams-Elem/Sec 12XX Special Education 13XX Workforce Education 15XX Compensatory Education 19XX Other Instructional 21XX Suooort Services-Students 22XX Suport Services-Instruction 23XX Suooort Services-Administration 24XX Suooort Services-Sch Admin 25XX Suooort Services-Business 26XX M \u0026amp; 0 Plant Services 27XX Pupil Transportation 28XX Suooort Services-Central 29XX Other Suooort Services 31XX Food Services 33XX Community Service Operations 34XX Other Non-Instr Services 43XX Site Improvement Services 5XX Ed Spec Dev Services 6XX BldQ Aca/Constr Services 47XX Building Improvements 51XX LEA Indebtedness 53XX Payment to other LEA 55XX Indirect CosUAdmin Chan:1es GRAND TOTAL North Llttle Rock School District FUNCTION  DECEMBER 2006 2006-2007 Current Month Budget Actual Y-T-0 Actual $28,584,257.10 $2,563,843.17 $10,914,309.88 $9,561,331.69 $857,901.90 $3,189,824.47 $1,564,621.37 $162,959.27 $631,053.94 $4,340,644.20 $456,909.70 $1,301,857.80 $3,826,038.74 $357,150.51 $1,492,520.78 $6,055,139.19 $601,474.29 $2,499,096.44 $5,365,715.06 $449,204.37 $2,097,916.42 $1,210,728.13 $91,052.28 $443, 151.96 $4,039,640.57 $408,056.34 $1,914,914.70 $1,428,158.93 $100,494.49 $679,211.48 $6,524,519.03 $607,995.53 $3,141,368.45 $3,547,667.77 $453,732.71 $1,891,532.52 $945,077.33 $96,461.10 $519,437.85 $436,103.89 $65,034.79 $211,163.17 $3,997,597.66 $488,053.62 $1,955,129.38 $47,274.41 $2,576.81 $11,729.56 $123,406.25 $13,259.34 $63,388.26 $938,867.80 $0.00 $490,381.42 $470.21 $0.00 $0.00 $12,225.33 $9,405.41 $9,405.41 $6,402,208.35 $525,609.64 $4,779,077.85 $1,923,825.10 $1,345.25 $674,395.64 $1,692,738.14 $603,260.38 $603,260.38 $117,551.26 $0.00 $0.00 $92,685,807.53 $8,915,780.90 $39,514,127.76 0-3 % Ytd Budget Balance ActuaUBud $17,669,947.22 38.18% $6,371,507.22 33.36% $933,567.43 40.33% $3,038,786.40 29.99% $2,333,517.96 39.01% $3,556,042.75 41.27% $3,267,798.64 39.10% $767,576.17 36.60% $2,124,725.87 47.40% $748,947.45 47.56% $3,383, 150.58 48.15% $1,656,135.25 53.32% $425,639.48 54.96% $224,940.72 48.42% $2,042,468.28 48.91% $35,544.85 24.81% $60,017.99 51.37% $448,486.38 52.23% $470.21 0.00% $2,819.92 76.93% $1,623,130.50 74.65% $1,249,429.46 35.05% $1,089,477.76 35.64% $117,551.26 0.00% $53,171,679.77 42.63% North Uttle Rock school District SOURCEO F FUNDS DECEMBER2 006 Current Month %Ytd Source of Funds Category Budget Actual Y-T -0 Actual Budget Balance Actual/Bud 000 Non-cateaorical $67,861,196.61 $6,935,038.27 $28,764,946.93 $39,096,249.68 42.39% 213 Intensive School Improvement $1,128.49 $609.90 $609.90 $518.59 54.05% 223 Prof Development Act 59 $419,005.01 $9,434.87 $114,102.56 $304,902.45 27.23% 225 Technoloov Grant $1,626.91 $0.00 $0.00 $1,626.91 0.00% 227 CPEP $78,552.45 $0.00 $9,800.54 $68,751.91 12.48% 245 Pathwise Mentoring $85,953.48 $34,886.77 $36,934.87 $49,018.61 42.97% 250 Act 591 Residential $48,901.32 $0.00 $0.00 $48,901.32 0.00% 260 Early Childhood Sp Ed $982,979.62 $82,925.51 $360,125.71 $622,853.91 36.64% 271 GIT Advance Placement $4,523.03 $0.00 $0.00 $4,523.03 0.00% 275 Alternative LeaminQ Environment $1,283,801.76 $111,313.32 $450,272.88 $833,528.88 35.07% 276 English Lang Learners $36,309.23 $517.\n21 $12,808.61 $23,500.62 35.28% 281 NSLA $2,303,528.84 $233,368.00 $874,898.15 $1,428,630.69 37.98% 365 ABC Preschool $2,409,866.65 $205,459.72 $763,922.77 $1,645,943.88 31.70% 381 Smart Start Literacy $74,838.77 $7,198.39 $39,840.05 $34,998.72 53.23% 392 General Facility Funding $571,534.22 $74,063.14 $313,045.25 $258,488.97 54.77% 398 OHS Preschool Improvement $940.41 $0.00 $0.00 $940.41 0.00% 401 Academic Fae lmmed Repair $2,111,549.76 $2,687.94 $1,995,775.57 $115,774.19 94.52% 403 Academic Fae Transitional Pgm $4,878,659.39 $516,880.63 $3,150,489.84 $1,728,169.55 64.58% 404 Academic Fae Partnership Pgm $322,654.70 $3,000.00 $106,701.03 $215,953.67 33.07% 406 lmprv Lit Thru Libraries $4,123.22 $0.00 $4,358.47 -$235.25 105.71% 430 ROTC $119,009.84 $11,970.02 $54,437.77 $64,572.07 45.74% 441 Title IV-B 21st Century $193,747.24 $12,309.11 $68,387.66 $125,359.58 35.30% 467 Hurricane Relief-Homeless $0.00 $0.00 $40.22 -$40.22 501 Title 1-Reo Comp Ed $4,106,564.85 $378,750.97 $1,077,697.90 $3,028,866.95 26.24% 520 Title V-A Innovative Program $9,404.10 $0.00 $0.00 $9,404.10 0.00% 523 Title I Readino First $294,198.13 $16,686.65 $104,635.19 $189,562.94 35.57% 530 Homeless-Stewart McKinney $34,795.17 $534.60 $7,798.46 $26,996.71 22.41% 535 Title V-B Charter Schools $47,678.79 $3,852.66 $24,715.80 $22,962.99 51.84% 565 Teacher Quality Enhancement $67,652.16 $6,547.40 $25,314.67 $42,337.49 37.42% 570 Carf Perkins Vocational $202,278.45 $18,010.35 $26,859.39 $175,419.06 13.26% 702 Title VI-B PL 94-142 $1,798,865.29 $132,965.75 $520,855.28 $1,278,010.01 26.95% 710 Sp Ed Preschool Sec 619 $879,728.52 $77,590.03 $357,016.86 $522,711.66 40.56% 750 Medicaid $169,627.41 $7,656.57 $56,711.51 $112,915.90 33.43% 751 Medicaid Sp Ed Preschool $79,934.86 $5,278.84 $20,930.34 $59,004.52 26.18% 754 Javits - GIT Grant $9,404.10 $24.82 $9,526.00 -$121.90 101.30% 756 Title II-A Improve Teaching $889,854.57 $13,982.20 $96,790.65 $793,063.92 10.88% 761 Title Ill Eno Lang Acqui $17,658.08 $130.00 $3,305.00 $14,353.08 18.72% 781 Title IV-A Drug Ed $56,080.41 $5,255.46 $16,037.36 $40,043.05 28.60% 785 Comprehensive Sch Health $14,952.53 $0.00 $11,217.47 $3,735.06 75.02% 796 Workforce Investment Act $25,861.28 $2,958.22 $9,420.37 $16,440.91 36.43% 995 Soft Drink Acct $186,837.85 $3,893.58 $23,796.73 $163,041.12 12.74% GRAND TOTAL $92,685,807.53 $8,915,780.90 $39,514,127.76 $53,171,679.77 42.63/4 0-4 $80,000,000.00 $70,000,000.00 $60,000,000.00 .