{"response":{"docs":[{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1325","title":"Proceedings: ''Joshua: Objection to Little Rock School District's Motion for Unitary Status''","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":["United States. District Court (Arkansas: Eastern District)"],"dc_date":["2001-07-06"],"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","Little Rock School District","School districts--Arkansas--Pulaski County","Education--Arkansas","School districts--Arkansas--North Little Rock","Education--Evaluation","Educational law and legislation","School superintendents","School integration","Court records"],"dcterms_title":["Proceedings: ''Joshua: Objection to Little Rock School District's Motion for Unitary Status''"],"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/1325"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Available for use in research, teaching, and private study. Any other use requires permission from the Butler Center."],"dcterms_medium":["legal documents"],"dcterms_extent":["166 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1373","title":"Proceedings: ''Joshua: Objection to Little Rock School District's Motion for Unitary Status''","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":["United States. District Court (Arkansas: Eastern District)"],"dc_date":["2001-07-05"],"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","School districts--Arkansas--Pulaski County","Education--Arkansas","School superintendents","School integration","Educational law and legislation","Education--Evaluation","Court records"],"dcterms_title":["Proceedings: ''Joshua: Objection to Little Rock School District's Motion for Unitary Status''"],"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/1373"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Available for use in research, teaching, and private study. Any other use requires permission from the Butler Center."],"dcterms_medium":["legal documents"],"dcterms_extent":["282 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_105","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":["2001-07","2001-08"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Education--Arkansas","Little Rock (Ark.). Office of Desegregation Monitoring","School integration--Arkansas","Arkansas. Department of Education","Project managers--Implements"],"dcterms_title":["Arkansas Department of Education's (ADE's) Project Management Tool"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/105"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["documents (object genre)"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\nLittle Rock School District, plaintiff vs. Pulaski County Special School District, defendant.\nIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DMSION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF v. No. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al. DEFENDANTS NOTICE OF FILING In accordance with the Court's Order of December 10, 1993, the Arkansas Department of Education hereby gives notice of the filing of ADE's Project Management Tool for July, 2001. EIVE JUL 3 0 2001 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION M0NITORIM~ Respectfully Submitted, MARK PRYOR Attorney General Assistant Attorney General 323 Center Street, Suite 20 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 682-3643 Attorney for Arkansas Department of Education CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Mark A Hagemeier, certify that on July 27, 2001, I caused a copy of the foregoing document to be served by U.S. mail, postage prepaid, on the following person(s) at the address( es) indicated: M. Samuel Jones, III Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 2000 NationsBank Bldg. 200 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 John W. Walker John Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 7220 I Richard Roachell P .O. Box 17388 Little Rock, AR 72222-7388 Timothy G. Gauger Mitchell, Williams, Selig, Gates \u0026amp; Woodyard 425 West Capitol Ave. Suite 1800 Little Rock, AR 72201-3525 Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 2000 Regions Center 400 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 7220 I Ann Marshall One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 7220 I ~a.N  MarAHagem~ IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL PLAINTIFFS V. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENORS KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS ADE'S PROJECT MANAGEMENT TOOL In compliance with the Court's Order of December 10, 1993, the Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) submits the following Project Management Tool to the parties and the Court. This document describes the progress the ADE has made since March 15, 1994, in complying with provisions of the Implementation Plan and itemizes the ADE's progress against timelines presented in the Plan. - IMPLEMENTATION PHASE ACTIVITY I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS A. Use the previous year's three quarter average daily membership to calculate MFPA (State Equalization) for the current school year. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of July 31, 2001 B. Include all Magnet students in the resident District's average daily membership for calculation. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) B. Include all Magnet students in the resident District's average daily membership for calculation. (Continued) 2. Actual as of July 31 , 2001 ~ased onJhe intonuatioJl availa~ at Jun~']o, i oo1 :=t12iADE\n,calculat~ f\u0026lt;\n\u0026gt;~ 00/01, subject to penodic ~ stmentsi C. Process and distribute State MFPA. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of July 31, 2001 On June 30, 2001, distributions of State Equalization Funding for FY 00/01 w~re as follows: LRSD - $52,788,081 NLRSD - $28, 176,324 PCSSD - $56,594,757 The allotments of State Equalization Funding caldllafed for FY 00/01 at June 30, 2001 , subject to periodic adjustments, were as follows: LRSD - $52,788,081 NLRSD - $28,176,324 PCSSO- $56,594,757 D. Determine the number of Magnet students residing in each District and attending a Magnet School. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of July 31 , 2001 Based on the information available, the ADE calculated at June 30, 2001 for FY 00/01, subject to periodic adjustments. E. Desegregation Staff Attorney reports the Magnet Operational Charge to the Fiscal Services Office. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing, as ordered by the Court. 2 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) E. Desegregation Staff Attorney reports the Magnet Operational Charge to the Fiscal Services Office. (Continued) 2. Actual as of July 31, 2001 ~~e inform~ avail 00/01i~ject to p~~ctic adjt1s ~ s. 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 July 31, 2001 Based on the information available, the ADE calculated at JunW~b. 2001 forfiY 00/01, subject to periodic adjustments. G. Process and distribute state aid for Magnet Operational Charge. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of July 31 , 2001 Distributions for FY 00/01 at June 30, 2001 , totaled $10,722,873. Allotment calculated for FY 00/01 was $10,722,873 subject to periodic adjustments. H. Calculate the amount of M-to-M incentive money to which each school district is entitled. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of July 31 , 2001 Calculated for FY 00/01 , subject to periodic adjustments. I. Process and distribute M-to-M incentive checks. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, September - June. 3 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) I. Process and distribute M-to-M incentive checks. (Continued) 2. Actual as of July 31 , 2001 E\u0026gt;fstfftJfflisfrJfoji, ~Y8rtWo1 ~t Jun~~o:w\n26o1 w~re? t h~ffiints ~alcul~ted for FY 00/01 at June 30, 2001, subject to peliod10 adJustifi~nts, were:  w $3,839,341 J,9so1~d~ $8,065,184 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 July 31, 2001 In September 2000, the Magnet and M-to-M transportation budgets for FY 00/01 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 July 31, 2001 In January 2001, General Finance was notified to pay the second one-third payment for FY 00/01 to the Districts. It should be noted that the Transportation Coordinator is currently performing this function instead of Reginald Wilson as indicated in the Implementation Plan. L. ADE pays districts three equal installments of their proposed budget. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing, annually. 4 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) L. ADE pays districts three equal installments of their proposed budget. (Continued) 2. Actual as of July 31, 2001 In January 2001, General Finance made the second one-third payment to the Districts for their FY 00/01 transportation budget. The budget is now paid out in three equal installments. At February 28, 2001, the following had been paid for FY 00/01: LRSD - $2,197,201.00 NLRSD - $437,233.34 PCSSD - $1,184,784.28 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 July 31, 2001 In August 1997, the ADE transportation coordinator reviewed each district's Magnet and M-to-M transportation costs for FY 96/97. In July 1998, each district was asked to submit an estimated budget for the 98/99 school year. In September 1998, paperwork was generated for the first payment in the 98/99 school year for the Magnet and M-to-M transportation program. School districts should receive payment by October 1, 1998 In July 1999, each district submitted an estimated budget for the 99/00 school year. In September 1999, paperwork was generated for the first payment in the 99/00 school year for the Magnet and M-to-M transportation program. In September 2000, paperwork was generated for the first payment in the 00/01 school year for the Magnet and M-to-M transportation program. 5 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) N. Purchase buses for the Districts to replace existing Magnet and M-to-M fleets and to provide a larger fleet for the Districts' Magnet and M-to-M Transportation needs. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing, as stated in Exhibit A of the Implementation Plan. 2. Actual as of July 31 , 2001 In FY 94/95, the State purchased 52 buses at a cost of $1 ,799,431 which were added to or replaced existing Magnet and M-to-M buses in the Districts. The buses were distributed to the Districts as follows: LRSD - 32\nNLRSD - 6\nand PCSSD - 14. The ADE purchased 64 Magnet and M-to-M buses at a cost of $2,334,800 in FY 95/96. The buses were distributed accordingly: LRSD - 45\nNLRSD - 7\nand PCSSD-12. In May 1997, the ADE purchased 16 Magnet and M-to-M buses at a cost of $646,400. In July 1997, the ADE purchased 16 Magnet and M-to-M buses at a cost of $624,879. In July 1998, the ADE purchased 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses at a cost of $695,235. The buses were distributed accordingly: LRSD - 8\nNLRSD - 2\nand PCSSD- 6. Specifications for 16 school buses have been forwarded to state purchasing for bidding in January, 1999 for delivery in July, 1999. The ADE accepted a bid on 16 buses for the Magnet and M/M transportation program. The buses will be delivered after July 1, 1999 and before August 1, 1999. The buses will be distributed accordingly: LRSD - 8\nNLRSD - 2\nPCSSD - 6. In July 1999, the ADE purchased 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses at a cost of $718,355. The buses were distributed accordingly: LRSD - 8\nNLRSD - 2\nand PCSSD- 6. In July 2000, the ADE purchased 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses at a cost of $724,165. The buses were distributed accordingly: LRSD - 8\nNLRSD - 2\nand PCSSD- 6. 6 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) N. Purchase buses for the Districts to replace existing Magnet and M-to-M fleets and to provide a larger fleet for the Districts' Magnet and M-to-M Transportation needs. (Continued) 2. Actual as of July 31 , 2001 The bid for 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses was let by State Purchasing on February 22, 2001 . The contract was awarded to Ward Transportation Services, Inc. The buses to be purchased include two type C 47 passenger buses and fourteen type C 65 passenger buses. Prices on these units are $43,426.00 each on the 47 passenger buses, and $44,289.00 each on the 65 passenger buses. The buses will be distributed accordingly: LRSD - 8 of the 65 passenger\nNLRSD - 2 of the 65 passenger\nPCSSD - 2 of the 47 passenger and 4 of the 65 passenger buses. 0. Process and distribute compensatory education payments to LRSD as required by page 23 of the Settlement Agreement. 1. Projected Ending Date 2. July 1 and January 1, of each school year through January 1, 1999. Actual as of July 31 , 2001 Obligation fulfilled in FY 96/97. P. Process and distribute additional payments in lieu of formula to LRSD as required by page 24 of the Settlement Agreement. 1. Projected Ending Date Payment due date and ending July 1, 1995. 2. Actual as of July 31, 2001 Obligation fulfilled in FY 95/96. Q . Process and distribute payments to PCSSD as required by Page 28 of the Settlement Agreement. 1. Projected Ending Date Payment due date and ending July 1, 1994. 2. Actual as of July 31, 2001 Final payment was distributed July 1994. 7 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) R. Upon loan request by LRSD accompanied by a promissory note, the ADE makes loans to LRSD. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing through July 1, 1999. See Settlement Agreement page 24. 2. Actual as of July 31, 2001 The LRSD received $3,000,000 on September 10, 1998. As of this reporting date, the LRSD has received $20,000,000 in loan proceeds. S. Process and distribute payments in lieu of formula to PCSSD required by page 29 of the Settlement Agreement. 1. Projected Ending Date Payment due date and ending July 1, 1995. 2. Actual as of July 31, 2001 Obligation fulfilled in FY 95/96. T. Process and distribute compensatory education payments to N LRSD 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 July 31, 2001 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 July 31, 2001 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. 8 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) U. Process and distribute check to Magnet Review Committee. (Continued) 2. Actual as of July 31 , 2001 (Continued) Distribution in July 1999 for FY 99/00 was $92,500. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 99/00. Distribution in July 2000 for FY 00/01 was $92,500. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 00/01 . V. Process and distribute payments for Office of Desegregation Monitoring. 1. Projected Ending Date Not applicable. 2. Actual as of July 31, 2001 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 . 9 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. 1. Projected Ending Date January 15, 1995 2. Actual as of July 31 , 2001 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. 10 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 July 31, 2001 (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. 11 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of July 31 , 2001 (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. 12 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of July 31 , 2001 (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. 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. 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 July 31 , 2001 (Continued) 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 . ~~ !1',lEfiltation ill~'ffil\u0026lt;epl~ 14 \"\" orking 26,\u0026gt;:s20 meetin - scheduled om,2 j o P~ t 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 July 31 , 2001 Ongoing. All Court pleadings are monitored monthly. 8. Draft and file appropriate pleadings if LRSD petitions the Court for a special election. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of July 31, 2001 To date, no action has been taken by the LRSD. 15 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 July 31, 2001 The information for this item is detailed under Section IV.E. of this report. B. Conduct a review within ADE of existing legislation and regulations that appear to impede desegregation. 1. Projected Ending Date November, 1994 2. Actual as of July 31, 2001 The information for this item is detailed under Section IV.E. of this report. C. Request of the other parties to the Settlement Agreement that they identify laws and regulations that appear to impede desegregation. 1. Projected Ending Date November, 1994 2. Actual as of July 31, 2001 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 July 31 , 2001 The information for this item is detailed under Section IV. E. of this report. 16 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 July 31, 2001 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. 17 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 July 31, 2001 (Continued) On September 9, 1997, a meeting was held to discuss the review of the statutes passed in the prior legislative session and new A DE 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. 18 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 July 31 , 2001 (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. 1 9 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 July 31 , 2001 (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. 20 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES A. Through a preamble to the Implementation Plan, the Board of Education will reaffinn 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 July 31, 2001 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 reaffinn its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement and outcomes of programs intended to apply those principles. C. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of July 31, 2001 Ongoing Through execution of the Implementation Plan, the Board of Education will continue to reaffinn 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 July 31 , 2001 Ongoing D. Through regularoversightofthe 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 21 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 July 31 , 2001 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 developm~nt 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. 22 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's ProjectManagementTool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of July 31, 2001 (Continued) During the months of February 1996 through May 1996, the PMT report was the only item on the agenda regarding the status of the implementation of the Monitoring Plan. In June 1996, the State Board of Education was updated on the status of the bias review study. In July 1996, the Semiannual Monitoring Report was provided to the Court, the parties, ODM, the State Board of Education, and the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee. In August 1996, the State Board of Education and the ADE administrative team were provided with copies of the test validation study prepared by Dr. Paul Williams. During the months of September 1996 through December 1996, the PMT was the only item on the agenda regarding the status of the implementation of the Monitoring Plan. On January 13, 1997, a presentation was made to the State Board of Education regarding the February 1997 Semiannual Monitoring Report, and copies of the report and its executive summary were distributed to all Board members. The Project Management Tool and its executive summary were addressed at the February 10, 1997 State Board of Education meeting regarding the ADE's progress in fulfilling their obligations as set forth in the Implementation Plan. In March 1997, the State Board of Education was notified that historical information in the PMT had been summarized at the direction of the Assistant Attorney General in order to reduce the size and increase the clarity of the report. The Board was updated on the Pulaski County Desegregation Case and reviewed the Memorandum Opinion and Order issued by the Court on February 18, 1997 in response to the Districts' motion for summary judgment on the issue of state funding for teacher retirement matching contributions. During the months of April 1997 through June 1997, the PMT was the only item on the agenda regarding the status of the implementation of the Monitoring Plan. The State Board of Education received copies of the July 15, 1997 Semiannual Monitoring Report and executive summary at the July Board meeting. 23 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 July 31 , 2001 (Continued) The Implementation Phase Working Group held its quarterly meeting on August 4, 1997 to discuss the progress made in attaining the goals set forth in the Implementation Plan and the critical areas for the current quarter. A special report regarding a historical review of the Pulaski County Settlement Agreement and the ADE's role and monitoring obligations were presented to the State Board of Education on September 8, 1997. Additionally, the July 15, 1997 Semiannual Monitoring Report was presented to the Board for their review. In October 1997, a special draft report regarding disparity in achievement was submitted to the State Board Chairman and the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee. In November 1997, the State Board of Education was provided copies of the monthly PMT and its executive summary. The Implementation Phase Working Group held its quarterly meeting on November 3, 1997 to discuss the progress made in attaining the goals set forth in the Implementation Plan and the critical areas for the current quarter. In December 1997, the State Board of Education was provided copies of the monthly PMT and its executive summary. In January 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and discussed ODM's report on the ADE's monitoring activities and instructed the Director to meet with the parties to discuss revisions to the ADE's monitoring plan and monitoring reports. In February 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and discussed the February 1998 Semiannual Monitoring Report. In March 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary and was provided an update regarding proposed revisions to the monitoring process. In April 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary. In May 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary. 24 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 July 31 , 2001 (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. 25 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 July 31, 2001 (Continued) In January, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewea 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. 26 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of July 31, 2001 (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. 27 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 July 31, 2001 (Continued) On May 8, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of April. On June 12, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of May. On July 10, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of June. On August 14, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of July. On September 11, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of August. On October 9, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of September. On November 13, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of October. On December 11, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of November. On January 8, 2001 , the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of December. On February 12, 2001, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of January. On March 12, 2001, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of February. On April 9, 2001, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of March. On May 14, 2001 , the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of April. On June 11, 2001, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of May. 28 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of July 31, 2001 (Continued) 29 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 July 31 , 2001 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 final ized 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. 30 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 July 31, 2001 (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. 31 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 July 31, 2001 (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 Leaming 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. 32 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 July 31, 2001 (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 Leaming, 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 July 31, 2001 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 33 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) C. Through the ERIC system, conduct a literature search for research evaluating compensatory education programs. (Continued) 2. Actual as of July 31, 2001 An updated ERIC Search was conducted on May 15, 1995 to locate research on evaluating compensatory education programs. The ADE received the updated ERIC disc that covered material through March 1995. An ERIC search was conducted in September 30, 1996 to identify current research dealing with the evaluation of compensatory education programs, and the articles were reviewed. An ERIC search was conducted in April 1997 to identify current research on compensatory education programs and sent to the Cycle 1 principals and the field service specialists for their use. An Eric search was conducted in October 1998 on the topic of Compensatory Education and related descriptors. The search included articles with publication dates from 1997 through July 1998. D. Identify and research technical resources available to ADE and the Districts through programs and organizations such as the Desegregation Assistance Center in San Antonio, Texas. 1. Projected Ending Date Summer 1994 2. Actual as of July 31 , 2001 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 July 31 , 2001 The information for this item is detailed under Section VI.F. of this report. F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 34 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of July 31 , 2001 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. On March 6-9, 1997, three members of the ADE's Technical Assistance Section attended the National Committee for School Desegregation Conference. The participants received training in strategies for Excellence and Equity: Empowerment and Training for the Future. Specific information was received regarding the current status of court-ordered desegregation, unitary status, and resegregation and distributed to the Districts and ADE personnel. 35 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of July 31, 2001 (Continued) 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 Leaming 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. 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. 36 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of July 31, 2001 (Continued) 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. 37 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of July 31 , 2001 (Continued) On April 30, 1999, a Student Achievement Workshop was conducted for Oak Grove Elementary School in PCSSD. The Student Achievement Workshop for Southwest Jr. High in LRSD has been rescheduled. On June 8, 1999, a workshop was presented to representatives from each of the Arkansas Education Service Cooperatives and representatives from each of the three districts in Pulaski County. The workshop detailed the Arkansas Comprehensive Testing, Assessment and Accountability Program (ACTAAP). On June 18, 1999, a workshop was presented to administrators of the NLRSD. The workshop detailed the Arkansas Comprehensive Testing, Assessment and Accountability Program (ACTAAP). On August 16, 1999, professional development on ways to increase student achievement and the components of the new ACT AAP program was presented during the preschool staff development activities for teaching assistant in the LRSD. On August 20, 1999, professional development on ways to increase student achievement and the components of the new ACT AAP program was presented during the preschool staff development activities for the Accelerated Leaming Center in the LRSD. On September 13, 1999, professional development on ways to increase student achievement and the components of the new ACT AAP program were presented to the staff at Booker T. Washington Magnet Elementary School. On September 27, 1999, professional development on ways to increase student achievement was presented to the Middle and High School staffs of the NLRSD. The workshop also covered the components of the new ACTAAP program, and ACT 999 of 1999. On October 26, 1999, professional development on ways to increase student achievement was presented to LRSD personnel through a staff development training class. The workshop also covered the components of the new ACT AAP program, and ACT 999 of 1999. On December 7, 1999, professional development on ways to increase student achievement was scheduled for Southwest Middle School in the LRSD. The workshop was also set to cover the components of the new ACT AAP program, and ACT 999 of 1999. However, Southwest Middle School administrators had a need to reschedule, therefore the workshop will be rescheduled. 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. 38 VI. REM ED IA TION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of July 31 , 2001 (Continued) On March 1, 2000, professional development on ways to increase student achievement was conducted for all principals and district level administrators in the PCSSD. The workshop also covered the components of the new ACTAAP program, and ACT 999 of 1999. On April 12, 2000, professional development on ways to increase student achievement was conducted for the LRSD. The workshop also covered the components of the new ACTAAP program, and ACT 999 of 1999. Targeted staffs from the middle and junior high schools in the three districts in Pulaski County attended the Smart Step Summit on May 1 and May 2. Training was provided regarding the overview of the \"Smart Step\" initiative, \"Standard and Accountability in Action,\" and \"Creating Leaming 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. 