{"response":{"docs":[{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_415","title":"The Desegregation of the Little Rock School District, Preliminary Plans, revised","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["1989-12-01"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Educational planning","School integration"],"dcterms_title":["The Desegregation of the Little Rock School District, Preliminary Plans, revised"],"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/415"],"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":["documents (object genre)"],"dcterms_extent":["93 pages"],"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\nThe Desegregation of the Little Rock School District Preliminary Plans (Revised) December 1, 1989 TABLE OF CONTENTS I. Demographics II. Schools III. Instruction IV. School Climate V. Staffing VI. Student Assignment Plan VII. Staff Development VIII. Parent and Community Support IX. Monitoring and Evaluation X. Funding XI. Critical Events Calendar Appendices A. Long-Range District Goals B. Administrative Organization of the Little Rock School District I A Message to Our Community\nV Three days after the Supreme Court's decision in Brown . Board of Education, the Little Rock School Board issued . a formal statement of its intent to comply with the requirements of the Constitution. The statement read as follows: It is our responsibility to comply with Federal Constitutional requirements, we intend to do so when the Supreme Court of the United States outlines the method to be followed. and Three and a half decades later the issue of school desegregation remains unresolved in our city. No matter what strategies have been attempted, no matter how many plans have been proposed, the desegregation of the Little Rock School District has remained a goal which we have not yet achieved. Even more disquieting is the fact that despite hundreds even thousandsof hours of remedial education for students and technical assistance for teachers. the academic achievement of black and white students continues to reflect wide disparities. On standardized achievement tests last year, a difference of over 25 percentile points separated the average achievement of black and white students in our schools. It is painfully clear that not only has the District been unable to achieve racial balance, it has also been unsuccessful in educating many of its black students. 1 When one pauses to consider the reason why II separate but equal\"schools were declared unconstitutional in the first place, the gravity of this failure becomes even more appalling. A desegregation plan that does not succeed in reducing the disparity in educational achievement between minority and nonminority students cannot be successful. One must ask why a community that has struggled with this issue for so long has not yet been able to accomplish the desegregation of its schools. One reason is the loss of white students from the District, a loss which has occurred over the years because of enrollment in private schools. movement of middle class families to surrounding districts, and a decline in the birth rate of white children. At the same time that the District has dealt with the effects of dwindling numbers of white students, it has also had to educate an increasing number of minority students, who. as we know. are disproportionately represented among the poor and disadvantaged. Whatever the reasons for the District's inability to desegregate its schools, it is clear that until our community realizes the importance of attaining this goal and commits to making it happen, school desegregation will never become a reality. The Federal Court can, and will. issue orders which protect the constitutional rights of school children\nhowever, the Court cannot change the hearts and minds of people, and that, in the end, will determine the degree and quality of any community's efforts to desegregate its schools. i iOnce again we have an opportunityperhaps our lastto achieve quality desegregated education in Little Rock. What we accomplish, or fail to accomplish, during the next few months will determine whether we enter the 21st century with excellent schools for all children or whether we are forced to retreat, perhaps permanently, into the backwaters of educational roediocrity. We must not leave, as our legacy to our children, inferior, mediocre schools in a system worse than it was when this litigation began, only unthinkable but also unconscionable. To do so is not In the weeks ahead our patrons, staff, and students will have opportunities to discuss the ideas contained in these preliminary plans. Many of the proposals have come from you. Others seem like good ideas to us, but you may find reasons why things should be done differently. Also, you may think of other ideas. We invite your comments and opinions\nwe want and need your support. We will be working hard to write a constitutional plan to desegregate our schools and stabilize our community. In the end we want to be proud of what we have accomplished and confident that we have done our very best for all of our children. We believe we can do that if together we commit ourselves to the task and support each i i iother in our efforts to attain once-and-for-all the goal stated so eloquently by the Little Rock School Board over thirty-five years ago. Ruth Steele Superintendent of Schools November 1, 1989 i VI. DEMOGRAPHICS A. Enrollment Trends in the Little Rock School District B. Population Trends in Little Rock C. Population Trends in Pulaski County D. Implications I. DEMOGRAPHICS The purpose of this section is to review the demographics of the Little Rock School District. As a result of the focus on interdistrict transfers in Pulaski County, some attention will also be given to the demographics of the North Little Rock and Pulaski County School Districts. The Little Rock School District covers ninety-one square miles. Until the recent Chenal Valley annexation, the boundaries of the Little Rock School District were coterminous with the boundaries of the city of Little Rock. Although the population of the city of Little Rock is approximately two-thirds white, the District's enrollment (25,972 students) is 64 percent black. The North Little Rock School District is on the northern boundary of the Little Rock School District. The North Little Rock School District covers twenty-six square miles and comprises nearly all of the city of North Little Rock. The North Little Rock School District has approximately 9,500 students and is 44 percent black. Both districts are surrounded by the Pulaski County School District which covers 729 square miles and approximately 22,000 students. The Pulaski County Special School District is approximately 25 percent black. This section will review three areas related to the demographics of the Little Rock School District: 1. Enrollment trends in the Little Rock School District 2. Population trends in Little Rock -2- 3. Population trends in Pulaski County A. Enrollment Trends in the Little Rock School District For several years the Little Rock School District has been under federal court order to maintain racial balance within its schools. The racial composition of the school district has shifted slowly in the past several years as a result of a gradual increase in the number of black students attending Little Rock schools and in their proportion of the total enrollment. In 1980-81, black enrollment totaled approximately 13,000 or 63.6 percent of the total enrollment of 20,500 students. By the 1986-87 school year, the number of black students had grown to almost 13,800 or 71.3 percent of the total enrollment of 19,300 students. During the period from 1980 to 1987, the District's black enrollment experienced a 6 percent increase. During the same period. however, the total enrollment experienced a 6 percent decrease in students. The District's black enrollment has continued to grow since annexation in 1987. During the period from October 1987 to October 1988, the black enrollment increased from 16,268 to 16,684 students. This represents a 2.5 percent increase in black students. The black enrollment increased by five students from October 1988 to October 1989. During the period from October 1987 to October 1989, the total enrollment experienced a 3 percent decrease in students. The steady decrease in total enrollment during a period of growth for the black enrollment can be attributed to a -3- steady decrease in the District's white enrollment. The white enrollment decreased by 7 percent (655 students - excluding 1987-88 twelfth graders) from October 1987 to October 1988. The white enrollment decreased by 5 percent (416 students - excluding 1988-89 twelfth graders) from October 1988 to October 1989. It is apparent that the District will have to reverse this trend in order to effectively desegregate its schools. The October 1989 kindergarten enrollment appears to be the first sign of change in the pattern of declining white enrollment. The white kindergarten enrollment experienced a 10 percent decline from October 1987 (634 white students) to October 1988 (570 white students). However, the white kindergarten enrollment increased by 10 percent (59 students) from October 1988 (570 students) to October 1989 (629 students). This growth can be attributed to the use of attendance zones and, to some degree, the new mandatory kindergarten attendance law, a law which still gives parents the option to waive kindergarten attendance or attend private/parochial kindergarten. It should also be noted that the District's four-year-old program is approximately 32 percent white. The new attendance zones, the mandatory kindergarten attendance law, and the success of the four-year- old program are good indicators of an upswing in white enrollment. -4- B. Population Trends in Little Rock During the last three decades, Little Rock has experienced a 1.5 to 2.0 percent annual average population increase. However, most of the increase has been caused by annexation rather than new residents. Approximately 0.5 percent of the average annual population increase was related to new residents. The 1.5 to 2.0 percent growth rate is expected to continue through 2010. According to the City of Little Rock, the northwest sector of the city has experienced the largest population growth since 1980. This section includes the area around Pleasant Valley, Rock Creek, Highway 10, and 1-430. The growth in northwest Little Rock can be traced to new residents in this area. The secondary growth area of the city is in southwest Little Rock. In both northwest and southwest Little Rock, some of the growth can be attributed to movement from central and east Little Rock. However, southwest Little Rock has received most of the movement from central and east Little Rock. Unlike northwest Little Rock, annexation has not been a significant factor in the growth of southwest Little Rock. The downtown area (central and east Little Rock) has experienced a decline in population since 1980. As indicated above, relocation continues to occur from central and east Little Rock in northwest and southwest Little Rock. The density of the downtown area is too high for new c developments, unless existing structures are removed. As a result, central and east Little Rock are expected to experience decline in the future. Some of the residents in central and east Little Rock are relocating in west central Little Rock near 1-630. The black percentage is gradually increasing in neighborhoods in the area of Kanis, Barrow Road, and 36th Street. Also, neighborhoods around 12th Street, Fair Park Boulevard, and UALR have changed from predominantly white to predominantly black populations in the last two decades. Unlike central and east Little Rock, growth in west central Little Rock has been aided by the availability and construction of apartment complexes and homes for first-time homeowners. Metroplan's 1986 population estimates indicate substantial new residential construction in much of the annexed territory, and considerable increase in population as well. Most of the homes sold recently in the annexed territory are in Mabelvale. Also, substantial growth is expected to occur on the city's western borders. There are still several large tracts of undeveloped land now prime for development. A number of major residential, commercial. or institutional construction projects are currently being completed or were recently completed. It is apparent that the city has three distinct demographic areas: northwest Little Rock, southwest Little Rock, and the central, east, and west central area of Little Rock (also referred to as the 1-630 Corridor). In terms of -6- racial populations, northwest Little Rock is predominantly white\nsouthwest Little Rock is majority white but has more integrated neighborhoods than the other sectors of the city\nand the 1-630 Corridor is predominantly black in the east and experiencing considerable black migration in the west. It is also apparent that more growth is expected in northwest Little Rock and southwest Little Rock. The downtown Little Rock area is expected to continue to experience a decline in population. C. Population Trends in Pulaski County Pulaski County is expected to experience substantial growth during the next two decades. UALR projects the population of Pulaski County to reach more than 441,000 by the year 2000, an increase of more than 100,500 or 29.6 percent over the 1980 population of 340,600. Metroplan has a somewhat higher projection. The County is expected to reach more than 474,000 persons by 2000 (an increase of 39.3 percent over 1980), and 530,000 by the year 2010, a gain of over 189,000 persons or 55.6 percent in just thirty years. In regard to areas of growth, the population growth rate is slightly higher for areas north of the Arkansas River. In 1970, the population north of the River accounted for 38.4 percent of the County's population. By 1980, the population north of the River was 40 percent of the County. Areas of large gain north of the River include portions of Sherwood and Jacksonville. -/- Another area of growth in Pulaski County is the area immediately west of the Little Rock School District's western border. Some of the growth in northwest Little Rock referred to earlier will actually occur in areas outside of the Little Rock School District. For instance, the Chenal Valley development is expected to be a major community in the next 10-20 years. The westward expansion of Pulaski County is also evident in the Crystal Hill and Maumelle areas. The Pulaski County Special School District feels that the school population in Crystal Hill and Maumelle is large enough to justify another school building to serve these areas. At present, the black population constitutes approximately 24 percent of the population in Pulaski County. By the year 2000, blacks are expected to constitute 33.7 percent, or one-third, of the Pulaski County population. The steady in-migration of blacks from rural areas in Arkansas will have a direct impact on the growth rate of blacks in Pulaski County. Most of these persons are expected to reside in the Little Rock School District. As stated earlier, the black enrollment in the Little Rock School District has experienced a steady increase over the past decade. The growth trends in Pulaski County merely reaffirm the need for more interdistrict transfers in Pulaski County. -8- D. Implications The three demographic areas in Little Rock make it easy to understand the strategies that the Little Rock School District must employ to comply with desegregation reguirements. First, the District must reverse the trend of declining white enrollment in order to effectively desegregate all of its schools. Recruitment efforts directed toward private and parochial students will be futile if the District cannot maintain its present white population. A continuation of the recent increase in white kindergarten and four-year-old enrollments will not result in an overall net growth if the white population is not maintained at the upper grades. Second, although the downtown Little Rock population is expected to decline, the high density in this area will continue to be a problem for school assignments. The building capacity in the downtown area must be increased to reduce the burden of busing on black students. Third, the heavily-populated white areas in northwest and southwest Little Rock must be targeted for possible assignments to schools in the 1-630 Corridor. Both of these areas are expected to grow in the future. Fourth, the total number of white students enrolled in the Little Rock School District must increase if all of the schools in the 1-630 Corridor are going to comply with desegregation requirements. This means that the Little Rock School District must succeed in attracting private and -9- parochial students. These students must be recruited to attend area schools as well as schools in the 1-630 Corridor. Finally, the Little Rock School District cannot expect to meet desegregation requirements by relying solely on white students living in District boundaries. Pulaski County is expected to grow considerably during the next ten years. Interdistrict assignment procedures such as magnet assignment, majority-minority transfers, and Act 609 transfers are already in place for further development. Act 609 (the new choice law) will allow students outside of Pulaski County to attend the Little Rock School District. The Little Rock School District long-term desegregation plan must use every opportunity available to benefit from the demographic trends in Little Rock, Pulaski County, and central Arkansas. -10- II. SCHOOLS A. School Organization B. Types of Schools Interdistrict Schools of Choice Intradistrict Magnets Incentive Schools Area Schools Specialty Schools C. Publicity and Information -11- II. SCHOOLS A. School Organization The present organizational configuration of schools in the Little Rock School District is as follows: K-6 elementary schools 7-9 junior high schools 10-12 senior high schools Also, there are four-year-old programs in operation in five elementary schools: Franklin, Ish, Rockefeller, Stephens, and Washington. Additionally, all five high schools have kindergarten programs in conjunction with their Child Development classes. The Little Rock School District Early Childhood Task Force will be asked to recommend whether or not the high school kindergarten classes should be phased out in order to provide more continuity in the educational experience for young children. Initially, much thought was given to the elimination of the junior high school and the creation of K-8 schools or 6- 8 middle schools. For several reasons such a substantive organizational change is not now proposed: first, another change of this magnitude would not only be very expensive but it would also create additional instability for the community at a time when the perception of stability and continuity in our schools should be increased. Second, there will be a worsening capacity problem at the junior and senior high level for at least the next two or three years, especially when Dunbar becomes an interdistrict school. -12- Instead, an internal reorganization of the junior high schools is proposed, beginning in 1990-91, using grades seven and eight for block scheduling, teaming, and other features of the \"school within a school\" concept which has functioned so successfully in the middle school. Grade nine will be a pre-high school program which thoroughly prepares students for their high school experiences. A seven-period day at the junior high schools will also be instituted. beginning in 1990-91. In 1992-93 the junior high school program will be evaluated, space needs identified, and the usefulness and the effectiveness of the junior high school structure reconsidered. By that time the benefit of studies and evaluations done by the New Futures Initiative will help make a more thorough assessment of the junior high school program. Except for these internal changes, the creation of a pre-K through 9 university laboratory school, and an expansion of early childhood programs in some schools (discussed below), the organizational structure will remain the same, at least through the 1992-93 school year. B. Types of Schools Several types of schools are proposed in this plan. They include the following: Interdistrict schools of choice Intradistrict magnets Incentive schools -13-Area schools Specialty schools Detailed descriptions for these types of schools are in the following sections. -14- Interdistrict Schools of Choice There will be three interdistrict schools of choice, with proposed student ratios of 60 percent black and 40 percent white and one. Central High School, as a limited school of choice. They are described below: Washington Basic Skills/Math-Science (Pre K-6): This school will open in 1990-91 for students who learn well in a highly-structured setting\nwho are motivated by competition which is fostered in academic, physical, and social behavior\nand who are interested in math and science. The instructional activities will be presented through teacher-centered classrooms, large-group instruction, disciplined classroom management, and standard basal textbooks. A computer lab, a math lab, a science lab, field trips, guest speakers, and specific math/science projects (math Olympiads, Invention Convention, Science Fair, and the Young Astronaut Program) will enhance the mathematics and science core programs. The goals of the Washington School will be: -to develop the highest possible competence in academic skills and concepts\n-to nurture the student's mental processes\n-to foster self-discipline\n-to develop task commitment and self-motivation\n-to develop an understanding of the relationship between the scientific process, applied mathematics, and other curriculum areas\n-to equip students at an early age with the interest and educational skills to live in the technological world of tomorrow. Washington Basic Skills/Math-Science School will be characterized as a school which will highlight the best of the past, present, and future educational values. These values will be included as concepts in developing positive learning. This school will also emphasize traditional American values in education, such as patriotism. Classroom teachers (K-6) will use the Young Astronaut Program to encourage further study in math and science, channel student interest into the pursuit of the studies To required for the exploration and settlement of other worlds, to make school work less forbidding by dramatizing that it is the key to the universe beyond, to attract students to the disciplines that are prerequisite to tackling the challenge of the starsthese are the objectives of the Young Astronaut Program. Students will be regularly scheduled to go to the computer lab, math lab, and the science lab which will be -15- staffed by certified specialists. Instructional assistants will assist the math and science specialists and regular classroom teachers with coordination and implementation of the specialized instructional program. The principal of the school will be the primary administrator of the program with an assistant principal to help with administrative duties. Specific skills and concepts from various subject areas will be emphasized at each grade level. To be eligible for academic promotion at Washington, the student must: -master these targeted skills and concepts with 85 percent accuracy\n-perform daily academic activities with 85 percent accuracy\n-spend a minimum time each night on assigned homework: 30 minutes for students in grades one and two, 45 minutes for students in grade three, and one hour for students in grades four, five and six\nand -complete all assignments according to specified time frames. Specific rules and regulations regarding academic performance and social behavior will be strictly but fairly enforced. A major component of the philosophy of the Washington Basic Skills/Math-Science School will be that the education of a child is the responsibility of both the school and the parents. Enrollment at Washington will be open to students from Pulaski County and North Little Rock based on M-M provisions and on the provisions of Act 609 of 1989 (\"School Choice\" law). Dunbar International Studies/Talented and Gifted (7-9): Dunbar Junior High School will open in the fall of 1990 as an Interdistrict Specialty School for International Studies and for Talented and Gifted Education. First preference will be given to current students at Dunbar and to sixth graders at Gibbs International Studies Magnet School. An active recruitment effort will be planned for the spring of 1990 to recruit the incoming seventh grade class. The balance of the seventh orade class will La grade be recruited from the Dunbar attendance zone and from the Pulaski County Special School District and the North Little Rock School District. Majority-to-Minority transfers will be the vehicle by which interdistrict students may come to Dunbar. If recruiting from Gibbs, the attendance zone, and interdistrict transfers fails to fill the school to capacity, other students from junior high schools will be recruited through the vehicle of desegregation transfers. New students who live in the attendance zone or students who are enrolled at Dunbar during the 1989-90 school year will not be required to attend Dunbar if they have no interest in the speciality program. If over -16-capacity problems develop among LRSD junior high schools, they shall be resolved by mandatory interdistrict assignments. Students who wish to participate in the talented/gifted component at Dunbar will enter the school through the same recruitment vehicles outlined above. Talented/gifted students need only to have been identified and recommended for placement in order to qualify for talented/gifted classes at Dunbar. At Dunbar Spanish, French, Russian, Japanese, German, and Latin will be offered. Other courses will be developed in interdisciplinary approaches. Introduction to Languages, International Studies Survey, World Issues, the United Nations, and Introduction to Cultures are among the new courses to be provided. Additionally, other courses, e.g. social studies, science, physical education, and English, will be internationalized through emphasis on the commonalities of the human experience, the contribution of diverse ethnic groups, and the interrelated nature of the world community. Current affairs of an international nature will be continually used, including print media and programming from AETN, The Discovery Channel, and Cable News Network. A comprehensive competitive sports program will be provided with soccer as the dominant sport. A seven-period day will be provided at Dunbar in order to allow students to take full benefit of the international studies and TAG programs. advantage of the A.M. and P.M. Options. Also students could take The P.M. Option would be a supervised study hall held in the media center, thus allowing students to use library and computer The A.M. Option could be a supervised study hall or a regular class. resources. Course requirements and electives for the Dunbar program are described in the Curriculum Overview below. CURRICULUM OVERVIEW OF DUNBAR INTERDISTRICT SPECIALTY SCHOOL FOR INTERNATIONAL STUDIES AND GIFTED AND TALENTED EDUCATION All students at Dunbar will be required to participate in the international studies curriculum. The following courses are available to satisfy the international studies requirement. Foreign Language - Full-year foreign language study will be available beginning in grade seven. will be available: French I, II, III German I, II, III Japanese I, II, III Latin I, II, III Russian I, II, III Spanish I, II, III The following courses -17-In foreign language study students will learn the vocabulary and grammar of the language and the history and culture of the people who use it. Students who do not choose to study a specific foreign language may choose to enroll in Introduction to Language. This full-year course is available to students in grade seven, eight, or nine, and introduces students to the culture and conversational rudiments of six different languages: Japanese, Latin, Russian, and Spanish. French, German, The course will give students an understanding of the nature of foreign language study and will help students choose a language they may wish to pursue in later grades. International Studies - Beginning with grade eight, the international studies requirement may be met with the International Studies Curriculum rather than with a foreign language, if one chooses. Available in grades eight and nine. International Studies choices will consist of a series of courses on varying topics. , The International Studies Choices Curriculum will consist of the following courses: Grades 7 and 8 Physical Geography This course will include extensive computer-enhanced instruction and topics such as cartography, natural phenomena, and ecology presented as global concerns. World Issues This course will involve a thematic approach to continuing and current global issues.  