$50,000,000.00 $40,000,000:00 $30,000,000.00 $20,000,000.00 $10,000,000.00 $0.00  Budget El Expenses NLRSD Actual to Budget Comparison As of December, 2006 Operating Building Capital Outlay Federal Food Service $74,398,934.60 $5,530,900.00 $1,791,824.00 $7,751,725.93 $3,212,423.00 $31,381,157.53 $3,257,190.87 $694,557.23 $2,496,056.37 $1,685,165.76 Funds 0-5  Budget Ill Expenses Corinne Burkhardt Kelli Hogue Carolyn Rasner Griffin, Kyle Smedley, Telicia NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT North Little Rock, Arkansas Board Agenda - January 18, 2007 CERTIFIED PERSONNEL RESIGNATIONS AND RETIREMENTS NLRHS- West Campus, Special Education Teacher, Effective 12/20/06 NLRHS -East Campus, Math Teacher, Effective 1/10/07 NLRHS - East Campus, Special Education Teacher, Effective 12/14/06 NEW CERTIFIED PERSONNEL Tri-District Early Childhood Program, Speech Language Pathologist, Effective 12/15/06, Category IV, Step 18, 190 days Boone Park Elementary, Pre-Kindergarten Teacher, Effective 1/16/07, Category I, Step 0, 190 days NEW CERTIFIED PERSONNEL RECOMMENDATIONS NAME: Kyle Mark Griffin PROPOSED ASSIGNMENT: Tri-District Early Childhood Program, Speech Language Pathologist EDUCATION: B.A. - University of Arkansas at Little Rock, Little. Rock, AR 8/80 LICENSURE: EXPERIENCE: M.S. - University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, Little Rock, AR 5/84 Standard Five Year- Speech Language Pathology (#532) 12/31/07 RECOMMENDATION 21 years experience as a teacher / speech pathologist in Arkansas - Thelma Jasper, Tri-District Early Childhood Program Coordinator Martha Kay Asti, Director of Special Education Gregg Thompson, Administrative Director of Personnel P-1 NEW CERTIFIED PERSONNEL RECOMMENDATIONS (continued) NAME: Telicia Lynn Smedley PROPOSED ASSIGNMENT: Boone Park Elementary, Pre-Kindergarten Teacher EDUCATION: B.A. - University of Arkansas at Little Rock, 12/06 LICENSURE: Initial Three Year, Early Childhood Education, P-4 STUDENT TEACHING: Boone Park Elementary, NLR, AR 10/06-12/06 Indian Hills Elementary. NLR, AR 01/05 - 05/05 RECOMMENDATION: Jody Edrington, Coordinator of Early Childhood Programs Gregg Thompson, Administrative Director of Personnel Belinda Brown Tonja Chestnut Kay Edwards Allegra Friels Cora Hair Sharee Jefferson De Wayne Johnson Shirley Lee Deatra Martin Cenita Mason Trinette McCuien Bobbie Moffett CLASSIFIED PERSONNEL RESIGNATIONS NLRHS West Campus - Child Nutrition Assistant Effective 9-01-06 Food Services Department - Child Nutrition Assistant Effective 12-08-06 Food Services Department - Child Nutrition Assistant Effective I 0-31-06 Food Services Department - Child Nutrition Assistant Effective I 0-09-06 Food Services Department - Child Nutrition Assistant Effective 8/18/06 Poplar Street Middle School - Child Nutrition Assistant Effective 11-26-06 Ridgeroad Middle Charter School - Child Nutrition A~sistant Effective 12-12-06 Poplar Street Middle School - Child Nutrition Assistant Effective 9-24-06 Food Services Department - Child Nutrition Assistant Effective 8-18-06 Food Services Department - Child Nutrition Assistant Effective 12-20-06 NLRHS East Campus - Child Nutrition Assistant Effective 8/18/06 NLRHS West Campus - Child Nutrition Assistant Effective 8/18/06 P-2 Marnell Nelson Felicia Phillips Heather Phillips Contonia Russell Arlisha Smith Bruce Strong Vilesia Tatum Angela Thomas Kandis Thrower Sheila Arnold Jonda Eskridge Melissa Hadley Cenita Mason Sherri Pettit Vicktonya Reeves CLASSIFIED PERSONNEL RESIGNATIONS - CONTINUED NLRHS East Campus - Child Nutrition Assistant Effective 8-18-06 NLRHS East Campus - Child Nutrition Assistant Effective 12-01-06 Food Services department - Child Nutrition Assistant Effective 11-1 7-06 Pike View Elementary-Teacher's Aide/Pre-Kindergarten Effective O 1-03-07 Belwood Elementary - Child Nutrition Assistant Effective 8/22/06 North Heights Elementary - Lead Custodian Effective 12-15-06 Lynch Drive Elementary - Lunch Period Aide Effective O 1-03-07 Food Services Department - Child Nutrition Assistant Effective 10-18-06 Food Services Department - Child Nutrition Assistant Effective 10-01-06 CLASSIFIED PERSONNEL TRANSFERS AND CHANGES From NLRHS West Campus-Secretary To NLRHS West Campus-Office Secretary From Food Services Department - Child Nutrition Assistant To NLRHS East Campus - Child Nutrition Assistant From NLRHS East Campus - Child Nutrition Assistant To Ridgeroad Middle Charter School - Child Nutrition Assistant From Food Services Department - Child Nutrition Assistant To NLRHS East Campus - Child Nutrition Assistant From Administration - Adm. Dir. Finance/ Audit/Purchasing, Secretary To Administration - Asst. Supt. of Curriculum/Instruction, Secretary From Food Services Department -Child Nutrition Assistant To NLRHS East Campus - Child Nutrition Assistant P-3 CLASSIFIED PERSONNEL TRANSFERS AND CHANGES - CONTINUED Diane Roberts From Pike View Elementary - Child Nutrition Assistant To Food Services Department-Child Nutrition Assistant Billie Stewart Erin Engelkes Renee Lynn Gray Mary Sydney Hess Ronda Jackson Tina King From Food Services Department - Child Nutrition Assistant To Lynch Drive Elementary- Child Nutrition Assistant NEW CLASSIFIED PERSONNEL Seventh Street Elementary - Early Morning Aide Effective 12-08-06, Category 260, Step 19, 178 days Food Services Department - Child Nutrition Assistant Effective 01-04-07, Category 901, Step 21, 181 days Poplar Street Middle School - Secretary Effective 12-07-06, Category 230, Step 51,205 days Food Services Department - Child Nutrition Assistant Effective 01-04-07, Category 902, Step 23, 181 days Lynch Drive Elementary-Lunch Period Aide Effective 12-14-06, Category 260, Step 19, 178 days Sherrell Layton Food Services Department-Child Nutrition Assistant Effective 