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. 39 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of July 31, 2001 (Continued) 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 ACTMP 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. 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 Leaming and Reading Styles on March 26. This was presented by Don Boyd - ASERC and Shelley Weir. 40 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of July 31 , 2001 (Continued) On September 7, 2000, Autism and Classroom Accommodations for the LRSD at Chicot Elementary School was presented. Bryan Ayres and Shelley Weirwere presenters. The participants were: Karen Sabo, Kindergarten Teacher\nMelissa Gleason, Paraprofessional\nCurtis Mayfield, P.E. Teacher\nLisa Poteet, Speech Language Pathologist\nJane Harkey, Principal\nKathy Penn-Norman, Special Education Coordinator\nAlice Phillips, Occupational Therapist. On September 15, 2000, the Governor's Developmental Disability Coalition Conference presented Assistive Technology Devices \u0026amp; Services. This was held at the Arlington Hotel in Hot Springs. Bryan Ayres was the presenter. On September 19, 2000, Autism and Classroom Accommodations for the LRSD at Jefferson Elementary School was presented. Bryan Ayres and Shelley Weir were presenters. The participants were: Melissa Chaney, Special Education Teacher\nBarbara Barnes, Special Education Coordinator\na Principal, a Counselor, a Librarian, and a Paraprofessional. On October 6, 2000, Integrating Assistive Technology Into Curriculum was presented at a conference in the Hot Springs Convention Center. Presenters were: Bryan Ayers and Aleecia Starkey. Speech Language Pathologists from LRSD and NLRSD attended. On October 24, 2000, Consideration and Assessment of Assistive Technology was presented through Compressed Video-Teleconference at the ADE facility in West Little Rock. Bryan Ayres was the presenter. On October 25 and 26, 2000, Alternate Assessment for Students with Severe Disabilities for the LRSD at J. A. Fair High School was presented. Bryan Ayres was the presenter. The participants were: Susan Chapman, Special Education Coordinator\nMary Steele, Special Education Teacher\nDenise Nesbit, Speech Language Pathologist\nand three Paraprofessionals. On November 14, 2000, Consideration and Assessment of Assistive Technology was presented through Compressed Video-Teleconference at the ADE facility in West Little Rock. Bryan Ayres was the presenter. On November 17, 2000, training was conducted on Autism for the LRSD at the Instructional Resource Center. Bryan Ayres and Shelley Weir were presenters. On December 5, 2000, Access to the Curriculum Via the use of Assistive Technology Computer Lab was presented. Bryan Ayres was the presenter of this teleconference. The participants were: Tim Fisk, Speech Language Pathologist from Arch Ford Education Service Cooperative at Plumerville and Patsy Lewis, Special Education Teacher from Mabelvale Middle School in the LRSD. 41 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of July 31 , 2001 (Continued) 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. 4 2 VI. REM ED IA TION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of July 31 , 2001 (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. About60 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. 4 3 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of July 31, 2001 (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. 44 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of July 31 , 2001 (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 . m ynote cation ss on t the Smart Step t were pecific atfd consultant from Houston, ~ xa~ Jivered two addresses. SP1 eon \"A Blueprint for Raising Stu~e2,t Achievement\"- Represent:tives from alf three aistricts in Pulaski Cot1hfy t ~ttended. Over 1,200 Arkansas teachers a'cfd administrators attended the Smart Start Conf Statehouse Cooventi   Sma ioffiative which . emp ~ . artic nt and accurate measures Sf P sme_nts, {itaft developmen t and tart Initiative focused on in:J'\u0026gt;rovihg . and ~ r all students in Graaes K-4. ~ e evenl: with: o . iyion, Dir ctor of. ~ ~AE'.\u0026gt;E. Catt Boyd a long me educa OF [earning 24-7,:, presented the 'eynoJ address. Toe 5 brea~out sessrop _ on best classl'oom pra~ ces. R e districts irt Pulaski Coo~ attended. 45 VII. TEST VALIDATION A. Using a collaborative approach, the ADE will select and contract with an independent bias review service or expert to evaluate the Stanford 8, or other monitoring instruments used to measure disparities in academic achievement between black students and white students. 1. Projected Ending Date March, 1995 2. Actual as of July 31 , 2001 On March 29, 1995, letters were sent to four national experts about conducting a test bias validation of the Stanford Achievement Test, Eighth Edition, Fonn K (SAT-8). Dr. Paul Williams, Deputy Director of Educational Testing Service (ETS), contacted the ADE in April of 1995 concerning the proposal for validating the SAT-8 test. The ADE requested that Dr. Williams conduct a validity study of test items used in the SAT-8. Dr. Williams submitted a final proposal for his services. The ADE Bias Review Test Committee met Friday, July 7, 1995, and approved Dr. William's contract proposal. The final contract was forwarded to Dr. Williams for his signature. The contract was signed in August 1995, thereby, completing this goal. B. By April 1994, establish a bias review committee to oversee the bias review process, and invite representatives of the Districts and parties to meet with the bias review committee. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of July 31, 2001 Complete. ADE established a Bias Review Committee in April 1994. In accordance with the Implementation Plan, representatives from the Districts and the parties were invited to attend and participate in this and all meetings of the Bias Review Committee. C. Upon completion of test validation procedures by the bias review service or expert, the ADE will adopt and use a validated test as a monitoring instrument. 1. Projected Ending Date March 1995 and ongoing 46 VII. TEST VALIDATION (Continued) C. Upon completion of test validation procedures by the bias review service or expert, the ADE will adopt and use a validated test as a monitoring instrument. (Continued) 2. Actual as of July 31 , 2001 Dr. Paul Williams met with the staff of the Psychological Corporation to review their methods and procedures. In August 1995, he met with the staff at Georgia State University to review the statistical methods that would be used in the analysis. Dr. Williams reported difficulty with the bias-review study in receiving the names of the bias panel and the complete SAT-8 data set from the Psychological Corporation. Dr. Williams submitted an invoice totaling $8,961 for Task I activities of the SAT-8 validity study for partial fulfillment of the test validation study. On December 6, 1995, a contract extension for Dr. Williams was reviewed by the Legislative Council. In January 1996, he indicated that he was in the final stages of the test validation, and the ADE was presented a draft report in March 1996. In May 1996, Dr. Williams stated that the wrong data sets were sent to him by the Psychological Corporation resulting in Task 3 having to be redone. A new draft of the final report was received by the ADE in July 1996. In August 1996, copies of the test validation report were provided to the State Board of Education and the ADE administrative team for their review. On September 10, 1996, the LRSD notified the ADE that they had reviewed the test validation report and would like to meet with the ADE to discuss the report. The ADE Director indicated that he would schedule a meeting with the LRSD to discuss the report. In October 1996, historical files and data were provided to the ADE Director, the ADE Assistant Director for Technical Services, and the ADE Assistant Director for Planning and Curriculum for their review in preparation for a meeting with the LRSD regarding the validity study. Test validation procedures by the expert have been completed. A recommendation was drafted proposing the use of the SA T-8 by the ADE as the validated test for monitoring. The ADE is presently working to arrange a meeting with the Administration of the LRSD to discuss the test validation study. Effective September 22, 1997, the State Board of Education hired a new Director of the General Education Division, which should allow the ADE to move forward in this matter. 47 VII. TEST VALIDATION (Continued) C. Upon completion of test validation procedures by the bias review service or expert, the ADE will adopt and use a validated test as a monitoring instrument. (Continued) 2. Actual as of July 31 , 2001 (Continued) In October 1997, the GED Director was updated on the history of the test validation process to provide the Director with background information in preparation for a meeting with the LRSD. In February 1998, ADE staff met with senior staff members to discuss the test validation and appropriate test scores for consideration by the LRSD. The ADE Director met with the Superintendent of the LRSD to discuss test validation issues. In June 1998, the ADE Director directed the Assistant Director for Accountability to recommend staff to discuss how the ADE would measure LRSD's progress toward meeting the loan forgiveness thresholds of the Settlement Agreement. Plans were made to meet with the staff Tuesday, June 30, 1998. The Test Validation Committee met on June 30, 1998, and discussed the following: 1. The appropriateness of the use of scaled scores on the SAT-8 test as the metric for assessing LRSD compliance with the loan forgiveness provisions of the Settlement Agreement\nand 2. The need for an independent analysis of LRSD students' test scores to determine compliance or noncompliance with loan forgiveness standard, and who would bear the cost of such an independent analysis. The Test Validation Committee met on September 10, 1998, to review recent correspondence from LRSD and to further discuss issues related to the loan forgiveness provisions of the Settlement Agreement. A follow-up administrative meeting was held on October 13, 1998, to discuss issues related to the test validation process. Participants included Tim Gauger, Assistant Attorney General, Dr. Charity Smith, Lead Planner for Desegregation, and Frank Anthony, Assistant Director for Accountability. A meeting was scheduled with Dr. Les Carnine, LRSD Superintendent and Mr. Ray Simon, ADE Director, regarding Test Validation and loan forgiveness provisions of the Settlement Agreement on May 12, 1999. 48 VII. TEST VALIDATION (Continued) C. Upon completion of test validation procedures by the bias review service or expert, the ADE will adopt and use a validated test as a monitoring instrument. (Continued) 2. Actual as of July 31 , 2001 (Continued) On June 14, 1999, the State Board of Education was briefed on the status of LRSD's refusal to make principal and interest payments into escrow as required by the loan provisions of the Settlement Agreement and related documents. The Board requested that a draft motion to enforce the Settlement Agreement be prepared and submitted to the Board for review and discussion at the Board's next regularly scheduled meeting. On July 12, 1999, the State Board of Education authorized the filing of a motion to compel LRSD to make interest and principal payments into escrow pursuant to the loan provisions of the Settlement Agreement. The State Board of Education instructed the Attorney General's Office to file a motion by March 1, 2000 if a determination is made that the LRSD is not in compliance with Section 6 B of the Pulaski County Settlement Agreement regarding the establishment and funding of the escrow account in the loan provision section. On May 8, 2000, the Assistant Director of Accountability was directed by the Director of Education to contact Harcourt Brace Educational Measurement Company about the possibility of conducting a research study on the standardized test composite scores from 1990 through 1999 of LRSD (excluding special education students). The Test Selection Committee met on May 23, 2000, at the ADE and discussed ways to measure LRSD's progress toward meeting the loan forgiveness threshold of the Pulaski County Settlement Agreement. An update on the progress with Harcourt Brace was made at that time. Harcourt Brace has been contacted about conducting an initial research report on LRSD's progress toward meeting the loan forgiveness threshold of the settlement agreement. This report will review all composite scores since 1990 of LRSD's black and white students (excluding special education students). The purpose of the report is to determine if at any time from Spring 1990 to Fall 1999 did the composite scores of LRSD's black students (excluding special education students) reach 90% or greater of the composite scores of LRSD's white students (excluding special education students) on the State mandated norm-referenced test. Company representatives will advise the ADE of the cost and feasibility of producing the report by May 31 , 2000. If the report indicates that LRSD has not meet the loan forgiveness requirements of the Pulaski County Settlement Agreement, an additional analysis of the Fall 2000 standardized tests results will be made. 49 VII. TEST VALIDATION (Continued) C. Upon completion of test validation procedures by the bias review service or expert, the ADE will adopt and use a validated test as a monitoring instrument. (Continued) 2. Actual as of July 31, 2001 (Continued) Harcourt Brace indicated that they would be able to provide the data, but indicated that analysis of the data should be done by an independent consultant. The search for an independent consultant has been undertaken. On February 12, 2001, the ADE Director provided the State Board of Education with a special update on desegregation activities. 50 VIII. IN-SERVICE TRAINING A. Through an interactive process with representatives of desegregating districts, identify in-service training needs. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of July 31, 2001 The information for this item is detailed under Section VIII.D. of this report. B. Develop in-service training programs to address in-service training needs of desegregating districts. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of July 31 , 2001 The information for this item is detailed under Section VIII.D. of this report. C. Implement in-service training programs to address in-service training needs of desegregating districts. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of July 31, 2001 The information for this item is detailed under Section VIII.D. of this report. D. Evaluate in-service training programs developed and executed to address in-service training needs of desegregating districts. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of July 31 , 2001 In April 1995, the Tri-District Staff Development Committee were provided an overview of the Scott Alternative Learning Center's operation and met with students and staff. In May 1995, the Districts were in the process of self-assessment and planning for fall staff development. 51 VIII. IN-SERVICE TRAINING (Continued) D. Evaluate in-service training programs developed and executed to address in-service training needs of desegregating districts. (Continued) 2. Actual as of July 31, 2001 (Continued) The Districts worked on staff development to be incorporated into their fall 95/96 preschool calendars. The uniqueness of each district's needs and their schools was considered in the planning by utilizing the results of needs assessment instruments. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met on September 13, 1995 to plan for an ADE administered Classroom Management grant. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met on September 19, 1995 to finalize the Classroom Management grant proposal. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met on October 24, 1995 to discuss program and staff development evaluation models that might be available to the Districts. On November 15, 1995, the ADE met with an ODM representative to discuss the progress the ADE had made in attaining the objectives outlined in the Implementation Plan with regard to inservice training. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met on November 21, 1995 to discuss upcoming training events and various NLR programs that focus on non-academic needs. A new program consisting of placing a graduate student of social work, a field supervisor, and a DHS worker in the district at no cost to the district was discussed. Additionally, NLR provided an overview of their program for credit deficient students. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met on December 19, 1995 to discuss information dealing with ways to broaden the perspective of multicultural education. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met on January 17, 1996 to discuss proposed changes in the standards regarding media centers and NLRSD's staff development strategic planning committee. The committee reviewed a video on diversity produced by the Arkansas Elementary Principals Association. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met on February 21 , 1996 to discuss the implications of budget cuts on staff development programs and PCSSD's request for unitary status for their staff development program. They also discussed the need for computer literacy, technology training, and acquisition of hardware and software by the Districts. 52 VIII. IN-SERVICE TRAINING (Continued) D. Evaluate in-service training programs developed and executed to address in-service training needs of desegregating districts. (Continued) 2. Actual as of July 31, 2001 (Continued) The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met on March 27, 1996 to discuss available resources concerning sexual harassment. ADE regulations in relation to staff members attending professional association conferences as well as the district staff development and potential sites for training seminars were also discussed. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met on April 30, 1996 to discuss the reconfiguring of Jacksonville Junior High, PCSSD professional development schedules, and APSCN on-line time lines. A tour of the Washington Magnet school was also conducted. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee received a demonstration of UALR's Baum Decision Support Center's capabilities regarding consensus and planning on May 29, 1996. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee did not meet during September, October, and November 1996 because of scheduling conflicts and the extended medical leave of the ADE liaison. On December 18, 1996, the Tri-District Staff Development Committee met to discuss the linkage between the Implementation Plan, staff development, and student achievement. On January 21 , 1997, the Tri-District Staff Development Committee met and discussed sharing middle school strategies and the Districts' training catalogs. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met on February 25, 1997 to discuss their current staff development programs and an overview of the relationship of their current programs with their desegregation plans. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met on March 26, 1997 to observe the Great Expectations Program. The principal and mentor teachers provided information on the components and philosophy of the program, and students demonstrated selected components. The PCSSD may adopt the program for selected schools in their district. The committee was provided with an update of pertinent information on resources available to the Districts. The committee decided that the ADE liaison to the committee would gather documentation of completed staff development directly from the Districts, instead of the Districts providing this information at the committee meetings. 53 VIII. IN-SERVICE TRAINING (Continued) D. Evaluate in-service training programs developed and executed to address in-service training needs of desegregating districts. (Continued) 2. Actual as of July 31, 2001 (Continued) New information on teacher licensure and rules and regulations was shared with the Tri-District Staff Development Committee at their April 1997 meeting. A report was presented to the committee on information from the Arkansas Council for Social Studies about an October 1997 meeting on integrated curriculum. The Districts will provide principal retreats this summer as a part of their staff development. The PCSSD will sponsor a renowned speaker on strategies to serve at risk youth in August 1997 in which the committee is invited to attend. The LRSD shared survey results from a pilot administration to four teachers in each district. The survey found the sample to be strong in content but lacking in context and process. Plans to address these needs will be developed. In another survey to certified and non-certified LRSD staff, stress management was the major concern. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met on May 14, 1997 to participate in a teleconference with the five 1996 awardees of the National Awards Program for Model for Professional Development. The PCSSD shared their summer and fall staff development catalog with the members. The committee will reconvene in the fall of the 97/98 school year. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee is scheduled to meet on September 30, 1997 to discuss collaborative actions for FY 97 /98. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met on September 30, 1997 to discuss their staff development for the 1997/1998 school year. The PCSSD had a pre-school in-service for the faculty, and the LRSD conducted a Principals Academy with an expert on the math and science initiative which lasted several days. The NLRSD is providing staff development by satellite. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met on October 28, 1997. The LRSD and NLRSD shared some of their staff development course offerings with the committee, and the PCSSD discussed ways of optimizing opportunities for staff development with specific emphasis on the junior high school conflict resolution training. In November 1997, the Lead Planner provided technical assistance to Central High School staff regarding data disaggregation, test score analysis and ways to improve student achievement. 54 VIII. IN-SERVICE TRAINING (Continued) D. Evaluate in-service training programs developed and executed to address in-service training needs of desegregating districts. (Continued) 2. Actual as of July 31, 2001 (Continued) The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met on November 25, 1997 to discuss the Standards for Staff Development. The LRSD will begin providing technology training to their employees in January by utilizing business teachers. Additionally, they discussed a collaborative venture of the Districts involving a workshop from Chicago on a program called \"Great Expectations.\" The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met on December 16, 1997 to discuss technology plans, strategies for obtaining information currently being provided to the education cooperatives, scheduling of Arkansas history, and the development of a comprehensive list of locations available for staff development. Members agreed to bring information on available locations to the January meeting and have set a tentative completion date for the project of May 1998. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met on January 27, 1998 to share information for developing a comprehensive list of locations available for staff development. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met on February 24, 1998 to work on the development of the list of locations available for staff development. The committee also discussed the meeting on student achievement sponsored by the ADE for the Districts, principals' staff development in the Districts and emphasis on improving achievement as reflected on the SAT-9. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met on March 19, 1998 to discuss the math and science grant received by the LRSD, the Districts' inservice calendars for August, TESA and Student-Team Leaming trainers, and team building for staff. The ADE Deputy Director is scheduled to discuss ways the committee can strengthen their relationship with the regional cooperatives at their May meeting. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met on April 27, 1998 to discuss their proposal for involvement with the regional cooperatives. The ADE Deputy Director is scheduled to discuss committee's concerns regarding their relationship with the regional cooperatives at their next meeting. 55 VIII. IN-SERVICE TRAINING (Continued) D. Evaluate in-service training programs developed and executed to address in-service training needs of desegregating districts. (Continued) 2. Actual as of July 31, 2001 (Continued) The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met Thursday, May 21 , 1998, in the Instructional Resources Center at Little Rock School District. Dr. Woodrow Cummins, ADE Deputy Director, joined the group to discuss ways to develop a closer connection with the Education Service Cooperatives. He also discussed other issues concerning Tri-District Staff Development. Tentative plans were made to meet with the Teacher Center Coordinators at their next regular meeting. The next Central Office meeting will be at 9:00 a.m., Thursday, September 29, 1998, in the PCSSD. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee will attend the Educational Cooperative Teacher Center Coordinators' meeting September 1, 1998, in the ADE auditorium. The next regular meeting of the committee is tentatively set for 9:00 a.m., Thursday, September 29, 1998, in the PCSSD Central Office. The Tri-County Staff Development Committee met Monday, August 24, 1998, at PCSSD central office with four members present: Marion Woods, LRSD\nDoug Ask and Mary McClendon, PCSSD\nand Betty Gale Davis, ADE. Topics of discussion included the September 1 meeting scheduled with the regional cooperatives' teacher center coordinators\nthe staff development task force on which Marion Woods is serving\nthe property tax issue\nand various mathematics and reading programs being used in the districts. The committee met Tuesday, September 1, 1998, with the Teacher Center Coordinators, at which time Dr. Woody Cummins presented. Six Tri-District Staff Development Committee members were present: Marion Woods, LRSD\nDoug Ask and Mary McClendon, PCSSD\nDana Chadwick and Estelle Crawford, NLRSD\nBetty Gale Davis, ADE. The next committee meeting will be 9:00 a.m., Thursday, September 24, 1998, at the Little Rock District Instructional Resources Center. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met Thursday, September 24, 1998, at the Instructional Resources Center, Little Rock, with five present: Marion Woods and Dr. Bonnie Lesley, LRSD\nDoug Ask, PCSSD\nDana Chadwick, NLRSD\nand Dr. Betty Gale Davis, ADE. Topics of discussion included the meeting with the regional cooperatives' teacher center coordinators\nthe staff development task force on which Marion Woods is serving and the NSCI training\ntraining provided by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)\ntraining provided by Casio\nand the proposal of a Principals Academy. 56 VIII. IN-SERVICE TRAINING (Continued) D. Evaluate in-service training programs developed and executed to address in-service training needs of desegregating districts. (Continued) 2. Actual as of July 31 , 2001 (Continued) Doug Ask will serve as representative to the October 6, 1998 meeting of the Teacher Center Coordinators. He will submit to Donna Harris, president of the group, a request for one other member of the Tri-County Committee (Dana Chadwick) to attend the meeting. Representatives for future meetings (second Tuesday of each month) will be: Marion Woods, November\nMary McClendon, December\nDana Chadwick, January. The next committee meeting will be 9:00 a.m., Tuesday, October 13, 1998, at the North Little Rock School District Central Office. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met on Tuesday, October 13, 1998, in the NLRSD Administration Building. Doug Ask represented the committee at the Teacher Center Coordinators' meeting in Fayetteville, October 6. He shared with the Tri-District Committee information regarding the upcoming NSCI/Smart Start Training. James Smith spoke with the group about Amendment 4. Members of the Tri-District Staff Development Committee also met with the Teacher Center Coordinators, Wednesday, October 28. Doug Ask, Marion Woods, and Esther Crawford were trained as facilitators, October 29, for the initial Smart Start Summit to be held November 9-12, 1998. Marion Woods will represent the committee at the next regular Teacher Center Coordinators' meeting, Tuesday, November 3, 10:00 a.m. at the ADE. The next Tri-District Committee meeting will be at 9:00 a.m., November 10, in the PCSSD Administration Building. Members of the Tri-District Staff Development Committee met several times with the Teacher Center Coordinators in preparation for the Smart Start Summit. During the Smart Start Summit, they served as facilitators. The meeting planned for November 10 was postponed due to the conflict with the Summit. Doug Ask, Marion Woods, and Esther Crawford met with the Teacher Center Coordinators on Tuesday, December 1, 1998, for the regular monthly meeting. Principal topics discussed were the Smart Start Initiative and Principals' Institute. The next meeting of the Teacher Center Coordinators is scheduled for January 6, 1999, 9:00 a.m., in the ADE Auditorium. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee will meet at 9:00 a.m., Tuesday, December 8, 1998, at the Little Rock School District Instructional Resources Center. 