It will utilize current media information sources including Cable News Network's Discovery. \"Newsroom\" and the Discovery Channel's \"Assignment The course will include individualized projects and presentations. II Arkansas's World Connections This course will investigate the state's ties with the international community emphasizing economic, developmental, and financial connections. -18-Grade 9 United Nations This course will include the history, structure, and functions of the United Nations emphasizing current issues before its organization. Leaders of the Twentieth Century This course investigates the lives and impact of 20th century leaders including Gandhi, Mao, Hitler, Churchill, and Roosevelt as well as contemporary societal and political leaders. Students will project characteristics of leaders needed for the 21st century. International Skills community. This course includes practical skills designed to help students become responsible participants in the adult Components include driver's education culminating in an Arkansas driver's license and an international driver's license, a safety program including emergency procedures and CPR resulting in International Red Cross certification, and instruction in procedures and protocol for foreign travel. Students who express interest in this course would be selected on the basis of the number of semesters at Dunbar, attendance record at Dunbar, and citizenship grades. International Sports This course includes team and individual sports popular in other societies such as soccer, taekwando, and tennis. The programs of studies for each of the three grades are outlined below to illustrate the required courses and the electives available for students at Dunbar. -19-7th Grade Program of Studies 7 Period Day Required Courses 1. 2. 3 . 4 . 5. English Mathematics World Geography Life Science {Exploratory Studies - 1 semester) Music/Art 6. (Practical Arts - 1 semester) Home Economics or Industrial Arts Introduction to Languages or Foreign Language I 7. (French I, German I, Japanese I, Latin I, Russian I, Spanish I) Special Programs (Reguired for students needing assistance in reading, math, or English) PAL English, PAL Math, PAL Combination, or Learning Lab Students not reguired to enroll in special programs may select an elective from the following: Elective Courses Physical Geography World Issues Arkansas's World Connections Art Choral Music Physical Education Band Orchestra -20-Sth Grade Program of Studies 7 Period day Required courses 1. 2 . 3. 4. 5. 6, 7. English Mathematics American History Earth Science Health/PE (9 weeks each) Career Orientation (1 semester) Introduction to Languages or Foreign Language I or II (French I, II\nGerman I, II\nJapanese I, II\nLatin I, ll\nRussian I, II\nSpanish I, II) or International Choices Curriculum (Physical Geography, World Issues, Arkansas's World Connections) Special Programs (Required for students needing assistance in reading, math, or English) PAL English, PAL Math, PAL Combination, or Learning Lab Students not required to enroll in Special Programs may select an elective from the following: Elective Courses Physical Geography World Issues Arkansas's World Connections Art Choral Music Band Orchestra Physical Education -21- 9th Grade Program of Studies 7 Period Day Required Courses 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. English Mathematics Civics Physical Science Computer Science (1 year) or Computer Literacy (1 semester) and Any Semester Elective (1 semester) Introduction to Languages or Foreign Language I, II, III {French I, II, III\nGerman I, II, III\nJapanese I, II, III\nLatin I, II, III\nRussian I, II, III\nSpanish I, II, III) or International Choices Curriculum {United Nations - 1 semester. Leaders of the Twentieth Century - 1 semester, International Skills 1 semester, 7. International Sports - 1 semester) Special Programs (Required for students needing assistance in reading, math, or English) PAL English, PAL Math, PAL Combination, or Learning Lab. Students not required to enroll in Special Programs may select an elective from the following: Elective Courses United Nations (1 semester) Leaders of the Twentieth Century (1 semester) International Skills (1 semester) International Sports (1 semester) Exploratory Business Physical Education (1 year) Health (1 semester) Home Economics Industrial Technology II Art Choral Music Band Orchestra -22- University Laboratory School (Pre-K-9): Interest has been expressed in a university laboratory school which would demonstrate state of the art technigues in teaching and school leadership. ' It would be located on or near the campus of the University of Arkansas at Little Rock. Students from Pulaski County and North Little Rock would be invited to enroll according to M-M regulations and Act 609. Bale Elementary and Southwest Junior High may be considered as a site for the University Lab School. The Little Rock School District proposes to open such school in the 1991-92 school year. The remainder of this a year and the 1990-91 school year would be planning years in which District and University staff would plan the curriculum and theme for the school. Little Rock Central High School (10-12): Approximately 200 spaces are presently unfilled at Little Rock Central High School. These seats will be opened to students from North Little Rock, Pulaski County, and other neighboring districts at the beginning of the 1990-91 school year. The flagship program of choice at Central will be its extensive foreign language program. Other specialty areas around an international studies theme will be planned and developed according to a five-year schedule by Central High staff members and administrators and curriculum specialists from the three school districts in Pulaski County. -23-Intradistrict Magnets While the LRSD will continue to invite students from neighboring districts to enroll in intradistrict magnets, the purpose of these schools will be primarily to attract students who reside in Little Rock. Four intradistrict magnets are proposed with ratios of 60 percent black and 40 percent white. Aviation and Transportation/Math-Science Magnet (7-9): The Aviation and Transportation/Math-Science Magnet will be constructed at or near the airport in cooperation with the planned Arkansas Aviation Museum and will open in 1991-92. In 1992-93 grade 9 will be added. Also during the 1991-92 school year, students will be surveyed to determine their interest in pursuing a high school program as part of the aviation and transporation magnet. If sufficient interest is shown, a specialized high school program will be implemented. In the Aviation and Transportation Magnet High School a competitive comprehensive activities program will probably not be provided since high school enrollment in the Aviation and Transportation Magnet will be small and the program highly specialized. It will integrate science, mathematics, technology, engineering, and social studies around an aviation and transportation theme. The study of aviation and transportation will cross many disciplines, including history, geography, communications, physics, engineering, design, mechanics, computers, and navigation. Various human-oriented services will also be included. The instructional program at this magnet school will make students aware of the available careers in the major industrial fields of aviation, shipping, and transportation. Courses at the Aviation and Transportation/Math-Science Magnet will include such titles as: Avionics Communications Navigation History of Transportation Geographic, Social, Economic, and Cultural Developments Due to Transportation Physics of Flight Modern Transportation Transportation Engineering Human Services Aspects of Transportation Field experiences will be provided with the following local transportation authorities: Adams Field Falcon Jet Arkansas Highway Department Little Rock Port Authority McClellan-Kerr Navigation System Union Pacific Railroad -24-Union Pacific Railroad Local trucking companies Local aviation companies The core disciplines for the Aviation and Transportation Magnet School will be science and mathematics. Each student will take science lab minicourses that focus on the scientific method and explore a variety of topics in science. Students will be expected to display their mastery of the scientific method by completion of a project that shows application of scientific processes and principles of mathematics. Students will have available courses in algebra I, algebra II, and geometry. Thematic courses in the area of aviation and transportation will utilize science and mathematics skills. The Vocational Education modules, Technology Education, II \"Exploring Industrial thematic magnet courses. will form the basis for one or more several ways to meet program needs. The modules can be combined in Flight simulators. hydraulics, construction technology, electronics, and other modules will support the program quite well. State vocational funding can be obtained for these courses. In addition, a social science course and a physics/engineering course will complete the curriculum. Cocurricular activities will include field trips to Adams Field, Murray Lock and Dam, and other appropriate sites. Professionals from the transportation industry will be invited to participate as guest lecturers at the school site. The school will have a seven-period day to create time for the addition of specialty courses. A small number of specialists will be hired and trained/retrained in the specialty subject they will teach. These employees will need to take course work or attend staff development sessions during the summer of 1990. Students will meet District and State program requirements and will take a small number of required courses in the specialty area. Other specialty courses will be electives. Environmental Sciences and Basic Skills Magnet (Pre-K-6)\nMuch interest has been expressed in the concept of an environmental sciences magnet (popularly referred to as the \"Zoo\" magnet). If property can be purchased or used near the Little Rock Zoo, an environmental sciences magnet for students in grades pre K-6 will be built, to be opened in 1991-92. If property cannot be purchased, Franklin Elementary School will become the environmental science magnet. To expand the environmental sciences theme into the junior high school, the science curriculum will be reviewed and new courses proposed for Forest Heights Junior High School students who may be interested in pursuing studies in environmental sciences. 1992-93 school year. Such courses will be added by the -25- is The theme of the school, environmental education, __ ideal for developing a magnet program that will not only be a powerful drawing card for students but will also focus on a current topic that involves science and technology, addresses ethical concerns, has a sense of global urgency, and requires interdisciplinary approaches to solving problems. A recent national report funded by the National Science Foundation stated about K-6 science, \"An integrated, hands-on approach is needed, which focuses on the relationship between humans and the total environment. II This and other reports focus on the need to integrate science and technology with societal issues. Learning should start with things that students are familiar with, such as their environment, and proceed to use that experience base to introduce other, more abstract, concepts. The Environmental Sciences and Basic Skills Intradistrict Magnet Elementary School will address needs currently being communicated at the national level. At the same time, the school can combine available community resources with an inherently interesting topic to create program that attracts a diversity of students. a The Environmental Sciences and Basic Skills Magnet Elementary School has the following goals: Students will learn in a multicultural setting that includes representation from all three Pulaski County school districts and neighboring districts. A. Community environmental resources (such as the Zoo, Museum, Game and Fish Department, etc.) will enhance educational experiences for children. B. etc.) will enhance Environmental education will be an interdisciplinary theme around which much of the instructional program will be delivered. C. D. ouuueuu learning outcomes tor the instructional program will include major environmental education concepts from all three learning domains: Student for 1. 3 . 4. 5. E. Knowledge of basic environmental concepts and facts Understanding the relationship between humans and the natural world Acquire a \"caretaker\" attitude toward earth Understand and appreciate all forms of life Apply nurturing skills to care for plants and animals The School Plant will include facilities needed for environmental studies such as a greenhouse and science laboratory. Staff specialists will be employed to operate the greenhouse/science laboratory. 2. Staff specialists and regular classroom teachers will work to develop an interdisciplinary curriculum with environmental education as the organizing theme. 1 _ and State content guides and objectives will be used to make District -26-National sure that all skills are included in the program. _________ curricula such as Project WILD, Project Learning Tree, Project Zoo, and other programs that might become available will be utilized. In addition to normal classroom activities, students will spend time weekly in the science laboratory and greenhouse conducting experiments, culturing plants, and caring for animals. Frequent excursions to the Zoo will give students an additional living laboratory to study. Curricular activities will include such things as wildlife clubs, garden clubs, and Zoo docent training. A contract with the Zoo and other community resources will be developed to detail the working relationship between the parties. Montessori Magnet (Pre-K-6): Garland Elementary School, one of the District's a current incentive schools, will eventually become Montessori Magnet School. The plan is to provide a program for youngsters ages 36 by the 199293 school year and to expand it for youngsters ages 7-12 in 1993-94. This will provide Garland with two years in which to function as an incentive school and to begin to recruit white families to the school for the Montessori program. Rpmine Gifted-Talented/Cooperative Learning School (Pre-K-6) The goals of Romine School will be: to develop the highest possible competence in academic skills and concepts to develop task commitment and self motivation to foster self-discipline talents, and to discuss/foster special interests, talents, and abilities of students and provide opportunities to develop areas of interest to nurture the students' mental processes to foster student participation, effective cooperative learning, and the development of strong interpersonal skills to enable students to learn to work together in a world in which they will live together Romine Gifted-Talented/Cooperative Learning School's curriculum will increase effective participation in lifelong learning. The wider the range of intellectual stimulation to which students are exposed, the greater the chances are that all of the diverse potentialitiesboth within a group of students and within a single studentwill be brought to fruition. The gifted/talented component will provide a very broad and challenging curriculum for the diverse student body.   This school will utilize the cooperative theme in teaching basic skills as well as enriched courses. -27-Incentive School Plan The purpose of the Incentive School program is to promote and ensure academic excellence in schools that have been difficult to desegregate. It is believed that the Incentive School Program will not only compensate the victims of segregation but will also serve as a tool for promoting meaningful and long-lasting desegregation in these schools and in the entire District. In order to be successful, the Incentive Program must address the academic, social, and emotional needs of all student participants. The Incentive Program must also serve as a recruitment tool for meeting the desegregation requirements in these schools. With the proper resources and expectations, the Incentive School Program will serve as a model of excellence for the county, state, and nation. The success of the Incentive School Program is directly related to the success of the long-term desegregation plan in the Little Rock School District. Opportunities for academic achievement are enhanced by commitment, high expectations, a strong belief that all children can learn, and broad-based community support. When these ideals are coupled with the availability of financial resources, educational excellence prevails. It is certainly the belief of the District that all of these ideals will be evident in each incentive school. In the incentive schools all children, to the extent possible, will be a part of the mainstreamed instructional program. Content will be delivered in a manner that enhances positive self-concept for all students, but especially for those students who have been identified as special-needs students. Also, all students will have equitable access to educational materials, resources,and appropriate instructional delivery. Further, in the incentive schools, the overall school enrollment, all classes, all programs, all activities, and all teaching and supervisory staff (to the maximum extent possible) will be racially balanced and numerically racially representative. Students will be encouraged to pursue post secondary schooling. Each Little Rock School District (LRSD) student enrolled in the Incentive School Program will be eligible for post secondary scholarships. A plan which will make post-secondary educational experiences feasible will be implemented commencing with the 1990-91 school year. -28- The following schools will provide the Incentive Schools Program: - Garland - Ish - Mitchell - Rightsell - Rockefeller - Stephens Program Goals: 1. 2. 3. 4 . 5. 6. 7 . 8 . 9 . 10. 11. To provide the most rigorous, demanding, and challenging curricular and instructional opportunities within the Little Rock School District (LRSD). To focus on the mastery of a core curriculum of worthwhile knowledge, important skills, and sound ideas. To promote the concept that school desegregation/ integration and guality education are inseparable. To promote the concept of learning, personal and human growth and development, positive self-esteem, and concern for other people and property. To promote improved human and civil rights for all people through the development of human relations skills within the schools. To incorporate in the incentive school core curriculum a systematic approach for exploring the history, culture, and diversity of all ethnic groups of the school population. To promote language development and computation skills through varying experiences. To deliver curricular content in a manner that minimizes the need to label students as special learners. To create and maintain a learning environment which is substantially free from overt manifestation of socioeconomic disparity among students. To provide an opportunity for the schools to become learning and community centers for parents and community organizations. To facilitate strategies for students to establish personal goals for achievement and success. -29- Curriculum Areas\nEmphasis/Expansion in Curriculum Areas\nThough the K-6 core curriculum currently in use in the Little Rock School District will remain the basis for the incentive school curriculum, significant emphasis, modification of existing instructional techniques, and the introduction of new educational delivery systems will be required. In addition changes or modifications in the core curriculum will be indicated. In recent years in the Little Rock School District, students in kindergarten through grade 3 have not been exposed to any kind of comprehensive or detailed science curriculum. Some children who will be serviced in the incentive schools have had no concentrated science instruction. The design of an expanded science curriculum will approach the teaching of elementary science from two different perspectives\n(1) the inclusion of comprehensive science instruction at all levels, and (2) the utilization of innovative instructional techniques which are not in common use in most of the District's elementary schools. The curriculum for physical education will be directed toward achieving individual competencies in health-related fitness, skill-related fitness, fundamental movements and body management, psychosocial foundations (attitudes associated with well-being), and visual/motor manipulatives. Instructional Delivery\nThe instructional approach to teaching each subject area in the incentive schools will place a greater emphasis on active student involvement in the instructional process. This will be accomplished by the utilization of the following instructional strategies\n1. Student Team Learning - Utilization of the Slavin model, which places strong emphasis on cooperative learning and individual achievement through group interaction, will be used to facilitate this approach. Specifically, the District will use a model developed by Robert Slavin and associates at the Johns Hopkins University titled \"Student Team Learning\" to help teachers implement successful group work within the Student Team Learning classroom setting. The success of Student Team Learning for achieving increases in student achievement has been carefully researched by Slavin and others the past 10 years and offers documentation for its success with high and low achievers of all ethnic over groups. LRSD has several trainers (administrative and teacher) already prepared to conduct staff development for teachers in the incentive schools on the Slavin model of Student Team Learning. -30-2. Whole-group Instruction - Experiences will be developed to meet program objectives through whole-group instruction. Opportunities will be provided for students to interact in skills related activities. Higher Order Thinking Skills - Higher Order Thinking Skills can be utilized at almost any level of instruction. Teachers in the incentive schools will be trained in developing lessons and questioning techniques that solicit objective student responses and encourage imaginative problem solving. Teachers will 4. 5. use this process as an integral part of their instructional approach to teaching the core curriculum. One-to-One Instruction - Since research has conclusively shown that direct one-to-one instruction is the most effective learning model, the adult-to-student tutoring approach utilizing direct instruction will be employed whenever possible. Learning Styles Inventory - All incentive school students will undergo a learning styles inventory to assist teachers in diversifying their teaching styles to match the learning styles of the students. Any 6. teacher who has not undergone a reliable learning styles inventory over the past three years will also participate in an identified learning styles inventory. Student Education Plans - The incentive schools will 7. make use of Student Education Plans for all students. Homework - All homework in the incentive schools will be used to reinforce instruction, to aid retention, and to assist students in transferring and relating concepts to the learning process, given in isolation. Homework will not be 3. Content Area Modifications\nSCIENCE Extended Opportunities - Field trips will be used to enhance learning, to broaden cultural experiences, to provide hands-on experiences for knowledge of the world, and to assist in the development of coping skills for students as well as encouraging a better understanding of science and its related components. Field trips will be designed so that children in the incentive schools are not deprived of field experience opportunities because of socioeconomic status.In addition, field trips will involve teachers in preparation and transfer activities for the extended learning opportunities both before and after the trip. All field trips must be related to and/or interwoven into class instruction and follow-up. Additional Resources - Other approaches for enhanced learning opportunities in the science curriculum will involve the use of realistic and modern visuals, one-to-one instruction (may be peer to peer, retired personnel to -31- student, aide or student teacher to student, teacher to student, specialist to student), intermittent student conferences, varied instructional approaches to the effective deliverance of higher order thinking skills, and the use of peers and retired personnel as tutors for students in incentive schools. Curriculum Changes - The present LRSD science curriculum will be used along with the complementary objectives in the March 23, 1989, Little Rock School District Proposed Desegregation Plan, Volume II, which include the following: - Instruction will utilize a hands-on discovery and exploration approach to the learning of scientific concepts (K-3). - Classroom and textbook work will be supplemented with practical demonstration and experiments that reinforce the principles of scientific method and suggest the applications and possibilities of the sciences. - Emphasis in the upper grades will be on life sciences and physical sciences (4-6). - Mastery of concepts should culminate with an annual etc. project\ni.e.. Invention Convention, Science Fair, - Homework assignments will include prepared information packets describing experiments parents and students can do together to reinforce what has been taught in the classroom. The curriculum discussed above, aligned with the additional components listed below, will encourage student success through the Incentive School Program. 