12-20-06, Category 901, Step 18, 181 days Zera Shannen Mays ---- Tri-District Early Childhood - Office Secretary Effective 12-15-06, Category 225, Step 51, 252 days Ella Webster-Mason ---- Food Services Department- Child Nutrition Assistant Effective 12-11-06, Category 901, Step 18, 181 days Joy Ploszay Amboy Elementary - Early Morning Aide Effective O 1-05-07, Category 266, Step 26, 178 day\\ Mary Watson Transportation Department - Bus Driver Effective 01-03-07, Category 507, Step 51, 190 days P-4 January 8, 2007 To: Barry Kincl Cc: Jerry Massey, Marsha Satterfield, Lee Tackett From: Amanda Coombe, North Little Rock High School Speech and Drama Teachers, and Cast/Crew Party Liasons RE: 2007 Cast and Crew Party for Peter Pan On behalf of the parent volunteers who are organizing the Peter Pan Cast and Crew party on Sunday, March 4, 2007 following the matinee performance, I respectfully request official access and appropriate supervision for decorating the cafeteria at East Campus as well as heat/air for the event. The following dates and times will be necessary: FRIDAY, MARCH 2- after the last lunch shift, from 3:30-6:30pm. We will decorate the ceiling first, so if the cafeteria workers stand the tables up to mop, they can leave them up for decorating. SATURDAY, MARCH 3- From 8:15am-5:30pm SUNDAY, MARCH 4- from 12:30pm until after the party and clean up, approximately 10:00pm. In addition, please DO NOT WAX THE FLOORS FRIDAY AFTERNOON. According to parents this delayed the opening of the cafeteria for parents in times past. We also request the use of rolling scaffolding and two tall ladders on Friday to work on ceilings and other decorations. It would also be helpful if we had a copy of the table set up. We will do our best to put tables back where they belong. It is an honor and a privilege to use this beautiful facility! This event is a large undertaking and we are thankful for your support. We also thank you for time and consideration of this request. Please feel free to call me with any questions or concerns. Amanda Coombe School: 771-8127 Home: 772-6907 S-1 NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT DECEMBER2 006 ACCOUNT AMOUNT CHK. NO . . 00 0 A T \u0026amp; T 84.00 63030 A-ONE LAMINATION, INC. 150.36 62883 A-PLUS TEACHING SUPPLIES 1,424.64 63170 A'TEST CONSULTANTSIN C 599.00 62908 A'TEST CONSULTANTSIN C 232.00 63416 AAA AUDIO METRICS/MEDICAL 55.00 62719 AAEA 241.32 63191 AASBO 60.00 63251 AASBO 115.00 63517 ABILITATIONS 555.23 62874 ACCESS SCHOOLS 3,125.00 62673 ACE GLASS COMPANY, INC. 536.44 62651 ADMINISTRATIVE SYSTEMS INC 12,948.68 63492 ADRIAN CHILLIEST 60.00 63369 ADT SECURITY SERVICES, INC. 1,321.37 63008 AEA 1,213.68 63499 AEA FEDERAL CREDIT UNION 2,277.00 62594 AEA FEDERAL CREDIT UNION 60.00 62624 AEA FEDERAL CREDIT UNION 2,277.00 63185 - AEA FEDERAL CREDIT UNION 60.00 63239 AEA FEDERAL CREDIT UNION 2,277.00 63512 AETNA LIFE \u0026amp; CASUALTY 1,622.14 62652 AHA PROCESS INCORPOARTED 6,449.09 63139 AIR DISTRIBUTORS CO INC 3,327.54 63583 ALAN CROWNOVER 238.45 62946 ALARMCOIN CORPORATED 2,886.38 63403 ALARMTECS YSTEMS 295. 00 63015 ALEXANDRAPR ITCHETT 43.68 62969 ALICIA YARBROUGH 45.79 63155 ALIGN .00 62584 V ALIGN .00 62598 V ALIGN .00 62615 V ALIGN .00 62625 V ALIGN .00 62648 V ALIGN .00 62934 V ALIGN .00 i2938 V ALIGN .00 3175 V ALIGN .00 63189 V ALIGN .00 63209 V ALIGN .00 63230 V ALIGN .00 63241 V ALIGN .00 63245 V ALIGN .00 63250 V ALIGN .00 63449 V ALIGN .00 63452 V - ALIGN .00 63457 V ALIGN .00 63495 V ALIGN .00 63502 V T- 1 NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT DECEMBER20 06 - ACCOUNT AMOUNT CHK. NO. ALIGN .00 63516 V ALIGN .00 63678 V ALIGN .00 63693 V ALIGN .00 63697 V ALIGN .00 63702 V ALIGN .00 63721 V ALIGN .00 63726 V ALISHA HERRING 146.72 63147 ALL AMERICAN INC. 3,882.27 63253 ALL AMERICAN SPORTS CORP 4,300.56 63252 ALLIED PRINTING AND SUPPLY CO. 414.20 62947 ALLIED THERAPY \u0026amp; CONSULTING 1,080.00 62882 ALLIED THERAPY \u0026amp; CONSULTING 825.00 63119 ALLIED WASTE SERVICES #858 5,383.14 63046 AMANDAST UCKEY 181. 00 63136 AMANDAW ARE 23.17 63624 AMBER DAVIS GEREAUX 56.94 62970 AMERICA DIRECT INC 193.48 63368 AMERICANA SSOC OF TEACHERS 50.00 62917 AMERICAN FUNDS SERVICE CO 2,291.50 62591 AMERICAN FUNDS SERVICE CO 2,506.50 63182 AMERICANF UNDS SERVICE CO 2,431.50 63509 - AMERICANL EGACYP UBLISHING INC 260. 70 62966 AMERICANL IBRARYA SSOCIATION 330.00 62656 AMERICANM AT \u0026amp; SPECIALTY 587.78 63547 AMERICANS PEECH-LANGUAGE- 2,035.00 63102 AMERICANS PEECH-LANGUAGE- 3,945.00 63386 AMERICANS TAMP \u0026amp; MARKING 998.82 63360 AMERIPRISE FINANCIAL SERVICES 11,720.00 62593 AMERIPRISE FINANCIAL SERVICES 400.00 62623 AMERIPRISE FINANCIAL SERVICES 11,720.00 63184 AMERIPRISE FINANCIAL SERVICES 400.00 63238 AMERIPRISE FINANCIAL SERVICES 10,645.00 63511 AMY VOLLMAN 86.58 62859 AMY WOODSMALL 639.60 63351 ANDREA HAIN 32.64  63151 ANDRIA SMITH 51. 91 63131 ANGELA HIBBS 12 .11 63473 ANGELA RAINEY 20.00 62821 ANITA CAMERON 281. 00 62657 ANITA CAMERON 49. 