57 VIII. IN-SERVICE TRAINING (Continued) D. Evaluate in-service training programs developed and executed to address in-service training needs of desegregating districts. (Continued) 2. Actual as of July 31 , 2001 (Continued) Doug Ask, PCSSD\nMarion Woods, LRSD\nand Esther Crawford, NLRSD, met with the Teacher Center Coordinators on Tuesday, December 1, 1998, for the regular monthly meeting. Principal topics discussed were the Smart Start Initiative and Principals' Institute. The Teacher Center Coordinators held their monthly meeting on January 6, 1999, 9:00 a.m., in the ADE Auditorium, with Doug Ask, Marion Woods, and Esther Crawford in attendance. At the January meeting, the primary focus was on the Smart Start Initiative. Dates for the future committee meetings have been tentatively scheduled to coincide with meetings with the Teacher Center Coordinators. Due to the Tri-District Committee's involvement with the Smart Start Initiative, no formal meeting of the committee was held in January. Members of the TriDistrict Staff Development Committee met with Teacher Center Coordinators, January 6 and 25, 1999, preparing for and facilitating Smart Start activities. Dates for future meetings have been tentatively scheduled to coincide with meetings of Teacher Center Coordinators. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met Wednesday, February 17, 1999, at the Best Western lnntowne with four members in attendance. Most of the discussion centered on Smart Start and Character Centered Teaching. A March meeting date was not determined. Members of the Tri-District Staff Development Committee met with the Teacher Center Coordinators at their regular monthly meeting, April 6, 1999, at the ADE. Much of the meeting centered on the Smart Start Initiative and the Getting Smarter Summer Conference to be held in Hot Springs, July 28- 31 , 1999. The next meeting of the Tri-District Staff Development Committee will be May 11 , 1999, at the Northeast Arkansas Educational Cooperative, Walnut Ridge. Members of the Tri-District Staff Development Committee met with the Teacher Center Coordinators at their regular monthly meeting, Tuesday, May 11 , 1999, at the Northeast Arkansas Educational Cooperative, Walnut Ridge, with Mary McClendon, PCSSD, Marion Woods, LRSD, Esther Crawford, NLRSD, and Janinne Riggs, ADE, attending. Much of the meeting centered on the Smart Start Initiative. The next meeting was scheduled as a retreat, June 7-9, 1999, at Hot Springs. Members of the Tri-District Staff Development Committee met with the Teacher Center Coordinators for their annual retreat, June 7-9, 1999, at Hot Springs. The next regular meeting will be in September, the date and place to be announced later. Summer activities will include the Getting Smarter Conference. 5 8 VIII. IN-SERVICE TRAINING (Continued) D. Evaluate in-service training programs developed and executed to address in-service training needs of desegregating districts. (Continued) 2. Actual as of July 31, 2001 (Continued) Members of the Tri-District Staff Development Committee met during the Getting Smarter Conference, July 28-31, 1999, at Hot Springs. In collaboration with the Teacher Center Coordinators, those participating in the conference as facilitators were: Doug Ask, PCSSD\nEsther Crawford, NLRSD\nand Marion Woods, LRSD. The next regular meeting will be in September, the date and place to be announced later. Target, Teach, and Test for Student Success, a workshop aimed at improving interpretation of test data and applying that knowledge toward more effective lesson planning, was adapted for presentation in conjunction with the Multicultural Institute. Members of the Standards Assurance Unit (Dee Cox, Betty Gale Davis, Bob Maddox, and Lonzo Gatlin) presented an all-day workshop (Target, Teach, and Test for Student Success) for Pulaski County Special School District in connection with the Multicultural Institute, July 27, 1999. Members of the Tri-District Staff Development Committee met Tuesday, September 7, 1999, at the ADE, with five members in attendance: Doug Ask and Mary McClendon, PCSSD\nEsther Crawford, NLRSD\nMaron Woods, LRSD\nand Betty Gale Davis, ADE. Discussion included Smart Start activities and performance assessment. Following the meeting, the committee met with the Teacher Center Coordinators at their regular monthly meeting. The next meeting will be Tuesday, October 5, 1999, at the ADE. Members of the Tri-District Staff Development Committee met Tuesday, October 5, 1999 at the ADE. Discussion included middle level training (LRSD), inservice for administrators in retreat (PCSSD), and Smart Start activities. Following the meeting, the committee met with the Teacher Center Coordinators at their regular monthly meeting. The next meeting will be November 2, 1999 at the ADE. Members of the Tri-District Staff Development Committee met Tuesday, November 2, 1999 at the ADE. Following the meeting, the committee met with the Teacher Center Coordinators at their regular monthly meeting. The next meeting will be December 7, at the ADE. The December meeting was canceled due to conflicts in scheduling. The TriDistrict Staff Development Committee will hold its next meeting January 3, 2000 at the ADE. The Committee continues to work in cooperation with the Teacher Center Coordinators in the Smart Start Initiative. 59 VIII. IN-SERVICE TRAINING (Continued) D. Evaluate in-service training programs developed and executed to address in-service training needs of desegregating districts. (Continued) 2. Actual as of July 31, 2001 (Continued) The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met January 4, 2000 at the ADE. Major discussion included the upcoming three day meeting with Teacher Center Coordinators (January 4-6, 2000), benchmarks training (NLRSD), balance literacy training (PCSSD), alternative learning training (LRSD), and activities of the Smart Start Initiative. The next meeting will be February 3, 2000 at the ADE. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met Monday and Tuesday, February 7-8, 2000, at Ferncliff, with four members present: Doug Ask and Mary McClendon, PCSSD\nEsther Crawford, NLRSD\nand Marion Woods, LRSD. The meeting was held in conjunction with the Teacher Center Coordinators' retreat. Several presenters shared information on various topics, and the Getting Smarter summer conference was discussed. Plans were tentatively made to conduct the April meeting via distance learning. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met March 7, 2000, at the ADE. Following the meeting, the committee met with the Teacher Center Coordinators at their regular monthly meeting. Items discussed were: documentation of clock hours for professional development, Middle School training, and the use of staff development days. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met by Distance Leaming through the Sherwood School Site with the Teacher Center Coordinators for its April meeting. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met with the Teacher Center Coordinators, in conjunction with the Smart Step Summit, May 1-2, 2000, at the Convention Center. Three members participated: Doug Ask and Mary McClendon, PCSSD\nand Marion Woods, LRSD. A June meeting date has not been set. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met with the Teacher Center Coordinators at their annual summer conference in Hot Springs, June 5-7, 2000. Among the discussions were the formation of a chapter of the National Staff Development Council, the Pathwise Mentor program grant, Smart Start, and Smart Step. In lieu of a regular monthly meeting, the Tri-District Staff Development Committee met and worked with the Teacher Center Coordinators during the Smart Start/Smart Step conferences, July 10-13, 2000, at the Little Rock Convention Center. The next meeting date has not yet been set. 60 VIII. IN-SERVICE TRAINING (Continued) D. Evaluate in-service training programs developed and executed to address in-service training needs of desegregating districts. (Continued) 2. Actual as of July 31, 2001 (Continued) The Tri-District Staff Development Committee will reconvene in September, with no meeting during August. LRSD, NLRSD, and PCSSD applied for the Arkansas Pathwise Mentoring Pilot Model as a collaborative effort and were awarded $445,875 for the new teachers for the 2000-2001 school year - one of many collaborative successful ventures for the districts. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee has been working with Smart Start and Smart Step Initiatives in collaboration with the Teacher Center Coordinators throughout the month of August. No regular meeting is scheduled for September. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met Tuesday, October 3, 2000, at the Arkansas Department of Education, Room 3058, with three members present: Marion Woods, LRSD\nEsther Crawford, NLRSD\nand Dr. Betty Gale Davis, ADE. The procedures for dissemination of information within the respective districts were discussed. Members of cabinet level administrators from LRSD and PCSSD will be included in future meetings. Other topics of discussion were the Arkansas Pathwise Mentoring Program and topics of presentations for LRSD administrators. The next meeting will be Tuesday, November 7, 2000, in Room 303B, ADE. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met Tuesday, November 7, 2000, at the ADE, Room 3038, with seven members present: Doug Ask, John Mccraney, and Dr. Ruth Simmons Herts, PCSSD\nEsther Crawford, NLRSD\nDr. Bonnie Lesley and Marion Woods, LRSD\nand Dr. Betty Gale Davis, ADE. Dr. Herts and Dr. Lesley have been added to the committee in response to each district's request to include a member of the cabinet. Many of the recent staff development activities in each of the districts have been related to Smart Start and Smart Step. Other topics discussed included: the upcoming National Staff Development Council conference and the availability of math specialists and literacy specialists. The next meeting will be at 9:00 a.m., Tuesday, December 5, 2000, in Room 3038, ADE. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met Tuesday, December 5, 2000, at the ADE, Room 3038, with three members present: Esther Crawford, NLRSD\nSue Walls, LRSD\nand Dr. Betty Gale Davis, ADE. Many of the recent staff development activities in each of the districts have been related to Smart Start and Smart Step. Other topics discussed included: the ongoing Pathwise training of mentors, the writing training pro\nThis project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resoources.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\u003cdcterms_creator\u003eArkansas. Department of Education\u003c/dcterms_creator\u003e\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1716","title":"Court filings: District Court, motion for pre-trial order; District Court, Joshua intervenors' response to motion for pretrial order; District Court, two orders; District Court, Little Rock School District's (LRSD's) Baker (Elementary School) recruitment plan; District Court, motion for extension of time to respond to the Baker recruitment plan; District Court, Joshua intervenors' objections to Baker recruitment plan; District Court, notice of filing, Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) project management tool; District Court, order","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":["United States. District Court (Arkansas: Eastern District)"],"dc_date":["2001-07"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--21st Century","Joshua Intervenors","Little Rock School District","Baker Interdistrict School (Little Rock, Ark.)","Arkansas. Department of Education","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Educational law and legislation","Educational planning","School management and organization","School enrollment"],"dcterms_title":["Court filings: District Court, motion for pre-trial order; District Court, Joshua intervenors' response to motion for pretrial order; District Court, two orders; District Court, Little Rock School District's (LRSD's) Baker (Elementary School) recruitment plan; District Court, motion for extension of time to respond to the Baker recruitment plan; District Court, Joshua intervenors' objections to Baker recruitment plan; District Court, notice of filing, Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) project management tool; District Court, order"],"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/1716"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Available for use in research, teaching, and private study. Any other use requires permission from the Butler Center."],"dcterms_medium":["judicial records"],"dcterms_extent":["4 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"The transcript for this item was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.  IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL MOTION FOR PRE-TRIAL ORDER For its Motion, Little Rock School District (LRSD) states: RECEIVED .JlJL 1 o '7h01 _O.OUC f .. ... . , PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS 1. The Court directed counsel for the Joshua interveners on Friday not to directly contact LRSD employees concerning this case. On Saturday, counsel for the Joshua interveners called an LRSD employee at home to discuss the case. 2. The Court also directed the Joshua interveners to provide LRSD a witness list by Friday subject to revision of the witness list on Monday. Joshua provided a list on Friday afternoon which listed twenty-five people as witnesses, and additional seven people \"tentative witnesses\" and noted that Joshua also intended to call \"the monitor and associate monitors of the ODM\". Counsel for Joshua said by telephone and confirmed in a letter that Joshua's witnesses for Thursday and Friday would be five LRSD witnesses as well as Ann Marshall, Gene Jones and Horace Smith from the Office of Desegregation monitoring. LRSD confirmed in writing that the witnesses would be available and asked Joshua to provide the order of their expected testimony so that arrangements could be made to have them in Court at the appropriate time. 3. Counsel for Joshua also said by telephone and confirmed in writing that Dr. Lesley would not be needed as a witness until the August hearing dates. LRSD confirmed in writing that - Dr. Lesley will not be available until the August hearing dates. 4. On Monday afternoon, counsel for Joshua added ten names to his witness list bringing Joshua's total number of witnesses to forty-five. 5. Counsel for Joshua requested time to \"interview\" for LRSD witnesses on Monday evening or Tuesday. Joshua was informed that two of the witnesses were out of town and that the other two were busy preparing the hearing. 6. On June 10, 1998, LRSD and Joshua made the following agreement with respect to Joshua's participation in implementing and monitoring the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan: For fees and costs incurred for implementing and monitoring the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan, LRSD will reimburse your firm up to $48,333 .33 per year for three years beginning July 1, 1998. The Revised Desegregation and Education Plan contained a process by which Joshua could bring to the attention ofLRSD, and ultimately the Court, and problems with LRSD' s implementation of the plan. No such problems were brought to the Court's attention during the entire three-year period. LRSD filed an interim compliance report in March of2000 which showed that LRSD was in compliance with its obligations under the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. Joshua filed no response or objection to the interim compliance report. LRSD' s final compliance report was filed on March 15, 2001 . Joshua was given until May 18, 2001 to file objections and a hearing was set for July 5 and 6, 2001. Joshua's deadline for filing objections was extended twice and the objections were filed on June 25, 2001. Within the past two weeks, Joshua has sent dozens of FOI requests seeking thousands of pages of documents many of which were previously provided to Joshua, many of which were produced by committees which contained Joshua representatives and all of which Joshua could easily have reviewed months ago in accordance with the LRSD's 2 agreement to reimburse Joshua's fees for implementing and monitoring the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. During the last two weeks, Joshua representatives have also met personally and by telephone with the LRSD Administrators responsible for drafting the Compliance Report. 7. After the close of business on Monday evening, Joshua sent two faxes. The first added eleven names to Joshua's witness list, which now totals fifty-six. Joshua has apparently still not made a final determination about the exhibits to be presented at trial. The second fax purports to rescind Joshua's agreement that Dr. Leslie would not be called as a witness on Thursday or Friday. Apparently in retaliation for LRSD's inability to present witnesses for \"interviews\" at the last minute, counsel for Joshua threatened to subpoena Dr. Leslie to appear on Friday. This can only be because of counsel's knowledge that Dr. Leslie is willing to appear on Thursday but must attend a family reunion in Texas on Friday. 8. The Court expressed on Friday the hope and the expectation that counsel for the parties would be able to resolve any pre-trial issues. That has not happened. LRSD must now request that the Court limit Joshua's presentation on Thursday and Friday to the five LRSD witnesses originally requested as well as the representatives of the Office of Desegregation Monitoring, and that the Court require reasonable witness and exhibit lists and establish the parameters for any remaining discovery in this case, including the opportunity for LRSD to depose the witnesses from outside the district who were added last night to Joshua's witness list. WHEREFORE, for the reasons set forth above, LRSD prays for an order limiting the presentation of witnesses on Thursday and Friday to those originally identified by Joshua, establishing deadlines for providing exhibit lists and reasonable witness lists, establishing a pre-trial process to determine the expected length of trial and providing reasonable limitations on the issues 3 to be presented at trial and on the length of the trial, and establishing a deadline for the completion of any remaining discovery. Respectfully submitted, LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026 CLARK 2000 Regions Center 400 West Capitol Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3493 (501) 376-2011 4 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Christopher Heller, hereby certify that a copy of the above and foregoing pleading has been served upon: by mailing a copy of same by U. S. Postal Service on July 3, 2001. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing has been served on the following on this 3rd day of July 3, 2001 : Mr. John W. Walker JOHN WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell Law Firm 401 West Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, AR 72201 M. Samuel Jones WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026 JENNINGS 200 NationsBank 200 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, AR 72201 5 Ms. Ann Brown Desegregation Monitor Heritage West Bldg., Suite 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Sammye Taylor Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, AR 72201 Steve Jones JACK, LYON \u0026 JONES 3400 TCBY Tower 425 Capitol Avenue  ock, AR 72201 RECEIVED IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V NO. 4: 82CV00866 SWW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. - KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. JOSHUA INTERVENORS' RESPONSE TO MOTION FOR PRETRIAL ORDER JUL 5 -1001 OfflCEOf DESEGREGAl\\ON MONUOUI PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTER VEN ORS INTER VEN ORS Comes now the Joshua Intervenors, for their response to LRSD' s Motion for Pretrial Order, and state that Joshua is just in receipt ofLRSD's motion to limit evidence and to prevent a fair hearing. Since the court orders on Friday, June 29, 2001, the District has sought to obstruct and preclude the Joshua Intervenors from obtaining information and having access to witnesses. The District's counsel has made himself unavailable to be responsive to the reasonable requests of the Intervemors for information and access to personnel. This is the same vein in which LRSD's sought to lull Intervenors counsel's into the belief that counsel was preceding to undertake settlement negotiations in good faith. It is now evident that the settlement negotiations were delayed, and not otherwise conducted in good faith in an effort to prevent Intervemors' counsel from having access to information. The Motion for Pre-Trial Order is untimely and designed - further to interfere with Intervenors' counsel's ability to prepare for hearing set for Thursday. LRSD's motion is a motion for reconsideration of the court's ruling wherein the court required the LRSD to make its personnel reasonable accessibility to Joshua so that neither side would be subject to surprise during the trial. WHEREFORE, the Joshua Intervenors pray that the court reinforce its order requiring the LRSD to cooperate with the Joshua Intervenors, in the manner established during the years of this litigation so that the court can have the benefit of actual facts and evidence to enable the court to make her judgments herein. Respectfully submitted, John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 501-374-3758 501-374-4187 (fax) Sii:::t~~fe CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I do hereby state that a copy of the foregoing response has been faxed to Mr. Chris Heller at 376-2147 and Ms. Ann Brown at 371-0100 and copies sent to other counsel ofrecord via United States mail, postage prepaid on this 3\" day of~ 'ti!; y('~ FILED U.S. DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT .A.RKANSAS UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION JUL O 9 2001 JA_MESJW.~\\CORMACK CLERK By. \\v ,~\\l [\\ C\\I\\ ~C\u003e D PCLERK LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT vs. NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL MRS. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL JUL 11 2001 OffiCEOf DESE6REGATJON MONITORING 0 RD ER PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTER VENO RS INTERVENORS On July 5th and 6th , 2001 , a hearing was conducted pursuant to Little - Rock School District's request for the Court to declare it t o be in unitary status and Joshua's objections thereto. The evidence not being completed, the hearing with respect to the issues of achievement and discipline will continue on August 1, 2001, at 9:00 a.m., and proceed until noon on August 2, 2001. The deadline for the mutual exchange of witness and exhibit lists shall be no later than July 2 4, 2001.  Thereafter, the remainder of the hearing on the issues of achievement and discipline will continue on November 19th and 20th , 2001, at 9:00 a.m., if necessary. The parties are to exchange lists o f any additional witnesses or exhibits no later than November 1, 2001. A hearing on additional issues in this matter is hereby scheduled to begin on Monday, January 28, 2002, at 9:00 a.m., if necessary. For P. 1 :14 5 4 i,  - 2 - this hearing, witness and exhibit lists are to be exchanged no later than January 4, 2002. IT IS SO ORDERED this '11t\\_ day of~' 2001. S~B8u.~~ Chief United States District Judge THIS DOCUMENT ENTERED ON DOCKET SHEET IN COMPLIANCE WITH RULl;.58 AND/OR 79(a) FRCP ON 2:ID-0 J sv___.Ttr\"---t---- RECEIVED ttrric~ ..... VITI f: !.Jr COURT FILED \u00266REGATIOM IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION U.S. DISTRICT COURT '=ASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS  LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL JUL 1 0 2001 JAMESJ. M~RMACK, CLERK By: \\ , -....U /\\ (\\/\\ fl..A DEP ~LEf$.-. vs. NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL No. 4:82CV00866 SWW ORDER Pending before the Court is a motion for a pretrial order filed by Little Rock School District which appears to be moot at this time pursuant to the order entered this date setting forth deadlines for the mutual exchange of witness and exhibit lists prior to the hearings that currently are scheduled in this matter. The Clerk is directed to make the necessary docket entry removing said motion from the pending motions' report in this matter. Dated this 10~ day of July, 2001. THIS DOCUMENT ENTERED ON DOCKET SHEET IN COMPLIANCE WITH RULE: 58 AND/OR 79(a) FRCP ON 7--f0 - 0/ BY lJt:: SUS WEBERWRIGirr' Chief United States District Judge \"\"\" . t J4 5 5 I, IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. NO. 4:82CV00866SWW PULASKI COlJNrv S~PE CIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KA THERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. BAKER RECRUITMENT PLAN RECEIVED JUL 16 2001 OFFICE OF DESmREGATION MONITOill PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS There has been significant demand by LRSD minority students for seats at Baker Elementary over the past several years. Exhibit 1 is a copy of the most recent enrollment projection for Baker. The conversion of Baker to a middle school frees up the two sixth grade classrooms. The PCSSD proposes to add an additional kindergarten class for the 2001-2002 school year to be followed by the addition of yet another kindergarten class for the following school year. This would give Baker, in year 2, three first grade classes and three kindergarten classes. These classes would then be \"rolled up\" year by year until the first entering kindergarten class matriculated in the fifth grade and the process would then start over. The PCSSD believes that the emphasis upon recruiting at kindergarten over two years is the most practical approach it can take. It believes that attracting children at this level before they are settled into other schools is both rational and the most reasonable strategy to deploy. 249234-v1 Baker needs to recruit only about 22 additional minority children over two years to attain an enrollment that is safely 20% minority 1 . The PCS SD believes that this strategy, as outlined above, will accomplish this objective.2 The PCSSD believes that the construction of the new activities complex, approved by this Court, will facilitate and ---~!lhance it~ current recT~i!i!1] _effort_s. A~ a source for new students, the District's recruitment strategy will be narrowly focused as described below. Recruiting Target A new apartment complex for low income housing was completed recently at 15000 Chenal Parkway approximately one-half mile from Baker Elementary. The name of the complex is \"Chenal Park\". It is on the border of the PCSSD and LRSD. Chenal Park contains 176 two and three bedroom apartments for low income families. Information supplied by the LRSD reveals that the LRSD currently educates 48 elementary-aged minority students from Chenal Park of whom 40 are currently assigned to Terry with the remainder scattered among other schools, principally the stipulation magnet schools. (Exhibit 2). In the last two years, school-aged children from Chenal Park have applied to attend Baker under the assumption that its proximity to their homes meant it was their neighborhood school. Until now, the PCSSD has not had room at Baker to accommodate all of these requests. Because of Baker's proximity to Chenal Park, its reputation, the enhancements to the campus that the Court has approved and because of the prior interest expressed by - 1 This, of course, is a minimum goal. However, the PCSSD believes this to be a reasonable initial goal for this on-going effort. 2 Ideally, the PCSSD could commit the funds to add a class at each grade level. However, the recent millage defeat and the allegation made by some that Baker is an \"identifiably white\" school has dissuaded the District from this proposition. 249234-v1 2 some residents of Chenal Park, the PCSSD believes that this recruitment effort over a period of two years should bring Baker into compliance with its racial balance goals. The PCSSD has scheduled a \"registration carnival\" to be held at Baker on August 1, 2001. The publicity for this event has been targeted to Chenal Park. August 1st is the first day of PCSSD's three-day registration period. Thus, this timing will permit - - - - - -- --. -- - ---- - -- --- the PCSSD to prefer potential M to M students from Chenal Park before the PCSSD must commit any remaining seats to applicants from within its attendance zone. 249234-v1 Respectfully submitted, WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026 JENNINGS LLP 200 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3699 (501) 371-0808 FAX: (501) 376-9442 By __:__...:;....,1 _ ___;;;_.....:..;1=-------M. A Sc 3 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE On July 13, 2001, a copy of the foregoing was served via U.S. mail on each of the following: Mr. John W. Walker John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway -- Little Rock, Arkansas 7220f --. -  Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026 Clark 2000 First Commercial Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Ms. Ann Brown Marshall ODM One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell Law Firm P.O. Box 17388 Little Rock, Arkansas 72222-7388 Ms. Sammye L. Taylor Mr. Mark A. Hagemeier Arkansas Attorney General's Office 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 249234-v1 M.S~onesll 4 07 / 12/!ll f.Iru 15: 46 FAX -~141002 Memo . ... _ To: From: Date: Re: STUDENT REGISTRATION OFFICE Chris Heller  x/ /\\ J Julie Wiedo~er, Director of Student Reg-istrati~O v eJ unes~~ ~ Requ.~~~ for Student Information Pursuant to our telephone conversation yesterday, I have determined that there have been at least 40 Little Rock School District students who have applied through the M to M Transfer application for a school assignment at Baker Elementary School in the Pulaski County Special School District over the past four years and who have not been enrolled. The County's inability to place our M to M students at Baker has been related to a lack of scat capacity after they have placed the Baker zone students. Our data for the 2001-02 school year shows a total of27 Little Rock School District M to M students assigned to Baker, including no kindergartners and only two 1st graders. Pulaski County Special School District has requested the number of elementary students currently on our database living at the apartment complex at l.5000 Chenal Parkway. There are 48 black students and 12 non-black students and 40 of these students are attending Terry Elementary school, the attendance zone school for that area. The remaining 20 are attending Williams, Carver, Booker, King and Washington magnet schools, as well as McDermott, Fulbright and Dodd attendance zone schools. All of these schools are racially balanced. CC: Junious Babbs, Associate Supcdntendent for Administrative Services EXHIBIT I 501 SHERMAN STREET - LITTLE ROCK AR. 72202 - P.HONE: 32~2272 - FAX: 324-2281 - - - .. . al --.J '- PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT I-'. ! w Enrollment ProiecUons - 2001-2002 Revised 05-21-01 i '-' Iv C1ass PRE-K KIND. FIRST SECOND THIRD FOURTH FIFTH SIXTH TOTA\\. ELEMENTARY a:19 .a..l. . Capacity DLK WHT TOT BLK WJIT TOT BLK WlIT ror BLK WBT TOT BLK WOT TOT BLK \\VDT T\u003cJf fiLK WIIT 1'0T BLK WJIT ror BLK \" WBT ,,. TOT  ~LEMENTARY SCHOOLS CS) .C.D I-' .DIJNS 370 16 4 20 16 4 20 29 19 48 23 18 41 21 11 44 19 20 39 25 22 47 0 0 0 155 60% 104 40% 259 I-' illNOLDDR. 