1) 2) 3) Instructional Technology - All incentive schools should have available the most modern instructional technology for use in specialized laboratories and/or in individual classrooms. The computer laboratory in each incentive school will also be used for science. Study and Test Taking Skills - The incentive schools will integrate the teaching of the study skills, taking skills, and reinforcement of scientific test vocabulary with the teaching of science in both the laboratory setting and the regular science instructional time block. Students will be provided with opportunities to practice test taking skills using content and formats similar to standardized tests for their age/grade level. SOCIAL STUDIES Though the current core curriculum should remain in place, a number of important modifications are necessary to the success of the social studies program. -32-1) 2) Realistic Visuals - The use of professional, updated models, materials, bulletin boards, textbooks, etc., are critical to giving children a sense of place in an ever-changing world. Cultural Diversity - The Little Rock School District's 3) current instructional material does not accurately reflect the cultural or racial diversity evident in the student population of the incentive schools. It is critical to make every effort, including the use of supplemental materials in addition to regular textbooks, to ensure that the incentive school social studies program corresponds with the goals and objectives of the Incentive School Program relative to ethnicity. It is 4) Clarification and Related Approaches  The proactive techniques once utilized by the Little Rock School District, including but not limited to I'm OK, You're OK (transactional analysis), Values Clarification, Project Aware, and the Green Circle Program, should play a vital role in actively involving students in instruction that allows them to grapple with ideas, concepts, and values critical to an understanding of how society works. Verbal Skills - The utilization of activities designed to encourage oral expression has not received enough emphasis at the elementary level. it is critical that students be taught the skills that will allow them to clearly articulate their thoughts and provide them the self-confidence so critical to a positive self-image. The following activities will place a renewed emphasis on this all important skill: a) Debate - By reintroducing this standard of the traditional curriculum, the incentive schools can increase the speaking and writing skills of students while building their confidence. Even more important, students can learn effective ways to deal with disagreements and can be taught conflict resolution and cause and effect on a Even more important 5) b) c) practical and academic level. Show-N-Tell - This important aspect of the traditional curriculum will be utilized on a regular and systematic basis to facilitate self-concept, verbal skills, and selfconfidence . Current Events - A greater emphasis should be placed on the integration of current events into the curriculum for all grade levels at the incentive schools. This is imperative if students are to become active citizens in their community and the world around them. Field Experiences - A creative and more systematic utilization of field trips of greater length and -33-6) variety will be one of the unique aspects of the social studies program at incentive schools. Though traditional sites such as the zoo and museums will certainly be visited, the focus should be expanded to include government agencies, factories, colleges, historical sites, places of business, etc. Every effort will be made to organize the trip in conjunction with the current program of studies. Study Skills Laboratory - Critical to success in subject, particularly social studies, is the any establishment of a skills laboratory which places emphasis on the \"how-to's\" of research, test taking, and book analysis. This area has been long neglected to the detriment of student performance on MAT-6 and the Minimum Performance Test. A comprehensive approach to these and other basic skills is required. MATHEMATICS Though the current core curriculum should remain in place, a number of important modifications are necessary for the success of the mathematics program. 1) 2) 3) Mathematics Laboratory - The study of mathematics in a laboratory setting will be an integral part of the curriculum for the incentive schools. Laboratory instruction will place emphasis on concreteness (kinesthetic and tactile activities), manipulatives (hands-on activities), problem solving, realistic pictures, materials, and resources. By providing students with opportunities for hands-on experiences and positive attitudes, laboratory opportunities will contribute to an improved academic self-concept. Instructional Technology - Instructional technology will be incorporated in the mathematics program for all grade levels to develop skills in problem solving, reasoning, and communication. Various technological equipment/materials will include up-to-date computers, calculators, video cassette recorders, supplemental textbooks, films, manipulatives, and realistic visuals. Parent/Child Learning Kits - Essential skills in mathematics should be reviewed and strengthened at each grade level to individualize the learning process for children. Prepared parent/child learning kits will be provided to foster home involvement of parents with child. These kits will include basic mathematics 4) information, manipulatives, and problem solving. Problem Solving - Problem solving activities will be integral part of the mathematics program. Emphasis will be placed on building confidence, developing strategies for understanding, and fostering logical th i nk i ng. ----*- -    an Mathematics manipulatives used will include Versa-Tiles, cuisenaire rods, attribute blocks, base 10 -34-blocks, geoboards, tangrams, pattern tiles, unifix cubes and pattern blocks. PHYSICAL EDUCATION/HEALTH The physical education program will provide for the needs of all students in achieving individual competencies in motor skills, knowledge, and attitudes. 1) Curriculum Guide - Educational skills related to the physical education program will be outlined in a course content guide, K-6. Systematic utilization of the 2) guide will be emphasized in the incentive schools. Intramural Program - Intramural programs will be established at each of the incentive schools. The 3) 4) fundamental purpose of the program will be to develop enjoyment of team sports and lifelong leisure skills. This program will provide competitive physical education games and activities in addition to class activities. Specialized Equipment - Specialized equipment will be needed to implement the essential physical education skills. The equipment will include items such as trampolines, balance beams, balls, hoops, ropes, and other psychomotor materials. Health Related Fitness - Fundamental and developmental skills in health related fitness will be an integral component of the physical education program. Opportunities and experiences will be provided to include family life education, human development, fitness exercises, and understanding of and respect for the handicapped. FINE ARTS (MUSIC/ART) The current core curriculum will remain in place with a number of important modifications which are necessary for the success of the fine arts program. 1) 2) 3) Realistic Visuals  The use of professional activities, models, materials, bulletin boards, and textbooks should reflect mankind's heritage in music and art. Cultural Diversity - Emphasis will be placed on cultural diversity in basic, developmental, and extension skills in music and art. Each fine arts experience should provide conditions for students to recognize, understand, and appreciate differences in people, traditional beliefs, and uniqueness of cultural styles. Field Type Experience - More systematic utilization of field trips of greater length and variety will be one of the unique aspects of the fine arts program. Students will be provided opportunities for active participation in group and individual performances. -35-4) Exhibits and field type experiences will be used to reinforce the learning of concepts in music and art. The focus of field experiences should be expanded to include museums, art galleries, commercial advertisement offices, concerts, plays, recitals, and ballets. Creative Expression - Enjoyment of music and art should be emphasized in the earlier grades (K-3) through the creation of music, painting, and crafts. Creative expression should be expanded at the intermediate level to include an understanding of cultural and historical differences. Opportunities should be provided for 5) students to share, display, and demonstrate their abilities through performances, plays, exhibits, programs, and fairs. Clubs/Events - Special interest clubs in music and art should provide opportunities for students to enhance learning, to broaden cultural experiences, and to receive special training in addition to the regular class. Students should be encouraged to participate in 6) vocal and instrumental ensembles and appropriate art exhibits. Fine Arts Resource Center - An area should be designated within each incentive school for storing materials, activities, and equipment for music and art. These resources related to fine arts skills and concepts development should be available for students to use at home, following: These resources should include the a) b) Music - musical instruments, records, tapes, books, sheet music, videos, and pictures. Art - drawing paper, construction paper, crayons, markers, paint brushes, modeling clay, pictures, books, paints, lettering sets, and various craft items. READING The developmental approach to teaching reading will be applied in the incentive schools. Neither age nor class designation will be a factor in determining the cognitive developmental needs of a child at any given time. This approach will require frequent and on-going formative assessment to determine the child's immediate instructional needs. More time on task to include teaching and reteaching, utilizing alternative instructional techniques, will characterize the reading program. Teaching of reading will not be confined to the reading block of time, but will be meaningfully incorporated in all areas of the curriculum. Teaching of reading instructional approach will be applied in the reading program, reinforced by reteaching, identified small group instruction, and individual tutoring. This approach will be facilitated by limiting the teacher- The \"whole-group\" -36-pupil ratio to 20:1 in the primary grades (K-3) and 25:1 in the intermediate grades (4-6). An instructional aide will be provided for each forty (40) students, constituting a .50 aide per classroom. To utilize teacher strengths/skills and maximally meet the individual student needs, team teaching at grade levels will be employed in the incentive schools. Peer tutoring, involving students from grades 5 and 6 as well as students from nearby secondary high schools, will serve to further extend learning time for primary children (K-3). Field trips designed to extend classroom objectives and to broaden student experiences will be incorporated as a major component of the reading program. To maximize the field trip experience, the teacher will develop and teach pre and post field trip lessons. Instructional technology, to include the use of the computer, will be employed as a teaching tool, focusing on teacher interaction with students, and providing immediate feedback and reinforcement to the student. This procedure utilizes the computer as a visual vehicle for instruction and is not intended to replace laboratory computer instruction. Homework will provide opportunities for further mastery of skills/concepts taught in the classroom. Students will be permitted to take the basal reader and other library resources home for specifically designed homework assignments. Under no circumstances will homework be required of a child who has not demonstrated mastery of the homework content at the comprehension level. To facilitate the use of background experiences in the development of vocabulary and comprehension, story mapping will be a common practice. Critical thinking skills will be taught at all grade levels, including among others, drawing conclusions, predicting, inferences, analysis, and evalua-tion. Social development as well as cognitive reading skills will be enhanced by the inclusion of multicultural literature, audio-visual materials, and resource persons from various cultural groups. Focus on oral language development will be a high priority in the incentive school. Opportunities to develop oral fluency will include speaking, storytelling, chanting, imitating, debating, dramatics, and choral reading and reciting. LANGUAGE ARTS The Little Rock School District believes that all students can become proficient users of language by learning strategies of reading, writing, speaking, and listening. The language arts programs of the District reflect these goals in a multicultural curriculum designed to nurture and -37- expand the developing literacy, speaking, and writing abilities of all students. The following guides will be used for the language arts program in the incentive schools: - Curriculum Objectives (K-6) and Core Curriculum Charts - Multicultural Materials (Selection and Use) - Core Literature List (K-6) - Multicultural Vocabulary (Teacher and Student Lists) - Curriculum Materials/Activities/Resources Effective oral and written communication skills are fundamental to an individual's success in academic activities, social development, professional performance. and personal fulfillment. The incentive schools will develop and infuse multicultural education in all grade levels of English language arts. The goals of this program are to enable each student to develop: - Clarity, fluency, and precision in standard oral and written communication\n- The ability to give structure to thoughts\n- The ability to analyze and discuss\n- A consciousness of linguistic patterns and structure\n- A pride in, appreciation for, and sensitivity for standard language and an awareness of nonstandard language\nand - Creative thought and expression. The core curriculum, concept, skills, and behavioral objectives have been clearly defined in the Little Rock School District curriculum guides, which form the foundation for the language arts programs in the incentive schools. English usage will be taught in spoken and written context. The teaching of English usage will be made relevant and meaningful to the student by utilizing the student's spoken and written language as an instructional vehicle to clarify new concepts/skills. Oral language will be facilitated by providing varied opportunities for the child to practice speaking in meaningful settings such as dramatic play, giving directions, making plans for activities, talking about experiences in school, community, etc., making announcements, debating, orations, telling riddles, dramatizing stories, traveling experiences, telephone meetings, etc. conversations, making introductions, conducting club . Fluency will be acguired through practice. The concept of writing to read will be incorporated in the language arts program. Written language is concerned with the child's efforts to express his/her ideas in -38-writing. Ideas are in abstract form until they \"flow through a pencil or pen\" to the paper. To create this flow, in the incentive schools, the child will be provided many techniques and skills necessary for fluency, ques to be utilized are: Some techni- - Journal writing - Poetry - Reports - Letters - business and friendly - Plays - Riddles - Biographies - Stories - Newspaper articles - Books are such. Language arts, speaking, reading, writing, and spelling all interdependent disciplines and will be taught as It is essential that the child understands the relationship of these disciplines. The student's valuing of each discipline will be enhanced as he/she becomes aware of the relationship between writing and spelling, speaking and reading, and reading and writing. The functional importance of nonverbal communication cannot be minimized. Consequently, this area of communication will be a part of the language arts curriculum in the incentive schools. Recent research identifies nonverbal communication as a valuable means of communication. The development of telecommunication technology and the elimination of communication barriers have created a need for greater understanding of all forms of communication. COMPUTER LITERACY The Little Rock School District does not have a comprehensive computer literacy program in operation at the present time for elementary school children. The elementary schools in Little Rock are equipped with computer laboratories which are used for remediation and enrichment. The incentive schools will continue to use the computer In laboratories with their present design and scope. addition, the Little Rock School District incentive schools will offer computer-supported, individual, and group-based instruction for elementary school reading, mathematics, social studies, science, art, etc. Participation, instruction, practice, feedback, and monitoring will be the keys to unraveling the computer for elementary students in the incentive schools according to the following objectives : -39-1) 2) The computer will be used to enhance student participation, feedback, and performance as well as monitoring in classroom and laboratory settings. The computer program experience for students in the incentive schools will involve the students from an orientation stage to a mastery stage. (Inextricably interwoven in the mastery will be the advent of 3) 4) elementary instruction in keyboarding and/or typing). The computer will involve students in active instructional tasks, active learning, and opportunities for providing and receiving explanations. The computer literacy program will help to encourage teachers in actively involving students in an ongoing program that: a) b) c) d) e) f) begins in kindergarten, follows a scope and sequence similar to other subj ects, pursues grade level mastery annually, masters the keyboarding skills needed for efficiency, utilizes intermediate level programming skills necessary for proficiency, and produces a computer literate student by 6th grade who: 1) 2) recognizes and appreciates the ability of a computer and understands and is able to demonstrate command of the computer before entering the 7th grade. Keyboarding will be offered from 4th grade through 6th grade, utilizing the following format: Beginning in the 4th grade, the incentive program will offer an entire nine weeks/grading period for students to learn practical standard keyboarding practices while still allowing them access to computers in other settings during the first grading period. The remaining three grading periods will offer support and reinforcement for the keyboarding as well as an introduction to basic programming. For students who may have advanced skills, advanced programming will be offered. In order to qualify for advanced instruction, students must have demonstrated mastery of basic programming before being placed in an advanced programming class. In instances where the computer will be used to provide students with higher levels of participation, feedback, and performance monitoring, instructional software directed toward immediate ability for student response will be used. (Example: The software used should allow for immediate reliable feedback from the teacher and the software. -40-The use of the computer will allow the teacher more time for direct instruction because: 1) 2) 3) The teacher will not be free or released during computer instruction. The teacher will be involved with the students during training, practice, and follow-up. The regular classroom teacher may or may not be the computer teacher (May vary depending on teacher skills, willingness to acquire skills, specialists available, etc.) Personnel directly involved in computer instruction will require prior training or extensive training in the operation and care of the computer. The computer-teacher programmer will be a professional who has also been trained to teach. The computer teacher and/or computer-teacher programmer will require training on specific software packages to be used at the different grade levels. These individuals will also be trained in discipline and classroom management, in group process, and in Student Team Learning. Support Programs: The focus, function, and guiding process of the incentive schools will be to provide excellence in an environment of academic support. Research indicates that parent and community involvement are critical to academic achievement. In particular, support programs are capable of enhancing both compensatory and enrichment activities, addition to the various support strategies used by the In Little Rock School District, the following support programs will be available in each incentive school: HOMEWORK CENTERS - Each incentive school will offer an after school homework center for students who are in need of specific help with class material. one teacher and aide will operate the center. At least The teacher will also be responsible for conferring with regular classroom teachers concerning individual student needs. PEER TUTORING - Peer tutoring will be selected from among a group of self-nominated and teacher-nominated students. The role of peer tutors will not be limited only to those students with outstanding academic grade point averages but will also be open to other students who have mastered the subject matter and can verbalize an understanding of the subject matter to be covered. RETIRED TEACHER PROGRAM Retired teachers will be recruited to come into the incentive schools and work with individual students as tutors. Retired teachers will be involved in different types of -41- individual and small group activities that address the academic, social, and developmental needs of the students. PARENT PROGRAMS - The Incentive School Program will In particular, parents/guardians and focus on the use of extended family members as tutors, aides, etc. In particular, parents/guardians and grandparents will be used on a regular basis in All classrooms and other school activities (advisors, evaluators of programs, activity sponsors, etc.), incentive school activities will reflect the philosophy that parents/guardians are the first teachers of children. Parents will be regarded as learning partners in the educational process of their children. In some cases, a number of parents/guardians will be employed as aides with the expectation that they will complete college teaching degree programs leading to certification and possible career opportunities in the District. The incentive schools will also support the needs of parents. These schools will become learning and community centers accessible to parents and community organizations after regular school hours. Parent support workshops will be provided on a periodic basis throughout the school year (at least one workshop each quarter). These workshops will be directly related to the instructional activities in the classroom and will address topics such as: 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) 7) 8) 9) 10) Reading skills Adult literacy (i.e. GED program, etc.) Math instruction skills Parent/child advocacy skills Use of community agencies and resources Counseling services Career opportunities Use of standardized tests Computer literacy Higher education oppportunities In addition to the parent support workshops, the incentive schools will use various strategies to increase the accessibility of the schools to parents and community members. COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION - Community participation in the incentive schools shall be encouraged by the involvement of community organizations, employers, civic and social organizations, and public agencies. Each school will participate in the Partnerships in Education Program and will maintain at least one business partnership. These organizations will be trips. engaged in programs which extend learning experiences beyond the classroom. For instance, field trips, onsite career awareness opportunities, Saturday -42-enrichment activities, and role model programs will be supported by business partners and/or various community organizations. The use of support programs is critical to the success of the Incentive School Program. In addition to the use of external monitoring sources, the building principal will be directly responsible for monitoring the effectiveness of all support programs. The effectiveness and progress of these programs will be prepared by the building principal and submitted to the Superintendent's office (including the Associate Superintendents) on a quarterly basis. Monitoring instruments used by external monitors will also address the effectiveness of support programs. Staff Selection Criteria\nThe principal will demonstrate: - knowledge of elementary curriculum. - a commitment to being a leader in staff development by initiating, participating in, monitoring, and maintaining inservice activities. - competency in