28 62941 ANTHONYC ANTRELL 20.00 62776 ANTHONYC ANTRELL 974.00 63425 ANTHONYC ANTRELL 20.00 63593 ANTHONYC ONNORS 90.00 62829 ANTHONYL WEBB 80.00 63632 AOS LASER SERVICE, INC. 377.55 62658 - AOS LASER SERVICE, INC. 377.55 63520 ARA CONFERENCE 75.00 62926 T- 2 - NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT DECEMBER2 006 ACCOUNT AMOUNT CHK. NO. ARCH FORD EDUCATION SERVICE 2,224.82 62689 ARCH FORD EDUCATION SERVICE 143.57 62975 ARCH FORD EDUCATION SERVICE 3,116.71 63278 ARCH FORD EDUCATION SERVICE 127.18 63537 ARES SPORTSWEAR 156.79 62927 ARKANSASA GENCYF OR FEDERAL 720.00 63272 ARKANSASA RT CENTER 45.50 63584 ARKANSASA SSOCIATION OF 180.00 62943 ARKANSASB AG \u0026amp; EQUIPMENTC O 290.25 63672 ARKANSASB USINESS PUBLISHING 1,700.00 63391 ARKANSASB USINESS PUBLISHING 855.00 63591 ARKANSASC OUNCILO F TEACHERS 650.00 62783 ARKANSASD EMOCRAGT AZETTE 416.00 62688 ARKANSASD EPT OF HEALTH 275.00 63379 ARKANSASR EADINGA SSOCIATION 1,010.00 63322 ARKANSASS KATIUM 300.00 63144 ARKANSASS OUNDA ND SERVICE 2,000.00 63422 ARKANSAST EACHERR ETIREMENT 354,373.13 62935 ARKANSAST EACHERR ETIREMENT 16,846.29 62936 ARKANSAST EACHERR ETIREMENT 908.34 62937 - ARKANSAST EACHERR ETIREMENT 1,226.00 63501 ARMATURE XCHANGE 158.05 62990 ARMATURE XCHANGE 63.22 63292 ASCO HARDWARCEO MPANY,I NC. 474.83 62653 ASCO HARDWARCEO MPANY,I NC. 1,412.40 62939 ASCO HARDWARCEO MPANY,I NC. 193.21 63518 ASHLEY ALLEN INGALLS 25.00 62838 ASHLEY HANAN 159.97 63150 ASHLEY WILLIAMS 3.00 63462 ASHLEY-WOODSO\u0026amp;N ASSOC. 4,550.00 62756 ASHLEY-WOODSO\u0026amp;N ASSOC. 6,762.38 63034 ASHLEY-WOODSO\u0026amp;N ASSOC. 2,673.45 63580 ASSOCIATION FOR SUPERVISION \u0026amp; 255.50 63525 BACKGROUNIDN FORMATIONS YSTEMS 200.00 63259 BAM INSTITUTIONAL SALES 616.18 63143 BAM INSTITUTIONAL SALES 1,073.80 63418 BANK \u0026amp; BUSINESS SOLUTIONS 1,080.39 63540 BANK OF THE OZARKS-FEDERAL 468,889.50 62586 BANK OF THE OZARKS-FEDERAL 47,639.30 62617 BANK OF THE OZARKS-FEDERAL 478,997.64 63177 BANK OF THE OZARKS-FEDERAL 54,369.74 63232 BANK OF THE OZARKS-FEDERAL 39,607.10 63243 BANK OF THE OZARKS-FEDERAL 7,427.20 63247 BANK OF THE OZARKS-FEDERAL 19,615.25 63451 BANK OF THE OZARKS-FEDERAL 3,995.03 63454 - BANK OF THE OZARKS-FEDERAL 479,077.27 63504 BANK OF THE OZARKS-FEDERAL 236.00 63695 BANK OF THE OZARKS-FEDERAL 54.60 63699 BANK OF THE OZARKS-FEDERAL 48,129.77 63723 T- 3 NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT DECEMBER2 006 ACCOUNT BANK OF THE OZARKS-PAYROLL BANK OF THE OZARKS-PAYROLL BANK OF THE OZARKS-PAYROLL BANK OF THE OZARKS-PAYROLL BANK OF THE OZARKS-PAYROLL BANK OF THE OZARKS-PAYROLL BANK OF THE OZARKS-PAYROLL BANK OF THE OZARKS-PAYROLL BANK OF THE OZARKS-PAYROLL BANK OF THE OZARKS-PAYROLL BANK OF THE OZARKS-PAYROLL BANK OF THE OZARKS-PAYROLL BANNER SIGN \u0026amp; BARRICADE INC BARNES AND NOBLE BARNES AND NOBLE BARNES AND NOBLE BARRY KINCL BARRY KINCL BARRY L FISHER BARRY STURGES BASICS PLUS BASICS PLUS BASICS PLUS BECKY WITCHER BENE KEITH BENTON LADY PANTHERS SOFTBALL BEST COMPUTERS UPPLIES BETTY MORELAND BILL DUVALL BILL DUVALL BILL LEFEAR BILL'S LOCK \u0026amp; SAFE BILL'S LOCK \u0026amp; SAFE BILL'S LOCK \u0026amp; SAFE BILL'S OFFICE FURNITURE BLIND AMBITION INC BLUE BELL CREAMERIES, L.P. BLUE HILL WRECKERS ERVICE BLUE HILL WRECKERS ERVICE BOB BELL \u0026amp; ASSOCIATES BOBBIE J RIGGINS BOBBIE J RIGGINS BOBBIE J RIGGINS BOBBIE J RIGGINS BOBBIE J RIGGINS BOBBY ACKLIN BOBBY TRAFFANSTEDT BOILER INSPECTION DIVISION BOILER INSPECTION DIVISION T- 4 AMOUNT 1,284,822.52 181,539.74 1,293,179.13 208,924.46 , 196,688.55 39,999.49 101,352.40 20,468.57 1,322,987.40 1,646.90 527.06 191,561.44 322.51 353.98 1,764.70 307.45 10.00 149.41 20.00 90.00 19.79 677.71 258.16 380.32 376.32 100.00 164.00 9.36 100.70 22.58 81. 43 238.99 107.35 47 .. 75 694.06 3,718.69 709.96 114. 45 1,466.05 49.42 60.00 130.51 40.00 20.00 20.00 153.59 29.56 17.00 143.00 CHK. NO. 62585 62616 63176 63231 63242 63246 63450 63453 63503 63694 63698 63722 63114 62670 63266 63526 62660 63260 62846 63630 62667 62952 63524 63053 62676 62822 63402 63460 62954 63458 63111 62708 62992 63552 62655 63634 62841 64955 63267 62807 62810 62869 63067 63356 63609 63047 63040 62956 63268 NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT DECEMBER20 06 ACCOUNT BOONE PARK ELEM ACTIVITY FUND BOUND TO STAY BOUND BOOKS BRANDYN ESSELRODT BRAYE VALENTINE BRENDA BUTLER BRENDA WATSON BRENDA WILLOUGHBY BRIAN A BOYD BRIAN NICHOLS BRIAN R GLENN BRICKER PHYSICAL THERAPY LLC BROCK MOORE BROMLEYP ARTS \u0026amp; SERVICE BRYAN HUTSON BRYAN HUTSON BRYAN HUTSON BUCKEYE BUSINESS PRODUCTS INC. BUREAU OF EDUCATION \u0026amp; RESEARCH BUREAU OF EDUCATION \u0026amp; RESEARCH BYE-MO'R, INC. BYE-MO'R, INC. BYE-MO'R, INC. C.T.A. CABOT FLORISTS CABOT FLORISTS CALLOWAHYO USE, INC. CANDICE YOUNG CAPITAL ONE BANK SIGNET BANK CAPITAL ONE BANK SIGNET BANK CAPITAL ONE BANK SIGNET BANK CAPITOL SERVICE COMPANY CAREY SMITH CARLE ROY CARLEX CARLTON-BATESC O. CAROL HOLIMAN CAROL MCADAMS CARQUESTO F NL R # 4112 CARSON DELLOSA PUBLISHING CO CCI OF ARKANSAS, INC. CCI OF ARKANSAS, INC. CCI OF ARKANSAS, INC. CEDRIC BLACK CENTERPOINT ENERGY CENTERPOINT ENERGY CENTRALL AUNDRYE QUIPMENTI NC CENTRAL STATES BUS SALES, INC. CENTRAL STATES BUS SALES, INC. CERTIFIED LABORATORIES T- 5 AMOUNT 20. 71 935.68 91. 42 32.00 72.15 3. 72 7.02 80.00 361. 26 70.00 1,875.00 79. 51 55 .15 20.00 20.00 20.00 400.76 185.00 185.00 605. 72 13.57 238.83 10,514.84 40.28 82.74 45.70 142.74 10.00 10.00 10.00 486.55 80.00 90.00 92.75 154.46 858.20 25.00 58.27 8.93 12,476.38 2,404.90 2,795.37 35.92 62. 79 25,435.65 143.07 991. 34 35,118.48 1,090.00 CHK. NO. 62885 62957 62924 63336 63411 63482 63138 63370 62602 62843 63340 63432 62958 62848 63080 63619 63172 62778 63043 62930 63445 63675 63496 62960 63270 62680 63629 62644 63227 63719 62894 63628 63373 62873 62679 62733 63254 62951 63106 62913 63417 63661 63093 63264 63522 63405 63112 63645 62962 NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT DECEMBER20 06 - ACCOUNT AMOUNT CHK. NO. CHARLENEL OPEZ-MONTAGUE 26.77 63481 CHEMSEARCH 664.56 63038 CHERYL HALL 48.75 63092 CHERYL PENNINGTON 149.76 63016 CHILDCRAFTE DUCATIONC ORP 1,186.12 62963 CHILDRENS LIBRARY RESOURCES 15.66 63158 CINDY QUARRY 11. 62 63494 CINTAS 128.18 62631 CINTAS 38.26 63194 CINTAS 128.18 63214 CINTAS 86.40 63291 CINTAS 128.18 63707 CITY OF NORTH LITTLE ROCK 4,878.75 63077 CLARENCEE MARTIN 25.00 62802 CLARKE XTERMINATINcGo , INC. 218.00 62736 CLARKE XTERMINATINCGO , INC. 817.50 63020 CLARKE XTERMINATINcGo , INC. 54.50 63314 CLARKE XTERMINATINcGo , INC. 54.50 63568 CLASSROOMD IRECT 328.93 62898 CLASSROOMD IRECT 2,449.69 63132 CLEAR MOUNTAIN 177. 