420 0 0 0 ts Gl 77 15 62 77 11 6S 76 I4 41 62 17 44 61 J-4 47 \" 0 0 0 86 21~ 328 1''il, -414 IAXER 330 0 0 0 6 34 40 6 34 40 7 37 44 7 41 4\u0026 2 46 48 10 30 -4(1 0 0 0 38 15~ 222 \u0026s'il, uo U1 al I-' IATBS 750 31 n 54 31 23 54 43 43 16 47 '7 94 48 3:5 83 51 46 97 12 S8 J'.lO 0 0 0 323 S4'1\u003e 27S 46~ S'JS I ~ IAYOUMETO \" 0 0 0 4 61 n 4 6B n 2 83 15 3 11 80 2 90 n 2 75 77 0 0 0 17 4'1, 461 96'11 478 \u003c.D al I :ATO 576 0 0 0 15 49 64 JS 49 64 10 68 78 16 46 62 20 59 79 16 54 70 0 0 0 92 2291- 325 78'1, 411 I-' w :LINTON 8l3 31 33 71 38 33 71 37 41 78 42 49 91 59 52 111 41 48 89 S9 52 lit 0 0 0 314 50% U1 308 50% 622 Iv '.:OLLl!GESTA 34-0 0 0 0 6 3 9 4 6 10 9 3 12 II 2 13 27 19 46 20 lO 50 0 0 0 77 SS% 63 45% 140 CRYSI\"ALIUL uo 29 24 53 29 24 53 46 54 JOO 53 49 102 41 47 9S ,1 49 96 54 52 ,~ 53 59 111 359 50% 3S\u0026 50% 717 DUPIIJ!R 465 0 0 0 13 39 52 13 39 .52 15 31 46 ll 34 47 20 49 69 12 37 49 0 0 0 86 17% 229 7311, 315 IJ..UUUS 525 0 0 (I 12 10 22 12 10 22 16 12 78 16 12 28 21 7 34 29 21 50 0 0 0 112 61~- 72 :w;i. 184 l'VILU .ELE.\"1 715 0 0 0 62 4, 111 62 49 Ill 45 SI ,6 j5 38 93 54 45 99 51 40 91 0 0 0 329 5$\\l, 272 45',/, 001 l.ANDllfARK 568 11 18 3S 11 u lS 24 26 50 25 26 SI 22 28 ,o 30 37 61 35 34 69 0 0 0 170 48111, 187 52% 3S7 111 LAWSON 325 0 9 40 49 9 40 49 3 32 JS 8 24 32 7 34 41 ' 11 36 0 0 0 45 19~ 197 81',\\ 242 ) C H JAKGROVJU 476 17 55 72 17 55 n 9 .(0 .(9 12 41 SJ 11 33 44 JO 33 43 14 41 55 14 37 51 104 24~ 335 76\\l- .. 439 --1 \u003c DAirnROOKB 500 0 0 0 II 27 38 11 27 38 18 33 51 21 )6 51 14 41 55 14 27 41 0 0 0 \u00269 32% 191 6S% 280 lJ C ~JNRFORIISf 556 0 16 44 w 16 4' 60 JO 5-2 62 13 31 so 10 73 83 II 53 M 21 65 116 91 21% 361 19% 6:5 lJ H r ~INJ!.WOOO 5l3 0 0 0 12 54 76 12 54 16 n 38 61 22 4\u0026 70 22 411 10 30 39 69 0 0 0 141 3J'ilo 211 67% 422 lf) lWBIN. ELEM. 459 0 s 39 47 ' 41 .:so ~ 39 48 14 43 S1 15 41 51 15 47 62 0 0 0 10 21')1, 251 78'i1, 321 111 ;o \u003c SCOTI 180 0 4 19 23 4 l9 2) 8 21 29 7 10 17 8 10 18 7 JI 18 0 0 0 38 30,t 90 7(111, 118 H () 111 SRl!Jl \\\\'0OD 460 0 )9 37 SC, 19 37 56 19 33 52 16 37 53 20 43 (i3 19 33 52 0 0 0 112 34'll\u003e 220 6~1' 3]2. SYL. IDLl.S El 456 0 11 38 s~ 18 38 56 11 33 44 21 19 so 22 45 67 25 46 71 0 0 0 11:5 339, 2:2.9 67'l 344 TAYLOR uo 0 21 3S 56 21 35 56 19 36 55 JO JI 61 30 36 66 22 32 54 0 0 0 143 4191, 205 59'1- 348 l'OLLl!SON 570 0 0 0 13 46 59 13 '6 S9 15 51 66 11 48 6.5 20 47 61 14 40 54 0 0 0 92 l!i'll, 278 7S'l, 310 T01\"AJ.11L~t. U81 141 157 .l415 421 150 tl72 461 921 1312 452 943 1400 519 853 nn 535 1011 1546 51JI 941 1527 88 161 l49 32Al~ 35~ S1149 65% ,e53 lJ l\u003e EXHIBIT G) 111 I I al Iv '- CS) Iv -- - --- UFILEO EASTElN '6\\i~~',g. COURT ARKANSAS JUL 2 6 2001 ~AMES W. McCORMACK IN THE UNJTED STATES DISTRICT cctDR1  CLEF~K EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS DEP CLERK WESTERN DMSION LITTLE'ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V NO. 4:82CV00866 SWW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL RECEIVED DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. JUL 2 7 2001 INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. OFFICE OF INTERVENORS DESEGREGATION MONITORIN\u0026 MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO RESPOND TO THE BAKER RECRUITMENT PLAN Come now the Joshua Intervenors, by and through undersigned counsel, for their Motion for Extension of Time to Respond to Baker Recruitment Plan, state: 1. Counsel is preparing in the instant case for a hearing scheduled for next week, August 1, 2001. 2. This request is not made for purposes of delay. 3. Undersigned counsel has been unsuccessful in contacting counsel for the Pulaski County Special School District to determine whether he has objections to this request. WHEREFORE, the Joshua Intervenors pray that the Court enters an Order extending the time in which they may respond to the Baker Recruitment Plan up to and including July 30, 2001. Respectfully submitted, John W. Walker, P.A. 1 723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 (501):-J)3758  By ~ fi'Wdl~ John W. Walker - Bar No. 64046 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I do hereby state that a copy of the foregoing motion has been sent to all counsel of record on this 26th day ofJuly, 2001 via United States m , postage prepaid. fY, W'ttt\u0026~ RECEIVED AUG 1 2001 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FILED U.S. DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS JUL 3 0 2001 OfRCEOF QESEGREGATION MONITORING EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS JAMES W. McCORMACK CLERK WESTERN DMSION By: ' DEP CLERK LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF v. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al. DEFENDANTS JOSHUA INTERVENORS' OBJECTIONS TO BAKER RECRUITMENT PLAN The Court entered an order on June 5, 2001 where it approved defendant's motion for  permission to add an activities complex in Baker Interdistrict school. The Court noted that the defendants had asserted \"that the addition of an activities complex would enhance recruitment of minority students to Baker ... \" The Order was not a final one for purposes of appeal. Accordingly, the Court noted the Joshua Intervenors' objections in Footnote 2 of the Order and called attention to Section J of the plan by which the defendants are now reportedly operating their school. The Court did not address the Joshua question of the possibility that private donations may not be used to establish \"separate but unequal schools\". The Court required the Defendant PCSSD to file a report \"setting forth how it intends to improve racial balance at Baker and how it is going about meeting its obligation of Section J of Plan 2000. The Court further [ directed] the PCS SD to set forth target dates for the completion of these obligations. The defendants have now submitted their recruitment plan. The Joshua Intevenors observe that the Court required a report which set forth how the district intends to meet its obligation under Section J and directed a target date for completion of the obligation. The Joshua Intervenors do not believe that the defendants have complied with the -1- Court's requirements. The defendants propose the following: a) There will be no recruitment. This is so because enough Little Rock students who reside within the Chenal Park area have applied for entry to Baker but have not been admitted before now because Baker did not have sufficient space to accommodate b) c) d) e)  their requests. If PCS SD recruitment does occur, it will be at the kindergarten level only, and be spread over a two year period. It will involve only 22 Little Rock minority children, a number which will cause the Baker enrollment to eventually be 20% minority. It will not involve and be limited to those pupils who apply during recruitment of black students from the Little Rock District as a whole. It will involve the \"registration carnival\" targeted to occur on August 1st . The Joshua objections at the least are as follows pending a hearing: a) The defendants' response is totally insufficient in that it to meet the explicit orders of the Court. b) The defendants seek to limit the geographic area of Little Rock from which minority students may be selected or, may themselves make a choice of their own for school attendance. Joshua objects to transfers from the Little Rock School District of minority students being limited to the Chenal area or, for that matter to low income minority children. c) The purported recruitment plan imposes no affirmative obligations upon the -2- d) defendants, or for that matter the Little Rock School District, to recruit minority students to Baker, by number, method of recruitment, or by date of recruitment. The defendants allege that they have not admitted more minority students to Baker, despite the applications of minority students for Baker from Little Rock, because the PCSSD \"has not had room at Baker to accommodate all of [their] requests\". This  proposition is factually incorrect on its face. See the ODM report on capacity. Baker does not now appear to be at or near capacity. Indeed, Baker has space to accommodate, without class additions 70 students. It could easily accommodate more than 40 black applicants in grades kindergarten through fifth with ease at one time. Accommodation of only 40 black applicants, assuming that the defendants' projections are otherwise correct, would mean that Baker would experience a racial balance of74% white and 26% black for the next school year. The District's proposal to limit placement of black students in kindergarten classes is totally unreasonable and negative to desegregation objectives. Furthermore, the school district proposes to add two kindergarten and effectively an additional first grade class. This undoubtedly would result in between 60 and 75 additional students for a total enrollment 335 students with a net result of Baker's enrollment being only 17% - up from 15% - rather than 20%. Joshua submits that the Baker plan is simply a plan to further enrollment options for majority race students at Baker. Joshua further submits to obtain preliminary Court approval for expanding the basic enrollment capacity of Baker and to enlarge the Baker attendance zone in order to accommodate the increased demand being made by white pupils. -3- e) There is no justification submitted by PCS SD for disallowing primary grade minority students' attendance at Baker as proposed by the defendants. f) The defendants did not set forth as required target dates for the completion of its obligations. Specifically, the defendants did not consult the Joshua Intervenors nor did they otherwise meet the Court's expectations before they submitted their report. g)  The defendants' plan requires a minimal goal of 20% for an interdistrict school. The Joshua Intervenors further believe that they are entitled to have an evidentiary hearing before school for which they pray. At that time the defendants should be required to sufficiently . demonstrate the actions which it has taken in response to the Order of the Court. Joshua notes that the response of the defendant is from defendant's counsel; it is without affidavit support and the factual representations may not be subject to examination because they have been lawyer generated. WHEREFORE, the Joshua Intervenors respectfully request that the defendants' \"Baker Recruitment Plan\" be disapproved, because it is not in compliance with the Court's Orders of June 5, 2001 ; that the defendants be directed not to accept any new white students for registration for Baker pending further Orders of the Court; that the defendants be required to develop and implement an effective recruitment plan which affords Little Rock School District minority students immediate transfer options and to assure that such persons electing to transfer will be treated on equally favorable terms as PCSSD Baker attendance zone white children; and that the Court schedule a hearing, before the beginning of school, so that the defendants may report upon the actual progress and results that the district has achieved. The Joshua Intervenors further requests that the defendants be specifically required to involve the Joshua Intervenors in all planning and implementation activities of the school district to the extent that same is required by the revised desegregation plan -4- approved by the Court, pendente lite. By: Respectfully submitted, JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 (501) 374-3758 (Tel.) (501) 74- 187 (Fax) J CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing has been mailed, postage prepaid to the following counsel or record, postage prepaid on this M day of July, 2001. Mr.M. SamuelJones,ill Wright, Lindsey \u0026 Jennings 200 West Capitol Avenue Suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3699 Ms. Ann Brown Marshall ODM One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell Law Firm P.O. Box 17388 Little Rock, Arkansas 72222-7388 -5- Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026 Clark 400 W. Capitol, Suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones Jones, Lyon \u0026 Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Ms. Sammye L. Taylor Assistant Attorney General 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 \\ IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DMSION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF v. No. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al. DEFENDANTS NOTICE OF FILING In accordance with the Court's Order of December 10, 1993, the Arkansas Department of Education hereby gives notice of the filing of ADE's Project Management Tool for July, 2001. RECEIVED JUL 3 0 2001 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORINQ Respectfully Submitted, MARK.PRYOR Attorney General Assistant Attorney General 323 Center Street, Suite 20 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 682-3643 Attorney for Arkansas Department of Education CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Mark A. Hagemeier, certify that on July 27, 2001, I caused a copy of the foregoing document to be served by U.S. mail, postage prepaid, on the following person(s) at the address(es) indicated: M. Samuel Jones, ill Wright, Lindsey \u0026 Jennings 2000 NationsBank Bldg. 200 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 :TohnW. Walker John Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway LittleRock, AR 72201 Richard Roachell P.O. Box 17388 Little Rock, AR 72222-7388 Timothy G. Gauger Mitchell, Williams, Selig, Gates \u0026 Woodyard 425 West Capitol Ave. Suite 1800 Little Rock, AR 72201-3525 Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026 Clark 2000 Regions Center 400 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 s'tepheri w. Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026 Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Ann Marshall One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 - -------- IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL PLAINTIFFS V. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET "},{"id":"gsl_borm_borm2001-2002","title":"Minutes, Board of Regents, 2001-2002, July 1, 2001-June 30, 2002","collection_id":"gsl_borm","collection_title":"Board of Regents of the University System of Georgia Meeting Minutes, 1932-2005","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, Georgia, Fulton County, Atlanta, 33.749, -84.38798"],"dcterms_creator":["Board of Regents of the University System of Georgia"],"dc_date":["2001-07-01/2002-06-30"],"dcterms_description":["Meeting minutes and agendas of the Board of Regents of the University System of Georgia. Digitization of this collection is a project of the Georgia Public Library Service, a unit of the Board of Regents of the University System of Georgia, in association with the University System. The project is supported with federal LSTA funds administered by the Institute of Museum and Library Services."],"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Atlanta, Ga. : Board of Regents of the University System of Georgia"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Board of Regents of the University System of Georgia Meeting Minutes, 1932-2005"],"dcterms_subject":["Education, Higher--United States--Administration","Universities and colleges","Schools","University System of Georgia. Board of Regents","Minutes (Records)","Agendas (Series)"],"dcterms_title":["Minutes, Board of Regents, 2001-2002, July 1, 2001-June 30, 2002"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Board of Regents of the University System of Georgia"],"edm_is_shown_by":["https://dlg.galileo.usg.edu/do:gsl_borm_borm2001-2002"],"edm_is_shown_at":["https://dlg.usg.edu/record/gsl_borm_borm2001-2002"],"dcterms_temporal":["2001-07-01/2002-06-30"],"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":["Board of Regents of the University System of Georgia. Board of Regents of the University System of Georgia Meeting Minutes, 1932-2005. Office of Legal Affairs, Board of Regents of the University System of Georgia, Atlanta, Georgia."],"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["minute books"],"dcterms_extent":["783 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"bcas_p15728coll3_430874","title":"National Dunbar Alumni Association 2001 alumni directory","collection_id":"bcas_p15728coll3","collection_title":"Butler Center for Arkansas Studies Documents Collection","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":["National Dunbar Alumni Association of Little Rock, Arkansas"],"dc_date":["2001-07"],"dcterms_description":["Directory of alumni from Dunbar High School and Dunbar Junior College in Little Rock, Arkansas.","This project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resources."],"dc_format":["image/jpeg"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : University of Arkansas at Little Rock Center for Arkansas History and Culture"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["National Dunbar Alumni Association historical collection, 1880-2016 (UALR.MS.0021)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["African Americans--Arkansas--Little Rock","Dunbar High School (Little Rock, Ark.)","Education--Arkansas--Little Rock","Education, Secondary","Segregation in education--Arkansas--Little Rock"],"dcterms_title":["National Dunbar Alumni Association 2001 alumni directory"],"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/p15728coll3/id/430874"],"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":null},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1346","title":"Proceedings: ''Joshua: Objection to Little Rock School District's Motion for Unitary Status''","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":["United States. District Court (Arkansas: Eastern District)"],"dc_date":["2001-06-29"],"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","School districts--Arkansas--Pulaski County","Education--Arkansas","Educational law and legislation","School integration","Court records"],"dcterms_title":["Proceedings: ''Joshua: Objection to Little Rock School District's Motion for Unitary Status''"],"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/1346"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Available for use in research, teaching, and private study. Any other use requires permission from the Butler Center."],"dcterms_medium":["legal documents"],"dcterms_extent":["247 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"noa_sohpcr_k-0848","title":"Oral history interview with Ian Thomas Palmquist, June 27, 2001","collection_id":"noa_sohpcr","collection_title":"Oral Histories of the American South: The Civil Rights Movement","dcterms_contributor":["McGinnis, Chris","Southern Oral History Program"],"dcterms_spatial":["United States, North Carolina, Orange County, 36.0613, -79.1206","United States, North Carolina, Orange County, Chapel Hill, 35.9132, -79.05584"],"dcterms_creator":["Palmquist, Ian Thomas"],"dc_date":["2001-06-27"],"dcterms_description":["Ian Thomas Palmquist was a student at Enloe High School in Raleigh, North Carolina during the early 1990s. Palmquist begins the interview by recalling an event in 1994, around the time that he was coming to terms with his sexual orientation. After a group of students had hung posters throughout the school with messages of hate against gays and lesbians, Palmquist banded together with other students to hang up posters promoting awareness and tolerance. All students involved were ultimately suspended, but Palmquist describes how the event garnered media attention. With the help of the ACLU, Palmquist and his friends were later vindicated. Palmquist recalls how he was just beginning to \"come out\" to his friends and family during this event. For Palmquist, the process was generally positive and he was open about his sexuality during his last year in high school. In 1995, Palmquist became an undergraduate at University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Palmquist describes what it was like to be a gay student at UNC during the mid-1990s, recalling how at first he did not feel like there was much of a gay community. Eventually, Palmquist joined B-GLAD (Bisexuals, Gays, Lesbians, and Allies for Diversity) and soon became a leader in that organization. Palmquist describes the role of B-GLAD on campus, its activities, and its relationship with student government. In addition, he describes the structural changes the organization was undergoing during his tenure, focusing specifically on the decision to change the name of B-GLAD to QNC (Queer Network for Change) in order to become more inclusive for transgender students. In addition, Palmquist discusses how B-GLAD promoted cooperation amongst gays, lesbians, bisexuals, and transgendered people, which he saw as a positive development. Palmquist concludes the interview with a discussion of the formation of Equality NC PAC in 1990 and his work with the political action committee beginning in 1999. Palmquist eventually became the director of Equality NC PAC; however, at the time of the interview he had only worked for the organization for two years. Specifically, he discusses the action committee's work towards supporting \"gay-friendly\" legislators and their efforts to raise awareness and promote tolerance.","The Civil Rights Digital Library received support from a National Leadership Grant for Libraries awarded to the University of Georgia by the Institute of Museum and Library Services for the aggregation and enhancement of partner metadata."],"dc_format":["text/html","text/xml","audio/mpeg"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":null,"dc_relation":["Forms part of Oral histories of the American South collection."],"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":null,"dcterms_subject":["Gay activists--North Carolina","Gay college students--North Carolina--Chapel Hill","B-GLAD (Student group)","Queer Network for Change (Student group)","Gay liberation movement--North Carolina--Chapel Hill","Equality NC PAC","Gays--North Carolina--Political activity","Political action committees--North Carolina","Gay rights--North Carolina"],"dcterms_title":["Oral history interview with Ian Thomas Palmquist, June 27, 2001"],"dcterms_type":["Text","Sound"],"dcterms_provenance":["University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Documenting the American South (Project)"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://docsouth.unc.edu/sohp/K-0848/menu.html"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["transcripts","sound recordings","oral histories (literary works)"],"dcterms_extent":["Title from menu page (viewed on Oct. 31, 2008).","Interview participants: Ian Thomas Palmquist, interviewee; Chris McGinnis, interviewer.","Duration: 01:23:56.","This electronic edition is part of the UNC-Chapel Hill digital library, Documenting the American South. It is a part of the collection Oral histories of the American South.","Text encoded by Kristin Shaffer. Sound recordings digitized by Aaron Smithers."],"dlg_subject_personal":["Palmquist, Ian Thomas"],"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"noa_sohpcr_k-0844","title":"Oral history interview with Bill Hull, June 21, 2001","collection_id":"noa_sohpcr","collection_title":"Oral Histories of the American South: The Civil Rights Movement","dcterms_contributor":["McGinnis, Chris","Southern Oral History Program"],"dcterms_spatial":["United States, North Carolina, Orange County, 36.0613, -79.1206","United States, North Carolina, Orange County, Chapel Hill, 35.9132, -79.05584"],"dcterms_creator":["Hull, Bill, 1945-"],"dc_date":["2001-06-21"],"dcterms_description":["Because he and all of his siblings were gay men, Bill Hull felt his sexuality was not unusual. Nonetheless, discretion was vital to southern gay men, say Hull. Public acknowledgement of homosexuality could result in economic recrimination or physical violence. He describes his coming-out experience as a teenager and the impact the liberating Chapel Hill atmosphere had on gay males. His experiences at the University of North Carolina and his participation in the local civil rights movement further awakened his sexual and social consciousness. Hull explains how the civil rights movement served as the basis for the later gay rights movement. He points to dominant gay personalities in Chapel Hill and the pivotal role early gay bars had on his sexual identity. The interview illuminates the public safe sexual havens on the UNC's campus. He describes the fear of HIV and AIDS within the gay community in the early 1980s. Hull argues that the subsequent conservative backlash against gay culture negatively impacted the openness of the Chapel Hill gay community.","The Civil Rights Digital Library received support from a National Leadership Grant for Libraries awarded to the University of Georgia by the Institute of Museum and Library Services for the aggregation and enhancement of partner metadata."],"dc_format":["text/html","text/xml","audio/mpeg"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":null,"dc_relation":["Forms part of Oral histories of the American South collection."],"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":null,"dcterms_subject":["Gay men--North Carolina--Chapel Hill","Gay men--North Carolina--Chapel Hill--Social life and customs","Gay men--Sexual behavior--North Carolina--Chapel Hill","Gay bars--North Carolina","Gay men--North Carolina--Identity","Gay men--Family relationships--North Carolina--Durham"],"dcterms_title":["Oral history interview with Bill Hull, June 21, 2001"],"dcterms_type":["Text","Sound"],"dcterms_provenance":["University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Documenting the American South (Project)"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://docsouth.unc.edu/sohp/K-0844/menu.html"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["transcripts","sound recordings","oral histories (literary works)"],"dcterms_extent":["Title from menu page (viewed on Nov. 10, 2008).","Interview participants: Bill Hull, interviewee; Chris McGinnis, interviewer.","Duration: 01:34:17.","This electronic edition is part of the UNC-Chapel Hill digital library, Documenting the American South. It is a part of the collection Oral histories of the American South.","Text encoded by Jennifer Joyner. Sound recordings digitized by Aaron Smithers."],"dlg_subject_personal":["Hull, Bill, 1945-"],"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1708","title":"Court filings: District Court, Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) supplement to motion to approve middle school implementation; District Court, memorandum and order; District Court, two orders; District Court, motion for additional time to respond to compliance report; District Court, order; District Court, Joshua intervenors' opposition to Little Rock School District's (LRSD's) compliance report; District Court, notice of filing, Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) 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","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":["United States. District Court (Arkansas: Eastern District)"],"dc_date":["2001-06"],"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","Special districts--Arkansas--Pulaski County","Joshua Intervenors","Little Rock School District","Arkansas. Department of Education","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Education, Secondary","Educational innovations","Educational law and legislation","Educational planning","School management and organization","School integration","School improvement programs","School facilities"],"dcterms_title":["Court filings: District Court, Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) supplement to motion to approve middle school implementation; District Court, memorandum and order; District Court, two orders; District Court, motion for additional time to respond to compliance report; District Court, order; District Court, Joshua intervenors' opposition to Little Rock School District's (LRSD's) compliance report; District Court, notice of filing, Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) 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/1708"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Available for use in research, teaching, and private study. Any other use requires permission from the Butler Center."],"dcterms_medium":["judicial records"],"dcterms_extent":["8 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"The transcript for this item was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.  IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. NO. 4:82CV00866SWW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. PCSSD SUPPLEMENT TO MOTION TO APPROVE MIDDLE SCHOOL IMPLEMENTATION The PCSSD, for its supplement to motion, states: RECI\\VEO jU~ 4 10m --==-- PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS 1. Attached as Exhibit \"A\" is a timeline received today from the Little Rock School District setting forth its middle school activities. 2. While the Little Rock District began a pilot program that concluded in 1997, it is clear that the actual work of committees and others to plan and implement a district-wide implementation did not begin in earnest until January of 1998. 3. Thus, if one compares the activities of the LRSD and the PCSSD respecting district-wide implementation and activities undertaken with respect thereto, it - is apparent that the timelines, actions and other strategies are very similar. 