interpersonal relations with faculty, students, parents, administration, community, and support staff. - a knowledge of and commitment to the differences and similarities among various socioeconomic, gender, and cultural groups. social, - the ability to apply the principles of child growth and development with faculty, students, parents, administrators, community, and support staff. - the ability to apply the concepts inherent in the principles of learning with faculty, students, parents, administrators, community, and support staff. - a knowledge of current educational theory/practices and the ability to make appropriate application in the development of the school population. The certified staff will demonstrate: - competency in the total teaching act. - commitment to the philosophy of the incentive school. - a commitment to participate in staff development activities and apply skills in the classroom. - the ability to teach to differences as evidenced by daily planning and delivery of instruction. - sensitivity to cultural differences as evidenced by the physical features of the classroom which should reflect the society (population) that it serves. Lead teachers will demonstrate the same competencies other certified teachers in addition to the following: as -43- - the ability to work with diverse cultural groups of students and parents. - the ability to accept change and adapt readily to new learning situations. - the ability and willingness to share successful teaching strategies with other teachers and students. - the ability to accept constructive criticism from fellow educators. - a strong interest in research. Lead teachers are those who model effective teaching strategies and are selected to serve as coaches for preprofessionals, student teachers, and peers. In addition to certified teachers and lead teachers, each incentive school will also have a permanent substitute teacher, the Little Rock School District will consider hiring administrator to coordinate and/or supervise the Also, an implementation of all programs at the incentive schools, schools of choice, and intradistrict magnet schools. The administrations and faculties in all incentive schools will be vacated. The process for reconstituting the administrations and faculties will include parents. students, teachers, and administrators. Staff Development: Although LRSD expects to assign to the incentive schools exceptionally qualified personnel, specific inservice will be necessary to implement the unique instructional program, following: Basic inservice will include the Mission and purpose of the incentive schools (1 day) Curriculum refinement (10 days) -Identification of desired learning outcomes -Identification of concepts and skills to be taught at each grade level -Delineation of the sequence of teaching topics for each grading period Overview of Program for Effective Teaching (PET)(1 day) Expectation Theory (Accepting Differences) (1 day) Student Team Learning (3 days) Developing Higher Order Thinking (1 day) Classroom/Discipline Management (2 days) Planning for Achievement Difference within the Whole Group Theory of Lesson Planning (1 day) Computer Training (1 day) Instructional Aide Inservice (1 day) Clerical Aide Inservice (1 day) Developing Parents as Partners Implementing the Homework Center Program for Accelerated Learning -44- During the 1990-91 school year, maintenance activities for summer 1990 staff development activities will be conducted. Additional Staff Development Activities will include the following: PET (1 cycle) Developing Peer Tutors (2 days) Developing Adult Tutors (2 days) Teacher Expectations and Student Achievement (TESA) An annual assessment of staff development needs will be conducted. Inservice activities will be scheduled based on needs related to implementation of the Incentive School Program. The staff development department will coordinate inservice activities. Recruitment: Aggressive marketing and recruitment are essential to the overall success of the Incentive School Program. Careful marketing of the Incentive School Program is the first step toward an effective recruitment program. marketing campaign for the Incentive School Program will The focus on two major strategies. First, all parents in the three school districts will be informed about available in the incentive schools. programs Second, in order to desegregate the incentive schools, various neighborhoods throughout Pulaski County will be targeted. In each case. the marketing strategies will emphasize the unique learning opportunities available at the incentive schools. All of the schools designated as incentive schools beginning in the 1990-91 school year currently have (as of October, 1989) racial percentages ranging from 84 to 99 percent black. The black percentage at Rockefeller is 84 percent black and the black percentage at Stephens is 99 percent black. The acceptable range, or desegregation requirement, for all elementary schools in the Little Rock School District is plus one-eighth and minus one-fourth the total black percentage at the elementary level. This formula, which is within the guidelines established by the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals, results in a range of 51 to 76.5 percent black. The purpose of the recruitment program is to comply with the desegregation requirements in each incentive school. The recruitment program will encourage voluntary assignments that will not have an adverse effect on the desegregation requirement at each incentive school. Of course, the use of voluntary measures will necessitate long-range goals for full compliance with the desegregation requirement by the beginning of the 1996-97 school year. The annual goals for the number of white students needed to meet the desegregation requirements at each incentive school -45- are listed on the attachment, Desegregation Requirements. \"Annual Goals To Meet II The incentive school recruitment program will focus on three objectives: 1) 2) 3) To provide information to the community about the incentive school program. To use specific recruitment strategies for predominantly white neighborhoods throughout Pulaski County. To monitor and evaluate the effectiveness of the recruitment program for the incentive schools. As stated earlier, the various recruitment strategies will emphasize the unique learning opportunities at the incentive schools, on the following: In particular, emphasis will be placed 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) 7) 8) 9) 10) 11) 12) Extended day learning opportunities Scholarships for post high school educational opportunities Foreign language instruction An individual education plan for each student Academic competition Homework Centers Computer literacy instruction Attractive facilities Low teacher/pupil ratios Emphasis on higher level thinking skills Permanent substitute teachers Saturday enrichment opportunities Each school-based Biracial Advisory Committee will be primarily responsible for implementing recruitment strategies. The school-based Biracial Advisory Committee consists of the building principal, teachers, parents, and students. The parent recruiters in the Little Rock School District Student Assignment Office will assist each schoolbased committee in developing and implementing specific recruitment activities. Although the parent recruiters will provide central office support for certain recruitment activities, it is believed that the most effective recruiting comes from the parents, students, and building staff. In addition to the specific recruitment activities implemented at the school level, the parent recruiters will conduct the following activities to meet the objectives of the incentive school recruitment program: -46- A. To provide information to the community about the Incentive School Program. 1) 2) Information booths at prominent shopping centers and malls throughout Pulaski County. Develop highlight sheets and distribute to all elementary students in Pulaski County. Highlight B. 3) 4) 5) 6) 7) 8) sheets will also be displayed in local businesses. Insert highlight sheets in bills of utility companies. Conduct information sessions with special audiences (i.e. PTA Council, PAC Council, Junior League, League of Women Voters, Chamber of Commerce Education Committee, Realtors Association, etc.) Develop and distribute generic public service announcements (PSA's) to all media. Public service announcements will be a part of an ongoing media blitz to heighten public awareness regarding incentive schools. Billboards, bus benches, etc., will also be used to advertise generic information about incentive schools. Produce short videocassette recordings to be used in public presentations (i.e. PTA meetings, realtors, etc.) Seek incentive school endorsements from local celebrities. Conduct individual and small group recruitment meetings with potential parents. In addition to the above. The Little Rock School District Offices of Desegregation and Communication will be responsible for the following: a) b) c) Hire a marketing expert to develop and implement a multi-year marketing campaign. Conduct an ongoing media blitz that focuses on the positive aspects of the incentive school program. Highlight incentive schools in all district publications. To use specific recruitment strategies for targeted neighborhooods throughout Pulaski County. 1) Assist school-based committees in targeting geographic areas/neighborhoods for informational blitz regarding specific incentive schools. Information will also stress group preference 2) an assignment option. Assist schools in developing small group as tl Information II tours to acquaint parents, For Your grandparents, businessmen, realtors, etc., with the incentive schools. -47- C. 3) 4) 5) Conduct meetings with NLRSD and PCSSD parents and PTA groups to encourage M-M transfers to incentive schools. Work closely with student assignment offices in NLRSD and PCSSD and the Magnet Educational Team (MET) to target specific neighborhoods for recruitment activities. Assist each incentive school in establishing and scheduling a speaker's bureau. The parents of white students enrolled in the incentive schools will be encouraged to serve on the bureau along with celebrities, teachers, students, etc. To monitor and evaluate the effectiveness of the recruitment program for the incentive schools. The Little Rock School District Biracial Advisory Committee will also serve as the steering committee for the incentive school recruitment program. The Little Rock School District Office of Desegregation will be responsible for compiling bi-monthly reports on the implementation and effectiveness of various recruitment strategies. These reports will be shared with the Little Rock School District Board of Directors, Joshua and Knight Intervenors, and the Metropolitan Supervisor. The bi-monthly reports will be developed by each school-based Biracial Advisory Committee. The Districtwide Biracial Advisory Committee will review each bi-monthly report and recommend to the Board of Directors and/or Office of Desegregation any changes needed in recruitment strategies/activities. The Biracial Advisory Committee will also appoint two ex-officio members with expertise in marketing/ advertising to advise the committee on recruitment strategies. The Districtwide Biracial Advisory Committee will visit the incentive schools once each quarter. Among other things, the committee will evaluate the recruitment program in each building. evaluation of the recruitment program will be addressed The in the quarterly monitoring/evaluation report for each incentive school. Post High School Scholarships\nThe incentive school program is intended to provide both short-term and long-term opportunities for educational excellence. As incentive school students experience the short term benefits of high quality learning experiences in grades K-6, it is imperative that they have the resources needed to extend their educational careers to post high school learning experiences. To this end, a scholarship program will be provided for all LRSD incentive school students. -48-A trust fund will be established for each student who completes at least one full school year at an incentive school. Each student will earn $400 for each full year of enrollment in an incentive school. Each student will receive the amount deposited plus interest as the earned scholarship amount. Upon graduation or withdrawal from an incentive school, the total amount awarded for each full year of enrollment will be placed in a trust fund. The trust fund will be administered by a committee made up of two representatives from the Little Rock School District and one representative from the Arkansas Department of Education, Joshua Intervenors, and the Knight Intervenors. A student must enroll in a post high school institution within two years of graduation from high school in order to receive incentive school scholarship funds. Scholarship payments will be made directly to the post high school institution. -49- SUGGESTED TIME ALLOTMENT SCHEDULE FOR THE INCENTIVE SCHOOLS TIME: Regular Day 8:00-3:00 *7 hours Extended Day 3:00-5:00 -'2 1/2 hours Extended Saturday 8:00-12:00 4 hours ''6 hours( instruction) *2 hours (instruction) *3 1/2 hrs( instruction) 1 hour(lunch/break) 30 min.(snack/break) 30 min (snack/break) GRADES: Kindergarten - One - Two - Three/Regular Day 8:00 - 3:00 BLOCKS (Daily) TIME (Weekly) * Reading 90 min. Apx. 450 min. 'Language Arts - Spelling - Handwriting - Coimiunication (Oral/Written) - Literature - I.ibrary 90 min. Apx. 450 min. Mathematics 45 min. Apx. 225 min. 'Social Living - Science (Health-Safety) - Social Studies (History-Economics- Geography) 60 min. Apx. 300 min. Fine Arts/P.E. * - Art  - Music - P.E. 45 min. Apx. 225 min. TOTAL 330 min. Apx. 1650 min. -tregular day 8:00 - 3:00 7 hours 6 hours (Instruction) 1 hour (Lunch/Recess) Exercises in Foreign Languages can be integrateed with any of these areas. -50-EXTENDED DAY (3:00-5:30) (2 HOURS/30 MIN.) [2 hours - Instruction [30 min. - Snack/Break Recreation: - Intramural Sports - Games 60 min. Apx. 300 min. Study Center: - Reinforce Basic Skills - Enhance Research Skills - Homework 30 min. Apx. 150 min. Creativity: - Dance/Drama - Arts/Crafts 30 min. Apx. 150 min. TOTAL 120 min. Apx. 600 min. EXTENDED SATURDAY (8:00-12:00) (4 HOURS) [3 hours - Instruction] [30 min. - Snack/Break] Field Type Experience: - In school experiences (outside resource persons/ materials) - Outside of school experiences 70 min. Creative Expression: - Reading/Writing - Listening/Speaking Clubs/Events: - Computer - Art - Dance/Drama - Intramural Sports TOTAL 70 min. 70 min. 210 min. -51- TIME: Regular Day 8:00-3:00 *7 hours Extended Day 3:00-5:30 * 2 1/2 hours Extended Saturday 8:00-12:00 *4 hours -f6 hours(instruction) * 2 hours(instruction) *3 1/2 hrs(instruction) 1 hour(Lunch/Recess) 30 min(snack/break) 30 min(snack/break) GRADES: Fourth - Fifth - Sixth/Regular Day 8:00 - 3:00 BLOCKS (Daily) TIME (Weekly) ^Language Arts: - Reading - Spelling - Handwriting - Communication(oral/written) - Literature - Library 150 min. Apx. 750 min. Mathematics 60 min. Apx. 300 min. -'Social Studies: - Geography - History - Economics 45 min. Apx. 225 min. Science: - Health - Safety 30 min. Apx. 150 min. Fine Arts/P.E.: - Art - Music - P.E. 45 min. Apx. 225 min. TOTAL 330 min. 1650 min. '\"Exercises in Foreign Languages can be integrated with any of these areas. -52- EXTENDED DAY (3:00-5:30) (2 HOURS/30 MIN.) [120 Min. - Instruction] [ 30 Min. - Snack/Break] Recreation: - Intramural Sports - Games Study Center: - Reinforcement of Basic Skills - Enhancement of Research Skills - Homework Creativity - Dance/Drama - Arts/Crafts TOTAL 60 min. 30 min. 30 min 120 min. Apx. 300 min. Apx. 150 min. Apx. 150 min. Apx. 600 min. EXTENDED SATURDAY (8:00-12:00) (4 HOURS) [210 Min. - Instruction] [ 30 Min. - Snack/Break] Field Type Experience: - In school experiences (outside resource persons/ materials) - Outside of school experiences (field trips, etc.) Creative Expression: - Reading/Writing - Listening/Speaking Clubs/Events: - Computer-Art-Dance/Drama - Intramural Sports TOTAL 70 min. 70 min. 70 min. 210 min. -53- ATTACHMENT I ANNUAL GOALS TO MEET DESEGREGATION REOUIREMENTS (Number of White Students) Garland Ish Mitchel 1 Rightsei 1 Rockefeller Stephens Total 1989-90 14 7 19 17 35 1 93 1990-91 18 14 24 23 40 10 129 1991-92 28 20 33 29 45 19 174 1992-93 38 26 42 35 51 28 220 1993-94 48 32 51 41 57 37 266 1994-95 58 38 60 48 63 46 313 1995-96 68 44 69 56 73 58 368 1996-97 78 50 78 64 83 71 424 Capaci ty 310 200 310 255 330 285 1,690 -53a- Area Schools Schools where students attend based entirely on attendance zone identification and which are not designated as incentive schools are called area schools, the following: These include Area Schools Senior High Schools: J.A. Fair Hall McClellan Junior High Schools: Cloverdale Forest Heights Henderson Mabelvale Pulaski Heights Southwest Elementary Schools: Badgett Bale Baseline Brady Chicot Cloverdale Dodd Fair Park Forest Park Franklin Fulbright Geyer Springs Jefferson Mabelvale McDermott Meadowcliff Otter Creek Pulaski Heights Romine Terry Wakefield Watson Western Hills Wilson Woodruff The academic program in elementary area schools will concentrate on language arts, reading, mathematics, science, and social studies to help ensure that students master basic skills. Instruction will also be provided in health, physical education, practical arts, and the fine arts. All -54- elementary schools will be eguipped with a 28-station computer laboratory for remedial and enrichment opportunities. In the junior high schools, students will take required courses as well as electives from among choral, instrumental music, art, physical education, Spanish, French, and business courses. Regular and enriched classes in math, English, social studies, and science are offered to meet individual needs. The senior high schools will offer all courses required for high school graduation. Students may choose from various courses in the areas of foreign languages, mathematics, social studies, science, speech, journalism, fine arts, business education, and home economics. Regular, honors, and advanced placement courses are offered in various subject areas. In addition to the core curriculum, all of the area schools will offer the following special programs: Gifted and Talented Education Special Education Program for Accelerated Learning CARE Program (elementary only) DARE (Drug Alcohol Resistance Education) sixth grade classes Extracurricular activities all The area schools will receive the following as a result of the District's desegregation plan: All English, math, science, social studies, special education, foreign language, and music teachers will participate in cooperative learning, PET (Program for Effective Teaching), TESA (Teacher Expectations and Student Achievement), and classroom management training. Supplementary language arts, math, science, social studies, reading, and foreign language materials and supplies for multiethnic infusion will be provided at all area schools. All junior high area schools will offer journalism (newspaper and yearbook). Manipulatives will be provided for math instruction in all area schools. All area schools will be provided inservice training on the use of multiethnic curriculum guides. -55- Concrete \"hands-on\" science materials will be purchased for elementary science instruction. Library/media services will provide for an extension and enrichment of basic skills and will also accommodate the varied learning styles of students in different instructional groups. The District will continue to have at least one library clerk to implement the new library/media program. A 7-10 year A-V equipment purchase plan will be used to support this program. --Inservices for teachers and support staff on relevant, practical issues involving the education of handicapped students. District-wide parent support programs and access to the Learning Center that will provide parent training and assistance. Handicapped students utilize computers in the learning process in resource rooms at the elementary and junior high levels. A Community Based Instruction Program (CBI) is available for moderately/severely handicapped students. Academic Progress Incentive Grants: Academic success for all students is a primary goal of the desegregation/integration process. The Little Rock School District has developed and adopted several programs designed to increase student achievement. District-wide achievement data indicate the need for additional strategies to reduce the number of low achievers. Therefore, the Academic Progress Incentive Grants Program will be established, follows: The program goals are as 1. 2. To improve the education for all students To reduce the disproportion in academic achievement that is evident between groups formed on the basis of race, gender, and economic status. Local schools will develop non-competitive proposals to increase overall achievement and decrease academic disparity. The proposals should include strategies based on promising practices to enhance student achievement. Teachers, building administrators, and patrons shall participate in the development of the local school proposal. A grant writing inservice will be provided by the District. A request for proposals will be announced. -56- The non-competitive grant will be for one year with an option for two additional annual awards, annual grant shall not exceed $25,000. The amount of the Magnet schools and incentive schools will not be eligible for the Academic Progress Incentive Grants. Additionally, area schools will be given opportunities before magnet schools or incentive schools to receive additional assistance to establish II islands of excellence\" or model classrooms in their schools. For example a school might wish to develop a model classroom in social studies. Additional resources and assistance from the central administration will be provided and a model classroom will be established. Teachers and administrators from other schools will be encouraged to visit the classroom to gain new ideas and insights into effective teaching techniques which they can then use in their schools and classrooms. Community Support Grants: The availability of extra resources in magnet and incentive schools continues to be an area of concern for many parents in the area schools. Although special funds have been earmarked for magnet and incentive schools, enhancement opportunities must be available in all schools. All schools must have the resources needed to offer quality desegregated learning experiences. In order for quality desegregated learning experiences to occur, all schools must have access to extra resources needed for program enhancement. Non-competitive Community Support Grants will be provided to address the recruitment needs of area schools. Community Support Grants will be used to support local efforts to improve desegregation. Emphasis will be placed on awarding grant proposals that have a positive effect on desegregation efforts. 1. 3. 5. 6. Grant-writing teams will consist of at least the building principal, two teachers, one noncertified staff member, and four parents. A Grant Writing inservice will be provided by the District. A central office committee made up of the Associate Superintendent for Desegregation Monitoring and Program Development and others appointed by the Superintendent will evaluate grant proposals. Grant proposals should avoid additional personnel costs, to the extent possible. The District will not assume responsibility for continuing costs that occur after the expiration of the funding period. Local businesses will be asked to help finance the Community Support Grant program. This will give 2. 4 . -57- 7, local businesses the opportunity to become actively involved in the District's desegregation efforts. Magnet schools, incentive schools, and schools of choice will not be eligible for Community Support Grants. Schools cannot fulfill desegregation requirements without the involvement of the communities which they Community Support Grants will serve. encourage entrepreneurship, ownership, and commitment to local desegregation efforts. The three-year grant awards (Academic Progress Grants and Community Support Grants) should provide sufficient time for the new strategies to become a part of the school culture. Certain changes are proposed for some of the area schools. These are outlined below. 1. Woodruff Elementary Expand the school by adding approximately two hundred students. - ' Some of these classrooms will be used for an early childhood education Also, an Extended Day Program will be offered to attract children of parents who work in the state government offices. program. A percentage of seats will be reserved in order to meet desegregation requirements. 2 . Western Hills Elementary Expand the school's capacity and eliminate the use of portables. Approximately one hundred children attend classes in portable buildings at Western Hills. This plan would expand the capacity of the school by two hundred students. Additional spaces will be available by 1991-92. 3. Cloverdale Elementary and Junior High School Expand each school's capacity by approximately one hundred students. 