61 62884 CLEARM OUNTAIN 43.24 63392 - COBB AND SUSKIE LTD. 14,081.25 63352 COCA-COLAE NTERPRISES 4,417.92 62858 COCA-COLAU SA 443.25 63289 CODEMICRO 612.45 63616 COMCABLES 1,362.03 62692 COMCABLES 100.75 63280 COMCASTC ABLEVISION 100.00 62949 COMMUNICATIOPNL US+ 108.80 63635 COMMUNITPYR ODUCTSL LC 495.00 63149 CONNEYS AFETY PRODUCTS 69.39 63528 CONNIE FOX 6.74 63461 CONSECOL IFE INSURANCE 173.98 63487 CONSOLIDATEDEL ECTRICALD ISTRI 1,044.86 63545 CORNELIUS BURTON 50.00 62824 CORPORATE XPRESS 1,974.44 62866. CORPORATE XPRESS 3,729.42 63099 CORPORATE XPRESS 8,843.13 63381 CORPORATE XPRESS 525.35 63639 COURTNEYPH AUP 1,509.41 63424 COUSINS VIDEO 74.55 63161 COUSINS VIDEO 825.75 63669 CPI 1,199.00 63543 CREWS MOBILE HOME SERVICE 1,368.00 63573 CROWB URLINGAMCEO 31. 37 63382 CROWB URLINGAMCEO 13.06 63640 CROW-BURLINGAMCOE . 7.76 62967 CRYSTAL EVANS 93.21 63110. T- 6 - NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT DECEMBER2 006 ACCOUNT AMOUNT CHK. NO. CRYSTAL PRODUCTIONS 55.00 63276 CULLEN \u0026amp; CO PLLC 158.99 62601 CULLEN \u0026amp; CO PLLC 127.02 62636 CULLEN \u0026amp; CO PLLC 91.14 63195 CULLEN \u0026amp; CO PLLC 129.33 63219 CULLEN \u0026amp; CO PLLC 127.30 63711 CURRICULUMA SSOCIATES INC 2,268.00 62968 CWI, PLC 1,500.00 62998 CYNTHIA WOODS 8.70 63483 DAMARIS PURTLE 29.28 63051 DANA BIBLES 6.10 63468 DANA MCCOY 59.24 62925 DANIEL J FLOYD 25.00 62850 DANIEL J FLOYD 25.00 63082 DANIEL J FLOYD 25.00 63621 DANIEL K MACGLOTHIN 20.00 62628 DANIEL K MACGLOTHIN 20.00 63212 DANIEL K MACGLOTHIN 20.00 63705 DARLA EARLES 183.62 63000 DARRAGHC OMPANY 72.86 63532 - DATAMAOXF ARKANSAS 220.80 62650 DATEK, INC. 421. 7 4 63169 DAVID D. COOP 209.55 62626 DAVID D. COOP 3,350.00 63190 DAVID D. COOP 209.55 63210 DAVID D. COOP 209.55 63703 DAVID W EDWARDS 179.57 62600 DAVID W EDWARDS 179.57 63193 DAVID W EDWARDS 179.87 63680 DAVID W WYMER 70.00 63073 DAVID WALLACE 27.30 62895 DAVID WHITE 50.00 62788 DAWNEC ARROLL 52.22 63126 DEANN ROACH 22.50 63154 DEBBIE DAVENPORT - 13.34 63163 DEBBIE ROZZELL 14.16 62751 DEBBIE ROZZELL 17.35 63575 DEBORAHC OKER 10.54 62909 DEBORAHL UTZ 589.60 63269 DELI PARTNER'S 212.80 63595 DELTA DENTAL 56,930.16 63486 DELTA EDUCATION 143.00 63303 DEMCO 271. 68 62684 DEPT. OF FINANCE \u0026amp; ADMINISTRAT 280,862.04 63727 DERRICK GREENWOOD 60.00 63359 DEVELOPMENTATLH ERAPIES 393.75 63536 DFA-SALES \u0026amp; USE TAX 3,548.00 63730 DIAMONDIN TERNATIONALT RUCKS 1,917.63 62742 DIAMONDIN TERNATIONALT RUCKS 164.64 63024 T- 7 NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT DECEMBER20 06 ACCOUNT DIAMONDIN TERNATIONALT RUCKS DIAMONDIN TERNATIONALT RUCKS DIANE R SMITH DIEDRA GASKALLA DISCOUNT SCHOOL SUPPLY DISCOUNT TROPHIES, INC. DISCOVER BANK DISCOVER BANK DISCOVER BANK DORIE SUMMONS DOROTHYF ARRIS DR ANGELA OLSEN DR ANGELA OLSEN DR ANGELA OLSEN DSANJA T BOYLAND DUSTY VANNATTER DUSTY VANNATTER DUSTY VANNATTER DWIGHT L RENDELL EAST CAMPUSA CTIVITY FUND EASTER SEALS ARKANSAS EASTER SEALS ARKANSAS ECOLAB, INC. EDS SUPPLY CO. EDS SUPPLY CO. EDS SUPPLY CO. EDS SUPPLY CO. EDUCATIONT ECHNOLOGSYE RVICES EDUCATORSB OOKD EPOSITORYO F EDUCATORSB OOKD EPOSITORYO F EDUCATORSO UTLET ELECTRONIC VIDEO SYSTEMS ELGIN SCHOOL SUPPLY ELGIN SCHOOL SUPPLY ELGIN SCHOOL SUPPLY EMPLOYEEB ENEFITS DIVISION ENERGY EDUCATION INC ENTERGY SYSTEMS ENTERGY SYSTEMS ENTERGY SYSTEMS ENVIRONMENTAPLR OTECTIONA SSOC ENVIRONMENTATLE CHNOLOGIES,I N EQUIPMENT CONCEPTS \u0026amp; DESIGNS ERIC ARMIN INC. ERIC D BROWN ERIC WALDORF ERIC WALDORF ETA/CUISENAIRE ETA/CUISENAIRE T- 8 AMOUNT 2,576.90 294.08 398.59 110.33 26. 92 91.38 154.73 94.80 158.01 232.39 83.89 330.42 38.26 38.38 75.00 160.00 160.00 150.00 60.00 262.40 150.00 300.00 1,404.47 37.58 30.65 919.08 478.26 510.00 535.41 7,948.01 54.99 81. 75 290.37 684.33 84.78 409,432.76 10,100.00 25.00 25.00 25.00 370,449.90 250.00 6,856.21 1,661.09 90.00 35.10 23.40 796.07 3,000.55 CHK. NO. 63318 63570 62630 63118 63104 62972 62637 63220 63712 62876 63409 62767 63039 63589 63087 63049 63342 63594 63042 63393 63124 63653 63533 62685 62973 63275 63534 63354 62686 62974 63658 62959 62842 63078 63618 63491 63255 62642 63225 63717 63130 63443 62893 63257 63071 62942 63256 62690 62977 NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT DECEMBER2 006 ACCOUNT ETA/CUISENAIRE ETA/CUISENAIRE EV MASTER FABER AND BRAND LLC FABER AND BRAND LLC FAMILY SUPPORT REGISTRY FAMILY SUPPORT REGISTRY FARRELL-CALHOUPNA INT CO FCCLA LOCKBOXO PERATION FERRELLGAS FIRE MOUNTAIN FLEET TIRE SERVICE OF NLR, INC FLEET TIRE SERVICE OF NLR, INC FLEET TIRE SERVICE OF NLR, INC FLINN SCIENTIFIC COMPANY FOLLETT LIBRARY RESOURCES FOLLETT LIBRARY RESOURCES FRANKLIN IND FRED H HOKES FRED H HOKES FREE SPIRIT PUBLISHING FREY SCIENTIFIC CO. GARY STEPHENS GARY STEPHENS GARY STEPHENS GARY STEPHENS GARY YIELDING GATEWAYC OMPANIESI NC GENOA LLC GEORGE TAYLOR GLADYS MCDONALD GLASS DOCTOR GLORIA SMITH GOODMADNI STRIBUTION INC GRADY W JONES CO INC GRAINGER GRAINGER GREEK 4 LIFE GRETCHENL AUIPPA HAND IN HAND DAY CARE HAROLD D STARK HARPER SHEET METAL WORKS INC. HASLER INC HELPING HAND CHILDRENS HERAL ENTERPRISES, INC. HIGHSMITH INC HOBBY LOBBY HOLIDAY INN SELECT EXPRESS HOLLY POWELL T- 9 AMOUNT 904.97 390.17 13,989.00 99.95 86.96 381. 21 381. 21 132.21 168.00 23.50 200.50 653.09 6,775.16 626. 64 276.36 2,823.41 5,112.93 76.00 70.00 70.00 58.70 194.80 100.00 50.00 25.00 25.00 30.00 2,988.74 4,424.26 23.87 12.72 139.75 57.84 34.23 316.10 4,543.03 347.73 194.57 130.00 1,500.00 69.42 258.62 588.60 797. 50 30.91 405.29 131.77 541. 