4. Indeed, in the area of professional development and training, the timelines and activities are virtually identical. WHEREFORE, the PCSSD renews its requests that its motion to implement middle schools be approved as soon as possible. 258646-v1 Respectfully submitted, WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026 JENNINGS LLP 200 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3699 (501) 371-0808 FAX: (501) 376-9442 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE On June 1, 2001, a copy of the foregoing was served via U.S. mail on each of the following: Mr. John W. Walker John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026 Clark 2000 First Commercial Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Ms. Ann Brown Marshall ODM One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell Law Firm P.O. Box 17388 Little Rock, Arkansas 72222-7388 258646-v1 2 Ms. Sammye L. Taylor Mr. Mark A. Hagemeier Arkansas Attorney General's Office 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 258646-v1 .am el Jones Ill ~  3 JUN-Oi-ot FRI t0:05 AM FAX NO, LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT MIDDLE SCHOOL IMPLEMENTATION TIMELINE DATI: 1990- 1997 December, 1995 January, 1998 January. 1998 January, 1998 March, 1998 March, 1998 October, 1998 Fall, 1998 ACTIVITY Middle school concepts piloted within  junior high configuration at Pulaski Heights, Forest Heights, Cloverdale and Southwest Junior Highs with support of the New Futures/C~sey grant LRSD Strategic Plan approved by Boa.rd of Education: Strategic Plan Includes district wide middle schools Revised Desegregation and Education Plan includes establishment of a sched1.1le for the orderly conversion of some or all of Its junior high schools to middle schools arades 6-8 Completion of district wide plan for an orderlv transition to middle schools Initial meeting of the LRSD Middle School Steering Committee. Committee received the cha,ge and tasks of serving as the coordinating committee throughout the planning and initial implementation process and to make recommendations to the Superintendent regarding the development and lmplementatlon of the middle school transition. LRSD Middle School Program Mission Statement adopted by LRSO Board of Education Stl;lering committee eleven subcommittees receive charge and task\u0026 and becin work LRSD Middle School Program Standards adopted by the Board of Education Steering committee/sub-committee recommendations finalized; regular communication briefing\u0026 conducted throuahout communltv l;XHIBIT I A P. 02/03 JUN-01~01 FRi t0:05 AM FAX NO. P. 03/03 Winter, 1999 Phase One of professional development program initiated; continued communlcat!on updates Implementation of initial phase of approved recommendation5; steering committee submits final recommendations to Superintendent; completed staff assignments for middle schools and high schools; elementary, Junior highs and high schools complete clans for student transitions Spring, 1999 Finalize logistical plans; Phase Two of professional development program; continued communication updates; implemented Intermediate phase of oroarem recommendations Summer, 1999 Phase Three of professional development program; implement logistical plan; complete final phase of oroQram recommendations Fall, 1899 OoeninQ of LRSD middle schools -- ----- - - - - - - - - ------------- IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS JUN O ~ 2001 WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, * Plaintiff, * * vs. * No. 4:82CV00866 SWW * PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL * DISTRICT, ET AL., * Defendants, * * MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL., * Intervenors, * * KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL., * Intervenors. * MEMORANDUM AND ORDER RECEIVED JUN 8 2001 OfflCEOF IISBi\u0026IIIIIIJI Before the Court are the motion and supplements to the motion of the Pulaski County Special School District (\"PCSSD\") for Court approval of a conversion to middle schools and revamped high schools for the 2001-02 school year. Also before the Court are the PCSSD's motion and supplement to the motion for approval of middle school construction modification. The Court held a hearing on the motions for approval of conversion to middle schools and revamped high schools on May 4, 2001. On May 21, 2001, the Joshua Intervenors and the Knight Intervenors, on behalf of the Pulaski Association of Classroom Teachers (\"PACT\") and the Pulaski Association of Support Staff (\"PASS\"), filed objections to the middle school conversion. On May 29, 2001, the PCSSD filed its response to those objections. Upon review of the motions, objections, and response, as well as the evidence presented during the May 4, 2001 hearing, the Court determines that it will not prevent the PCSSD from proceeding with the conversion to -middle schools for the coming school year and grants the motions. 34 40 I. When the PCSSD initially filed its motion for approval of conversion to middle schools and revamped high schools, the Court had concerns about the degree of planning that the PCSSD invested in the conversion and about whether its desegregation obligations were being addressed. The submissions in support of the motions did not reflect a coherent plan of action and there was no indication that the PCSSD used desegregation and equity as a filter through which to plan and implement various aspects of the middle school concept, such as racial balance, student assignment, staffing, capacity, and student recruitment issues. Further, the PCSSD's filing did not reflect evidence that the Assistant Superintendent for Equity and Pupil Services and the Director of Desegregation were significantly involved in the middle school planning or implementation process. In addition, there was no budget document that broke down all the costs of the middle school conversion, and there were no projections of enrollment and racial balance at Bates Elementary School nor recruitment plans for Bates in conjunction with the middle school conversion. The issues regarding Bates were specifically raised by the Court during the August 9, 2000 hearing on an administrative reorganization and a modification of the PCSSD's student assignment plan. At the hearing held on May 4, 2001, several parents testified as to their involvement in the conversion to middle schools. From their testimony, the Court concludes that parental involvement was minimal. Ms. Gloria Rousseau, Director of Secondary Education and Chairman of the Middle School Task Force, who took over in the middle of the conversion process after Dr. James Fox, an assistant superintendent, became ill and subsequently resigned, testified regarding her efforts to involve parents and teachers in the process. She testified that the PCSSD had no 2 written comprehensive district-wide plan for conversion to middle schools nor did the District have an overall plan addressing the effects conversion would have on desegregation. The Joshua lntervenors object to the conversion on the basis that the PCSSD has yet to comply with its desegregation commitments, has not considered the racial impact of the middle school conversion, has no written plans for conversion of the schools or a time table, has not involved the PCSSD's Office of Desegregation regarding desegregation impact, and has not collaborated with the other parties in the case regarding implementation or planning. The PACT and PASS contend that the PCSSD has failed to involve stakeholder groups in the planning process. They object to the conversion as well, asserting the lack of a district-wide comprehensive written plan, the lack of a staff development training program, the lack of space, and the lack of timely deployment of staff. All these shortcomings have resulted in confusion, - frustration, anxiety, and low teacher morale. In response to these objections, the PCSSD disputes the Joshua Intervenors' assertion that the District has not complied with its desegregation commitments and has not considered the racial impact of middle schools. The PCSSD reiterates that no student assignment zones will change, and that it will continue to apply the same rules regarding assignment and allocation of staff. Further, the PCSSD submits a Plan for Transition to Middle Schools as an exhibit to its response as well as consolidated timetables for all activities which have occurred and the few that are yet to occur. The PCSSD points out the testimony of Mr. Karl Brown, Assistant Superintendent for Equity and Pupil Services, who stated he is comfortable with the process and the activities which have occurred, and Ms. Rousseau's testimony concerning the middle schools and districts which the PCSSD examined and visited as part of this process. 3 In response to the PACT and PASS objections, the PCSSD asserts their objections are \"untimely, speculative, and premised largely upon double and triple hearsay, and . mischaracterization of witnesses' testimony.\" 1 In addition, the PCSSD submits exhibits which it contends show that, contrary to the assertions made by PACT, the staff allocation process is 94 % complete for the middle schools,2 and that the agreement between the District and the Union regarding the conversion does not require that middle school personnel placement be completed by the end of May. 3 Further, the PCSSD submits an exhibit which it contends shows that the reservation of openings for minority staff is in keeping with Plan 2000 in which the District committed to increasing the number of African-American secondary core teachers. 4 Neither the Court nor any of the parties or intervenors conceptually oppose the conversion of the school grade alignment from essentially a six-grade primary, three-grade junior high and three-grade senior high to a five-grade primary, three-grade middle, and four-grade high school configuration. The Court continues to have its own concerns and shares the concerns of the objectors about the lack of planning and stakeholder involvement on the part of the PCSSD in the conversion to middle schools. However, the Court believes and hopes that the implementation of the middle school concept will benefit student achievement and reduce disparity. In addition, the Court believes it is important for the PCSSD to align its grade configuration with those of the Little Rock and North Little Rock school districts as soon as possible to avoid negative impacts 1See Docket entry 3435 (PCSSD's Combined Reply to Joshua Intervenors and PACT) at 3. 2See Docket entry 3435, Ex. D. 3See Docket entry 3435, Ex. E. 4See Docket entry 3435, Ex. E. 4 on M-to-M recruiting and magnet school attendance. The Court determines that putting a hold on the conversion to middle schools, however flawed the planning has been, would be more damaging than allowing the PCSSD to proceed to middle school conversion on the present schedule. The Court, therefore, will not prevent the conversion to middle schools and will grant the motions. The Court will direct the Office of Desegregation Monitoring to monitor closely the conversion process and the impact of the realignment on the desegregation plan. II. Also before the Court are motions to approve middle school construction modification.  The Court notes that the construction projects at Mills and Robinson High Schools were underway  prior to the filing of the April 13, 2001 motion and April 18, 2001 supplement to the motion. Additionally, to seek the court's permission for construction after the fact is neither a demonstration of good planning and management nor a manifestation -of good faith on the part of the PCSSD. The Court is concerned about the changes in building capacities and in the use of space created at the elementary schools when the sixth grade is moved to middle schools. Again, the Court does not wish to obstruct the implementation of the conversion to middle schools in the PCSSD and, therefore, grants the motions. The Court will direct the Office of Desegregation Monitoring to monitor closely the impact of the construction upon the desegregation plan as well as the use of space created by the middle school conversion. 5 m. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the motions to approve middle schools and revamped high schools5 are granted. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the motions to approve middle school construction modification6 are granted. i1f1\\.... DATED this _\"T_ day of June 2001. 5Docket entries 3402 \u0026 3422. 6Docket entries 3418 \u0026 3419. -~~~~~ UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT THIS DOCUMENT ENTERED ON DOCKET SHEET IN COMPLIANCE WITH R~,LE 58 AND/OR 79(a) FRCP ON 6 r Lf--0} BY_vf:..-,1.... __ 6 -  FILED EAsTMRsN. DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT ARKANSAS IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUN 0 5 2001 EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION ~~:ME1'f, ~iri~~ ~K DEPCLERK LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, * Plaintiff, * * vs. * No. 4:82CV00866 SWW * PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL * DISTRICT, ET AL. , * Defendants, * RECEIVED * MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL., * JUN 13 100\\ Intervenors, * * omCEOf KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL., * DESE61Sll0li MONll0RlNG Intervenors. * ORDER On April 4, 2001, the Joshua Intervenors filed a motion for extension of time to respond to the LRSD 's Notice of Filing and Request for Scheduling Order. On the same day, the Court filed an Order setting forth deadlines and hearing dates to address any challenges to the LRSD Compliance Report. 1 Therefore, the Court finds that the motion [ docket entry 3415] is moot. The Clerk is directed to remove said motion from the pending motions report. DATED this~ day of June 2001. \u0026iLll~.)1~~ F JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 1 The Court referenced in that Order a letter from the Joshua Intervenors' counsel in which he stated he needed additional time to review the report. THIS DOCUMENT ENTERED ON DOCKET SHEET IN COMPLIANCE -~l~_')._U~~ ~8 AND/D_~9(a) FRCP FILED U.S. DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION JUN O 5 2001 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, Plaintiff, vs. PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. , Defendants, MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL., Intervenors, KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL., Intervenors. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ORDER No. 4:82CV00866 SWW RECEIVED JUN 1 3 2001 OFFlCE Of DESEGREGATION MDNITOiUNS Before the Court is the motion of the Pulaski County Special School District (\"PCSSD\") for Court approval of the addition of an activities complex at Baker Interdistrict School. The Joshua Intervenors have responded in opposition to the motion. For the reasons stated below, the Court grants the motion. The PCSSD notes that parents and an area business have approached the principal of Baker Interdistrict School about privately funding the building of an activities complex that would include a gymnasium, music room, and art room. 1 The PCSSD asserts that the addition of an activities complex would enhance recruitment of minority students to Baker and help it compete more effectively with the private schools in the area. The Joshua Intervenors object to the motion, 1See Ex. A, PCSSD Mot. to Approve Add. of Activities Complex, docket entry 3430. arguing that the proposal has not been developed and fully considered, and may serve to further establish Baker as a racially identifiable school. Among the specific concerns expressed by the Joshua lntervenors are the PCSSD 's recruitment ( or lack thereof) of minority students from the Little Rock School District and the lack of a recruitment plan in the motion; the absence of a plan setting forth any additional resources, including staff that may be required in expanding programs; the lack of a statement of costs; no indication of whether existing programs will be duplicated; and no indication of the effect of the addition on other schools. Lastly, the Joshua Intervenors -- question whether private donations may be used to establish \"'separate but unequal' schools. \"2 The Court believes community and parental involvement in public schools, including voluntary contributions, should be encouraged. Perhaps the Baker experience will serve as an example to encourage similar parental and community involvement at other schools in the three - Pulaski County school districts. In granting the motion and approving the addition at Balcer, however, the Court directs the PCSSD to file a report by July 9, 2001, setting forth how it intends to improve racial balance at Baker and how it is going about meeting its obligations under Section J of Plan 2000. The Court further directs the PCSSD to set forth target dates for completion of these obligations.3 2See Joshua's Resp. to PCSSD's Mot. to Approve Baker Addition (docket entry 3436) at 3. 3Section J of the Plan, School Resources, provides: \"PCSSD shall design and carry out, in consultation with the Joshua Intervenors, a study to detennine whether school resources are allocated equitable (sic) among the schools of the district. The resources assessed may include such factors as pupil/teacher ratio; pupil/staff ratio; square feet per pupil; percentage of staff with a masters degree and nine or more years of experience; the turnover rate of certified staff; school size; computer/pupil ratio; per pupil expenditure; volunteer hours per pupil; and donations per pupil. The study shall contain recommendations, where appropriate, to address any problems identified.\" See docket entry 3337, Attach. C (PCSSD Plan 2000). 2 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the motion to approve the addition of an activities complex at Baker Interdistrict School4 is granted. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the PCSSD file its report on or before July 9, 2001. ..JI\\.. DATED this l,) day of June 2001. ~ UNITED STATES DISTRICT CO{IB.T THIS DOCUMENT ENTERED ON DOCKET SHEET IN COMPLIANCE WITH Rl,ILE 58 ANO/OR~) FRCP ON (c, - l.;,- Q) BY---'\\.._[L __ The Court notes that the same ten factors were addressed in the \"Report of LRSD's Assessment of the Equitable Allocation of Resources,\" docket entry 3214. 4Docket entry 3430. 3 .,I FILED U.S. DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS JUN f 5 2001 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTJA.MES W. McCORMACK, CLERK EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS By. ______ =-=-- WESTERN DIVISION DEP CLEl\u003cK LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V NO. 4:82CV00866 SWW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. MOTION FOR ADDITIONAL TIME TO RESPOND TO COMPLIANCE REPORT PLAJNTIFF DEFENDANTS INTER VEN ORS INTER VENO RS Come now the Joshua Intervenors, by and through undersigned counsel, for their Motion for Extension of Time to Respond to LRSDs Compliance Report, state: 1. Counsel is in negotiations with counsel for the Little Rock School District regarding the compliance report and other matters. 2. This request is not made for purposes of delay. 3. Counsel for Little Rock School District has been consulted and has authorized undersigned counsel to indicate that he does not object to this request. WHEREFORE, the Joshua Intervenors pray that the Court enter an Order extending the time in which they may respond to the Little Rock School District' s Compliance Report up to and including June 25, 2001. Respectfully submitted, John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 501-3~74]/5]8 ~ I . By _{__Jj; _Qv'-\u003c:...,-v-'----\" J W. alker CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I do hereby state that a copy of the foregoing has been sent to all counsel ofrecord on this 15th day ofJune, 2001. RECEIVl:IJ JUN 2 5 2001 FILED U.S. DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS JUN 2 O 2001 ~(I~ WESTERN DNISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, Plaintiff, * * * * *  JA~E1. ~RMACK. ~ By. \\ ' \\ l /\\ /\\f\\ DEPCLERK vs. PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL * DISTRICT, ET AL., * Defendants, * * MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL., * Intervenors, * KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL., lntervenors. * * * ORDER No. 4:82CV00866 SWW Before the Court is the motion of the Joshua Intervenors for an extension of time in which - to respond to the Little Rock School District's Compliance Report. For good cause shown, and without objection from the Little Rock School District, the Court grants the motion. The Joshua Intervenors have until and including June 25, 2001, within which to file their response. No further exte~ions will be granted. SO ORDERED this ~ay of June 2001. THIS DOCUMENT ENTERED ON DOCKET SHEET IN COMPLIANCE Wll1' RULE 58 AND/OR 79(a) FRCP ON e_~c)..(,Ol sv_rr=-: __ ~A, ~ F JUDGE --=-- UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRicf coUR1J.foU~1E,D EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKAf SA's'STERN DISTRg A~~:~SAs WESTERN DMSION f' . JUN 2 5 2001 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, Plaintiff, vs. PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al., Defendants, NIRS . LORENE JOSHUA, et al:, Intervenors, KATHERINE KNIGHT, et al., Intervenors, * .~:~ES W. McCORMACK, CLERK * * * No. 4:82CV00866 SWW * * * * * * * * * * RECEIVED JUN 2 6 2001 OfRCEOf OESE6RE6AnON lllNJTORJNG JOSHUA INTERVENOR'S OPPOSITION TO LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT'S COMPLIANCE REPORT PRELIMINARY STATEMENT The Joshua Intervenors respectfully request the Court to defer final decision upon the petition of the Little Rock School District for a declaration that it is now unitary as that term has been defined by relevant case law. Toe Joshua Intervenors believe that there are numerous significant questions which are not addressed in a clear, accurate and substantive manner which need to be further explored in an evidentiary proceeding before the Court. Upon that event the Court would be in a better position to make the necessary analysis to determine whether the objectives and commitments of the revised desegregation plan have been fully met. Toe Joshua Intervenors believe further that = the Court must have before it a written response to the district's plan or other written analysis -1- regarding that plan from the Court's Office of Desegregation Monitoring (ODM) before the Court can issue a final opinion regarding the matter. Otherwise, any assessment by the Court would be incomplete and not in keeping with the expectations of the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals when it required the establishment of the ODM to assist the Court in determining and effectuating desegregation compliance. The sc:hool district's compliance report of March 15, 2001, which incorporates by reference its interim compliance report dated March 15, 2000, is before the Court reportedly to inform concerned interests of \"the status of the district's efforts to meet its obligations under the revised plan . . . \" The district makes reference to the fact that it offered the opportunity for interested parties to provide comments or suggestions to the interim court and that it received none. Because it received no comments or suggestions regarding that report, the district has determined that the form of the report is appropriate for the present report. That position is inaccurate. Joshua made many comments throughout the year to District officials regarding areas of noncompliance and bad faith implementation. Joshua notes, however, that before either of the reports was submitted to the Court, the district did not consult and meet with Joshua regarding the contents in order to reach the agreements of the report contemplated by the desegregation plan. The present report has many of the same failings of earlier reports to the Court. In fact, it has been the exception rather than the rule for the district to affirmatively involve Joshua in preliminary stages of any report or other activity undertaken by the school district. Joshua submits that the Little Rock School District is far from being \"unitary\" at this time, and that the District has much work to accomplish before court release is appropriate. Joshua further submits that the burden of proof that the District is unitary, i.e., has fulfilled all of its obligations, -2- is upon the District rather than upon Joshua. The following comments by Joshua to the March 15, 2001 report raise appropriate for further inquiry by the court. JOSHUA'S SERIATIM RESPONSES TO THE DISTRICT'S REPORT DATED MARCH 15, 2001 Section 2.1. LRSD shall in good faith exercise its best efforts to comply with the Constitution, to remedy the effects of past discrimination by LRSD against African American students, to ensure that no person is discriminated against on the basis of race, color or ethnicity in the operation of LRSD and to provide an equal educational opportunity for all students attending LRSD schools. The district firsts projects the covenants dated January 11, 2000 to illustrate its good faith beyond March 15, 2001 in.the event that the Court declares the district to be unitary. It points to meetings of administrators who were informed of the covenant; the involvement of Dr. Terrence Roberts, a consultant to the district1 ; and the receipt of the district of a \"quality interest award\" from the Arkansas Quality Award Nonprofit Agency to demonstrate that the initiatives now in place will continue. Joshua notes that the emphasis of the report is upon the objective to improve the academic achievement of all students through the use of its resources in a manner which complies with the non discrimination requirements of law. The commitment is vague! It allows equal, we say greater, attention to the higher achieving white students than to the lower achieving Black students. It does not address the problems which have persisted since the settlement agreement was reached in 1989, especially the concern of remediating preexisting achievement disparities between white and Black 1 Dr. Roberts is one of the first African American students to enroll in Little Rock Central High, i.e., \"the Little Rock Nine\"; he is a clinical psychologist who is on the staff of the University of Antioch University. .., -.)- students. The district received at least $20 million dollars in the form of a forgivable loan by which to address the remediation disparities. Those achievement disparities linger. 2 In this respect, the State of Arkansas has given the district little assistance in meeting this objective and, on information and belief, despite noncompliance, has agreed to forgive the Little Rock School District loan obligation (See Exhibit 1 hereto). Joshua further notes that an objection to the incentive schools by district officials was that those schools were too program heavy and therefore did not lend themselves to effective implementation and evaluation of those programs. We believe that the district now has even more programs which were present in its schools and that the district's past criticism of the incentive schools programs may be applied to the programs which it has put in place since it reduced the number of incentive school programs. Effectiveness of the programs is still lacking. Effect is usually determined after program evaluation. The district's evaluation system borders upon being nil. The district makes reference under good faith to the success of the Campus Leadership Team, later referred to herein as CLT. The person assigned the responsibility for the CL T was Ms. Gayle Bradford. She (like School Superintendent Les Carnine and Associate Superintendent Brady Gadberry) is leaving the school district as of July 1. Her assignment to the position was makeshift in the first place in that it was a job created for her while the district determined what good use could be made of her services after she was removed as principal at Hall High School due to problems associated with desegregation complaince. The Campus Leadership Program was ill conceived, and 2The plan which set the objective that African American achievement as measured by appropriate standardized tests, on a comparative basis, would come within ten percentage points of white student academic achievement. -4- has been poorly implemented. It may be said that the CLT is only a hope for better school management for the future. But it too lacks an assessment or evaluation component. The Campus Leaderships Team are generally under the overall leadership of Associate Superintendent Ms. Sadie Mitchell, to whom Ms. Gayle Bradford reported. Ms. Mitchell, to her credit, has sought to create a working environment conducive to better cooperation between administrators and teachers. But those efforts .on her part are have just begun and with the departure of Ms. Bradford, must begin anew with new staff. The program is not so fundamentru.ly sound as to be self executing. Good faith is to be determined, we submit, within the context of the objectives set by the parties and by the law, especially the law of the case; the actions promised to be taken in order to achieve the objectives; and the manner in which those actions are actually undertaken. Good faith contemplates results as well as processes for achieving the contemplated results. The Little Rock School District outrageously argues that it is simply obliged to make promises to meet its objectives and to set up a procedure for fulfilling those promises but, having done that, it is not required to meet  the objectives set. That position reflects the basic difference between Joshua and Little Rock. Joshua believes that the commitments agreed upon required that the processes or plans for achieving the agreed upon objectives actually be fulfilled and that only conditions of impossibility could preclude compliance. Joshua further believes that the agreement contemplated that there would be prompt undertaking of the commitments; and that that undertaking would be vigorous and sustained. Joshua also believes that implicit in the agreement is that the commitments would be subject to professionally competent evaluation of policies, programs, and procedures put in place as implementing tools for the plan objectives. As will be shown below, the District's efforts have been neither timely nor prompt, vigorous or sustained; nor complimented by competent professional -5- evaluation. We are thus met with a pleading of excuse with promises (the Covenant) of actions that will follow upon Court release. The question before the Court is whether the district can be expected to achieve goals and objectives without Court oversight (the Covenant) that have not been achieved with Court oversight. Moreover, how can Black students enforce this Covenant? \"The LT program was at the heart of the District's efforts to met its obligations under the reviewed plan\". P. 1, Compliance Report. \"A quality school district meets the needs of all students.