4 . Portable Buildings Eliminate portable buildings in a five-year period beginning in 1990-91. The schools having the largest concentration of portable buildings will be the first priority. -58-Specialty Schools Some of the District's area schools already have special themes, and nothing in this plan precludes their continuing to develop them. However, one specialty school, Badgett Elementary, is described in detail because it relates closely to the theme of the aviation/transportation magnet school to be located near the airport. Aviation/Transportation Specialty School: Badgett's instructional program will be structured around a transportation theme. interdisciplinary concept. Transportation is an It includes science, technology. history, geography, mathematics, international studies, and human services. A transportation theme would be ideal for the development and implementation of an interdisciplinary curriculum. The central Arkansas region has a wealth of transportation industries. Air, rail, trucking, and boat/barge transportation are all located in central Arkansas. These industries should serve as a resource for the Aviation/Transportation Specialty School. The Aviation/Transportation Specialty School has the following goals: A. B. C. D. Students will learn the District's basic curriculum through the theme of transportation. The instructional program will be enriched by field trips, guest speakers, and special events related to transportation. Concepts and skills about transportation will be mastered so that students will be prepared for the Aviation/Transportation Junior High School should they choose to apply. The thematic approach to the delivery of instruction will increase student learning through increased motivation and greater transfer of prior learning. The Aviation/Transportation Specialty Elementary School will utilize an interdisciplinary curriculum that emanates from the theme of transportation. Social studies will focus on the effect of transportation on the location of cities and communities. routes will be examined. Geographic influences on transportation History will be taught in the context of transportation's influence on human endeavors. Science will deal with the physics involved in transportation (e.g., mechanics of flight) as well as the inventions that had a major impact on society at the time (e.g., steam engine, airplane). Many basic science skills can be taught from a transportation reference point. Simple machines, sound, energy, and natural resources, for example, all relate to transportation. -59- To enhance the climate of the school, the transportation theme will be obvious to those who visit the school. Bulletin boards, hall displays, assembly programs. and other instructional activities will emphasize transportation, Guest speakers and field trips will frequently incorporate transportation ideas. One or more specialists will help deliver the school's instructional program. The specialists will coordinate efforts to develop an interdisciplinary curriculum with a transportation theme. They will head-up the curriculum development process and will assist in inservice for other staff members. Students will take field trips to local transportation industries such as Little Rock Municipal Airport, Falcon Jet, Central Flying Service, Arkansas Highway Department, Union Pacific Railroad, Terry or Murray Lock and Dam, and the Little Rock Port Authority. Speakers from the transportation industries will present programs in the classroom. Due to the proximity of Badgett and the Junior High Aviation and Transportation Intradistrict Magnet School, cooperative projects between the schools will be common. Junior high students can present lessons to the elementary students. Elementary students can do assembly programs (song, dance, skits) for the junior high students. Tutoring, mentorships, and other projects can also be worked out between the schools. Other specialty schools will be considered in the long range plan. For example, if it appears necessary to close an existing elementary building, other uses for the building will be sought including the creation of an alternative school for students in grades 10-12 or an early childhood and infant care center. Also, to extend the aviation and transportation theme, administrators in vocational education will begin working with the Arkansas Department of Education to establish programs at the Metropolitan Vocational Education Center to prepare students for careers in aviation mechanics and other transportation related areas, place by 1992-93. These programs will be in -60- C. Publicity and Information Often the success or failure of a school depends on the extent to which accurate, timely, and clear information is provided to parents and students about its programs and unique features. As the programs for schools of choice. intradistrict magnets, incentive schools, area schools, and specialty schools are planned and developed, parents will be encouraged to participate fully in the process by contributing their ideas and suggestions. The District will explain and publicize the programs available at each school to parents, students, and the general community through the use of the District's television channel, through printed brochures describing each school, and through ongoing contact with the education reporters for the local newspapers and television stations. Information coordinators (described in Chapter 8) for each school will assist in developing information brochures and obtaining publicity for their schools. -61-III. INSTRUCTION A. Equity in Academic Achievement B. Early Childhood Education C. Multicultural Education D. Special Education E. Gifted and Talented Education F. Guidance and Counseling G. Extracurricular Activities -62- III. INSTRUCTION A. Equity in Academic Achievement If the desegregation of a school district does not result in a superior education experience for all students, then it is not successful no matter how \"balanced\" schools may be. It is not acceptable to bring children to the doors of the school house only to resegregate them again in their classes and programs throughout the school day. This section of the plan identifies problems related to equity in the academic achievement of our students and proposes ways to address their problems. Problem One: Disparity in educational achievement between black and white students (as evidenced by grades and standardized tests) continues despite several years of awareness of the issue and efforts to deal with it. It is clear that the disparity in educational achievement between black and white students worsens as students move from grade to grade. It is necessary, therefore, that this desegregation plan address this very serious problem. The following solutions are proposed: 1. Conduct a \"curriculum audit\" of instructional programs and services during the next five years according to a prearranged schedule to determine their educational effectiveness for all youngsters. Programs to be audited include, but are not limited to: -63- Art Chapter I Reading and Math Drug Education Foreign Languages Four-Year-Old Program Gifted and Talented Education Guidance and Counseling Homework Centers Kindergarten Language Arts Learning Lab Library-Media Mathematics Music Physical Education, Health, and Nutrition Education Program for Accelerated Learning (PAL) Reading Science Social Studies Special Education Vocational Education The first programs to be audited will include Chapter I Reading and Math, Guidance and Counseling, PAL, Learning Lab, and Foreign Languages, The purpose of the review will be to -64- determine whether modifications in programs need to be made in order to increase their educational value to students. In some cases programs may need to be eliminated or drastically changed. 2. Seek assistance in establishing an Instructional Management System for every student. Technology now exists which can help us analyze a student's learning styles and achievement levels, predict success or failure in school based on a number of factors, and prescribe the necessary interventions in a timely manner. The District will immediately seek to work with experts in instructional technology to devise such a system. It should be noted that this approach is intended to benefit the successful as well as the unsuccessful student. The District will attempt to have this program in place by 1991-92. Begin immediately to develop a five-year schedule for the review of all courses and programs including incentive schools and magnet programs to determine whether their content is sufficiently challenging, relevant, and enriching to students. Require that curriculum supervisors review the use of the multiethnic curriculum guides and propose necessary revisions and modifications. This will 3. 4. -65- be done yearly so that problems which become apparent can be quickly solved. Problem Two: The District continues to have disproportionate representation of students by race in certain classes, programs, and activities. This is not a problem to be addressed by simplistic solutions such as quotas or percentages which are humiliating and frustrating to students. All students, both the gifted and the low-achieving, must be given every opportunity to excel, be challenged. contribute, and produce in school. This problem must be addressed first by being certain that a strong basic education is provided to all students beginning with kindergarten or before and that provision is made to concentrate on youngsters who need the enrichment experiences and activities to enable them to compete with more advantaged students and not lose ground as they move from grade to grade. These include additional or extended homework centers, summer learning programs, Saturday classes. Extended Day program, academic incentive programs, and tutorial services. In schools which lack these programs, the District will allocate funds to establish at least one such program in each school. To a large extent principals, teachers, and guidance counselors can positively impact this problem. However, they must be supported by a Board and an -66-administration which insist on optimum learning opportunities for all students. The extent to which staff development can assist teachers and administrators in dealing with this problem will be discussed in another section of this plan. Problem Three: In too many instances different expectations for the level of learning are expected from different students. Most students can learn most of what they should know. The research on this issue is irrefutable. The question is why students do not learn, and the answer has to do with what is expected from them. The District has already recognized the problem of different expectations and is attempting to provide training for all teachers in a program called Teacher Expectations and Student Achievement (TESA). As part of the long-term plan, TESA will be required and provided for all teachers, administrators, library media specialists, and guidance counselors. Additionally, Cooperative Learning, and the Program for Effective Teaching will be included. These programs and others will be discussed in the section on staff development (Chapter 7). Also, in instances where teachers have had success in teaching low-achieving students, the District will provide opportunities for other teachers to visit -67- B. \"model classrooms\" where successful teaching'and learningfor all students are occurring. Early Childhood Education Someone recently stated that the answer to the drug problem in society was not to build more prisons but to establish early childhood education programs in the schools. The Little Rock School District has experienced success with the HIPPY Program and its four-year-old programs at Washington, Ish, Franklin, Stephens, and Rockefeller. However, it is clear that such programs must be expanded. Their development (including the expansion of the three-year- old program) and implementation should occur following the District's review of final recommendations made by the Early Childhood Education Task Force. The District will add an additional program at Woodruff in 1990-91 and will initiate a Montessori program at Garland in 1991-92. In 1991-92 the Early Childhood Programs will be evaluated and plans to expand them to other schools will be submitted to the Board. The District will also establish Parent Centers at Washington and Franklin to provide assistance to the parents of children enrolled in the programs there. A major goal of the Little Rock School District's Parent Center component is to combine the special knowledge which parents have about their children with the expertise of the staff to improve services to children. -68- The Parent Center will be developed and implemented by local school staff, social workers, counselors, media center staff, and other related personnel to reinforce and maintain a strong linkage between home and school. Parents will be invited to attend the Center to share information, express concerns, make plans, and develop skills to assist in the education of their children. The Center will provide parent discussion groups. individual problem-solving sessions, and other topics of interest identified by the parents such as creative use of family time. A range of evening programs will be offered throughout the year on such topics as parenting, community resources, behavior management, study skills, and recreation and special seminars such as helping working and single parents to become more involved in spending quality time with their child. The District will include the Arkansas Parents: Partners in Learning Experience (APPLE) parent training material developed by the Arkansas Department of Education and other research-based programs. The Parent Centers will be evaluated by the District in 1991-92. The goal is to have early childhood programs and Parent Centers in at least half of the elementary schools by 1994-95 and in all elementary schools by 1998-99. The recommendations of the Little Rock School District Early Childhood Education Parent Committee are comprehensive and thorough and will provide the basis for an expansion of -69- the District's Early Childhood Education Program as a part of the District's desegregation plan. The District will work with the Early Childhood Education Task Force in analyzing these proposals, both in terms of the District's capacity to implement them and the costs of the programs. A detailed cost estimate, with final recommendations for early childhood education, will be provided to the Metropolitan Supervisor prior to December 31. C. Multicultural Education In its commitment to provide equal educational access for all students, the Little Rock School District included in its 1988-89 court mandated desegregation plan the development and implementation of a multicultural education program for grades K-12. Multicultural education seeks to ensure that male and female students, exceptional students, and students who are members of diverse racial, ethnic, and cultural groups will have an equal chance to achieve academically in school. In essence, multicultural education includes (1) the infusion of multicultural content when appropriate into the core subject matter areas\n(2) the use of various instructional/learning strategies to address diverse learning styles of students\nand (3) the demonstration of the attitude and belief that all students, regardless of cultural diversity, can learn. -70-Multicultural education has several goals: 1. The development of decision-making and social action skills. 2. The viewing of historical and contemporary events from diverse ethnic perspectives, clarifying students' own ethnic identities and helping them to function effectively within their own ethnic communities. 3. The development of cross-cultural competency\nthe ability to function within a range of cultures. 4 . Providing students with cultural and ethnic alternatives to problems. 5. Greater self-understanding by viewing one's self from the perspectives of others' cultures. 6. The reduction of ethnic, racial, and cultural conflict and discrimination through the expanding of students' conceptions of what it means to be human and the development of an appreciation for and sensitivity to the diversity of lifestyles. 7. Mastery of essential reading, writing, and computational skills. To achieve these goals the District is currently involved in the following six-year plan: Note: This plan modifies the multicultural program approved by the court in the 1989-90 Desegregation Plan Volume 1, January 31, 1989. Phase I (1987-88) - Awareness for district staff -71- members and input from cultural groups within the community. Phase II (1988-89) - Development of curriculum guides by committees of teachers of grades K-6 in the following content areas: English, fine arts, math, reading, science. and social studies. (1989-90) - Implementation of the above grades K-6 curriculum guides. Phase III (1989-90) - Development of curriculum guides by committees of teachers of grades 7-12 for art, music. English, reading, math, science, library-media, social studies (grade 7), and American History/Arkansas History (grade 8). Phase IV (1990-91) - Implementation of the curriculum guides for grades 7-12 for art, music, English, reading. math, science, and library-media. Phase V (1991-92) - Development of curriculum guides as follows: a) Civics (grade 9) b) American Government (grades 10-12) c) American History (regular - grades 10-12) d) American History (AP - Grade 11) e) Contemporary American History and Arkansas Studies (grades 11 and 12) Phase VI (1992-93) - Continued development of curriculum guides as follows: a) Sociology and Psychology (Grades 11-12) b) Any courses added to the social studies -72- curriculum (Grades 11-12) c) Refinement of existing course guides (if needed) (Grades 11-12) The Little Rock School District is on schedule according to the above six-year plan. Periodic review of the content of the guides and their use by teachers will assist in making modifications or in providing staff development to assist teachers in using the guides. D. Special Education Much work has been done to lower the over- representation of black students in special education classes. Efforts have focused on helping special education teachers, principals, and regular teachers do a better job of analyzing the needs of youngsters. Extensive training and follow-up are provided by the special education staff and these efforts will continue. Special inservice training has been provided to help teachers understand and cope with the vulnerability of black male children in society. Disproportion is a continuous issue, and tremendous progress has been made in addressing it in the District. Targeted goals for the Special Education Department include: 1. The development and implementation of a comprehensive sex education program for handicapped students. (1991-92) -73-3. 5. E. The expansion of the Learning Center concept to include a center at the junior high level. (1991- 92) Expansion of the use of the Consulting Teacher Model to provide indirect services to mildly handicapped students. (1990-ongoing) Expansion of vocational training for handicapped students that will enable them to meet current and future job market demands. (1991-1994) Expansion of research activities to determine the effectiveness of special education programs for different handicapped populations. (1991-1994) Gifted and Talented Education The Little Rock School District's Gifted and Talented Program offers services to its students through a design that\nThis project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resoources.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_372","title":"Desegregation: ''Little Rock School District Proposed Desegregation Plan,'' Volume II","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["1989-01-31"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Educational planning","School integration"],"dcterms_title":["Desegregation: ''Little Rock School District Proposed Desegregation Plan,'' Volume II"],"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/372"],"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":["documents (object genre)"],"dcterms_extent":["814 pages"],"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 PROPOSED DESEGREGATION PLAN JANUARY 31, 1989 VOLUME II \\ A TABLE OF CONTENTS Volume II 1. student Assignments 2. Student Assignment Handbook 3. Facilities 4. Incentive School Program 5. Monitoring and Evaluation 6. Transportation 7. Data ProcessingSTUDENT ASSIGNMENTS I. MAGNET SCHOOLS The assignment process to magnet schools will not change under this Plan. II. INTERDISTRICT SCHOOLS If LRSD and PCSSD agree to establish an interdistrict school at Rockefeller, two hundred LRSD students from a contiguous zone around Rockefeller would be assigned there. The remaining two hundred seats would be filled by white PCSSD students. If an interdistrict school can be established at the Home-Mart site, LRSD will engage in a districtwide recruitment of black students for the purpose of filling half of the seats. III. ELEMENTARY ACADEMIES 1. Students will be assigned to the Elementary Academies by attendance zones. The attendance zones are shown on the map which is attached to this Plan. 2. The Elementary Academy attendance zones are drawn to establish a racial balance at each school of 55% black and 45% white with a variance of 5%. The recruitment of white students to Elementary Academies may increase the percentage of white students at these schools but no school shall have a racial com- position of greater than 60% white. 3. Students presently assigned to Elementary Academies will be given the option to remain in these schools (grandfathered).4. After grandfathered students have been identified and assigned, students in the attendance zone will be assigned to the Elementary Academies. 5. If there is no space available at a student's zoned school or if assignment of the student to the school would put the school out of compliance with racial balance requirements, the student will be assigned to the closest school with capacity which meets racial balance requirements. 6. The elementary school zones will provide a feeder pat- tern for elementary students going to junior high school and for junior high school students going to high school. As a result. all LRSD students can determine which schools they will attend for the entire course of their education in LRSD. Attached to this Plan are maps of the elementary, junior high school and high school attendance zones. Students in Elementary Academy zones will be given the option to select an Incentive School. IV. INCENTIVE SCHOOLS 7. 1. Each incentive school will have an attendance zone that encompasses the neighborhood around the school (primary attendance zone). 2. Each incentive school will also have a districtwide attendance zone (secondary attendance zone). 3. Students presently assigned to incentive schools will be given the option to remain in these schools (grandfathered). 24. After grandfathered students have been identified and assigned, students in the primary attendance zone will be assigned to the incentive schools. 5. All incentive school students will have the option to be assigned to an Elementary Academy. 6. Students in the secondary (districtwide) attendance zones will be given the option to fill any vacancies in the incentive schools after grandfathered and primary attendance zone students have been assigned. 7. In order to assist in meeting the desegregation requirement, a certain number of seats for black and white students will be reserved for each pre-kindergarten and kindergarten class. V. DESEGREGATION TRANSFERS 1. Secondary students may transfer to another school as long as the reassignment allows both the sending and receiving school to comply with the desegregation requirement and a seat is available. The desegregation requirement in secondary schools is that all schools will remain within a range of 12-1/2% above to 25% below the districtwide percentage of black students at each organizational level (l.e., high school and junior high school). 2. Elementary students may transfer to an incentive school a if such transfer enhances desegregation at the incentive school. 3. A student may not make more than two (2) desegregation transfers during his/her school career. 34. Desegregation transfers will be granted during a limited period once each year. 5. LRSD will provide transportation for desegregation transfer students where it is cost effective to do so. VI. SIBLING PREFERENCE TRANSFER 1. Sibling preference does NOT apply to magnet schools. 2. Students entering the Little Rock School District after the 1991-92 school year will not be allowed to make a sibling preference transfer to a school outside the student's attendance zone. 3. Any student who makes sibling preference transfer a before the 1991-92 school year may remain at the school to which the student transferred xintil graduation. 4. Sibling preference transfers will be granted if a seat is available and the transfer will allow both the sending and receiving schools to comply with the desegregation requirements. VII. REASSIGNMENT PROCESS 1. Every effort will be made to install portable buildings in order to accommodate overflow situations at a particular grade level. If a portable building cannot be installed, the student will be reassigned to the nearest school that has seat a available in the student's feeder zone. If the student cannot be assigned to any of the schools in the student's feeder zone, the student will be reassigned to a school in a contiguous feeder zone. The Student Assignment Office will be responsible for all 4reassignments. Reassigned students will be placed on the waiting list for the appropriate attendance zone school. 2. The minimum black percentage for each elementary academy is 40% black. Any assignment that causes a school to fall below the minimum black percentage will not be granted. In such cases, the student will be reassigned to the nearest school that meets the minimum black percentage requirement and has a seat available. If the student cannot be assigned to any of the schools in the student's feeder zone, the student will be reassigned to a school in a contiguous feeder zone. VIII. STUDENT ASSIGNMENT OFFICE 1. The Student Assignment Office will: monitor new assignments\nprocess all data entry work for elementary schools\npro- cess M-M transfers and magnet assignments\nreassign students because of overcrowdedness or desegregation requirements\ncon- Sider appeals\nconduct recruitment efforts\nand process desegregation transfers. 2. New students to the District who enroll after May 17, 1989 will not have to come to the Student Assignment Office to obtain an assignment. Each school will be authorized to enroll students who live within the attendance zone of that school. 3. In order to ensure stability and growth, the Little Rock School District needs an assignment plan that will remain the same for the next five years. 4. The Student Assignment Handbook which shows the process to be used by the Student Assignment Office in assigning students 5and the School Selection Form which will be sent to each student as a part of the assignment process are attached to this Plan. IX. ROMINE/BAKER LRSD and PCSSD are presently considering five options (shown below) for the desegregation of Romine and Baker Schools. The first option involves converting Romine to a primary school and converting Baker to an intermediate school. This arrangement provides Romine a 60% black racial ratio. Baker's racial ratio would become 65% black. The remaining options involve exchanging attendance zones between Romine and Baker. The third option shown below is the most successful in reducing the black percentage at Romine. With each option, the black percentage at Baker is outside of the acceptable range for the Pulaski County Special School District. The attendance zones for Romine and Baker can be exchanged if an exception is made for the desegregation requirement at Baker School. 