92 260.36 CHK. NO. 63279 63539 63599 62634 63217 63198 63683 63281 63433 63585 62994 62694 62979 63541 63265 62693 62978 63701 62789 63052 62691 63542 62877 63113 63390 63646 63263 63088 63084 62984 63062 63057 63441 63548 62872 62766 63334 63355 63420 62965 63439 62986 63410 62901 63285 63550 63549 63436 63479 NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT DECEMBER20 06 ACCOUNT HOME DEPOT/GECF HONEYBAKEHDA MC OMPANY HONEYBAKEHDA MC OMPANY HORIZONS OFTWAREIN TERNATIONAL HOSTO \u0026amp; BUCHANP LLC HOSTO \u0026amp; BUCHANP LLC HOSTO \u0026amp; BUCHANP LLC HOUGHTOMN IFFLIN COMPANY HOUGHTOMN IFFLIN COMPANY HOWARDR OSS HOWARDR OSS HSBC BUSINESS SOLUTIONS HSBC BUSINESS SOLUTIONS HSBC BUSINESS SOLUTIONS HOM'S HARDWAR\u0026amp;E RENTAL HOM'S HARDWAR\u0026amp;E RENTAL HOM'S HARDWAR\u0026amp;E RENTAL IDEAL BREAD ILLINOIS STATE DISBURSEMENT ILLINOIS STATE DISBURSEMENT ILLINOIS STATE DISBURSEMENT IN DYER NEED ENTERPRISES INDEPENDENTM USIC SERVICE, INC INDIAN HILLS ELEM ACTIVITY INFORMATIONV AULTINGS ERVICES ING RETIREMENT PLANS ING RETIREMENT PLANS ING RETIREMENT PLANS ING RETIREMENT PLANS ING RETIREMENT PLANS INSTITUTE FOR EDUCATIONAL INTEGRATION SERVICES CORP INTEGRATION SERVICES CORP INTEGRATION SERVICES CORP INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE IPARADIGMS, LLC. ISSAC HENRY J \u0026amp; B MUSIC SALES, INC. J \u0026amp; B SUPPLY COMPANY J L HEIN SERVICE INC J L HEIN SERVICE INC JS PRINTING JACK T CARTER COMPANY JACQUELINE SUMLER T-10 AMOUNT 132.45 453.77 534.91 47.25 502.69 502.69 502.69 47.20 2,244.27 60.00 60.00 7,737.82 35.69 507.38 7.74 920.11 7.45 161.20 425.00 425.00 425.00 128.55 1,409.20 158.24 151. 90 2,981.02 547.50 2,981.02 547.50 2,981.02 1,074.00 34,518.02 17,760.23 12,700.96 50.00 136.00 50.00 136.00 50.00 136.00 640.00 70.00 97.40 118. 80 21,996.00 27,445.00 320.00 146.00 39.98 CHK. NO. 63341 62903 63412 62761 62610 63205 63689 62702 62987 63005 63304 62915 63142 63664 62703 63287 63551 62704 62608 63202 63687 62663 63089 62887 62982 62592 62622 63183 63237 63510 63006 62891 63128 63400 62603 62607 63196 63201 63681 63686 63271 62812 63335 63094 63423 63665 62777 62989 63164 . - NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT DECEMBER20 06 ACCOUNT AMOUNT CHK. NO. JACQUES MUMFORD 50.00 62793 JALEN KING 50.00 62827 JAMES W. WOODARDJ,R 126.13 63165 JAMIE EUBANKS 1,190.00 63141 JAMIE EUBANKS 2,310.00 63663 JAN KUCALA 16.77 63065 JANET E. THOMASP .T. 653.34 63041 JANET FOSTER 187.50 63090 JARIUS L. COPELAND 25.00 63625 JEFFERY TURNER 90.00 62771 JEFFREY SAND COMPANY 39.88 62707 JENNIFER FRANCE 678.79 62701 JENNIFER SKINNER 4.76 63469 JERRY MASSEY 483.96 63091 JERRY MASSEY 420.00 63636 JESSICA MOSER 155.94 62798 JILL MILLS 31.20 63288 JIMMY MAXWELL 29.42 63600 JO-ANN GOLDMANT, RUSTEE 281. 37 62633 JO-ANN GOLDMANT, RUSTEE 281.37 63216 - JO-ANN GOLDMANT, RUSTEE 281.37 63709 JOHN DAVID HENRY 25.00 62819 JOHN SCHWULST 30.00 62664 JOHN SCHWULST 60.00 62944 JOHN SCHWULST 42.50 63262 JOHN W RICE 25.00 62816 JOHNNIE F HENRY 25.00 62801 JOHNSTONES UPPLY 42.40 62868 JOSH E MCHUGHEAS TTORNEY 50.35 62611 JOSH E MCHUGHEAS TTORNEY 50.35 63206 JOSH E MCHUGHEAS TTORNEY 50.35 63690 JOYCE BRADLEYB ABIN 430.53 62643 JOYCE BRADLEYB ABIN 6,239.04 63204 JOYCE BRADLEYB ABIN 430.53 63226 JOYCE BRADLEYB ABIN 430.53 - 63718 JOYCE J NICHOLS 45.00 62815 JOYCE J NICHOLS 20.00 63069 JOYCE J NICHOLS 20.00 63611 JOYE WILLIAMS 31. 90 63475 JUAN RIDGEWAY 50.00 62782 JUDITH QUATTLEBAUM 56.09 63168 JUDITH QUATTLEBAUM 51.09 63673 JULIE SOBKOVIAK 180.00 63313 JUNIOR ACHIEVEMENT 500.00 62825 JUST FOR KIDS 450.00 63427 KANSASP AYMENTC ENTER 46.15 62632 - KANSASP AYMENTC ENTER 46.15 63215 KANSASP AYMENTC ENTER 46.15 63708 KAPLAN EARLY LEARNING co 868. 79 62709 T-11 NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT DECEMBER2 006 - ACCOUNT AMOUNT CHK. NO. KAPLAN EARLY LEARNING co 1,222.28 63553 KAREN POWELL 74.61 63108 KATHLEANK ING 30.00 63364 KATHRYNH ALE 223.36 63666 KATHY HELLER 20.00 63478 KATYG EARHARTH UNT 34.87 62666 KAY EWART 113.26 62945 KAYE COLEMAN 33.68 62795 KAYE LOWE 65.56 62961 KAYLORS INCORPORATED 305.63 62993 KAYLORS INCORPORATED 190.68 63294 KEATHLEYP ATTERSONE LECTRIC 38.56 62649 KEITH FAULKNER 41.57 62645 KEITH FAULKNER 127.13 63228 KEITH L KELLEY 50.00 62840 KEITH PHIFER 30.00 63317 KELLEYS UPHOLSTERY 5,143.72 63388 KELLIE SHEFFIELD 80.00 62865 KELLfE SHEFFIELD 20.00 63380 KENNETHA . KIRSPEL 576.28 62928 KERR PAPER \u0026amp; SUPPLY CO. 3,741.00 63674 KESSLERS TEAMS PORTS 788.84 63346 - KESSLERS TEAM SPORTS 864.30 63598 KEVIN DANAHER 236.34 62914 KEVIN DANAHER 25.72 63140 KEVIN MARTIN 134.94 63435 KIDS KORNER 856.36 63576 KIM ISGRIG 21.06 63100 KIM PEARSON 66.47 62897 KIM REYNOLDS 62.91 62683 KIMBERLY JANE RUBLE 80.00 63371 KIMMIE CLEVELAND 80.00 63627 KKPT-THE POINT RADIO STATION 3,230.00 63019 KNOWBUDDRYE SOURCES 517.82 62905 KNOWLEDGIEN DUSTRIES INC 1,406.93 62698 KONE INC 497.80 63596 KREBS BROS. SUPPLY co. f INC. 1,506.00 62710 KREBS BROS. SUPPLY co. f INC. 37,715.10 62995 KREBS BROS. SUPPLY co., INC. 130.26 63554 KRISTEN MADDOX 38.22 62896 KRISTIE RATLIFF 17.24 63134 KRISTIE RATLIFF 25.55 63413 KROGERC OMPANY/CAMRPO BINSON 137.97 62711 KROGERC OMPANY/CAMRPO BINSON 150.00 62996 KROGERC OMPANY/INDIANH ILLS 148.17 62712 KROGERC OMPANY/INDIANH ILLS 100 .38 63296 KROGERC OMPANY/INDIANH ILLS 122.67 63555 - KROGERC OMPANY/PERSHING 246.63 62785 KYNYAC OLEMAN 35.00 63076 T-12 NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT DECEMBER2 006 ACCOUNT LAKESHOREL EARNINGM ATERIALS LAKESHOREL EARNINGM ATERIALS LAKESHOREL EARNINGM ATERIALS LAKEWOOEDL EM ACTIVITY FUND LAKEWOOMD IDDLE SCHOOL LAMONICAM ITCHELL LARA HUMPHRIES LASONYA J TURNER LASONYA J TURNER LAURA JENNINGS LAURA WINTERS LAUREN WALKER LAVONE REDUS LEARNING TODAY INC LEE TACKETT LEON DOREY LGSA LIBRARY VIDEO COMPANY LIFE INS OF SOUTHWEST LIFE INS OF SOUTHWEST LIFE INS OF SOUTHWEST LIFE INS OF SOUTHWEST LIFE INS OF SOUTHWEST LIFE INS OF SOUTHWEST LIFE INS OF SOUTHWEST LIFE INS OF SOUTHWEST LIFE INS OF SOUTHWEST LIFE INS OF SOUTHWEST LIFE INS OF SOUTHWEST LINDA B HARPER LINDA P.