\" In adopting the CLT program, the District committed itselftoproviding each school the leadership and autonomy necessary to meet the needs of each school's unique population. With that autotomy comes a responsibility to ensure the success of each student.\" Page 3, Compliance Report. Joshua differs with that obj~.ctive. Remediation of disparity conflicts with that concept. When racial grouping is taken into account. Joshua has not been provided with any report which reports an evaluation of the CLT program or of the results that have been achieved by that program. The program appears to accept the proposition that individual schools, through the CLT, will meet their responsibility to each of its students. Because of this \"autonomy\", some magic conversion or remediation of disparities will occur it seems to be argued. Joshua submits that the CLT's actually provide more opportunity for discrimination and for mischief and maintenance of the status quo_ than a system wide appr "},{"id":"noa_sohpcr_k-0589","title":"Oral history interview with Leslie Thorbs, May 30, 2001","collection_id":"noa_sohpcr","collection_title":"Oral Histories of the American South: The Civil Rights Movement","dcterms_contributor":["Hartman, Leda","Howes, Betty B., 1933-","Southern Oral History Program"],"dcterms_spatial":["United States, North Carolina, Lenoir County, 35.23915, -77.64127","United States, North Carolina, Pitt County, Grifton, 35.37266, -77.43746"],"dcterms_creator":["Thorbs, Leslie, 1923-"],"dc_date":["2001-05-30"],"dcterms_description":["Leslie Thorbs grew up in a family of tenant farmers during the 1920s and 1930s in eastern North Carolina. Thorbs begins the interview with his recollections of Kennedy Farm, where his family lived and worked as tenant farmers. Thorbs recalls some of the techniques used in the farming of tobacco, cotton, soy beans, and corn. He also describes in detail the impoverished conditions his family faced during the years of the Great Depression. Like many children of similar socioeconomic status during this time, Thorbs did not complete elementary school. Although he and his siblings had helped with farm work all along, he began to work for wages at the age of eight in order to supplement the family income. Later, he became a tenant farmer in his own right and worked in that capacity until the end of the 1940s. After that, he spent the rest of his working years as a janitor at Texfi Industries and as a factory worker at the Grifton Sewing Factory. Throughout the interview, Thorbs touches on race relations, focusing on what it was like for him as an African American to work with whites, and describing his reaction to his daughter's interracial marriage. In addition to describing work, farming, living conditions, and race relations, Thorbs spends considerable time discussing his wife and their family. He met his wife when he was a teenager. Unlike Thorbs, his wife, Hattie Mae, attended high school; Thorbs met her when she was finishing school. In 1941, they traveled to South Carolina to marry; because he was only seventeen and she was only fifteen, they could not be married in North Carolina. They settled in Grifton, North Carolina, where they raised their children. All but two of their six surviving children also settled in Grifton and, as a result, all were adversely affected by the horrendous flooding wrought by Hurricane Floyd in 1999. Thorbs describes the flood and its immediate aftermath, emphasizing the fact that he and his wife were lucky to escape with their lives. Their home, along with all of their possessions, was destroyed. Thorbs describes how the entire family stayed with his daughter in Kinston, North Carolina, until it was safe for them to return home. At the time of the interview, Thorbs was still living with one of his children, grieving the recent death of his wife and waiting for his home to be made habitable.","The Civil Rights Digital Library received support from a National Leadership Grant for Libraries awarded to the University of Georgia by the Institute of Museum and Library Services for the aggregation and enhancement of partner metadata."],"dc_format":["text/html","text/xml","audio/mpeg"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":null,"dc_relation":["Forms part of Oral histories of the American South collection."],"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":null,"dcterms_subject":["African American men--North Carolina--Grifton","Blue collar workers--North Carolina--Grifton","African Americans--North Carolina--Grifton--Social conditions","Farm life--North Carolina--Lenoir County","Flood damage--North Carolina--Grifton","Floods--North Carolina--Grifton","Hurricane Floyd, 1999"],"dcterms_title":["Oral history interview with Leslie Thorbs, May 30, 2001"],"dcterms_type":["Text","Sound"],"dcterms_provenance":["University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Documenting the American South (Project)"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://docsouth.unc.edu/sohp/K-0589/menu.html"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["transcripts","sound recordings","oral histories (literary works)"],"dcterms_extent":["Title from menu page (viewed on Dec. 2, 2008).","Interview participants: Leslie Thorbs, interviewee; Thorbs's daughter, interviewee; Leda Hartman, interviewer; Betty Howes, interviewer; unidentified speaker.","Duration: 01:04:04.","This electronic edition is part of the UNC-Chapel Hill digital library, Documenting the American South. It is a part of the collection Oral histories of the American South.","Text encoded by Jennifer Joyner. Sound recordings digitized by Aaron Smithers."],"dlg_subject_personal":["Thorbs, Leslie, 1923-"],"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1152","title":"Little Rock School District (LRSD) Athletic Task Force Report Findings","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":["2001-05-25"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--21st Century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Educational statistics","Education--Curricula","Athletics"],"dcterms_title":["Little Rock School District (LRSD) Athletic Task Force Report Findings"],"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/1152"],"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\nThe transcript for this item was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.\nLRSD ATHLETIC TASK FORCE REPORT FINDINGS Committee Members Junious Babbs Sandy Becker Rett Tucker Skip Rutherford May 25, 2001 Taking into account the seriousness of recent allegations related to the LRSD Athletic Program, Task Force Committee Members were assigned with the following charge: 1. Address issues that have come to the forefront that relate to LRCH athletic program/ player eligibility. 2. Investigate eligibility issues and/ or concerns at LRCH. 3. Provide a detailed report of findings. 4. Availability to investigate activities and finding of LRSD school allegations. 5. Report to the Superintendent and Board in an expeditious timeline. Introduction Since Thursday, May 17, we have reviewed questions raised about the Little Rock Central High Varsity Boys Basketball team and specifically player eligibility. In this process we have met with Associate Superintendent for Instruction Dr. Bonnie Lesley\nAssistant Superintendent for Secondary School Services Dr. Marian Lacey\nAthletic Director Ray Gillespie\nCentral Principal Rudolph Howard\nCentral Assistant Principal John Kelly\nCentral Assistant Principal Dr. Dan Whitehorn\nCentral Head Basketball Coach Oliver Fitzpatrick\nand Central Registrar Jane Welch. All were very cooperative. Chris Heller, the Little Rock School District Attorney, served as our legal advisor. We reviewed the policies of the Arkansas Department of Education, the Arkansas Activities Association (AAA) and the Little Rock School District. When records were examined, committee members Rett Tucker and Skip Rutherford--since they are not employees of the school district--did not see individual names. In order to protect student confidentiality, each player was assigned a number. When records containing student names were examined, the student names were redacted. Committee members Junious Babbs and Sandy Becker, because they are school district employees, did see names. The committee examined several issues and looked at both the second semester of the 1999-2000 school year and the first semester of the 2000-2001 school year. The second semester of 1999-2000 was a determining factor for eligibility during the first semester of 2000-2001. The first semester of 2000-2001 was a determining factor for eligibility during the second semester of this year. Basketball season included both semesters during the 2000-2001 school year. All Central basketball players consent forms and physicals were complete and on file. The Student Registration Office reviewed its records and confirmed that all Central basketball players were properly enrolled in Central High School. While Central's consent forms, physicals and school assignment records were in order, a lesson learned is the importance of updated eligibility data collection through the use of technology and monitoring systems. - 1 - Eligibility Eligibility requirements are different for those who make a 2.0 grade point average or better than for those who make less than a 2.0 grade point average. For those who make less than a 2.0 grade point average, the AAA Rule 10 B applies. It can be found on pages 33-34 of the 2001 AAA Handbook. (Attachment A) During the 1999-2000 second semester, the average grade point for the Central basketball team was 2.785. Eleven of the 16 players made a 2.0 or better. Six of those made a 3.0 or better and two of the six made a 4.0 or better. Of the five players who made less than 2.0, two were not eligible and did not play during the first semester. Three players who made less than 2.0 participated under Rule 10 B. During the 1999-2000 second semester, none of the Central players had a grade change. During the 2000-2001 first semester, the average grade point for the Central basketball team was 2.780. Fifteen of the 16 players made a 2.0 or better. Six of those made a 3.0 or better, and one of the six made a 4.0. One player made less than a 2.0 and did participate in the Supplemental Instruction Program (SIP) under AAA Rule 10 B. Supplemental Instruction Program (SIP) The schedule for SIP at Central is: Monday/Wednesday from 4 p.m. to 5 p.m. and Tuesday/Thursday from 7:30 a.m. to 8:30 a.m. Two sessions each week are required to meet the minimum of 100 minutes per week required by the Arkansas Department of Education. (Attachment B) Students may also attend either or both of the other two sessions to make up absences. There are two SIP coordinators at Central: one responsible for the morning session and one responsible for the afternoon session. Coaches are assigned to monitor student athlete participation in SIP. The athletic department handbook contains a notification form to be sent by the SIP coordinator to the coach in the event an athlete misses a required SIP class. - 2 - These safeguards are important because if an athlete misses only one unexcused SIP class and does not make it up within the same week, he or she then becomes ineligible. According to a detailed report from Dr. Lacey, the one Central player participating in SIP did not meet the eligibility requirements. (Attachment C) During the week of January 8-12, the student did not meet the 100-minute requirement because of an unexcused absence from his SIP class. At that time--according to the Little Rock School District's SIP Plan (Attachment D) and confirmed by the Arkansas Activities Association, the student became ineligible. Under SIP guidelines once a student becomes ineligible at any time during the semester, he or she is ineligible for the remainder of the semester. According to Dr. Lacey's report, the student in question also did not meet the SIP eligibility attendance requirements during the weeks of January 15-19, February 26-March 2 and March 5-9. Coach Fitzpatrick said he was not aware of the player's January SIP absences until he was informed by the committee on May 23. The committee also reviewed the AAA Rule 15, which is found on pages 35-36 of the AAA 2001 handbook. (Attachment E) This is the hardship exemption rule. The committee was informed by the principal and the head basketball coach that neither knew of a basis for the application of a hardship exemption in this case. Therefore, we believe the student athlete was ineligible beginning January 12, 2001. Students enrolled in SIP are required to have no unexcused absences in order to remain eligible for athletics. The student's attendance records also indicate he had unexcused absences during the first semester of 2000-2001 school year. It is therefore possible that the student became ineligible before January 12. The Little Rock School District administration learned about this on April 27. Dr. Lacey immediately began to research this matter. During the time period between the week of January 8 and April 27, timely attendance checking and monitoring did not occur. For three months, there apparently was no supervisory safety net for the only Central basketball player in SIP. The system in place broke down. We find this regrettable, even though it was the student's responsibility to attend the class. After reviewing this very unfortunate example, we believe it could have and should have been prevented. - 3 - One lesson learned is that there should be documented and mandatory 24-hour notification from the SIP coordinator to the coach, principal, school athletic administrator, athletic director and assistant superintendent for secondary school services of each unexcused absence by an athlete who is attending for eligibility. We also endorse what the Little Rock School Board said in its May 17 statement: that it plans to meet with the incoming superintendent to clearly state policies and procedures and to confirm lines of authority, responsibility and accountability to ensure compliance. (Attachment F). In addition, the district should clearly define who will be doing the required reporting to the Arkansas Department of Education and the AAA. Grades During the first semester 2000-2001, 13 of the 16 Central players had no grade changes. Changes made for two players had no impact on eligibility at all. One player had changes made in four subjects and also received credit for a Plato course. According to the registrar at Central, \"the Plato program is offered to all students who have failed or are failing a course or courses in the mainstream curriculum. It allows each student to progress at his or her own pace so those students complete the coursework at different times. There are no quarter grades or exam grades--only final grades. The teacher or facilitator gives the registrar the grade upon each student's completion of the work.\" In addition to the Accelerated Learning Center and the Alternative Leaming Center, the Plato program is offered at Central, Fair, Hall and McClellan. The schools view it as an alternative education program. In 1999-2000, there were 123 students in the program at Central and no varsity basketball players. In 2000-2001 there were 144 students in the program at Central and one varsity basketball player. The one Central varsity basketball player who was in the Plato course in the first semester 2000-2001 received a \"B\" in Algebra I. He registered for the program on August 9, 2000 and began class on August 23, 2000. His grade was turned in on January 26, 2001 and was posted on January 30, 2001. The course subject and the grade were posted manually by the registrar because the course had been listed in the computer as Plato and not Algebra. The student athlete did not participate in any varsity basketball games prior to January 30, 2001. - 4 - Questions have arisen about whether Plato course credit should count in the grade point average. According to the Little Rock School District Curriculum publication, if it is an alternative education program, it should be counted as part of the grade point average. (Attachment G) If it is a credit by examination program, it should not. (Attachment H) While we think there needs to be an official district interpretation, Plato has been treated as an alternative education program at Central, Fair, Hall and McClellan since its inception. It has been counted in the grade point averages of all students who participated at these schools. The athlete in question was treated just like everyone else. Along with the \"B\" Plato Algebra credit, grade changes in four subjects resulted in the student's athletic eligibility. (Attachment I) With all the grade changes and with the \"B\" in Plato Algebra, he made a 2.0. Letters from each of the teachers who changed the grades are enclosed with the report. The student and teacher names are redacted. (Attachments J, K, Land M) Grade changes are not uncommon in LRSD high schools and grades are often changed for good reasons. The discretion of teachers and administrators to change grades is broad. The committee found no evidence that athletes were the primary beneficiaries of grade changes. According to the documentation, in one course this student received extra credit for purchasing and donating two novels to the class. In another class the student's first semester grade changed due to improved performance in the early part of the second semester. We seriously question whether or not these changes comply with the District's grading policy. (Attachment N) We believe procedures should be implemented which include time limitations on both grade changes and make-up work. In cases of multiple grade changes involving one student, we believe central office administrative oversight should be required. Even though teachers and administrators currently have wide discretion in making grade changes and while the student became eligible as a result of these four changes, we find them troubling. Central's registrar said when she learned of them she notified the school's principal. We think her notification was appropriate. However, we also conclude, notwithstanding this one very unique case, that grade changes for other players on the Central basketball team have been justified, rare and unrelated to eligibility. The schools should monitor student athlete grades not only because of eligibility but to make certain that academics are stressed as well as athletics. - 5 - Recruiting On the matter of recruiting, the Little Rock School District is one of only three school districts in Arkansas which have more than one high school. The AAA rules are written primarily with the other 307 districts in mind. The AAA rules do not specifically address the unique issues of intra-district recruiting. LRSD is unique in Arkansas because recruiting of students is an essential element of the district's voluntary desegregation plan. LRSD has established a number of school choice options, including magnet schools and specialty programs to attract students. The problem comes when students are recruited by high school coaches solely for athletics. There is presently no LRSD board policy differentiating between the expected recruiting for desegregation purposes and recruiting solely for athletic purposes. The AAA rules, which prohibit recruiting but do not define it, have not served as a significant deterrent. The District should take steps to define and prohibit impermissible recruiting of student athletes. This recommendation is not intended to limit a school's ability to inform students about all programs and extra-curricular activities available to them. Attendance Attendance is another issue of immediate concern. In our review, we have concluded that computerized attendance records do not necessarily correspond with teacher recorded attendance records. For example, in Central's block scheduling system, there is a first period \"A\" course and a first period \"B\" course. When the report cards are issued, the period one absences for both \"A\" and \"B\" are combined rather than listed separately. Parents, therefore, do not have an accurate accounting of the first period \"A\" absences or the first period \"B\" absences. This in itself makes monitoring and compliance more difficult. It also justifiably subjects attendance records to questions about accuracy. - 6 - For example, according to computerized attendance records received just yesterday afternoon, three students exceeded the maximum number of allowable unexcused absences during the first semester 2000-2001. (Attachment 0) They, nevertheless, received credit for the courses. One of the lessons learned is there needs to be an additional procedure in place by which each coach receives regular and accurate attendance reports for his or her athletes to verify their eligibility. Currently, the procedure appears to be 'hit and miss.' Conclusion In summary, we believe the issues and problems with Central basketball eligibility for the most part are reflective of district-wide issues. Throughout this report, we've attempted to make it clear that the lessons learned are lessons for the entire district, not just for Central High School. The vast majority of these problems were the result of inadequate procedures, benign neglect and poor organization - all of which can be fixed in a timely manner. We believe the board will do just that and, along with a new superintendent and new athletic director, put the mechanisms in place to get it done. Without diminishing the significance of the findings in this report, it is important to note that the committee found no evidence of an intent to knowingly use an ineligible player. The facts, to the best of our ability, are now before you. We have completed our task within the 10-day time frame. Following any questions you might have, the committee will have concluded its assignment. - 7 - nsas Activities Asso 3 920 Ric-hards ~oad. North Little Rock,. AR' 72117 501-955-2500  FAX 501-955-2600/955-2521 Building Citizenship Through Activities Partlcipation ATTACHME TA t ' t \\   : .  Amateur- Tryouts Scholarship (Academics) Rule 8. AMATEUR. A. The amateur rule for eligibility in interscholastic athletics requires the student to engage in sport solely for the pleasure and physical, mental, or social benefit derived from participation in sports and to whom sport is nothing more than an avocation. B. The junior high or senior high student who violates the amateur rule in any of the AAA-sponsored sports may lose eligiblility in that sport for up to one full year (365 days). C. Violations. A student may not: 1. Compete under an assumed name. 2. Accept monetary awards or compensation. This includes: cash\ngift certificates\nexpenses for a trip or any other of this type award. 3. Accept gifts or awards exceeding $100.00 in value unless the gifts or awards are given under the auspices of the school\nhowever, the student may receive awards of equipment in golf, tennis and road races as permitted in the amateur rules of the USGA, the USTA, and USATF. 4. Receive remuneration for coaching, instructing, or preparing any person for competition\nexcept, he may receive from an organization offering instruction in sport skills to youth, monetary compensation on an hourly basis or as a salary for teaching basic skills. 5. A student who has participated interscholastically may not permit his name, picture, or person to be used to advertise, recommend, or promote a firm or a product. NOTE: An athlete may be named a player of the week or game and be presented a certificate or plaque provided there is no advertising connected with the pie-ture or announcement. NOTE: A team picture may appear on a calendar or poster. This indicates support for the school. 6. Compete with or against a professional except in: a. Pro-Am golf meets\nwhen the scores of the professional and the amateur are not combined for a team score\n7. Appear in a competition before or during a professional event except as approved by the Arkansas Activities Association. NOTE: Since it is impossible to cover all instances of possible violations to the amateur rule, it is suggested that the Executive Director be consulted in any questionable case. Rule 9. TRYOUTS. A. A student may not play with a college or a professional team without losing eligibility for up to one year in the sport played. B. A student may not try out for a college or professional team during the school year without losing eligibility for up to one year in that sport. NOTE: A tryout consists of athletic demonstrations relative to a specific sport in the presence of a coach, scout, or official representing an institution or club. Rule 10. SCHOLARSHIP. (Academics) A. Junior high. A student promoted from the sixth to the seventh grade automatically meets the academic eligibility (scholarship) requirements. A student promoted from the seventh to the eighth grade automatically meets the academic eligibility requirements for the first semester. The second semester eighth grade student and the first semester ninth grade student meet the academic eligi bility requirements for junior high by successfully passing four (4) academic courses the previous semester, three of which shall be in the core curriculum areas specified by the Arkansas Department of Education's Standards for Accreditation of Arkansas Public Schools. Ninth grade students must meet the senior high academic eligibility by the end of second semester in order to be eligible to participate the fall of their tenth grade year. \"'8. Senior high. A student who does not meet the Arkansas Department of Education's requirement of a 2.00 GPA or has not met the proficiency standard defined by the State Board of Education on the state criterion-referenced tests or achieved at or above the fiftieth percentile on the basic battery on the normreferenced test may continue to participate by meeting the following requirements: b. Semi-professional baseball games\nhowever, the stu- / dent must compete within the definition of ama- V 1. The student must have passed four academic courses teurism . in the previous semester. Any of these four courses for 2000-2001 AAA Handbook - Page 33 which concurrent high school credit is earned may be from an institution of higher learning recognized by the Arkansas Department of Education. 2. The student must be enrolled in and attending a supplemental instruction program approved by the Arkansas Department of Education, or a supplemental instruction program meeting ADE guidelines as approved by AAA. 3. The student must have no unexcused absences for the current semester or its equivalent. 4. The student must have no school disciplinary action for the current semester. School disciplinary action may be defined by the school but, as a minimum, the policy shall state that a student has been disciplined when being placed on suspension where the student is out of school for a period of time. 5. The student must have no known criminal convictions. Academic Course: An academic course is one for which class time is scheduled and which can be credited to meet minimum requirements for graduation\nwhich is taught by a teacher required to have state certification in the course, and which has a course content guide approved by the Arkansas Department of Education. NOTE: P.E. may be considered an academic course for one full credit within the 21 minimum credits. The first time a P.E. grade appears on the transcript in grades 9-12 is when it will be considered an academic course. C. ALTERNATE COURSE CREDIT. A student may satisfy the requirement by successfully completing a course(s) failed or courses(s) needed or an equivalent course(s) in a summer term(s) or a correspondence course(s) approved by the Arkansas Department of Education for granting credit for graduation requirements. Such credit shall be applied to the previous semester. NOTE: When the same course is repeated, the former grade may be replaced. When a substitute course is completed, the grade shall be added to the courses for the previous semesters and the GPA recomputed. D. SPECIAL EDUCATION (HANDICAPPED). A student must have earned passing grades in four academic courses of the I.E.P. for the previous semester. In junior high three of the four courses must be in the core curriculum areas (Math, Science, English, Social Studies). E. CHANGING ELIGIBILITY STATUS. A student may Page 34 - 2000-2001 AAA Handbook regain or lose academic eligibility the first day of classes in a new semester. Eligibility shall be determined twice per year, once at the beginning of the fall semester (August/September) and once at mid-term (December /January). Rationale - An athlete must first be a student and must meet certain minimum academic requirements. R.!!k..11. INELIGIBLE IN ANOTHER STATE. A student who is ineligible in any sport under the rules of the state association in the state of the student's residence will, upon transfer to any AAA member school be ineligible for interscholastic competition. If Arkansas' rules are less restricitive than the rules of the state where the student has been attending, the student may become eligible to participate in interscholastic competition in Arkansas upon the approval of the Executive Director. Rationale - To prevent parents from shopping for a school in Arkansas when their child is ineligible in their home state. Rule 12. PARTICIPATION ON NON-SCHOOL TEAMS. A. TEAM SPORTS 1. A student who is a member of a school's athletic team and who has engaged in interscholastic competition may not try out for, practice with, or otherwise participate with, or be a member of a non-school athletic team in the same sport, in season, without losing eligibility for up to a full year (365 days) from the date of such participation with the non-school team. This limitation shall apply to the team sports of football, basketball, volleyball, baseball, softball, and soccer, except that in baseball, softball and soccer, a member of an interscholastic baseball, softball or soccer team may try out for or practice with a non-school team on days when the school team does not practice or play\nhowever, this exception for baseball, softball and soccer shall not apply in weeks the school team is i!)volved in AAA-sponsored championship tournaments. 