6K Romine 1 2 3 4 5 6 Total 35 5 51 11 62 8 50 5 77 7 57 9 70 5 403 453 50 B- 403 W- 50 453 89% Black Baker 7 31 11 32 11 39 15 33 10 34 4 35 4 31 62 235 297 B- 62 W- 225 297 21% Black Romine 3 60 3 69 3 69 3 69 3 75 2 50 3 75 20 467 Baker 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 14 328 SCENARIO ONE Romine K-3 \u0026gt; 243 (B) 164 (W) 407 (60%) Baker 4-6 \u0026gt; 222 (B) 121 343 (65%) BAKER Black White Total 0308 0330 0361 0321 0358 Total ROMINE 1715 1727 0 00 20 2 Black 62 99 9 7 13 12 19 60 white 9 1 9 7 13 14 19 62 Total 71 100 (3% Black) ) 7 SCENARIO TWO ROMINE 1715 Baker ZB's 403 -62 341 + 2 343 50 -9 41 + 60 101 453 -71 382 + 62 444 (77% Black) BAKER Baker ZB's 1715 62 -2 60 + 62 122 235 -60 175 + 9 184 297 235 306 (40* Black) SCENARIO THREE ROMINE 1727 Baker ZB's 403 -99 304 + 2 306 50 -1 49 60 109 453 -100 353 62 415 (74* Black) BAKER 1727 62 - 2 60 + 99 159 235 60 175 1 176 297 62 235 100 335 (47* Black) SCENARIO FOUR ROMINE 1723 Baker ZB's 403 -25 378 + 2 380 50 5 45 60 105 485 (78* Black) BAKER 62 - 2 60 + 25 85 235 60 175 __5 180 265 (32* Black) SCENARIO FIVE ROMINE 1717 Baker ZB's 403 -90 313 + 2 315 50 10 40 60 100 415 (76* Black) BAKER Baker ZB's 1717 62 -2 60 + 90 150 235 60 175 10 185 335 (45* Black) 8X. DUNBAR Shown below are three scenarios which were considered by LRSD on the use of Dunbar Junior High School as an interdistrict or intradistrict magnet school. Because the LRSD's proposed assignment plan requires 9 3* of the junior high capacity. Each scenario creates serious capacity problem at the remaining a non-magnet junior high schools. Little Rock School District does not have enough junior high capacity to open another magnet school. LRSD has explored other means of enhancing Dunbar. A meeting was held on Wednesday, January 25, with parents from the Wakefield, Baseline and Badgett attendance zones. These zones are assigned to Dunbar in the proposed plan. The purpose of the meeting was to consider enhancement programs that could be added to Dunbar. The District proposed the use of a seven-period day which will allow additional electives. The following electives were listed as possibilities: (1) Foreign Languages (higher levels) (2) Strings Program (3) Physical Education (4) Journalism (yearbook or newspaper) (5) Creative Writing (6) Computer Exploration (word processing, graphics, tlonal applications as computerized drafting/ accounting, etc.) such voca- (7) Enriched Reading (8) Drama (9) Dance Studio 9Some of the parents attending the meeting have agreed to serve on a committee to decide on an enhancement program for Dunbar. This committee will begin immediately to formulate the details for the program. The use of a seven-period day will greatly enhance the educational program at Dunbar. At present, seventh graders at Dunbar only have one elective. A seventh grader in the Program for Accelerated Learning cannot take an elective course. A sevenperiod day will allow seventh graders to take two elective courses . Seventh graders in the PAL program will have one elective course. Projected Junior High Enrollment Capacity Cloverdale Dunbar Forest Heights Henderson Mabelvale Pulaski Heights Southwest 757 718 744 840 670 699 751 750 1000 780 960 600 700 754 TOTAL 5179 5544 93% of capacity SCENARIO ONE: 4-9 Magnet (intradistrict) Gibbs 351 Projected Jxmior High Enrollment Capacity Cloverdale Dunbar Forest Heights Henderson Mabelvale Pulaski Heights Southwest 757 649** 909*** 670 699 751 750 649* 744 960 600 700 754 780 TOTAL 5179 5193 99% of capacity _ - 10 Total capacity of Dunbar (1000) minus capacity of Gibbs (351) is 649.   Assumes that junior high program will have all seats filled. Use of Dunbar as a magnet would displace 69 students - these students were added to completing this exercise. Henderson for the purpose of SCENARIO TWO: 7-12 Magnet (intradistrict) 7-9 10-12 500 500 7-9 10-12 725 275 Projected Junior High Enrollment Capacity Projected Junior High Enrollment Capacity Cloverdale Dunbar Forest Heights Henderson Mabelvale Pulaski Heights Southwest 757 500** 730*** 960*** 670 700*** 754*** 750 500* 780 960 600 700 754 757 718 744 840 670 699 751 750 725 780 960 600 700 754 TOTAL 5121 53**** 5179 102.6% of 5179 5269 5044 capacity 98% of capacity  Capacity of 7-9 magnet program Assumes that junior high program will have all seats filled Enrollment adjusted to absorb students displaced by magnet program Unassigned students SCENARIO THREE: 7-12 Magnet (Interdlstrlct - LRSD seats only) 7-9 10-12 725 275 (349 LRSD seats) Projected Junior High Enrollment Capacity Cloverdale Dunbar Forest Heights 757 349** 780*** 750 349* 780 _ _ 11Henderson Mabelvale Pulaski Heights Southwest 960*** 670 700*** 754*** 960 600 700 754 TOTAL 4970 - _ TIMELINE DESEG PLAN 89-90 Nov. 11 Contact Donna Creer/request submission for FOCUS Nov. 15 Jan. 26 Review computer program needs with Data Processing Dec. 5 Dec. 22 Develop LRSD magnet application to be used for rising students Jan. 3 Jan. 10 Plan strategies for contacting prospective K/New students Jan. 17 Order window envelopes Jan. 23 Feb. 22 Prepare FOCUS (Cominunications) Jan. 30 Mar. 1 Write Computer Programs Feb. 1 Request mailing labels for mailing FOCUS Feb. 1 Feb. 15 Coordinate publicity for magnet Open Houses through MRC and other districts Feb. 6 Mar. 20 Kindergarten/New Student Registration Feb. 17 Mail letter to PTA Presidents w/info about Open Houses \u0026amp; suggested recruiting techniques Feb. 20 Order PiF's\norder selection forms through DP Feb. 20 Mar. 3 Coordinate Open House publicity with Communications Mar. 1 COURT APPROVAL Mar. 1 Mail letter to school secretaries RE: details of K/New Student registration Mar. 1 Mar. 6 Run program simulations Mar. 6 Mar. 10 Make adjustments to computer programs/ train SAO Mar. 6 Mar. 23 Coordinate preparation of zone maps for each school Mar. 8 Deliver FOCUS to printer _ - 13Mar. 15 FOCUS to mailing service Mar. 17 Mail FOCUS Mar. 20 Deadline for returning K/New Student PIF's to SAO Mar. 21 Mar. 31 Enter K/New Student PIF's Apr. 3 - Apr. 7 Print selection forms and prepare for mailing (/ Apr. 4 Elementary Open Houses 7:00 - 8:00 p.m. Apr. 5 Junior High Open Houses 7:00 - 8:00 p.m. Apr. 6 Senior High Open Houses 7:00 - 8:00 p.m. Apr. 9 Magnet Open Houses 2:00 - 5:00 p.m. Apr. 11 Mail selection forms to all students V Apr. 24 Deadline for returning selection forms Apr. 24 Final pick-up of selection forms Apr. 25 - Apr. 28 Prepare and scan selection forms Apr. 25 - May 1 Run assignment simulations Apr. 25 - May 8 Process forms\nprepare waiting lists\nmake mandatory assignments May 1 - May 12 Send final assignment list to Transportation for route adjustments May 13 - May 17 Print assignment letters and prepare for mailing May 17 Mail final assignment letters ___14STUDENT ASSIGNMENT HANDBOOK SECTION ONE ASSIGNMENTS A. Overview (1) Each non-magnet school has an attendance zone. In some (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (8) (9) (10) (11) cases, satellite zones are used in order to meet the desegregation requirements. Students have the option of remaining in their current school (grandfathering) or they may select their attendance zone school, an incentive school, or a magnet school. Students living in the attendance zone of an incentive school have the option of attending a racially balanced school, (elementary academy) Students living in the attendance zone of an elementary academy have the option of selecting an incentive school. Rising (or matriculating) students, grades 6th and 9th, will be assigned to their attendance zone schools. Rising students will have the option to apply for magnet school. SCVvOol a \\ll Vc -Vo .4-*\u0026gt; lei olffort wl^^Cig-made^*!.^ Svary-egfort wtt-tiu iiiaJe to install portable buileHngs. toordertoaccommodateoverflowsituationoatapee- If a portable building cannot be installed, the student will be reassigned to the nearest school that has a seat available in his/her feeder zone. tiulgcada_Lfijtei. Kindergarten and new students must complete a Pupil Information Form (pre-register) in order for the Student Assignment Office to begin the assignment process. Self-contained students will be assigned by the Special Education Department. Any student may apply for a magnet school by completing a magnet application. Sibling preference to a non-attendance zone (non-magnet) school will only apply to students entering the Little Rock School District before the 1991-92 school year. Each student will receive a final through the mail. assignment letter 15 T ?n, \u0026lt;=1STUDENT ASSIGNMENT HANDBOOK PAGE 2 (12) Each school will be responsible for making attendance zone assignments after May 17. B. C. D. (13) The Student Assignment Office will be responsible for all reassignments magnetassignments, maj orityfee. mlnogifey LrailUfers and desegregation transfers. re a s s ignments magnot Grandfathering (1) (2) (3) All students may remain at their present school assignments . The Special Edition FOCUS will explain the student assignment process. The FOCUS will be sent through the mail to parents of all students in the Little Rock School District. Reassignment Process Every effort will be made to install portable buildings in order to accommodate overflow situations at a particular grade level. If a portable building cannot be installed, the student will be reassigned to the nearest school that has seat available in the student's feeder zone. a If the student cannot be assigned to any of the schools in the student's feeder zone, the student will be reassigned to a school in a contiguous feeder zone. The Student Assignment Office will be responsible for all reassignments. Reassigned students will be placed on the waiting list for the appropriate attendance zone school. The minimum black percentage for each elementary academy is 40% black. J------------\" .... - . _ __ _ Any assignment that causes a school to fall below the minimum black percentage will not be granted. cases, the student will be reassigned to the nearest school that meets the minimum black percentage requirement and has a seat available. If the student cannot be assigned to any of the schools in the student's feeder zone, the student will be In such reassigned to a school in a contiguous feeder zone. (I-- \"Desegregation Transfer\" for desegregation requirement for secondary schools.) See Transfers (1) Students may request a transfer to the attendance school, an incentive school, or a magnet school. zone 16STUDENT ASSIGNMENT HANDBOOK PAGE 3 (2) The Special Edition FOCUS will explain the assignment process for transfer requests. (3) (4) (5) Selection forms will be mailed to parents by April 11. Selection forms must be returned to schools by April 24. Principals are expected to deliver selection forms to the Student Assignment Office immediately. All selection forms will be considered at the same time. (6) High school kindergarten students and kindergarten students at King School will be given preference for first grade seats in academies and incentive schools. (7) Final assignment letters will be mailed to parents by May 17. SEE PROCEDURES  Return of Forms (School Selection Forms)  Completing Selection Forms E. Required Assignments F. (1) (2) (3) An assignment is required when: (a) a student is rising from 6th or 9th grade. students have the option of selecting a magnet school by completing a magnet application. Rising Parents of 6th and 9th grade students will also receive the Special Edition FOCUS. Final assignment letters will be mailed to parents by May 17. SEE PROCEDURES -- Distribution of Forms Kindergarten and New Students (1) Parents of kindergarten and new students must complete Information Form in order for the Student Pupil (2) Assignment Office to begin the assignment process. A Pupil Information Form can be obtained from any school and returned to any school. a (3) Obtaining a PIF from a particular school or returning a PIF to a particular school does not guarantee assignment to that school. 17STUDENT ASSIGNMENT HANDBOOK PAGE 4 (4) Open Houses will be scheduled in all schools April 4 - April 9. G. H. (5) (6) Kindergarten/New Student PIF's must be returned by March 20 in order to receive a school selection form by April 11. Selection forms can be returned to any school in the Little Rock School District. returned by April 24. Selection forms must be SEE PROCEDURES  Kindergarten/New Student Pre-registration  Return of Forms (School Selection Forms)  Completing Selection Forms Self-Contained Students The location of self-contained classes will remain the for the 1989-90 school year. same The major factor regarding the site for the implementation of these student's Individual Education Plans will be the decisions made by the lEP team, which includes the parents, at the annual review conferences. Every effort will be made to minimize changes in school The lEP's of some secondary students indicate that they attend three or more special classes. dents rotate to special education teachers, therefore their needs can be met in any secondary school. assignments. These stu- ONLY STUDENTS WHO SPEND MOST OR ALL OF THEIR INSTRUCTIONAL DAY WITH A SPECIAL EDUCATION TEACHER WILL BE ASSIGNED TO A SCHOOL BY THE SPECIAL EDUCATION OFFICE. Sibling Preference (1) (2) Sibling preference does NOT apply to magnet schools. Students entering the Little Rock School District after the 1991-92 school year will not be allowed a sibling preference transfer to a non-attendance school. (3) (4) Any student who makes a sibling preference transfer before the 1991-92 school year may remain at the school to which the student transferred until graduation. A sibling preference transfer will be granted if a seat is available and the transfer will allow both the sending and receiving schools desegregation requirements. to comply with the 18STUDENT ASSIGNMENT HANDBOOK PAGE 5 I. Magnet Assignments (1) All assignments to magnet schools will be made by the Student Assignment Office. J. (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) The Student Assignment Office will be responsible for maintaining all magnet school waiting lists. All students on the 1988-89 waiting lists as of January 27, 1989, will receive preference for 1989-90 magnet vacancies. A computerized random selection process will be used to consider all magnet options listed on the selection forms. All magnet assignments will be subject to desegregation requirements and capacity. A request for an assignment to a magnet school cannot be granted if it adversely affects the desegregation requirement for either the sending or receiving school. Sibling preference DOES NOT apply to magnet schools. Sixth and ninth grade magnet students will NOT be given preference for assignments to magnet schools at the next organizational level. Students who are denied an assignment to a magnet school will be placed on a waiting list for that school. A student's rank on a magnet waiting list will be determined by a random selection process. However, first choice magnet options will be ranked above second choice magnet options, etc. Majority-to-Minority Transfers (1) All M-M Assignment Office. assignments will be made by the Student (2) An M-M transfer allows a student in the majority in PCSSD or NLRSD to transfer to a LRSD school where he/she is in the minority. Likewise, a student in the majority in LRSD can transfer to a school in NLRSD or PCSSD where he/she is in the minority. . The home district must provide transportation for M-M transfers. 19STUDENT ASSIGNMENT HANDBOOK PAGE 6 K. Desegregation Transfers (1) A secondary student may transfer to another school as long as the reassignment allows both the sending and receiving school to comply with the desegregation requirement and a seat is available. (2) Elementary students may transfer to an incentive school if such a transfer enhances desegregation at the incentive school. (3) A student may not make more than two (2) desegregation transfers during his/her school career. (4) Desegregation transfers will be granted during a limited period once each year. (5) LRSD will provide transportation for desegregation transfer students where it is cost effective to do SO. (NOTE: The desegregation requirement in secondary schools is that all schools will remain within a range of 12-1/2% above to 25% below the districtwide percentage of black students at each organizational level - i.e. high school and junior high school. This range also applies to the reassignment process for the secondary level.) t 20STUDENT ASSIGNMENT HANDBOOK PAGE 7 PROCEDURES I. Distribution of Forms (School Selection Forms) Parents of students requesting transfers and students new to the Little Rock School District will have the opportunity to select a school by returning the School Selection Form. For parents of students currently enrolled in LRSD schools: 1. Parents of students currently enrolled in LRSD will receive a School Selection Form through the mail. A. Parents should complete the form with their school selections. B. Forms should be returned to the child's current LRSD school no later than April 24. For parents of students new to the LRSD: 1. Parents of students new to the LRSD may also receive a School Selection Form by completing a PIF. A. New students may pick-up a PIF at any LRSD school or from the Student Assignment Office. 2. 3. B. New students may return the PIF at any LRSD school by April 24. New students' School Selection Forms may be returned to any LRSD school or the Student Assignment Office. Every effort will be made to grant the parent's selection, however, all assignments are subject to capacity limitations. II. Return of Selection Forms Parents will be mailed their school selection forms April 11. on Students attending the LRSD for the 1988-89 school year should return the forms to their current school by April 24. Students who did not attend the Little Rock School District during the 1988-89 school year should return the School Selection Form to any LRSD school by April 24. Schools should use the following procedures in handling School Selection Forms: _ _ 21STUDENT ASSIGNMENT HANDBOOK PAGE 8 1. As the selection forms are returned, separate them into three categories: A. Students requesting to grandfather at their present school LRSD). assignment (students currently attending 2. B. C. As Transfer requests LRSD). (students currently attending Kindergarten/New Students to the LRSD. forms are received, remove them from the envelopes. Use paperclips only to attach any notes or letters to the forms. Do NOT tape or staple damaged forms\nthe Student Assignment Office will replace damaged forms as needed. Check the form to be sure it has been completed correctly and signed by the parent or guardian, form is correct. Skip to step 4. If the 3. Return incorrect or unsigned forms to the parent with an explanation. Schools are urged to contact the parent by phone if possible to resolve the problem. Note when the form was received and when it was returned for corrections, along with a brief description of the problem, the Selection Form List. on 4 . Place the forms (in alphabetical order) in a designated area of the office. Keep a list (Selection Form List) of the forms that are returned to your school. Once each week (and the day following the deadline) do the following\na. with a number 2 pencil ONLY, go over any bubbles that were lightly marked by the parent or that were marked in Also go over the bubbles pre-marked by the computer in the Office Use Only section, done at any time after the forms ink. (This step can be checked.) are received and b. Place the forms (in alphabetical order) in an envelope labelled STUDENT ASSIGNMENT OFFIC:i: SCHOOL SELECTION FORMS _ 22STUDENT ASSIGNMENT HANDBOOK PAGE 9 c. d. On the day following the deadline, include one copy of the Selection Form List in the envelope to the Student Assignment Office. Send the envelope to the Student Assignment Office immediately. III. Kindergarten/New Student Pre-Registration Children who will be 5 years old by October 1 are eligible to attend kindergarten in the LRSD. In order for parents to make school selections and receive assignments for their children, they must pre-register. A. Distribution of Forms 1. You will receive flyers to be sent home to parents notifying them of kindergarten pre-registration and the deadline. These flyers should be sent home as soon as possible after they are received. 2. Parents pre-register their children by completing a Pupil Information Form\nthey may pick-up a form from any LRSD school. Make CERTAIN that the Pupil Information Form is marked KINDERGARTEN PRE-REGISTRATION or NEW STUDENT PRE-REGISTRATION at the top of the form. 3. After the deadline, Information Forms. DO NOT hand out ANY Pupil (f\\CA Instead, instruct parents to go to the Student Assignment Office to pre-register their children. After the assignment process has been completed (May 17), each responsible for registering and dergarten and new students. school will be assigning kin- B. Return of Forms 1. Parents may their completed Pupil Information Forms to any school in the LRSD until return the deadline. \u0026lt;/  I z'' - 2. For each form received, write \"RECD\" and the date in the box labelled OTHER INFORMATION PARENT WANTS SCHOOL TO KNOW on the right side of the form.  _ 23STUDENT ASSIGNMENT HANDBOOK PAGE 10 3. The following information MUST be supplied on the form\nFirst and Last Name Race Sex Address Date of Birth If any of this information is missing, the form cannot be processed. 4. Check the birthdate on the form and the child's birth certificate. Check off either the birth certificate box or passport/visa and initial in the area at the bottom of the PIF \"Verification of legal name and birthdate by\". labelled If the child will NOT be 5 years old by October 1, advise the parent that the child will be too young to attend kindergarten next year. DO NOT SEND THE PUPIL INFORMATION FORM TO THE STUDENT ASSIGNMENT OFFICE UNTIL THE BIRTHDATE HAS BEEN VERIFIED. Check the address on the form. The parent must supply their permanent residence address\npost office boxes CANNOT be used. Require proof of address rent receipt, contract or Personal Property Tax Bill). Complete the Address verification Form and attach a copy to (lease agreement, sales , LUc Aaai ' / the PIF. When the PIF has been completed correctly, write K (or appropriate grade for 1989-90 school year) in the GRADE box and code the student' s race in the ETHNIC box. THE SCHOOL BOX). SUBMITTED BY box. (DO NOT WRITE YOUR SCHOOL NUMBER IN Initial and date the form in the 5. Place the Pupil Information Form(s) in an envelope labelled: STUDENT ASSIGNMENT OFFICE KINDERGARTEN/NEW STUDENT PRE-REGISTRATION SEND THE ENVELOPE EVERYDAY IN THE SCHOOL MAIL 24LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT SCHOOL SELECTION FORM (NAME) (ADDRESS) (I.O./RACE/ZB) Next Year's Grade Dear Parent, This is your school selection form for the the OFFICE USE ONLY  *0000000000* *0000000000* *0000000000* *0000000000* *0000000000* *0000000000* *0000000000* *0000000000* *0000000000* *0000000000*  school year. issue of the FOCUS before completing this form. Please review IT IS VERY IMPORTANT THAT YOU RETURN THIS FORM TO YOUR CHILD'S PRESENT SCHOOL ASSIGNMENT BY INSTRUCTIONS: 0 0 0 ONLY MARK ONE of the following boxes, sign this form, and return it to your child's present school assignment. USE //2 PENCIL ONLY. Please allow my child to remain at school year. school for the 1989-90 Please assign my child to his/her attendance zone school, I understand that my child will remain at his/her present assignment if a seat is not available at school. Please assign my child to , I understand that my child will remain at his/her present assignment if a seat is not available at INCENTIVE SCHOOLS  ONLY CHECK ONE 0 000 0 0 00 Frankli n Gari and Ish Mitchell Rightsell Rockefeller Stephens Washington If you wish to request sibling preference, please indicate below and complete the information on the back of this form. SIBLING PREFERENCE DOES NOT APPLY TO MAGNET SCHOOLS. I request sibling preference. PARENT'S SIGNATURE DATE PLEASE LIST THE NAMES OF ALL SCHOOL AGE CHILDREN BELOW, PLEASE PRINT. NAME DATE OF BIRTH PRESENT SCHOOL ASSIGNMENT GRADE SIBLING PREFERENCE OPTIONS: (Please mark ONLY one option) 0 Two or more siblings requesting to transfer together. 0 Student new to the District requesting assignment to a non-attendance zone school with a sibling who is currently assigned to the non-attendance zone school. 