\" STEWART LINDSEY MAC MILLEN LINDSEY'S BARBECUE LINDSEY'S BARBECUE LINDY THOMPSON LISA GRAY LISA GRAY LISA GRAY LITTLE CAESAR'S GENERAL OFFICE LITTLE CAESARS PIZZA LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT LITTLE ROCKW INNELSONC O. LITTLE ROCKW INNELSONC O. LONGS ELECTRONICS LONNIE EDWARDS LORRI JOSHUA-BEASLEY LOUIS STINSON LOUIS STINSON LOUIS STINSON T-13 AMOUNT 489.19 282.83 843.88 210.32 400.00 6.13 18. 72 30.00 30.00 155.81 80.26 82.56 11. 34 800.00 543.06 500.00 245.00 65.85 6,681.37 2,840.66 5,732.87 3,882.58 134.17 428.18 7.50 7,875.40 45.00 22.50 3,054.89 25.00 125.00 264.44 212.80 238.01 196.52 20.00 20.00 20.00 140.00 112. 00 603,260.38 268.59 3,910.02 258.78 75.00 30.00 45.00 20.00 20.00 CHK. NO. 62740 63023 63569 63649 63556 59688 V 63152 63366 63623 62940 63017 62779 63464 63566 63148 63429 62820 62999 62587 62618 63178 63233 63244 63248 63455 63505 63696 63700 63724 62837 62861 63470 62714 63557 62780 62814 63068 63610 62863 62871 63298 62723 63306 62716 63064 63631 62803 63061 63605 NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT DECEMBER20 06 ACCOUNT LOWE'S LOWE'S LOWE'S LRP PUBLICATIONS DEPT. 170-F LRP PUBLICATIONS DEPT. 170-F LUCI A STEPHENS LUCI A STEPHENS LUCI A STEPHENS LYNCH DRIVE ELEM ACTIVITY LYNN HARRISON M \u0026amp; M ENTERPRISES MB ELECTRONICS M J COMMUNICATIONS MAGAZINES UBSCRIPTIONS MAINSTAGET HEATRICALS UPPLY MAISHA NICOLE JONES MAISHA NICOLE JONES MAJOICE THOMAS MALA ROGERS MALA ROGERS MALA ROGERS MARCIVE, INC MARCIVE, INC MARDELC ORPORATEO FFICE MARENEMIN C MARGARETE STINSON MARGARETE STINSON MARGARETE STINSON MARGARENT ORTON MARI INC. MARIA TOUCHSTONE MARIA TOUCHSTONE MARIA TOUCHSTONE MARIE PIERCE MARIJO VALENTINE MARILYN JOHNSON MARILYN JOHNSON MARSHAS ATTERFIELD MARTHAF EWELL MARTHAN ORTON MARVAS IMS MARY A. WILES MARYC AROLYNE AST MARYC AROLYNE AST MARYC AROLYNE AST MASON ELECTRIC MATTHEWBI NFORD MCCLUREL ANDSCAPING MCKINZIE L RILEY T-14 AMOUNT 443.44 247.03 5,096.97 239.00 257.00 75.00 50.00 25.00 73.64 1,068.23 525.00 34.26 1,384.30 460. 72 42.25 50.00 30.00 52 .26 195.00 63.57 32.52 15.60 7.02 96.98 286.00 45.00 20.00 20.00 26. 46 61.00 28.36 91. 77 22.50 152.34 50.00 22.74 13.38 170.04 9.67 3,587.50 30.00 204.67 41. 87 41. 50 32.95 130.80 10.65 4,700.00 190.00 CHK. NO. 62933 63174 63447 63097 63638 62847 63079 63363 63394 62700 63448 63660 63444 63274 62823 62808 63066 63125 62718 63004 63302 62720 63558 62661 63617 62665 62950 63523 63474 63637 62900 63133 63407 62772 63367 63002 63301 63095 63010 63159 62811 63018 63167 63440 63671 62717 63472 63419 62784 4 NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT DECEMBER20 06 ACCOUNT MCKINZIE L RILEY MCM MEADOWPA RKE LEMA CTIVITY FUND MELISSA FARRAR MELISSA WALLS MELISSA WALLS MEMS MET LIFE METAL MART METRO FOODS MICHAEL BLYTHE MICHELLE KEATON MID-SOUTH APPLIANCE PARTS CO. MINDY CARROLL MIRANDAW ALTONS MITCHS TIRE SERVICE MOLLY LEOPARD MOUNTV ERNON-ENOLQAU IZ BOWL MR SOCK MRS CLARKS FOOD MUSIC IS ELEMENTARY MYERS SUPPLY, INC N.L.R. WINTEMPS UPPLY N.L.R. WINTEMPS UPPLY N.L.R. WINTEMPS UPPLY N.L.R. WINTEMPS UPPLY NAEIR NAEIR NANCY STEWART NAPA AUTO PARTS NAPA AUTO PARTS NAPA AUTO PARTS NAPA AUTO PARTS NASC/NASSP NASCO NASCO NASDSE NATIONALG EOGRAPHICS CHOOL NATIONALH OMEC ENTER NATIONAL PEN CORPORATION NATIONAL SCHOOL PRODUCTS NC CHILD SUPPORT CENTRALIZED NC CHILD SUPPORT CENTRALIZED NC CHILD SUPPORT CENTRALIZED NCS PEARSON NCTM REGISTRATION NCTM REGISTRATION NCTM-DRAWEAR NEXTEL PARTNERS T-15 AMOUNT 70.00 190.57 103.79 29. 97 50.00 30.00 1,400.00 6,584.40 512.69 4,529.30 28.04 85.84 83.53 105.73 27.26 995.00 80.00 50.00 200.00 307.50 29.95 707.06 1,875.00 1,305.40 32.44 227.15 40.00 100.33 205.73 270.68 888.00 273.52 141.56 28.00 1,407.46 103.74 346.50 7,150.26 33.89 211.18 327.65 137.00 137.00 137.00 2,996.98 1,648.00 1,074.00 15.16 8,573.99 CHK. NO. 63048 62862 63650 63384 62851 63083 63127 63465 62880 62860 63459 63153 62721 62781 62834 62906 63286 62697 63070 62734 62706 62932 62722 63009 63305 63560 62769 63590 62879 62696 62980 63282 63544 62729 62724- 63561 63350 62953 62726 62881 62727 62609 63203 63688 62911 62715 63001 63567 63343 NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT DECEMBER20 06 ACCOUNT NLR WELDING SUPPLY NLR WELDING SUPPLY NLRSD TRANSPORTATIOND EPT. NLRSD WAREHOUSE NLRSD-BACKGROUNCDH ECK NLRSD-SELF INSURANCE NO. LITTLE ROCKE DUCATORSC RED NO. LITTLE ROCKW INNELSONC O. NO. LITTLE ROCKW INNELSONC O. NO. LITTLE ROCKW INNELSONC O. NORCOMIN C NORTH HEIGHTS ELEM ACTIVITY NORTH HEIGHTS ELEM ACTIVITY NORTH HEIGHTS ELEM ACTIVITY NORTHL ITTLE ROCKC HAMBERO F NORTH LITTLE ROCK POSTMASTER NORTH LITTLE ROCK POSTMASTER NORTH LITTLE ROCK POSTMASTER NORTH LITTLE ROCK POSTMASTER NORTH LITTLE ROCK POSTMASTER NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DIST. NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DIST. NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DIST. NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DIST. NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DIST. NORTH LITTLE ROCK TROPHY COMPA NORTH LITTLE ROCK TROPHY COMPA NORTH LITTLE ROCK TROPHY COMPA NORTH LITTLE ROCK UTILITIES NORTH LITTLE ROCK UTILITIES NORTH POINT FORD OAK GROVE HIGH SCHOOL OCCUPATIONAHL EALTHC ENTERSO F OCCUPATIONAHL EALTHC ENTERSO F OCSE OCSE OCSE OCSE OCSE OCSE OFFICE DEPOT OFFICE DEPOT OFFICE DEPOT OFFICE DEPOT OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEYG ENERAL T-16 AMOUNT 5.07 5.07 10,885.75 5,320.00 4 65. 