2. Participation on a non-school athletic team in the same sport, in season, shall define in season as the AAA established beginning date until the end of the state tournament in that sport for grades 9-12 in the sports of football, volleyball and basketball. 3. Students in grades 7-9 shall have end of seasor, defined as, when their high school team has been eliminated from qualifying competition for anJ conference, region or state championship for the sports of baseball, softball and soccer.\n, ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION RULES AND REGULATIONS ESTABLISHING THE ACADEMIC STANDARDS FOR STUDENT PARTICIPATION IN COMPETITIVE INTERSCHOLASTIC ACTIVITIES Revised September 2000 ===-== =-=================--~=== l[oo J\\!'E~LATORY AUTHORlT~'.---~ 7 i-01 \\ These regulations shall be known as Arkansas \\ \\ Department of Education Regulations Governing \\ School DistJict Academic Requirements for Student Participation in Competitive Interscholastic Activities. [ l.02\\ These regulations a,e enacted pmsuant to the State \\ \\ Board of Education's authority under Arkansas Code 1 ___ Annotated 6-11-l OS and 6-15-202 (1999 Repl.). \\[!i(i_]j:uRPOSE ] 1 2.01 The purpose of these regulations is to set forth for \\ school districts the Standard for Academic Requirements for Competitive Interscholastic Activity 1 \\ Partici~ation which schools must meet in order to be \\ i accredited.  the acadermc standards for public school competitive \\ The further _Purpose of these regulations is to est~b_llsh interscholastic activities. [ooJ DEFl l ITIO s 3.01 \"Competitive Interscholastic Activities\" as used in these regulations mean those school-sponsored 1 activities in which students from two or more schools are competing for the purpose of receiving an award, 1 rating, recognition, or criticism, or qualification for additional competition. These regulations apply to 1 r competitive interscholastic activities only. 3.021\"Supplemental Instruction Program\" as used in these I regulations means an additional instructional o_ppo:1unity for identified students_ outside of their ume m the regular classroom and 1s further defined as: \\ \\ 3 .02. l a program verified and certified by the. \\ \\ administration of the local scho_o~ distnct 1 and the sponsors of the compet1 tl ve \\ interscholastic activities in which the school I district participates, and r--T 3.02.2\\' a program directed by a state-certified 1\\[L - -_,1. \\ classroom teacher, and 3 .02 .3\\ a program z-\ni\nd\n, an assessment of \\ the factors contributing to the student's TT CHM TTB \\ \\ l__JI !!inadequate academic performance, and I 1:====:~=== 3.02.41 a program designed to provide instruction I specific to the needs of the student in subject 1 areas where he is experiencing inadequate performance by providing assistance to the student by teachers, volunteers, or other I students who are proficient in the identified I J subject areas and that the instruction is focused on improving the student's skills in I the identified subject(s), and =-:==3=.0=2=_==:5 a program which requires identified school J personnel to contact the student's parent(s) 1\n====\n====, or guardian(s) to explain the supplemental instrnctional program to discuss the recommended course of action to meet the needs of their student, and the identified school personnel is required to keep a record of the contact made and the responses of the parent(s) or guardian(s), and 3.02.6 a program with procedures defined by the local district for monitoring student progress that includes requiring a progress report to be filed each grading period from the classroom teacher(s) in the subject a.rea(s) where the student's inadequate perfonnance has occuned with t11e report(s) sent to and held by the district's appointed director of the program. ~ ,========================== 3.03 \"Academic courses\" as used in these regulations means ==== those courses that are identified in the Arkansas Department of Education's Standards for !Accreditation of Arkansas Public Sclzools as one of the 38 course offe1ings or is a definable course for which class time is scheduled and which can be credited to meet the minimum requirements for graduation and is taught by a teacher required to have State certification in the course, and has been approved by the Arkansas Department of Education. Any of these courses for which concurrent high school credit is earned may be from an institution of higher education recognized by the Arkansas Department of Education. 3.03 .1 Physical education (PE) may be considered an academic course for one full credit within the 21 minimum credits required for graduation by the Arkansas Department of Education's Standards for Accreditation of !Arkansas Public Sclzools, and for eligibility I purposes, the first time the PE ~a.de app_ears on the transcript in grades 9-12 1s when 11  r-  - ............. ~ .............. .:wvv 1.ltlll L.JI llwill be considered an academic course. I 3.03.2 A student may satisfy an academic requirement by successfully completing academic course(s) failed which must be repeated and passed\nor academic course(s) needed\nor an equivalent course(s) in a summer term(s)\nor a correspondence course(s) approved by the local school board for granting credit for graduation requirements. If the identical course(s) is/are taken in the regular school year, in summer school, or by correspondence, the better grade(s) may be substituted for computing the Grade Point Average of the student for\n=== the previous semester. 3.03.3 If an academic course, as defined in Section 3.03, is scheduled for 90 minutes per day every day of the semester as in the case of schools set up on block schedules and the student passes the course, then that course can be counted twice toward meeting the requirement for students to pass four ( 4) academic courses as used in any following section. 1 4.00 I ST Al~DARD: COMPETITIVE INTERSCHOLASTIC ACTIVITIES POLICY ,--- 4.01 Each school district shall adopt and operate by a written policy specifying the requirements for competitive interscholastic activity pru.ticipation which shall include, but shall not be limited to, the requirements set forth herein in Section 5.00. LJ ACADEMIC REQUIREMENTS FOR COMPETITIVE INTERSCHOLASTIC ACTIVITY PARTICIPATION 5.01 The State Standard Requirements for Junior High Effective Spring Semester, 1997-98 School Year. A student promoted from the sixth to the seventh grade automatically meets scholarship requirements. A student promoted from the seventh to the eighth grade automatically meets scholarship requirements for the first semester. The second semester ei_ghi1_1-gi:_aje student meet~ the scholarship req~fre\"m~ntsf.9r:iu11.i,or 1ugh ff he has successfuliy passed-four-(4) acad~giic courses the previous semester, three (3) of which shall be in the core curriculum areas of math, science, social studies, and language arts specifi.ed by the Arkansas Department of Education's Standards for Accreditation of Arkansas Public Schools. I S.02 jjThe first semester ninth-grade student meets the I II scholarship requirements for junior high if he has successfully passed four ( 4) academic courses the previous semester, three (3) of which shall be in the core cuniculum area of math, science, social studies, and language a.tis specified by the Arkansas Department of Education's Standards for Accreditation of Arkansas Public Sclzools. :===:=========================: 5.03 The second semester ninth-grade sh1dent meets the scholarship requirements for junior high ifhe has successfully passed four (4) academic courses the previous semester which count toward his graduation ~ requirements. 5.04 Ninth-grade students must meet the requirements of the senior high scholarship rule as set forth herein in Sections 5. 0 5 and 5. 06 by the end of the second semester in the ninth grade in order to be eligible to participate the fall semester of their tenth-grade year. Student promotions at the seventh and eighth grades meet scholarship requirements for participation in competitive interscholastic activities. 5.05 The State Standard Requirements for Senior High Effective Spring Semester, 1997-98 School Year. In order to remain eligible for competitive interscholastic activity, a student must have passed four ( 4) academic courses the previous semester and either: 5.05.l Have earned a minimum Grade Point Average of 2.0 from all academic courses the previous semester, or Have met the \"proficiency perfo1mance standard\" as defined by the State Board of Education on the state crite1ion-referenced literacy end-of-course test in the eleventh-grade for twelfth-grade eligibility, or ' Have met the \"proficiency performance standard\" as defined by the State Board of Education on the state criterion-referenced ~lgebr~eGme-try-efi\u0026amp;- urse tests, or ~chieved at or above the 50t ( percentile on the Basic Battery on the norm-referenced test administered by the state, for tenth-and eleventh-grade eligib  ty, or 5.05.2 Loca~ds..m~1:resfa waiver from the State Standard by submitting a plan following a required fo1mat to the Department of Education to implement the procedures for a supplemental instruction program outlined in Section 5.06. The LJLJIIDep~rtment will review the pla~ and approve:! or disapprove the requested waiver. LJ If th: student has passed four ( 4) academic courses the previous semester but does not meet any one of the requirements in Section 5.05.1, then the student must: 5.06.1 Be enrolled and attending a supplemental instruction program of at least 100 minutes duration each week outside the regular school day in the subject areas where inadequate performance has occurred. and Have no unexcused absences for the cunent semester or its equivalent and Have no school disciplinary actions for the current semester or its equivalent or known := criminal convictions. 5.06.2 A policy statement defining \"school disciplinary action\" for purposes of imposing a sanction under Section 5.06.1 shall be adopted by the local school board and distributed to the schools prior to enforcing a sanction. As a minimum, the policy shall state that when a student has been disciplined by being placed on suspension where he is out of school for a period of time will be defined as a \"school disciplinary action\" for the pw-poses of these regulations. 5.06.3 At the end of each semester grading period (December/January or May/June) if it is detelTilined by the supplemental instruction program director that the student in the supplemental instructional program is not meeting the State Standard Requirements in Section 5.05.1 for participation in competitive interscholastic activities, the student must remain in the supplemental instructional program during the following semester grading peiiod. 5.06.4 Sanctions. At any point the student falls out of compliance with any criteria in Section 5.06.1 during the semester, he wi11 be immediately suspended from competition for the remainder of the semester and must remain in the supplemental instructional program in order for his eligibility to be reconsidered at the end of the semester. If a I student fails to participate in the supplemental instructional program during ! any semester, then eligibility can only be LJLJ regained by the student earning a Grade Point Average of2 .0 from all academic courses lhe previous semester. 5.06.5 lf a student is declared ineligible at the end I of the fall semester and only participates in interscholastic competitive activities during the fall semester, he must be placed in the supplemental instrnction program and meet the requirements in Section 5.06.1 during the spring semester in order to be considered for eligibility the following fall. The same requirement applies to a student who only participates in spring semester activities. He must be placed in the supplemental instruction program and meet the requirements in Section 5.06.1 during the next fall semester in order to be considered == for eligibility in the following spring. 5.06.6 For the purposes of meeting the supplemental instruction requirement in Section 5.06.1, a \"week\" shall be considered to begin and end with the close of the official school day on Friday. 5.06.7 Any school district which would like to submit an alternative proposal for providing the supplemental instruction program during the school day may request a waiver from the State Board of Education for this requirement. These waiver requests will be considered by the State Board of Education on a school-by-school basis. School district officials seeking this waiver may need to appear before the State Board at a regularly scheduled meeting. 5.06.8 Any school district which requested and received a waiver as described in 5.06.7 from the State Board of Education following the effective date of the 1997 revisions will not have to reapply for this waiver as of the effective date of the 2000 revisions. 5.06.9 Reporting requirement: At the end of each school year, any school with an approved supplemental instruction program must file a report with the Department of Education on fom1s provided by the Department or electronically as directed by the Department. r, Students with disabilities under IDEA function under conditions specified in their Individualized Education Program (IEP) in order to be considered eligible to Ill lp:11 arKeau.stale.ar.USIU(J 7.hlrr LJ participate in competitive interscholastic activities. In order to be considered eligible to paiticipate in these activities, students with disabilities must pass at least four ( 4) courses required by the sh1dent's IBP. LJ The regulations as set forth herein in Sections 5 .01 through 5.07 establish the minimum academic requirements for participation. Noncompetitive interscholastic activity and competitive intrascholastic activity participation are not affected by these regulations. ~\\PENALTY I 6.01 Any school which allows a_st.udent toyarticipate in _~ ~o.wpetttive interscholastic.activity w~o is ineligible as defineq by these rules and regulations must rep\u0026lt;::\u0026gt;rt such a violation inunediately upon discovery of the violation to the Director of the Department of Education. = 6.02 A school will be placed in probationary status for allowing a student who has not met the established academic requirements in Section 5 .00 to participate in competitive interscholastic activities. Such probationary status will begin with the school year in which the violation occurs. If an eligibility violation occurs during either one of the next two following academic school years, then the school will be placed in loss of accreditation status. :== 6.03 These regulations establish the minimum requirements a school district's policy on competitive interscholastic activity participation must meet in order for schools in the district to be accredited. Local school districts are not precluded from implementing higher standards in their efforts to improve student achievement. ADE Homepage OF THE ELIGIBILITY OF   TT J J GRADE BASKETBALL PLAYER CENTRAL HIGH SCHOOL ~elow is the timeline, indicating dates of occurrences and actions: MAY 1 6 ?.001 pril 27 received a phone call from Mrs. Laura Flanigan, Assistant Athletic Director. A returned call to Ms. lanigan indicated that she had information that had not attended SIP since January, yet he had played in the state tournament. (The January date proved inaccurate\nrather, March 1, 2001, was the verified date.) I called Mr. Howard, who agreed to investigate. In the meantime, Ms. Flanigan had stated that she would check the SIP logs for verification of attendance. Mr. Howard reported his findings (see Mr. Howard's message below. His April 31 e-mail, and packet are on file). I, had stopped SIP. However, he should not have been in SIP\" because of 5.05 of the Arkansas Department of Education Rules and Reaulations. Ms. Flanigan reported her findings as copied from her memo. (Her April 30 memo and accompanying packet are on file.) A section from her memo follows: After a careful check of the sign-in sheets, I found that the student in question,  did indeed stop attending the required SIP sessions on 3/1/01, as well as missed sessions on several occasions prior to that date (1/9, 1/18, 2/27)\nfrom that point on he was ineligible to participate in athletics with the Little Rock School District. However, .. participated in the 2001 AAAAA Central State Basketball Tournament and Championship for Central High School. Students are given the opportunity to make up sessions missed because an (a.m. \u0026amp; p.m.) session is offered to students. According to the records, no attempt was made for make-up. According to the rules and regulations of the program, no absences are allowed (that includes class absences) while in the program but as you can see from the enclosed attendance log, T  \u0026amp;Dwas listed absent on a daily basis. That violation in itself would disqualify a student from participation. This phase of the program should be monitored by the school administration but I realize that they are as I am, stretched to the limit and time is not always available to keep on top on all of this information so I am forced to look this up on the computer when I have the opportunity to do so. ATTACHME TC Reviewed all data from Mr. Howard and Ms. Flanigan and talked with Dr. Ed Williams in Evaluation and Testing. The findings are as follows: -1 est data provided by the school does indicate above 50 percentile on the basic battery for W\u0026amp;U, however, the data represent the results of C 10th grade testing, rather than \"previous semester\" as stipulated in SIP rules and regulations. Mrs. Flanigan's data appear accurate and complete. Dr. Williams reported that there were no test results for the previous semester because 11th graders do not take the Stan\u0026amp;rd 9 Test and the end-of-level tests are pilot tests. Therefore, had no test results for his 11th grade year, making the 5.05 invalid. Mav 7 Discussion of situation in the Superintendent's Cabinet meeting. Dr. Carnine advised legal consultation with our lawyers. Telephone conversation with Clay Fendley, who advised that I seek answers from an interview with Mr. Howard, the student, (SIP coordinator), and Coach..., NC , finding out if the coach and principal knew that the student was not in SIP. Other questions to be answered: Did someone tell the student to stop? Did talk with anyone at the school? Did we intentionally, purposefully violate policy or was this a mistake in reading the regulations, etc.? ,, ,cerviews held with Mr. Howard, John Kelly (assistant principal in charge of athletics),~, ~,and :a I- ,~ I explained my findings to Mr. Howard and Mr. Kelly, informing them of the problem with the test scores and, consequently, eligibility. At this point it seemed that we played an ineligible player in some games, including the state tournament. Mr. Howard and Mr. Kelly both acknowledged that the first time they knew of the possibility of Ii iJeing ineligible was April 27. Neither was aware that a  Q had stopped going to SIP. Mr. Howard admitted at this point that J a did not attend SIP the week before the state tournament and the documentation does not help. eported that he \"stopped going.\" (He had no reason.) He stated that no one told him to stop. reported that she gave the coaches a copy of the attendance log after the Tuesday and Thursday sessions and that she had told tr  :while passing him in the hall), \"I haven't seen you in SIP.\" had responded \"he didn't need to go anymore.\" stated that he first found out tha  I had not attended SIP on April 27. He - [i:her stated that he had delegated the responsibility of attending the SIP class and the checking of \"1e attendance logs to his assistant. ddendum - Ma 14 2001 1:30 .m. talked with Mr. Ray Lumpkin, Arkansas Department of Education. A summary of the conversation r 11lws: ,S ,He received a call from il T I  C approximately two weeks ago, inquir~out the 5.05 section of the SIP. Mr. Lumpkin emphatically stated that this section applies to eligibility only for the 10th and 11th grade years. For the athlete to be eligible during the 12th grade year, he must either have passed the four .\\:lasic courses, with a 2.0, or attend SIP--not missing a day. If the athlete misses one day unexcused, \"he's ineligible immediately.\" He added, \"The sanctions imposed by the Arkansas Department of Education are different from those imposed by the Arkansas Activities Association: the first time - we give a warning\nsecond time - the school loses its accreditation.\" Mr. Lumpkin further mentioned that about \"three or four weeks ago, Mrs. Flanigan had invited him to a meeting with the high school coaches where he talked about SIP.\" SUPPLEMENTAL INSTRUCTION PROGRAM PLAN A. Describe how you plan to offer the required 100 minutes of supplemental instruction each week outside of the regular school day for the students, and how you will monitor attendance. The Little Rock School District will use the 1997 ADE Rules and Regulations Establishing the Academic Standards for Student Participation in Competitive Interscholastic Activities as the eligibility rule-s for the District (attached), - The--Little Rock-school- District -will-operate a-supplemental instruction program outside the regular school day for students in grades nine through twelve who are participants in competitive interscholastic activities (including cheerleaders and drill team members) and who have passed four academic courses the previous semester but have failed to maintain a 2.00 grade point average during the semester preceding participation. The program will be developed in each secondary school by the principal and faculty and will be directed by a certified teacher (coordinator) at each building. The coordinator at each building will be assisted at each program session by a coach or sponsor who is working with students involved in the program. Students wishing to continue as participants in competitive interscholastic activities will attend two hours per week of supplemental instruction in those courses in which their grades fall below the required 2.00 grade average. After the roster of participants is developed by the school coordinator, attendance will be recorded for each session. B. How will the factors contributing to the inadequate academic performance by students in the Supplemental Instruction Program be assessed? Explain what assessment tools will be used. The supplemental instruction program will be based on an assessment of factors that contributed to the student's inadequate performance. Teachers of the courses wherein the student performed below the 2.00 grade level will identify the concepts that were not sufficiently mastered by the student and will provide instructional materials to be completed during the supplemental instruction program. The concepts will be identified from a review of the course objectives that were not successfully mastered and/or a profile of the concepts not mastered on standardized tests. ATTACHME TD C. Describe how the program will be designed to specifically address the needs of the students in the subject areas where assistance is needed (i.e., math, science, social studies, language arts, etc.). Include in your explanation whether or not you will use classroom teachers, volunteers, and/or students who have demonstrated knowledge in the identified subject areas. If the student tutors are used, what criteria will be used to identify these students?  Instructional materials identified by the teacher will be provided to the coordinator of the supplemental instruction program for each participating student. Those materials will be distributed to the student for completion during the program sessions. The coordinator may be assisted in the program sessions by other teachers, volunteers, ---- - - - ---- or--by---peer--tutors (students- who- have -demonstrated mastery -ef-the concepts, as evidenced by making a 3.00 grade point in the course in which assistance is being provided). D. Who will contact the student's parents or guardians to explain the supplemental  instruction program and how will this process be documented? The coach/sponsor of the student who wishes to participate in the supplemental instruction program will contact the student's parent and explain the program and the recommended course of action to reestablish the student's academic eligibility. The coach/sponsor will record the contact and any parental response to the program. E. Explain the procedures that will be used to monitor student progress while the students are in the supplemental instruction program. Be certain to include as one of the requirements a progress report to be filed each grading period by the classroom teachers in the subject areas where the students are experiencing difficulty. The supplemental instruction program director is required to keep a copy of these progress reports on file. Progress of the students participating in the supplemental instructional program will be monitored quarterly by use of the interim progress report for all students who are failing, are near failure, or who are working below capacity, Interim reports will be complet~d l\u0026gt;y the classroom teacher at the mid-point of each quarter and will be sent home to the parent, and a copy provided to the coordinator of the program. Progress will also be monitored by the distribution of quarterly grade reports by all teachers. Grade reports will be sent home to parents, and a copy will also be provided to the program coordinator. Both interim and quarterly grade reports will be retained by the program coordinator for each student who participated in the program. F. Explain the procedures you will use during the semester, and the end of each semester (December/January or May/June, to determine if the students in the Supplemental Instruction Program maintain eligibility. Include in the explanation how the requirements in Section 5.03 of the rules and regulations wlll be monitored. Students who choose to participated in the supplemental instruction program will maintain their eligibility during the semester by having passed four academic courses the previous semester (with PE counting as an academic course the first time it appears on the transcript in grades 9-12), by attending sessions of the program, having no unexcused absences or out-out-school suspensions for the current semester, and having no criminal convictions during the current semester,- -- --- - - --  - - ---- -- - - -    -   If, at the end of the semester (January/June), it is determined by the program coordinator that the student in the supplemental instruction program is not meeting the State Standard Requirements in section 5.02.1 of the ADE Rules and Regulations Establishing the Academic Standards for Student Participation in Competitive Interscholastic Activities, the student must remain in the supplemental instruction program during the following semester grading period. At any point the student falls out of compliance with any criteria in Section 5.03.1 during the semester, he will be immediately suspended from competition for the remainder of the semester but remain in the supplemental instruction program in order for his eligibility to be reconsidered at the end of the semester. If a student is declared ineligible at the end of the fall semester and only participates in interscholastic competitive activities during the fall semester, he must be placed in the supplemental instruction program and meet the requirements in section 5.03.1 during the spring semester in order to be considered for eligibility the following fall. The same requirement applies to a student who only participates in the spring semester activities. He must be placed in the supplemental program and meet the requirements in section 5.03.1 during the next fall semester in order to be considered for eligibility in the following spring. Students with disabilities that have been documented under IDEA function under conditions specified in their individualized Education Program (IEP) in order to be considered eligible to participate in competitive interscholastic activities. In order to be considered eligible to participate in these activities, students with disabilities must pass at least ( 4) courses required by the student's IEP. A school will be placed in probationary status for allowing a st1.1dent who has not met the established academic requirements in Section 5.00 to participate in competitive interscholastic activities. Such probationary status will begin with the school year in which the violation occurs. If an eligibility violation occurs during either one of the next two academic school years, then the school will be placed in loss of accreditation status. Any coach/sponsor who knowingly violates the Little Rock School District plan for the supplemental instruction program, herein described, will be subject to the penalties set forth in the LRSD Policy IGD-R (1989-90). The Little Rock School District has chosen to implement a higher standard than the regulations required to improve academic -achievement by including grade nine students as a part of this program. The District Coordinator of the Supplemental Instruction Program is Ms. Laura Flanigan of the Athletic Office. Committee: Ray Gillespie, Athletic Director Laura Flanigan, Athletic Office Shirley Goodnight, J.A. Fair High School Sandra McFadden, Forest Heights Middle School Jay Pickering, Parkview Magnet High School Marcus Davis, Cloverdale Middle School Tiffany Gunn, Mcclellan High School Rashunda White, J.A. Fair-High School Nick Davis, Parkview Magnet High School rkansas Activities Associ . 