0 Assign siblings who presently attend different non-magnet schools to the same non-magnet school. (NOTE: Definition of siblings: Siblings are brothers/sisters, or half-brothers/sisters, residing at the _same home address with brothers/sisters, or half-brothers/sisters, who are enrolled in the Little Rock School District.)FACILITIES LRSD will have thirty-one non-magnet elementary schools. The magnet schools will continue to operate under present court orders. Elementary Academies There will be twenty-three Elementary Academies. The name reflects LRSD's commitment to provide an excellent desegregated education program in each of these schools. The Elementary Academies with the capacity and projected racial composition of each, are listed below: School Capacity Black Non-Black Total % Black Badgett 275 82 73 155 53* Bale 394 188 124 312 60* / / Baseline 417 206 125 331 62* '/\"i Brady 420 190 172 362 52* Chicot 563 255 231 486 52* Cloverdale 420 213 141 354 60* Dodd 424 198 164 362 55*  Fair Park 351 154 130 284 54* Forest Park 461 203 180 383 53* Fulbright 607 267 236 503 53* Geyer Springs 235 120 98 218 55* Jefferson 490 226 205 431 52* Mabelvale 541 261 231 492 5 3* I McDermott 531 260 216 476 55* Meadowcliff 465 237 208 445 53* 25School Capacity Black Non-Black Total % Black c Otter Creek 383 183 162 345 53% 70 Pulaski Heights 328 159 119 278 57% Romine 490 403 50 453 89% Terry 537 260 224 484 54% 0 Wakefield 472 215 184 399 54% Watson 472 227 157 384 59% Western Hills 328 165 140 305 54% Wilson 409 228 170 398 57% Totals 10,016 Incentive Schools There will be eight Incentive Schools which are listed below with the number of classrooms in each as well as the capacity of each at twenty-five students per classroom: School Classes Capacity at 25 Franklin 28 700 Garland 16 400 Ish 11 275 Mitchell 14 350 Rightsell 12 300 Rockefeller 16 400 Stephens 13 325 Washington 42 1050 Totals 136 3400 710 '7,^0 ^bO 3040 Interdlstrlct Schools LRSD and PCSSD are considering a plan to establish 26 Rockefeller as an Interdistrict School for the 1989-90 school year . Rockefeller School has a capacity of 400 students in six- teen classrooms. Half of the Rockefeller seats would be allocated to PCSSD and half of the seats would be allocated to LRSD. Whether it becomes an Incentive School or an Interdistrict School, Rockefeller will provide the Incentive School program. The use of Rockefeller for 1989-90 depends upon which use will be consistent with PCSSD's plan to desegregate its southeast sector. A decision will be made prior to the submission of the PCSSD plan. LRSD is committed to work with PCSSD and the other parties to this case to establish for the 1989-90 school year a second Interdistrict School at the Home-Mart site with 600 seats. LRSD will recruit black students to fill half of the Home-Mart seats, with the other half to be filled by white students from PCSSD. Capacity The nonmagnet elementary enrollment for the 1988-89 school year is 8,327 black students and 3,835 non-black students for a total of 12,162 students. Without the enrollment in LRSD of a significant number of students who are presently enrolled in private schools, LRSD would expect about two percent growth in the number of black students and very little growth in the number of non-black students. The projected enrollment would be 8,500 black students and 3,850 non-black students for a total of 12,350.The capacities of the Elementary Academies are determined in accordance with Arkansas accreditation standards which have the following limits: Grade Maximum Number of Students Per Class (Average) Maximum Number of Students in Any Class Kindergarten 20 20 First-Third 23 25 Fourth-Sixth 25 28 The total capacity of the twenty-three Elementary Academies is 10,016. The Incentive Schools will have a maximum pupil/teacher ratio of 20 to 1. There may be more than 20 students per classroom, however. there will be a certified aide in each class and possibly a second teacher in those classes. The capacity of the Incentive Schools is 3,800 at 25 students per class. The total nonmagnet elementary capacity of LRSD (13,616) exceeds the projected enrollment (12,350) by 1,266 seats. The overall racial composition of the Elementary Academies and the space available for recruitment at those schools depend upon the number of students who enroll in Incentive and Interdistrict Schools. The initial racial composition of the Incentive Schools is expected to be predominantly black, at least 200 black LRSD students will attend Interdistrict Schools. The chart below shows the impact of black Incentive and Interdistrict School enrollment upon the Elementary Academies: 28Black Enrollment in Incentive and Inter- dlstrict Schools Total Enrollment in Ele. Aca. Racial Composition of Ele. Aca. Recruitment Capacity for Ele. Aca. 2,000 10,350 62.8% \u0026lt;89\u0026gt; 2,500 9,850 60.9% 411 3,000 9,350. 58.8% 911 3,500 8,850 56.5% 1,411 3,600 8,650 56% 1,511 Construction 1988-89 Washington School is closed for the 1988-89 school year. A new Washington School is being built at the same site with a projected capacity of 1,050 students. The students who were originally assigned to Washington for the 1988-89 school year have been reassigned to Ish, Mitchell, Rockefeller and Rightsell. These students (166) will have a preference to return to the new Washington in the 1989-90 school year. 1989-90 A new wing is being added to Franklin School and will be completed prior to the start of the 1989-90 school year. Franklin's new capacity will be 560. Woodruff has a capacity of 245 students and is situated in a neighborhood that has no real potential for white growth. Woodruff is presently 75% black. Probably the best use of this facility is to use it as the Instructional Resource Center (IRC) or as an alternative school. Woodruff will be closed as an elementary school at the end of the 1988-89 school year. 291990-1991 It is proposed that the District relocate Stephens Elementary near the 1-630 corridor between 1-630 and University Avenue. The new Stephens will house pre-kindergarten through sixth grades and will have a capacity of 600 students. It serves as an interdistrict school. The new Stephens will be easily accessible to downtown office workers, state department employees and University Medical Center personnel. The Little Rock School District also proposes to build a new King Elementary School in downtown Little Rock. The facility would be located in the general area along 1-630 between 1-30 and University Avenue. In addition to being an Interdistrict school. an attraction for this school will be its early childhood program and childcare facilities. This location is expected to serve as a natural magnet for Individuals who work within governmental and business centers of Little Rock. The parties have had discussions with realtors regarding specific school construction sites and existing buildings. The Master will be provided a separate progress report concerning negotiations for school sites. 30INCENTIVE SCHOOL PROGRAM INTRODUCTION Beginning in the 1989-90 school year, the Little Rock School District will have eight (8) schools providing the incentive school program. Rockefeller may become an interdistrict school, but would continue to provide the incentive school program. The purpose of the incentive school program is to promote and ensure academic excellence in schools that have been difficult to desegregate. It is believed that the incentive school program will not only compensate the victims of segregation, but the program will also serve as a tool for promoting meaningful and long-lasting desegregation in these schools and in the entire school district. The following schools will provide the incentive school program: -Franklin -Garland -ish -Mitchell -Rightsell -Rockefeller -Stephens -Washington In order to be successful, the incentive program must address the academic, social and emotional needs of all student participants. The incentive program must also serve as a recruit- 31 J Iment tool for meeting the desegregation requirements in these schools. With the proper resources and expectations, the incentive school program will serve as a model of excellence for the county, state and nation. The success of the incentive school program is directly related to the success of the long-term desegregation plan in the Little Rock School District. In addition to the ongoing comprehensive programs in the incentive schools, the incentive school program committee will explore the possible use of trust fund to provide future a college scholarship incentives. By the end of October, 1989, the committee will determine the costs of implementing a scholarship program for the students who attend Incentive schools and will determine the feasibility of using tzrust funds to provide such an incentive. If feasible, the committee will have the responsibility for establishing the guidelines and criteria to be used in allocating any resources to the students. The trust fund would be used to provide an academic achievement incentive to students and would also assist parents and students in setting realistic goals for attending college. 3Incentive School Program INCENTIVE SCHOOL PROGRAM COMMITTEE Lives and parents. The blueprint for the incentive school program was developed by a committee of administrators, teachers, community representa- . The bl uepri nt wi 11 be used as the framework for specific activities that are expected to occur after court approval of the incentive school program. The following areas were considered in the development of the incentive school program: A. B. C. D. E. F. G. H. I. 3. K. L. Staffing Parent Involvement Staff Development Academic Programs and Curriculum Development Social Skills Support Programs Monitoring and Evaluation Special Student Activities Parent Recruitment School Administration School Policy and Procedures Counseling/Social Work The Incentive School Program Committee divided into five (5) subcommittees to address the above areas: -Subcommittee 1 - Academic Programs - Special Student Activities - Social Skills -Subcommittee 2 - Support Programs - School Administration - Counseling/Social Work - Monitoring and Evaluation - School Policy and Procedures -Subcommittee 3 - Staffing - Staff Development -Subcommittee 4 - Parent Involvement -Subcommittee 5 - Parent Recruitment _ _ 33Incentive School Program BLUEPRINT FOR EXCELLENCE The purpose of this document is to clearly define the mission and expectations for the incentive schools. The Incentive School Program Committee did not, however, attempt to specifically define every detail for the incentive school program. This document merely fur- nishes the community with the parameters for excellence in education. The specific details and concerns for each individual incentive school must be developed by the local practitioners. The local practitioners are the principals, teachers, parents and community representatives in each incentive school area. The District firmly believes that the success of any program depends on the opportunity for the practitioners to make certain decisions at the local level. This document is hereby submitted to the federal court and the community with the understanding that further details will be developed. The Incentive School Program Committee will continue to function until August 1, 1989. The committee will be expanded to include at least one parent from each incentive school attendance zone. On August 1, the committee will be restructured to function as a district-wide council of incentive school parents. sentatives from each incentive school. The council will have two parent reprewill be appointed by the Joshua Intervenors. Also, four members at-large The Incentive School Program Parent Council will be responsible for monitoring all activities related to the incentive school program. The Parent Council will report to the Little Rock School District Board of Directors and Joshua Intervenors on a quarterly basis. Academic achievement is the result of commitment, high expectations, a strong belief that all children can learn, and broad-based community support. When these ideals are coupled with the availability of financial resources, educational excellence prevails. It is certainly the belief of the District that all of these ideals will be evident in each incentive school. 34SECTION ONE ACADEMIC PROGRAMS AND CURRICULUM DEVELOPMENT 35 INCENTIVE SCHOOLS ACADEMIC PROGRAMS AND CURRICULUM DEVELOPMENT Schools have the responsibility for expanding the scope of knowledge and for developing the rational, reflective, and critical capacities of all children. \"The content of the education must be true, appropriate, and relevant. The processes of education are expected to be democratic and humane. The aim of education is to be the complete development of the person. In addition, excellence in education must prepare a student for self-knowledge and to become a contributing problem-solving member of his or her own community and the global society as well.\" (Saving the African-American Child, 1984) The goals, the content of the academic programs, the instructional methodologies, and the use of instructional technology in the Incentive Schools will be reflective of the intent to have excellence in education. Augmenting the academic program will be special student activities and social skills building programs implemented to meet the cognitive, social. emotional, and interest needs of the students. However, the primary goals of education shall be attained through the mastery of a core curriculum of worthwhile knowledge, important skills, and sound ideals. ACADEMIC PROGRAMS General Areas for-Implementation 1. Four-Year Old Program (Early Childhood Education) - The Little Rock School District's Four-Year Old Program will be operative in each Incentive School . The High/Scope Curriculum will be the content model, and a man- datory District-developed parent component model will be incorporated into the program model. 2. Writing to Read, an instructional technology program, will be implemented at each Incentive School for K-2 students. 3. Kindergarten - The Little Rock School District Early Prevention of School Failure model will be operative in each Incentive School. Release time and flexible scheduling will be utilized to conduct regularly scheduled mandatory parent-teacher conferences. 3G2 4. Reading Across the Curriculum will be a major emphasis for developing reading proficiency and critical reading skills. Each subject area will also utilize strategies to increase students' pleasure of and appreciation for reading (Pre-kindergarten-6). 5. Oral Expression Across the Curriculum will offer instructional objectives and strategies in each subject area designed to increase the oral communications and American English skills of the students (Pre-kindergarten-6). 6. Learning Styles Inventories will be used in each Incentive School to assist teachers in diversifying their teaching styles to match the learning styles of the students. 7. School Themes will be developed at the local school level by parents and staff and are recommended to be integrated into the total curriculum. 8. Semi-departmental 1zation will be the recommended organizational structure for grades 3-6. This organization will facilitate the development of specialized skills for \"subject area\" teachers for the respective grade levels. 9. Instructional Technology will be available in specialized laboratories ^d in individual classrooms. 10. Science Laboratories equipped with adequate equipment and materials/supplies will be available for students in grades 3-6. 11. Computer Laboratories for remediation and enrichment will be expanded for a minimum of 24 stations in each classroom. 12. Foreign Language Laboratories with appropriate equipment and materials will be operative in each school. 13. Study and Test-taking Skills will be taught in an integral component of the curriculum at each grade level. 14. Computer Loan Program - portable computers will be available for loan to students (grades 4-6) for use at home. Remediation and enrichment softstudents ware will be available for home-based learning experiences. 15. Parent Home Study Guides will be developed in each core subject area for each grade (1-6). 16. Computer-Managed Instructional Technology will be used for continuous tracking of student progress. 17. Individualized Education Plans will be developed, implemented, and monitored for each student. 18. Specialized Programs - Federally or state mandated programs (remedial, special education, gifted and talented) will be available during the core instructional day, with reinforcement activities available through the extended day, week, or year programs.*(See page 7) 373 19. Incentive Programs - each school will establish an incentive program for recognizing academic excellence and academic improvement. 20. Homework - homework is required according to Little Rock School District policy and regulations. 21. Criterion-Referenced Testing - formative criterion-referenced test will be computer generated for the ongoing assessment of students. 22. 23. Hetereogeneous grouping will be utilized at each grade level in each subject, and instructors will utilize whole group, small group, and individualized approaches to teaching. Effective Schools model will be operative in each incentive school, with appropriate training provided for implementation SPECIFIC SUBJECT AREA EMPHASIS The core curriculum for pre-kindergarten through grade 6 will be the Little Rock School District model. Areas for emphasis/expansion have been identified for each of the content areas. READING -Learning to Read Through Literature, with an emphasis on multiethnic classes in each genre,will be the primary reading program {K-6) -Basal testbooks will be used to augment the classics reading program (K-6) -Strong emphasis on critical reading skills (grades 4-6) -Increased motivation and learning with oral expression through reading\ni.e., choral reading, student storytelling, debate, drama, etc.) (K-6) ENGLISH/LANGUAGE ARTS -Uniting to Read as an instructional component for K-2 -Writing Across the Curriculum will be used to enhance the writing skills of students (K-6) -Latin Program will be used to increase the vocabulary and word attack skills of students (5-6) -Oral Language Expression will be a major emphasis in the reading ano English/language arts areas (k-6) -Penmanship will be emphasized at each level, with appropriate recognition of the developmental level of the individual student (K-6) -Language Modeling will be expected in the oral expression, vocabulary, and usage skills of the teachers (K-6) SOCIAL STUDIES -Emphasis on the study of history from a subject area context-- 'Jorld History, American History, and Arkansas History (4-6) 3S4 -Emphasis on introductory concepts in history, geography, and civics (K-3) -Geography will be taught through active learning strategies -Each subject and grade level in social studies will include a multi-ethnic curriculum (K-6) -Learning strategies and activities will promote \"living social studies\" (K-6) -Emphasis on American and Arkansas History (4-5) -Emphasis on World History (6) -Celebrations/ceremonies will be integrated into the curriculum MATHEMATICS -Emphasis on use of word or story problems (2-6) -Introduction to basic concepts in geometry and algebra (2-6) -Extensive use of manipulation (Pre-k-3) -Use of computers for organizing and utilizing mathematical data (5-6) -Emphasis on critical thinking in addition to methodology and results (K-6) SCIENCE -Instruction will utilize a hands-on discovery and exploration approach to the learning of scientific concepts (K-3) -Classroom and textbook work will be supplemented with practical demonstrations and experiments that reinforce the principles of scientific method and suggest the applications and possibilities of science -Emphasis in the upper grades will be on the life sciences and physical sciences (4-6) -Mastery of concepts should culminate with an annual project\ni.e., Invention Convention, Science Fair, etc. -Homework assignments will include prepared information packets describing experiments parents and students can do together to reinforce what has been taught in the classroom FINE ARTS -Content will include an introduction to basic concepts in music and art -Art and music instruction will be sequential and cumulative in the content, knowledge, and skills -Emphasis in the earlier grades will be on the enjoyment and creation of music, painting, and crafts (Pre-k-3) -Emphasis at the intermediate level will expand creative expression and understanding to cultural and historical differences and developments (4-6) -In-school performances and/or exhibits and field trips will be used to reinforce the learning of concepts 395 FOREIGN LANGUAGE -Each school will select at least one foreign language for study, with Spanish and a choice of an Asian language as strong recommendations -The instructional methodology for each language will be a \"total physical response\" approach -Emphasis will be on basic vocabulary, conversational, and cultural materials for K-3 -A foreign language laboratory will be used for instruction, including computers where appropriate -Emphasis will be on transcribing and translating foreign language age-appropriate material (4-6) -Provision of practical experiences and interactions with a native language user -Emphasis wi11 be on vocabulary, grammar, reading, writing, and cultural materials (4-6) PHYSICAL EDUCATION/HEALTH -Family Life Education will be included in the total elementary curriculum (1-6) -Nifty Nutrition available for all grades (1-6) -Emphasis on \"wellness\" for the young (K-6) -Emphasis on the development of an understanding of and respect for the handicapped\ni.e., disabilities simulations (5-6) -Emphasis on team sports and lifelong leisure skills (K-6) SOCIAL SKILLS Social skills will be taught, where appropriate, through the core instructional program. The total staff at each school will be expected to model exemplary behaviors toward each other, the students, and the total community. Specialized activities will be used to emphasize the development of appropriate social skills: Family Folklore - Students will learn the values and mores of their ancestors and family as a way to focus on personal positive behaviors. Positive Imaging - Structured lessons in self-esteem building will be taught in small group sessions. Interpersonal Skills - Structured group sessions will focus on problem-solving, decision-making, peer pressure, etc. 406 White Gloves Program - Special sessions will focus on training in the area of social etiquette for females. Rites of Passage - A structured program will be initiated to 7 respond to the emotional, physical, and social developmental changes in the young male. A special ceremony (for boys only) will become a traditional rite for 6th grade boys who complete the program during their Sth and 6th grade years. Role Models Programs - Individuals (international, national, state, local, and community) will be used for presentations at the school in every area of the program to provide role models for the students. American role models for males. Special emphasis will be placed on African- Mentoring Program - Utilizing local resources in the community and the Partner's Program, a mentoring program will be established for intermediate-age students (4-6) Additional or other social skills activities may be developed at the local school level. However, all academic programs, social skills programs/ activities and special activities must be clearly and broadly articulated to the school community. SPECIAL ACTIVITIES Special activities may be focused on academic reinforcement, special interest clubs, and/or units of national or state organizations. Academic Reinforcement Activities may include (but not limited to) the following: Peer-Tutoring Program - Peer tutors will be assistants to teachers in the Homework Program or during the regular school day. Students will be compensated for after-school peer tutoring (see Support Programs). Academic Reinforcement Clubs - Chess Club, Computer Program- ming Club, Debate Club, Thesbian (Drama) Club, Math Club (Math Olympiads), Odyssey of the Mind, Great Books Club, Science Club, Annual Knowledge Bowl (elementary level), Foreign Language Club Special Interest Clubs ma\n^ include the following: Photography Band Newspaper Swimming Club Yearbook Bowling Club Choir/Glee Club Skating Club 417 Tennis Club Archery Club Camping Club String Instruments Sign Language Club Aerobics Club Cooking Club Art Club Horseback Riding Gymnastics Club Dance Club Great Decisions International Pen Pal Club Sewing Club Field Trips - Field trips will be used to enhance learning, to broaden cultural experiences, to provide hands-on experiences for knowledge of the world, and to assist in the development of coping skills for students. Local field trips (see Support Programs) may be supplemen- ted with a state or national trip. Examples include the following: Houston Space Center (Houston, Texas) Smithsonian Institute (Washington, DC) Martin Luther King Center (Atlanta, Georgia) George Washington Carver Museum (Tuskegee, Alabama) Gulf Shores (Gulfport, Mississippi) Each school will incorporate special activities into the total school program. Choices for each school will be determined by the needs/interests at the building level. Staff and parents will determine when and how activities will be implemented. However, School Program Plans must be submitted to the Board and administration for approval on an annual basis. Documented school-based involvement in the needs/interest assessment and planning process must accompany each School Program Plan. A projected budget must accompany each plan. (NOTE: Attention in specialized programs will focus on true remediation (with student movement from compensatory programs) for compensatory programs, reducing overrepresentation in special education and ensuring equitable participation in a quality gifted and talented program.) 42LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS January 17, 1989 TO: FR0M:71^tt^ Beverly White, Associate Superintendent for Curriculum and Special Programs Angela Sewall, Associate Superintendent for Schools Marie A. McNeal, Supervisor of Social Studies and Foreign Languages larvin Zinmerman, Supervisor of English SUBJECT: I/O Proposed Latin Program for Incentive Schools On Wednesday, December 7, 1988, we met with Gayle Cloud, the Latin teacher at Central High School, to discuss an elementary Latin program that is being used in other districts to extend, reinforce, and enhance the language arts curriculum. Because of the educational value of this program, we feel that the program should be considered for use in the LRSD incentive schools. To assist in making a decision concerning the program, the following information is attached: 1. Program Background, Rationale, Proposal, and Description 2. Budget Summary 3. Implementation Plan The proposed attached plan targets the spring semester, 1989, for teacher identification, and the summer of 1989 for teacher inservice and program developm.ent with program implementation targeted for the 1989-90 school year. 43I. Sackaround II. LATIN ENRICHMENT PROGRAM ELEMENTARY LANGUAGE ARTS CLASSES LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT In the early 196O's, the Philadelphia (PA) School District raised reading and vocabulary scores of elementary school children through a program using Latin in language arts classes. The program was developed by a team of Latin teachers, but the materials were designed to be used by elementary language arts teachers\nteachers in the elementary classes. the program did not depend on using trained Latin Since that time programs of this sort have been implemented in many other school districts, such as Indianapolis, Indiana\nWashington, D.C.\nAngeles, California\nKansas City, Missouri. St. Louis, Missouri\nNew York City, New York\ndeveloped their own materials, teaching formal Latin grammar\nmeans to improve English skills. Dallas, Texas\nOakland, California\nSome use the Philadelphia materials\nimproved self-image among learners. Los and others have In these programs the focus is not on it is on using Latin words and myths as a These programs have also resulted in The initial implementation of the program by Philadelphia and later in the above identified districts was in inner city schools with a large minority population. The targeted levels were grades five and six or grade six onl.y. Reports concerning students' performances on standardized tests in the above identified districts reveal at least a one year growth in reading and vocabulary and a significant amount of growth in other content areas (see attached). In all districts, a team of Latin teachers trained the elementary language arts teachers in using the materials and served as resource persons for background in Roman and Greek culture. As the program grew, many of these elementary teachers studied to become proficient in Latin, program using the Greek language has also been developed\nthe same methods and approach. A corresponding thi s program uses The materials focus on using Latin and Greek word roots as a basis to increase English reading and vocabulary skills. Materials are varied\nthe two basic courses are designed for fifth and sixth grades and are based on classical mythology and life. Supplemental courses cover a wide variety of subjects, including science, math, astronomy, and blacks in antiquity. Rationales More than SCi of words in the English language are based on Latin words\nfocusing on Latin word roots and word-building elements will increase knowl- edge of English vocabulary. reading c Many fifth and sixth grade social studies and cula include mythology and the Gr ma a. 3 at rela to this subject mat -Roman worlds\nr will broaden lear :e enrichment. vocabulary ng and Abi .' areas 7 to read English is not limited to language arts and other academic but a- 3 success in 1ife itself\nmere successful 1 n: 7i livi 0 school l_3 .