60 15,133.75 78,460.80 380.46 195.74 488.36 50.10 32.21 116.85 188.62 12.00 863.45 78.00 273.00 1,080.00 518.00 432.38 496.25 316.32 333.50 195.26 261.86 64.56 140.80 19.72 41.97 223.45 1,516.19 37,807.20 30,818.84 306.23 80.00 315.00 38.00 2,720.66 1,681.03 2,720.66 1,830.69 2,720.66 1,679.49 2,596.83 3,881.73 1,428.58 1,022.30 64.62 CHK. NO. 62728 63307 63331 63438 63500 63490 63497 62730 63309 63562 62773 62886 63395 63651 63308 62647 63310 63406 63677 63692 62731 63011 63311 63563 62646 63208 63229 63493 63720 62732 63013 63564 62976 63538 63007 63374 63122 63396 62599 62627 63192 63211 63679 63704 62855 63086 63372 63626 62638 NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT DECEMBER20 06 ACCOUNT OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEYG ENERAL OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEYG ENERAL ORIENTAL TRADING COMPANY, INC. ORIENTHAL NEWBURN OSI EDUCATION SERVICES OSI EDUCATION SERVICES OSI EDUCATION SERVICES OTIS RAY BANKS OTIS RAY BANKS PACHECOO UTDOORE QUIPMENT PAGES OF PARENTING PAMELA JACKSON PAMELA JACKSON PAR INC PAR INC PATRICIA MAYS PATSY A RHOADES PAULA K URTON PAULA K URTON PAULA MCCARTHER PEACHTREEB USINESS PRODUCTS PEARSON EDUCATION PEARSON EDUCATION PEARSON EDUCATION PEDIATRIC THERAPY SERVICES PEER TUTOR PRESS PENNY ELLIOTT PERFORMANCLEE ARNINGI NC. PERMA-BOUND PERMA-BOUND PFG LITTLE ROCK PHYLLIS THOMPSON PHYLLIS THOMPSON PIPE \u0026amp; TUBE SUPPLY PLANK ROAD PUBLISHING POE TRAVEL PORTFOLIOR ECOVERYA SSOCIATES PORTFOLIOR ECOVERYA SSOCIATES PORTFOLIOR ECOVERYA SSOCIATES POSITIVE PROMOTIONS POSITIVE PROMOTIONS POSTMASTER, SHERWOOD POSTMASTER, SHERWOOD PPG ARCHITECTURALF INISHES PRISCILLA BENSON PRO BENEFITS GROUP/TPA PRO BENEFITS GROUP/TPA PRO BENEFITS GROUP/TPA PROMOTIONSP LUS T-17 AMOUNT 64.62 64.62 209.68 150.00 89.98 89.98 89.98 20.00 20.00 246.71 399.97 25.00 20.00 1,005.53 127.60 6.10 25.00 50.00 20.00 1,065.00 346.50 12.67 942.08 5,302.98 1, 968. 7 5 274.95 275.64 96.15 2,443.91 223.57 14,894.65 50.00 30.00 113. 01 138.10 121. 00 187.45 285.34 161.82 147.20 132.40 156.00 48.00 801.06 23.00 3,413.91 3,413.91 3,915.48 222.36 CHK. NO. 63221 63713 63588 62836 62604 63197 63682 63072 63614 62922 63345 62809 63608 63157 63667 63466 62804 62845 63362 63602 63376 62902 62920 63146 63428 62675 62826 62770 62699 63284 62737 62791 63054 62654 63107 63300 62639 63222 63714 62878 63115 63074 63075 63033 63463 62597 63188 63515 63103 NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT DECEMBER20 06 ACCOUNT PUBLIC EMPLOYEESR ETIREMENTS Y PUBLIC EMPLOYEESR ETIREMENTS Y PUBLIC EMPLOYEESR ETIREMENTS Y PUBLIC EMPLOYEESR ETIREMENTS Y PUBLIC EMPLOYEESR ETIREMENTS Y  PUBLIC SCHOOL VEHICLE PROGRAM PULASKI TECHNICAL COLLEGE PURCHASE POWER PYRAMID INTERIORS PYRAMID SCHOOL PRODUCTS PYRAMID SCHOOL PRODUCTS PYRAMID SCHOOL PRODUCTS QUALITYW HOLESALEB UILDING RADIO SHACK RADIO SHACK RADIOLOGYA SSOCIATES, P.A. RADIOLOGYA SSOCIATES, P.A. RADIOLOGYA SSOCIATES, P.A. RAINBOWB OOKC OMPANY RANDALLH SANDEFUR RANDALLH SANDEFUR RANDALLH SANDEFUR RANDY SANDEFUR RANDY SANDEFUR RAY C HARVEY RAY C HARVEY RAY HANKINS RAYMONGDE DDESA ND COMPANY READING TREE PRODUCTIONS REALLY GOOD STUFF INC REBECCA R CARR REFRIGERATION \u0026amp; ELECTRIC REGINALD D MARTIN REGINALD JOHNSON REGIONALA DJUSTMENTB UREAUI NC REGIONALA DJUSTMENTB UREAUI NC REGIONALA DJUSTMENTB UREAUI NC RELIANCE COMMUNICATIONS RENAISSANCEL EARNINGI NC RENAISSANCEL EARNINGI NC RESOURCESF OR READINGI NC REXEL DAVIES REXEL DAVIES RHONDAB ANKS RHONDAD ICKEY RHONDAR OOK RICHARD ALEXANDER RITA CASEY ROBERT A MAJOR JR T-18 AMOUNT 1,945.70 2,156.32 387.41 148.00 2,169.91 1,135.00 19,755.00 316.52 1,433.05 1,929.85 58.98 532.65 2,127.60 39.13 48.68 20.00 20.00 20.00 1,543.29 20.00 20.00 20.00 101.06 974.00 20.00 20.00 203.70 154.57 16.50 18.95 2,807.22 3,528.68 90.00 70.00 62.61 62.61 62.61 860. 40 85.25 456.69 53.95 202.04 130.80 18.56 38.51 15.00 67.39 150.00 25.00 CHK. NO. 62620 63235 63249 63456 63725 62677 62856 63299 63003 62929 63171 63442 63647 63022 63315 62635 63218 63710 63059 62849 63081 63620 63109 63389 62839 63615 62918 63098 62792 62904 62892 62739 62833 62831 62606 63200 63685 63656 62757 63582 63135 62687 63535 62889 63338 63414 6308\nThis project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resoources.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n "},{"id":"ncpl_ncpedia_sitins","title":"Civil rights sit-ins","collection_id":"ncpl_ncpedia","collection_title":"NCpedia","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, North Carolina, 35.50069, -80.00032"],"dcterms_creator":["McDermott, Nancie"],"dc_date":["2007"],"dcterms_description":["Entry about African American civil rights in North Carolina."],"dc_format":null,"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":null,"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":null,"dcterms_subject":["African American civil rights workers--North Carolina","Civil rights movements--North Carolina","African Americans--Civil rights--North Carolina"],"dcterms_title":["Civil rights sit-ins","Sitting down for a cup of coffee and civil rights"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["North Carolina. Division of State Library"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["https://www.ncpedia.org/civil-rights-sit-ins"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Please contact holding institution for information regarding use and copyright status."],"dcterms_medium":["articles"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null}],"pages":{"current_page":263,"next_page":264,"prev_page":262,"total_pages":6797,"limit_value":12,"offset_value":3144,"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}}]}}