3 920 Ricli.ar~s _RQa:d  North Little Rock, AR 72117 501-955-2500  FAX 501-955-2600/955--2521   ite a '131.E .A. . S.PO.RT ll Building Citizenship Through Activities Participation ATTACHME TE '. . : . Non-School Participation  Physical Exam - Hardship Exceptions 4. The definition of a non-school team includes one or more of the following: a. A team affiliated with and scheduled for participation in an organized league. b. A team participating against a team that meets criterion (1.) above. c. A team identified by a name or a uniform, and which participates in contests independent from league affiliation. NOTE: Practice is an activity involving the players of only one school's team. B. NATIONAL TEAM, OLYMPIC DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS, AND INTERNATIONAL SCHOOLSPORT FEDERATION. An exception to A. above may be granted: 1. A National Team (and the actual, direct tryouts therefore), which is defined as one selected by the national governing body (NGB) of the sport on a national qualification basis, either through a defined selective process or actual tryouts, for the purpose of international competition which requires the entries to officially represent their respective nations, although it is not necessary that there be team scoring by nation\nor 2. in an Olympic Development Program, which is defined as a training program or competition: a. conducted or sponsored by the United States Olympic Committee (USO()\nor b. directly funded and conducted by the USOC member national governing body (NGB) on a national level (e.g. NGB national championship competition and the direct qualifications therefore)\nor c. specifically authorized by a national governing body involving only athletes previously identified by the NGB as having potential for future participation in regional, national or international competition in the sport involved\nProvided in 1, 2, and 3: a. participation, if during the school year, is approved by the student's school administration, and the Arkansas Activities Association is notified in writing by the principal at least 30 days prior to the date of the program\nand b. the student makes prior arrangement to complete missed academic lessons, assignments, and tests before the last day of classes of the credit grading period in which that student's absence occurs\nand c. the student misses no AAA-sponsored athletic event involving a team in that sport. Rationale - To prevent conflicts in coaching philosophies during the school season and to prevent athletes from being exploited by over-participation. .!Mu.3.. PARTIGPATION IN INDMDUAL NON-SCHOOL ACTIVITIES. A. A student who is a member of a school's athletic program as a participant in a sport and who has engaged in interscholastic competition in that sport may enter non-school competition as an individual during or outside of the school season for that sport. These individual sports include: Cross Country, Track, Gymnastics, Tennis, Golf, and Swimming. B. If a participant is school-sponsored, the activity must be sanctioned under Article II, Section 8, Rule 6, Sanction (Approval)' of Events. Rationale - Athletes may participate on an individual basis without harm to a team since they compete by themselves. This provides opportunities for individuals to participate in a normally limited season. .!M.e.._li. PHYSICAL EXAMINATION. In any year that a student engages in interscholastic competition, the student must present to the coach a physical examination verification prior to beginning practice. Rationale - The coaches and school administration must be assured that the athletes are physically fit prior to beginning practice as well as competition. ~fu!k...15.. HARDSHIP EXCEPTIONS FOR ELIGIBILITY. Upon petition from a student's school administrator, the Executive Director is authorized to waive the requirements of all eligibility rules except the age rule if the school develops acceptable proof based on the stated criteria for such a waiver. A. Residence Exceptions: 1. After an investigation, a court of law has removed the student from the parents or guardians and subsequently assigned the student a place of residence. 2. The student is an orphan or there is no record of the parent's whereabouts. 3. The student's parents are out-of-state residents and the student is attending school in a school district where the parents maintain a legal residence (military, etc.). 4. The student's parents(s) have abrogated their responsibility toward the student as parents. .S. The student's parent(s) employment requires absence from home a great portion of the time the student is home and have arranged residence with relatives or friends for the purpose of supervision. 6. The student is married and living with a spouse, having a parent with residence in school district, or a spouse who had an established residence in the district one year previous to the marriage. 7. A student having lived three continuous years at any time as a bona fide member of a family may establish the family heads as substitute parents with respect to the residence rule. 8. An extreme and unusual circumstance exists that is no fault of the student or the parents. NOTE: The Executive Director is authorized to specify limitations or contingency conditions as needed when giving approvals, to ensure that such student shall not be induced to another school district or played under the pretense of being eligible should the eligibility status change. NOTE: The petition shall not be authorized if the director obtains reliable information that the student is transferring to the petitioning school primarily for athletic purposes or as a result of inducement or recruitment. B. Exception to Other Eligibility Requirements. 1. There has been an extreme and unusual circumstance that is no fault of the student, the parent, or the school that has prevented school attendance sufficient to cause that student to be in violation of the drop-out rule or the scholarship rule or the semester rule. 2. The student has been identified as being in need of special education or other special programs of study as authorized by the Arkansas Department of Education regulations, but is subsequently required by the school to participate in non-recommended courses. NOTE: If negligence or irresponsibility on the part of Page 36 - 2000-2001 MA Handbook the parent or school has a significant influence relative to the student being ineligible, such negligence or lack of responsibility may be considered. Rationale - There should be the opportunity to make exceptions to all rules, except the age rule, if the proof can be substantiated . SECTION 2  NON-ATHLETIC COMPETITIVE ACTIVITIES Ru.lLl, BONA FIDE STIJDENT. (Same as athletic Rule 4.) Rule 2. SCHOLARSHIP. (Same as athletic Rule 10.) .B..u.k.]_, SEMESTERS. (Same as athletic Rule 6.) .B..l!.!u, AGE. (Senior High same as athletic Rule 7, Junior High none.) fu!.le....5.. VOCATIONAL EDUCATION YOUTH ORGANIZATIONS. A student involved in a vocational education youth organization need only be a bona fide student of a school and meet the scholarship rule. The student may not participate in an interscholastic event on or after the twenty-first birthday. ~- HARDSHIP CASES. (Same as athletic Rule 15.) SECTION 3 - CHEER AND DRILL/DANCE SQUADS .R.u.lLl. ELIGIBILITY. Students participating as a member of a school's cheer or drill/dance squad must meet eligibility requirements for interscholastic non-athletic competitive activities. lMLZ,. PHYSICAL EXAMINATION. In any year that a student tries out for, or participates as a member of, the school's cheer or dance/drill squad, the student shall be required to have a physical examination prior to beginning an organized practice or workshop for  .tryouts and shall present a signed statement or verification which shall be valid for one calendar year. Rl.!.iLJ, STUDENT PARTICIPATION. Only a school's cheer squad members are authorized to participate on the sidelines, floor, or field during an athletic contest. This does not include pregame, halftime, or postgame activities if authorized by the school administration. An individual who is designated as a part of the squad to stand or perform with the squad on the sidelines, floor, or field during an athletic contest or spirit competition (ex: mascot) shall meet all eligibility requirements of cheer and dance/drill squad members. ii: 'An Individual Approach to a World of Knowledge\" For Immediate Release May 17, 2001 For more information: Dr. Katherine Mitchell Board President 370-5255 School Board Statement Regarding LRSD Athletic Program The Little Rock School Board is aware of the seriousness of the recent allegations relative to the district's athletic program and is taking an active role in resolving the issues. First, the board has called for a thorough and intensive investigation of the allegations. The administration has assured the board that the investigation will be substantially completed in 30 days and will provide information that will allow the board to take appropriate action. Secondly, the board will meet with Dr. Kenneth James, the incoming superintendent, to clearly state policies and procedures and to confirm lines of authority, responsibility and accountability to ensure compliance. Finally, the board will institute internal audit procedures to fairly test the district's compliance to rules and regulations. The board is committed to academic excellence and achievement of all students in this district as well as the principles of fair play in athletics and other extracurricular activities. The actions of the board will substantiate its firm commitment. ATTACHME TF 810 W Markham  Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  www.lrsd.k12.ar.us 501-324-2000  fax: 501-324-2032 HIGH SCHOOL (Grades 9 - 12) CURRICULUM CATALOG 2001-2002 Little Rock School District Division of Instruction 3001 S. Pulaski Little Rock, AR 72206 501/324-2000 www. lrsd. org ATTACHME TG LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPN CODE: IKC-R CLASS RA.~, GS/GRADE-POINT AVERAGES All grades, except those noted in the \"exceptions\" below, earned for high school courses, including excess elective units, shall be used in calculating the grade-point average and rankin- class. Grades included in the computation are as follows: 1. Grades earned for high school courses, whether taken in the regular day, evening school, or summer school program. ---\u0026gt;z,-,_ 2. Grades earned in alternative education programs, including those in LRSD, administered by school districts or other organizations which are accredited through their state department of education or a regional accreditation organization, such as North Central Association of Schools and Colleges ( CA). 3. Transfer grades from accredited schools outside the Little Rock School District. 4. Algebra I (or higher-level mathematics course) and Level I foreign language (or higher-level foreign language course) taken in the eighth grade. 5. Only one (1) unit of physical education (One-halfun.it is required\none-half unit may count as an elective. Therefore, only the grades for one unit of physical education shall be computed in the grade-point average.) 6. Grades earned in approved concurrent credit college courses offered in cooperation with institutions of higher education. 7. Grades earned in summer enrichment programs conducted by institutions of higher education, if the course and credit were approved by the District. (See IKEC-Rl.) 8. Failing grades, even for those courses re-taken. 9. First grades of courses retaken to improve understandings and skills. 10. Grade earned for one semester of Driver Education taken from an accredited high school. 11. Grades earned on credit-by-examination to make up failed courses. (See IKEC-R3.) 12. Grades earned in the District's home-bound programs. 13. Grades earned in approved correspondence courses. (See IKEC-R2.) 14. Grades earned in approved on-line or distance-learning courses. 15. Courses in which a student earns an C (no credit due to excessive absences). Regardless of the student's grade in a course for which he/she earns an C, the NC, which equals O points, replaces the grade and is used in the calculation of the grade-point average. 28 HIGH SCHOOL (Grades 9 - 12) CURRICULUM CATALOG 2001-2002 Little Rock School District Division of Instruction 3001 S. Pulaski Little Rock, AR 72206 501/324-2000 www. lrsd. org TTACH IE TH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEP\" CODE: IKEC-R3 CREDIT BY EXAMINATION Purpose The following regulations provide guidelines for the administration of the credit-byexamination program, effective the 1999-2000 school year. Eli!!ibilitv Criteria In order to be eligible to earn credit by examination, a student must meet all the following criteria: 1. Be enrolled in grades 6-12\n2. Have been enrolled, according to a review of school records, at least 55 scholastic hours for a semester core course. Exception: Keyboarding credit may be earned through examination at either the middle school and high school levels, without prior enrollment in the course, as per a waiver granted by the Arkansas Department of Education. 3. Be recommended for the credit by examination program by a teacher or counselor and the principal of the school\nand 4. Have parent permission to take the examination for possible credit instead of retaking the course. Available Courses Credit by examination shall be available to students for the following courses: Middle School High School English 6, 7, 8 English I, II, III, IV Mathematics 6, 7, 8 Algebra I Keyboarding Geometry Achievement of Course Benchmarks Concepts of Geometry Civics World History United States History Keyboarding Examinations used to earn credit under this policy shall assess the student's achievement of course benchmarks and shall be properly evaluated by the Associate Superintendent for Instruction or designee before credit is granted. The District may develop the examinations or may purchase end-of-course examinations that are aligned with the State's curriculum frameworks. Examination Development The following procedures shall apply if examinations are developed locally for credit by examination: 1. All tests developed for credit by examination shall be written by staff in the Division of Instruction with the advice and input of classroom teachers. 2. Tests used for credit by examination shall be comparable in difficulty to semester examinations administered to students during the regular school year. 3. All tests administered for credit by examination shall be evaluated (graded) by a member of the staff of the Division of Instruction and/or a teacher in that subject area. Procedures The following procedures shall apply: 1. Credit-by-examination tests shall be administered at the end of each semester according to a schedule developed by the Department of Planning, Research, and Evaluation. 2. A student shall attain a passing grade in order to receive credit. 3. No student in grades 6-8 may earn more than one course credit each year through creditby- examination. No student in grades 9-12 may earn more than two total units through credit by examination. 4. Students are limited to one test administration per semester per course. 5. Students will be notified in writing of their examination grade and whether credit will be awarded. Such notification shall occur in time for decisions relating to summer school attendance can be made. 6. The credit-by-examination procedures shall be coordinated by the Assistant Superintendent for Planning, Research, and Evaluation (PRE), with input from appropriate curriculum directors and other staff. Grant and Record of Credit The grant of credit is subject to District approval. Credit obtained by this method shall be recorded on the permanent record for grades 6-8 and the high school transcript for grades 9- 12, upon written authorization by the Association Superintendent for Instruction. A student may not take the Keyboarding course for credit in both middle school and high school. Use of Credit V 1. Credit by examination shall not be used to gain eligibility for participation in extracurricular activities. 2. Credit-by-examination cannot be used by grade 12 students to earn eligibility to participate in graduation ceremonies since the administration of the tests occurs after the graduation ceremony. 3. Credit-by-examination may be used to earn promotion from one grade level to the next at the middle school and high school levels . . otice The District shall give reasonable notice of the availability of credit by examination in student handbooks and other documents made available to students and parents. 33 -LTTl_E r~~.JG:-\\ t:'CHo\n:n._ I7'15Tf:Z1GT ::E!J7-RAL '.,ifJ~ SC~0tJL 'Jl f:1PAi'iJ.8H T. J j~  FD 5.~ NVI R l : J:2  GJ:nMf.TR \\\"( r~ ,1:3 . GEfJL-EJF hC E :n wu, HJST Fi ).-'i, ENG l I I fl CJ.. Eie.'ovu ... l.'. \\ . 7.3\u0026gt; y.3) O C D (] L D ,.,,..~ t) F C .oc. --rJ) 1~101 .J)-C.. 'h.s101 C\n,,C.... Yz.C\\101 ~ ,(IC.. '/7Alo I \u0026amp; ATTACHMENT I ~-iom e roorn f=~ur11ber 3 JO 8M l cu1ren~ G. P.A. Cumu l ative G. P. A. P ER I OD ADBEf\"lT 01 3 o~, e 03   \"2. C4 8 To Whom lt May Concern: In the past few weeks there have been press reports, conjecture, and widespread speculation that a Central High student's grades were changed for unethical reasons. Namely, just so that be could play basketball. As a human being, I am hurt to have my name so recklessly and unfairly tied to such implications. As an educator, I am deeply troubled that these implications have been made without a thorough investigation into the facts at hand. I have never been offered the opportunity to explain myself. I have done nothing unethical. My true motivations for changing this student's grade have, up until now, .been my own private knowledge. That will change with this letter. In the beginning weeks of the third quarter, approached me about changing his grade \"so that [he] could play basketball.\" I was unwilling to do so. I cited . low-test grades, his behavior problems in my class, and the fact that he had never attended the after-school tutoring that I offer every school day. I told that I had no reason to believe that changing his grade would accomplish anything. After our conversation, I saw behavior and attitude changes in  that caused me to reconsider my unwillingness to change his grade. The behavior problems that I bad had with him completely disappeared. His attention span in class improved dramatically. His interest in Spanish, which had been low, began to grow. He came in for tutoring after school, and made a high score on a vocabulary quiz. Changing a student's grade in a conspiracy to maintain an advantage in athletics would not only be illegal, but it would also be unethical and immoral. That is something I would never do. However, I would also never deprive a student from participating in an activity that was a great motivator for him or her to improve academically. It was clear to me that, for , basketball was such a motivator. When I saw the difference in approach to Spanish, I realized it was due to his desire to play basketball. Consequently, I decided that a grade change was appropriate because it reinforced his academic improvement. These are the facts regarding the changes I made in grade in my class and my reasons for doing so. These reasons are rooted solely in . best interests and in nothing else. I would do the same for any one of my students, and feel good about it. And in hindsight, if I had it all to do over again, I would do nothing differently. As a teacher, I believe I have a responsibility to do everything in my power to help a student excel in academics. In this situation, as in every other situation with every one of my students, my actions were consistent with this responsibility. Sincerely, ATTACHME TT J HOWARD, RUDOLPH I, . TEACHERS OF . ELIGIBILITY INVESTIGATING COMMITTEE REASON FOR GR.P..DE CHAl~lGE . ) . Fn i:: 1 ht-- 1 TEACHER Qi= 0A teacher suoject CHANGED HIS: (CHECK ONE) 1st quarter grade _ 3rd quarter grade _ Exam Grade _ _ 2nd quarter grade_L 4th quarter grade _ _ Final Grade __ _ for the following reason: At e. eV\\d D+ -=th~ 9 rc.{d 1n3 -:p-e\n,-: od. 1 had. hot +vr-r1ed 1n h1':s -MO al rec.tp:e., pr-dkct Lt\u0026gt;h, c1 rntt.de his average n...,(D), H-e. -tvY-Y'\\e-e~ 1n h,'.s ('C1pes,, bu+- 1Jo1 os were.. I oo hoo due.... -+o be, n\u0026lt;A 1 lo..,4e_. Q(\\d ove 1,..0L l\\ ov-o\\ec,,+. V I ~ Did you , the teacher, initiate the change? __ yes __ no Did s~~~~ni:lse in)tiate tr change1 I X yes __ no Did you, the teacher, discuss. e chang~ with anyone? )S,_yes __ no Who? Indicate the nature of the discussion: ask'e rn-e... 111hoJ--- \u0026gt; rn, ssed baJ caused h,'~ YO-de, :6 h-e Ct 11D\", I+o\\d him \\r\\,'s py oJec\ntbo Ls IJlOdb ~oo ptsi Is it \"common prac1ice\" to change students grades when warranted? yes _x__ ___ no Was any precedent set as a resu lt of your changing the grade? yes--.X_ ___ no ATTACHMENT K To: Mr. Rudolph Howard From:W .,,,... Date: May 18, 2001 Re: Grade change explanation Dear Sir: In reference to the grade that I changed on January 25, 2001 for . -, I would like to give a full explanation. On many occasions, students bring in missed or late assignments that when completed requires a change of grade. This was the case with . Because I felt he had an excusable reason for not turning in his required work, I allowed him to tum it in at a later date. The required assignment was a recipe file. The assignment was worth 200pts. Below, you will find a detailed e:i..-planation of his grades before and after his grade change. 1st 9weeks grade 20/20 100/100 80/100 75/100 25/25 40/100 0/50 425/610 possible 69.67 - 70% IC Before Grade Change 50/50 20/ 93/100 76/100 65/100 70/100 It\n80/100 0/200----(Recipe files) 454/ 750 possible= 60%/ D Semester Calculations (Before) Grade charu!e 70 - 1st nine weeks grade 70 60 - 2nd nine weeks grade 60 7 6 - Semester Test 336 divided by 5 = 67.2/ D After Grade Charu!e 50/50 20 93/100 76/100 65/100 70/100 80/100 100/200 554/750 possible= 74%/C (After) Grade Chanire 70 - 1st nine wee!G gi\"ade 70 7 4 - 2nd nine weeks grade 74 i 6 - Semester Test 36 divided by 5 = 72.8/ C  Because all students ru:e beginners in cooking, their cooking labs are not calculated and therefore, are not counted against student grades. Statement Concerning eceived a 65 percent \"D\" his first nine weeks grading period. The \"D\" was due in part to his failure to hand in four textbook assignments. He asked if he could tum in the assignments late, but my answer was no. S earned a 79 percent \"C\" the second nine weeks grading period. His semester final was a 50 percent \"F\". His semester grade calculated out to be a 68 percent \"F\" and the grade sheet was given to the registrar. S _ f asked if I would look at the grade again and consider letting him make up past assignments. I agreed to look at the entire semester again. I realized upon review that letting  turn in only two of the assignments missed from the first nine weeks would result in his grade being a \"C\"  Further calculation, based on the new information, revealed his semester grade would have been a \"C\" and not a \"D\". At this point, I felt I had been unfair to ff and informed him that I would make a grade change. I am forwarding this information with the hope that it will in no way be used to violate or compromise 1$  rights under the FERP A Act. Sincerely, ATTACH IE TL iOWARD, RUDOLPH TEACHERS OF ELIGIBILITY INVESTIGATING COMMITTEE REASON FOR GRADE CHANGE EDWARDS CHANGED HIS: (CHECK ONE) 1st quarter grade _ 2nd quarter grade __ 3rd quarter grade __ _ Exam Grade __ _ 4th quarter grade __ _ ,/ Final Grade for the following reason: A~ Sf A+ d i/J ,A ltm7l /ILc--V!cXu. ~ _( I,{_ h /4. ~f-/F ,\u0026lt; I .=ii f fill- I L.,/ {\ntA\u0026lt;. ~::{.,\u0026lt;.,~ ~ f?l A I u dJ,1\ns ~\ns r 9 /4. cl /4 ,.-t:flr. /4.\n, a.efipi,., 1/u\nfJ ~ . IU.a.h ,4 5t!Jt(Ef,7?:Z. Did you, the teacher, initiate the change? ~es __ no :Jid someone else initiate the change? __ yes Z Who? ________ / Did you, the teacher, discuss the change with anyone? _yes __ no Who? _______ _ Indicate the nature of the discussion: !s it \"common prjCtice\" to change students grades when warranted? yes~ ___ no Was any precedent set as a result Qf--1our changing the grace? yes_ ~ HOWARD, RUDOLPH Ta: TEACHERS OF ELIGIBILITY INVESTIGATING COMMITTEE ,...._ \\SON FOR GRADE CHANGE ~,\u0026amp;TEACHER OF , teache,r --/-- subject/ EDWARDS CHANGED HIS: (CHECK ONE) 1st quarter grade _ 3rd quarter grade __ Exam Grade / / 2nd quarter grade__L_ 4th quarter grade _ _ Final Grade / Did someone else initiate the change? __ yes / no Who? ______ _ Did you\nth  yone? /ves __ no Who?~~~~~!::::,l:.........::::l~t:.c.-t.e\n,~ Indicate the nature of the discussion: \\ /40 ~ ~ ~~v ~ 4-,y.ua ,?\n~ 'A.i, P'.e~ ~ ::::Z' -.z,, pu::zZ\n.,. Is it \"common pr,ittice\" to change students grades whepwarranted? yes -1L ___ no Was any precedent set as a result of your changing the g~ade? yes__  no ATTACHME rTM :OWARD, RUDOLPH I,~ Teachers of Eligibility Investigating Committee Reason for Grade Change ,,, teacri-,r changed his: ~check one) \u0026lt;~ mTeacherof SU ect ff-0 1st quarter grade __ 2nd quarter gradeL f -~ 3rd quarter grade __ 4th quarter grade __ Final a.... rade .,f r-- (\n. for the following reason: ' ..AHt,1/\nf z.,w .q\nk ~ 4/'-tfU/t:, d'A42Z\n:.,f(/2\n2\u0026amp;( ~ A',\u0026amp; ~A ZZ~~~ ' ,U,u?.,W ~ 44/ ,v ~.ii!hi ~ft\u0026lt;-~~~~ -i~ ~ (j:-,0'},-L,IV ..Zt70 _,,e  ~ ~ T0:J ~ ~' .,,y signature below ~ests to the fact that I wis not coeroe\"d 1n any way by anyone to make the grade cffunge and that ,. the change w..~ . s ma~ because the student's efforts in my class warranted a grade change. teacher's signature LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRJCT NEPN CODE: I.KA. GRJ\\DING SYSTEMS The primary purpose of grading is to keep parents and students fully informed of a student's progress in meeting course standards and benchmarks and to provide teachers and principals with a continuous and accurate record of each student's achievement in order to assess the effectiveness of instruction. Grades for progress summary reports to parents are issued on a nine-week basis, semester, and/or yearly basis. While completely uniform grading criteria at and between all school levels may not be possible, the grading system is established with the intent of being fair and in having enough consistency to accomplish its purposes. The procedures for nine-week, semester, and yearly grading are set forth in the administrative regulations. It is the policy of the Board of Education that grades assigned to students for performance in a course shall reflect only the extent to which a student has achieved the expressed standards and benchmarks of the course. Academic grades shall not be reduced for disciplinary reasons except in the case oflate assignments or academic dishonesty. Neither shall academic grades be enhanced for disciplinary compliance or for other non-academic rewards. Variations in instruction, performance standards, and assessment strategies for students with disabilities shall be determined by the admission, review, and dismissal committee and included in the student's individual education plan. Teachers are responsible for adapting pacing, instructional strategies, materials, and assessments for students who have been identified as limited-English proficient. Revised: Septe!I_lber 23, 1999 Adopted: July 23, 1998 Legal Reference: AC.A. 6-15-902 Cross Reference: Administrative Regulation IKA-R ATTACHME T Senior High School Student Handbook ATTACHME TO ATTENDANCE POLICY AND PROCEDURES Penalties and Notification Procedures l. When a student has missed three or more unexcused absences in any class during one semester, the school attendance secretary shall notify the student's parents, guardians, or persons in loco parentis. Notice shall be via telephone contact by the end of the school day in which the absence occurred or sent via regular mail, with a return addressed envelope, no later than the following school day. Data from the student's Pupil Information Form will be used in this procedure. 2. When a student has six unexcused absences in any class during one semester, the school attendance secretary shall again notify the student's parent or guardian of the number of absences. Also, the student's building-level administrator shall schedule a conference with the student and his or her parent or guardian to discuss the student's absence pattern and its effects together with appropriate interventions. The administrator shall explain during the conference that course credit will be denied if the student receives seven (7) unexcused absences in a semester. 3. Course credit will not be denied if a student/parent/administrator conference is not held or if appropriate documentation of the student's absences has not been forwarded to the parent, at the student's address of record. However, a parent's failure to attend a conference or respond to notification of a conference will not circumvent the loss of course credit for the student. 4. Course credit shall be denied for each class in which a student has more than six (6) unexcused absences during one semester and when the administrative conference has been held, unless the principal or assistant principal finds there are extenuating circumstances of such that to deny credit would be unfair. 5. If the principal or assistant principal denies course credit, the student may appeal the course credit denial to the LRSD Student Hearing Officer [324-2170]. The student must request an appeal within 24 hours of the principal or assistant principal's final decision to deny course credit. 57 ATTENDANCE POLICY AND PROCEDURES 6. On the seventh unexcused absence, the parent/guardian shall be notified that a referral to the Pulaski County Juvenile Cour1 has been made in accordance with Act 1308, adopted by the Arkansas Legislature, March, 1997. 7. When a student who is fourteen or older has missed more thru seven (7) consecutive days without approval of the principal o assistant principal, the school attendance secretary shall notif\nthe Arkansas Department of Finance and AdministratiOJ (DF\u0026amp;A). DF\u0026amp;A may suspend the student's driver's license unti the student provides satisfactory evidence that he or she i attending school or has reached age eighteen. WARNING: The District will count three (3) or more class absences one day as a full-day absence. 58\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 "}],"pages":{"current_page":363,"next_page":364,"prev_page":362,"total_pages":6797,"limit_value":12,"offset_value":4344,"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}}]}}