(h se udv O' increasing that ability creates uals who feel competent to deal with school and n is an unusual subject for students, especially in elementary I e t n e s c u an unusua ings an im / is no focused on learning the Latin language per 1 and \"different' subje ved self-image to , and seeing success in he laarne''S. 41Latin Enrichment Program -- Page 2 The program itself is easy to implement. The cost is minimal, and investment of time by elementary teachers to learn the materials is limited. The materials are easy to use. They are inexpensive to purchase and can be duplicated for distribution to teachers. The program has been successfully used by many areas with educational situations similar to Little Rock. students\nThe uniqueness of the program should appeal to parents as well as no other public or private schools in Arkansas, certainly in the metropolitan Little Rock Area, have such a program. The program would serve the desegregation plan for the incentive schools and would help in achieving the targeted objectives of raising standardized test scores and eliminating disparity between scores of the major ethnic elements of the school community. Also, with the emphasis on multiethnic education within the Little Rock School District, materials can be developed locally to include this emphasis. Using the existing materials as models, LRSD teachers can create units that use their unique talents and skills and that are directed to the special interests and need? of Arkansas students. III. ProDOsal IV. It is proposed that the Little Rock School District implement an elementary Latin program in the elementary language arts classes at the fifth and sixth grade levels in the incentive schools for the purpose of increasing reading and vocabulary skills, improving standardized test scores, and enhancing the self-image of learners. Program Description After teachers for the incentive schools have been identified in the spring of 1989, these teachers will receive six hours of inservice training during the summer of 1989 in implementing the program. The program will be implemented at the start of the 1989-90 school year and will be incorporated into the fifth and sixth grade language arts instructional block for approximately fifteen to twenty minutes per day. Throughout the 1989-90 school year, teachers will be involved in fou-r (4) additional inservice workshops (two per semester). Also, these teachers will have the opportunity to become mors proficient in Latin by enrolling in a college course designed especially for them\nthis course will be optional and at the teacher's own expense. Throughout the year, the principal in each building will monitor the program. At the end of the 1989-90 school year, a formal district-wide assessment of the program will be made\ndata. this assessment will be based on surveys and test 45Latin Enrichment Program  Page 3 Budget Summary (Per Teacher) Instructional Materials $ 30 Pri nting 60 Inservice Materials 30 Inservice Consultant Fee 15 College Course Materials 20 College Course Instructor's Fee '30 Inservice Stipends 60 TOTAL $ 245 (Program in' Budget Summary all Sth and 6th grades in all incentive schools) 7 schools with 4 teachers each = 28 teachers $6,860 1 school with 10 teachers  10 teachers 2,450 TOTAL $9,310 _ _ 46OBJECTIVE ACTIVITIES IMPLEMENTATION PLAN PARTICIPANTS PERSON RESPONSIBLE COMPLETION DATE EVALUATION COST (per teacher) 1. To provide awareness of the Latin program to incentive school principals and staffs 2. To provide Inservice to participating teachers l.a. Present Implementation plan proposal to associate superintendents and assistant superintendents l.b. Schedule awareness meeting with principals of Incentive schools l.c. Develop agenda for principals' meeting l.d. Conduct awareness meeting with principals I.e. Schedule awareness meeting with current Sth A Sth grade teachers in incentive schools l.f. Conduct awareness meeting with current Sth A 6th grade teachers l.g. Identify Sth A 6th grade teachers who wish to Angela Sewall Beverly White Arma Hart Rechel Myers Marie McNeal Marvin ZimMrman Principals of incentive schools Sth A 6th grade teachers at Incentive schools Princlpals remaln at incentive schoils l.h. Recruit and fill vacancies 2.a. Requisition instructional materials Marie McNeal Marvin Zimmerman January 30, 1989 Plan Presentation -0- Angela Sewall March 1. 1989 Meeting on Calendar -0- Angela Sewall Beverly Uhlte Harch 1. 1989 Printed agenda -0- Harle HcNeal Harvin Zimmerman Gayle Cloud March 15. 1989 Concerns/questions expressed by principals -0- Rachel Myers March 15, 1989 Meeting on Calendar -0- Harle McNeal Marvin Zinmerman Gayle Cloud April H. 1989 Meeting agenda -0- Principals Richard Maple Principals Richard Maple Marie McNeal May 1. 1989 July 1, 1989 May I, 1989 List of identi fied Sth A 6th grade teachers Identified Sth A 6th teachers at incentive schools for 1989-90 Arrival of materials -0- -0- I I I $20 materials (per teacher) I I OeJECTIVE ACTIVITIES 2.b. Duplicate copies of above materials 2.C. Schedule 2 Inservice Metings of 3 hours eact 2.d. Develop agenda for above 2 Metings  2.e. Conduct above 2 Meting: 2.f. Contact UALR about offering college course 2.g. Schedule above college course 2.h. Implement above college course 2.t. Schedule four two-hour inservice workshops in local buHdings/duster: district-wide 2.J, Conduct above four inservice workshops IMPLEMENTATION PLAN PARTICIPANTS Teachers and Principals Gayle Cloud UALR official Teachers / Teachers Principals PERSON RESPONSIBLE Marie McNeal Marie McNeal Marie McNeal Gayle Cloud Marie McNeal Gayle Cloud Marie McNeal Gayle Cloud Principals Marie McNeal Gayle Cloud COMPLETION DATE July 1. 1989 June 1. 1989 July 15. 1989 August IB. 1989 June 1. 1989 December 1. 1989 May. 1990 September 1. 1989 May 1. 1990 (2 per semester) EVALUATION One copy for each teacher Meetings on Calendar Printed agendas Agendas and materials Course proposal Identified dates/times/ place Completed course Meetings on Calendar Meeting agendas Page 2 COST (per teacher) 5SO printing (per teacher) -0- -0- $20 materials (per teacher) $200 consultant fee($5 per teache* $60 stipends per teacher ($10 per hour) -0- -0- $?0 materia Is (per teacher) $t?00 instructor fee (STO per teaclier) -0- $10 materials (per teacher) $400 fee .consultant IIO per teacher) ) (Z OBJECTIVE ACTIVITIES IMPLEMENTATION PLAN T PARTICIPANTS PERSON RESPONSIBLE COMPLETION DATE EVALUATION Page 3 COST (per teaclierl 3. To Implement the elementary Latin program tn Sth ( 6th grades at Incentive schools 4. To evaluate the elementary Latin program I I I to 3.a. Schedule time for classroom Instruction 3.b. Purchase/duplicate/ create student material! 3.C. Incorporate Latin program into district's language arts program 4.a. Monitor classroom activities 4.b. Identify student growth on standardized tests 4.C. Develop student, teacher, parent assessment survey 4.d. Disseminate above surveys 4,e. Compile survey results 4,f. Submit final evaluation report to associate superintendents Teachers Teachers Teachers Teachers Teachers Teachers Principals Harte HcNeal . Principals I Principals Princlpals Harle HcNeal Gayle Cloud Principals Harle HcNea! Harie HcNeal August IS, 1989 School's instructional schedule -0- ongoing ongoing Hay 1, 1990 Hay 30. 1990 April 15, 1990 Hay 1, 1990 Hay 30. 1990 June 15. 1990 Materials ready for classroom use Lesson plans Identified strengths and weaknesses Test data Printed forms Completed forms returned Survey data Submitted report 110 materials (per teacher) -0- -0- -0- $10 printing (per teacher) -0- -0- -0- A CALL TO ACTION: LATIN IS BASIC! Do you know that: a the study of Latin improves English vocabulary \" and reading scores of pupils? Latin teaches pupils the ROOTS of the English language? Knowing the Latin root of a word can be the key to its meaning. The following word trees show how Latin roots help in the understanding of English words. A pupil who knows that the Latin vori agua means 'water' has the key to such English words as aquarium, aquatics, aquaecus, agualung, aquamarine. Likewise the Latin word manus ('hand') is the key to such English words a. manu/acture, manua2, manuscript, manicure, and manipulate. AQUA Aqualung Aquatics Aquaeous Aquamarine Aquarium Manuscript Manipulate Manufacture Manual Manicure 7\nI  rAiNUS 'hai'd' - _ 50 SOME QUESTIONS:  Are you tired of hearing that many high school graduates are functional illiterates?  Are you concerned that so many urban pupils read below grade level?  Do you know that some urban school districts (e.g., Philadelphia, Indianapolis, and Los Angeles are using imaginative new approaches to the study of Latin to extend English vocabulary and reading skills of pupils?  Are you aware that new approaches to Latin can make the subject exciting and rewarding for pupils of all backgrounds and abilities? I Do you know that Latin provides valuable insights into who we are, where we came from, and where we are going? Are you aware that knowledge of Latin is helpful in many types of careers and jobs?  Do you know that Latin is the key to an appreciation of many beautiful masterpieces of literature? and some ANSWERS: 51The study of Latin has unique values for urban students. About 70* of the words in English come from Latin either directly^ or indirectly. English words of Latin derivation are those which are likely to appear on placement exams, civil service exams. Scholastic Aptitude Tests for college admission and in English literature.  In the Philadelphia School District pupils who studied Latin for 20 minutes daily at the fifth grade level advanced one full year in standardized vocabulary test scores as compared to pupils of similar backgrounds who did not study Latin.  In the Washington, D.C., Public Schools Latin was  found to boost pupils' reading scores after only one year of instruction in Latin at the Sth grade level.  Sth grade Latin pupils in Easthampton, Massachusetts edged ahead of pupils of similar background in various phases of the Stanford Achievement Test. B 7th grade Latin pupils in Worcester, Massachusetts, have shown dramatic improvement in English vocabulary and reading comprehension scores as compared to their counterparts who did not study Latin. 52 I In Erie County, PA, high school Latin pupils were matched with similar pupils who were not studying Latin. The comparison showed that Latin was a definite aid in College Entrance Examinations. I Latin pupils in inner city elementary schools in Indianapolis showed large gains in the Metropolitan Achievement Test as compared to pupils of similar background who did not have Latin.  The fifth and sixth grade Language Arts through Latin program in the Los Angeles Unified School District improved the English reading and vocabulary comprehension scores of target students (over 50* of whom are Spanish surname) by more than one month for every month of instruction. I In short, pupils in several areas of the U.S. have already been given a boost in vocabulary and reading skills through their study of Latin. WHAT DDES ALL THIS MEAN'FCR YOCR SCHOOL DISTRICT? Per.iaps your school district has not heard about how beneficial newly-conceived Latin programs can be for urban pupils of all backgrounds and abilities. It's time to bring this matter to the attention of appropriate school officials. Show them this brochxire and for further information write to the Committee on Classics in the Great Cities' Schools, c/o Rudolph Masciantonio, School District of Philadelphia, Phila., PA 19103. Distributed by the Committee on Classics in the Great Cities' Schools, an affiliate of the American Classical League and the Classical Association of the Atlantic States, in cooperation with the Pennsylvania Classical Association and the Division of Foreign Languages of the School District of Philadelphia. 53-tl Pln son Responsioie 1988-89 (Spring \u0026amp; Sunmeift.r) :k?l-ki\nisil: Io develop and implemenl a quality academic program for Incentive Schools .. . . Proiiraiiis .\".vision Curriculum and Special rrocrair./Area Incentive Schools OBJECTIVES 1. To promote/enhance leadership and staff understanding of the Incentive School concepi i 1 I cn 4-* STRATEGIES/ ACTIVITIES SEGIt.'NlNG DATE COMPLETION DATE COSTS RESPOKSIBILITY EVALUATION l.a. Provide an indepth pre-orientation session on each component of t*)e Incentive Schools for principal. l.b. Develop in cooperation with the principals a detailed process and format for developing the individual Incentive School Plan l.c. Assist each building principal in presenting an indepth pre-orientation session for staff on each component . l.d. Assist each principal and staff with orientation session for parents in the Inc*ntiwo VbnnH February 15, 1989 Harch 3. 1989 March 1. 1989 March 1. 1989 February 28, 1989 March 15, 1989 March 15, 1989 March 15. 198? -0- -0- -0- -0- Superintendent's cabinet Assistant Superintendent- Incentive Schools Superintendent's Cabinet Assistant Superintendent- Incentive Schools Superintendent's Cabinet Assistant Superintendent- Incentive Schools Superintendent's Cabinet Principals Assistant Supennten-dent Schools Incentive IK?LKK7A7:0N TiKiLJ.t Page 2 -'r.-al Plan :'son Respor.sioie :\na1: (rear) Division ?ro\nram/Area OBJECTIVES STRATEGIES/ ACTIVITIES BEGINNING DATE COMPLETION DATE X COSTS RESPOKSIBILITT EVALUATION 2. To develop Incentive School Plan for each school 3. To develop curriculum specific to the Incentive Schools 1 1 I Cl cn 2.a. Identify Incentive School Plan teams 2.b. Develop the detailed individual Incentive School Plan 2.C. Review and approve School Plan 3.a. Identify each area in need of curriculum development 3.b. Identify teachers for curriculum teams 3.C. Plan orientation anc format for curriculum development June I, 1989 June, 1989 June, 1989 June 15, 1989 June 1, 1989 June 1, 1989 June IS, 1989 July, 1989 July, 1989 July 31, 1989 June 15, 1989 June 15, 1989 -0- -0- -0- -0- -0- -0- Principals Assistant Superintendent- Incentive Schools All Divisions Superintendent's Cabine Board of Directors 1 Principals Assistant Superinten-dent Incentive School Curriculum Division Supervisors Principals Assistant Superintendent - Incentive Schools Curriculum Division Supervisors Principals Assistant Superintendent - Incentive Schools Curriculum Division Supervisors :K?LiHi\n-T.^al Plan -e'son Responsiole $\n1: ______ :CK TiKiLZKi OBJECTIVES X (Yttr) STRATEGIES/ ACTIVITIES BEGINNING DATE COMPLETION DATE COSTS RESPOKSIBILITT Page 3 Division Procrair./Arei evaluation 4. To procure equipment and furniture for Incentive School Programs 3.d. Review preliminary draft of revised curricular for Littli Rock School District 3.e. Develop additional components for each curriculum area 3.f. Proof and type Incentive School Curriculum Guides 3.g. Print Curriculum Guides 3.h. Distribute and provide Inservice on the implementation of the curriculum guides 4.a. Develop specification for bid for equipment and furniture June 1, 1989 June 1, 1989 July 1, T989 July 20, 1989 August 1, 1989 March 15, 1989 June 30, 1989 June 30, 1989 July 20, 1989 July 30, 1989 -0- -0- $3,000 (Est.) (Clerical Support) 110,000 (Est. Printing Cosi August 30, 198! April 15, 1989 Curriculum Teams Curr.4cu1um Teams Curriculum Division Principals Curriculum Division Cost to be ncluded in Individual School Plans) -0- Curriculum and School Division Principals Director of Purchasing Assistant Superintendent - Incentive School Staff-Curriculum I ( -r:,al Plan -son Resporstoie 3:*1: _______ (Ytar) OBJECTIVES X JK?LKKTA-:OM TIKcLIKi vis ion rr^ cir./Area ('age 4 STRATEGIES/ activities BEGIfiNING Df,7 COMPLETION DATE COSTS RESPOliSIBILlTr tVALUATION A.b. Did for specific equipment and furniture April 15, 1989 lUy 15, 1989 To be determined 4.C. Order furniture and equipment May 15, 1989 August 1, 1989 To be determined Principals, Director of Purchasing, Assistant Superintendent - Incentive Schools, Staff - Curriculum Principals, Director of Purchasing, Assistant Superintendent - Incentive Schools, Staff - Curriculum 5. To effect facility modi flcat ions for implementation of the Incentive School special lied programs. I cn A.d. Install and inventory to ensure adequacy of all equipment and furniture 5.a. Review the detailed Incentive School Plans with the Support Services Oi.vision 5.b. Identify modifications timeline as previously collaborated in the development of the plan. 5.C. Contract for service as needed/ldenti-fied tn the Plans. August 1, 1989 April 15, 1989 April 15, 1989 April 30, 1989 August 15, 198\u0026lt; April 30, 1989 April 30, 1989 Hay 15, 1989 -0- -0- -0- -0- Principals, Director of Purchasing, Assistant Superintendent - Incentive Schools, Staff - Curriculum Division of Schools - Associate Superintenden Assistant Superintenden Principal Division of Support Services Division of Support Services till Plan 'Son Respor.sioie si: (Vtsr) OBJECTIVES STRATEGIES/ activities BEGINNING DATE X 5.d. Implement the modification plan for the facilities Hay 15, 1989 :K?LK-t\n7A7:oK TIK-LIK* COMPLETION DATE COSTS RESPOKSIBILITY Page 5 Civision ?ro\nrt.T./Aree evaluation August 15, 1989 (To be out- I 1ined in the Plan) 5.e. Hake final inspection on the work for the facilities andi-fication May 15, 1989 August 15, 1981 -0- To ensure the availability of adequate resources to implement academic prograM 6.a. Initiate ldentifica-| Hay 1, 1989 tions of materials | and textbooks needed| for the 1989-90 I school year | June 30, 1989 ho be deter-jmlned Prlnctpals J I I cn (Z) 6.b. Involve school teams! Hay 1, 1989 staff and parents ini reviewing the needs | Identified as re- | qulred for core and I special programs | 6.C. Identify any materials or textbooks that must be ordered prior to fiscal year '89 G.d. Haintain building record of requisitions for the 1989 school year. Hay 1, 1989 Hay 1, 1989 June 30, 1989 Hay 20, 1989 Ongoing -0- To be determined -0- Prlnclpal/School Teams Principal, Assistant Principal, All Divisions, with major input from Purchasing Principal\nK?LiK\n-r.tl Plan t'son Respor.sioie :a1: CM TiKiLj\nPage 6 OBJECTIVES X _ ('eer) STRATEGIES/ activities beginning OATE COMPLETION DA7t COSTS P.tSPOKSTBILITr 6.e. Monitor and approve 'May 20, 1989 requlslttons as requested from Incentive Schools 6.f. Maintain audit for all materials received 6.g. Cross validate with purchasing all order: not received 6.h. Obtain requirements for participation In all special pro-graas 6.1. Pay participation fee and order all necessary materials fqr special activity 6.J. Select sponsors for each special program activity approved in the Incentive School Plan. July 1. 1989 July 1, 1989 March IS, 1989 April 30, 1989 April 30, 1989 Except for articles requlri ng a auch longe Ongoing Ongoing Ongoing April 30, 1989 July 1, 1989 July 30, 1989 -0- -0- -0- To he deteral ned To he deter-nined time period, all requisition! i I I cn co -'^vision ?.-ocrin\n/Arte evaluation Appropriate Associate Superintendenl Principal Principal Principal Principal Principal are signed on or imnedictely following July 1. CK t:k\nl Page 1 'r.Lal Plan non Responsioie :tl: (Vetr) -'vision Prograir./Area OJCT1VS STRATEGIES/ ACTIVITIES SEGINNING DATE COKPLETIOH DATE COSTS RESPOKSiEILITT evaluation 6.k. Complete special con tracts with all extended day employees for the 1989-90 school year. August 1, 1989 August 30, 196! -0- Principal 6.1. Complete Master Schedule for total school program 6.m Review/revise as necessary the staff developiKnt plan for the fall (September- December) April 30, 1989 August 15, 1989 -0- Principal August 30, 1989 (As necessary bit once each seaiestr) September IS, 1989 at least Principal I (X c Plan 1988-89 (Spring nd Sunwr) _______________ (Vttr) uIOM TiKsLIKs rson Responstoie Proo^de Stan development tor implementation of Incentive School Plans . . IroQidins V I V1 s icn Curr ic(j 1 uni \u0026amp; Snccia I ?rocTcir./Area Iliceiitive Schools OBJECTIVES I. To implement Staff development activities for Incentive Schools STRATEGIES/ activities I.a. Identify the staff development needs of each Incentive School l.b. Develop inservice schedule In collabo-ration with building principal I.c. Notify each school staff of proposed inservice dates for pre-school training l.d. Plan details for delivery of inservice - l.e., site, time, arrangements, etc. l.e. Obtain services of consultants (as required) l.f. Implement fall training cycle BEGINNING DATE April 30. 1989 Nay IS. 1989 May 30, 1989 Nay 30, 1989 Hay 30, 1989 August 1, 1989 COMPLETION DATE Hay IS, 1989 Hay 30, 1989 August 30, 198! July 30, 1989 July 30, 1989 August 30,1989 COSTS To be deter-nined -0- -0- -0- To Be Determined RESPONSIBILITY Principals Director of Staff Development Principals Director of Staff Development Principals Principals Assistant Superintenden Director of Staff Development Principals Assistant Superintenden Director of Staff Development Principals Assistant Superintenden. Director of Staff Development evaluation I 0^ -rrtil Plan  arson Rtspor.sioic Teal: .K?L\nKI.- OBJECTIVES X (7rJ STRATEGIES/ activities BEGKlNiNG OATE ViOK 7iKL:Ki Division Prc\nrair./Area ('aye 2 COMPLETION OATE COSTS RESPOKSJBILITT evaluation I*g. Evaluate staff developawnt activity, through survey response from each staff August 1, 1989 Ongoing Iio Be Oeter-lalned Principals Assistant Superintenden Director of Staff Development / I I I (7)  SECTION TWO SCHOOL ADMINISTRATION 63 INCENTIVE SCHOOLS SCHOOL ADMINISTRATION The focus, function and guiding process of the Incentive Schools will be to provide excellence in an environment of academic support\nindividualized education and flexbility. These schools shall exemplify the close partnership between parents and the school community which is a motivational factor for students. The school program will address student success and development of potential from affective, skill based and academic perspectives. SUPPORT PROGRAMS It is recommended that the following items be components of every incentive school: A. HOMEWORK CENTERS - Although it is anticipated that the school Homework Centers day shall extend from 8:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m., k Cc.iucu should be extant in each school at least two (2) days per week to assist students who are in need of specific help with class material. (Some school communities, i.e., parents, staff and students may opt for more days per week for students who are not otherwise involved in activities during the last two (2) hours of the day, Monday-Thursday). It will be necessary to provide transportation home for students who remain at the Homework Center so that students whose parents cannot supply transportation and/or who live outside of the area which is reasonable walking distance may avail themselves of the Center. If students choose not to attend Homework Centers, other options for student assistance will be explored. Staffing for the Homework Centers will be in the form of classroom teachers who will be available on a \"volunteer\" rotating basis, community volunteers and peer tutors. Staff will be compensated. B. HOMEWORK HOTLINE - Homework Hotlines should also be put into place to be open from 6:00 - 8:00 Monday - Thursday evenings. This too will be staffed by teachers on a rotating basis such that each incentive teacher will provide one (1) evening's service approximately every 45 class days. Staff will be paid for this time. C. PEER TUTORING - Peer tutors will be selected from among a group of self-nominated and teacher nominated students. The role of peer tutors will not be limited only to those students with outstanding academic averages but will also be open to achieving students who work well with other students and who can verbalize an understanding of subject matter to be covered. ___64continued - Incentive Schools page 2 D. Peer tutors will be compensated with coupons which can be redeemed for donated items or purchased goods such as games, books, magazine subscriptions, school supplies and other items the family may not be providing as well athletic equipment, hats, sweatshirts, etc. Tutors will be assigned by subject area and on a rotating basis in order to allow all students who wish to serve as peer tutors the opportunity to do so. RETIRED TEACHER MENTORS - Efforts will be made to identify a feasible time for retired teachers to come into the schools and to wor'x with individual students as tutors\nto sponsor clubs such as future teachers and to provide additional extra support such as story telling time with and for students. Mentors can work voluntarily or may be paid a stipend depending on their own needs. E. INSTRUCTIONAL AIDES - There will be a certified instructional aide available in every classroom. Qualifications for the aide positions will include demonstrated commitment to work with students in an urban setting as well as a minimum of 60 hours of earned college credit. Applicants must be working toward a degree. Aides shall provide extra assistance for individual students and groups of students. Aides will also assist teachers with monitoring of student progress, communication with parents and preparation of supplemental instructional materials. F. CAREER SKILLS DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM - A program will be developed within each school whereby written information, guest speakers, films and other presentations will be provided to students on topics relevant to possible career choices. Among the information given in each presentation will be skills needed, academic background required, career planning recommendations, expected earning potential and a general II. 'mapping'' of how a student can progress from elementary school to the desired career goal. Other components of this category will be interest inventories and opportunities for students to participate in the explorer programs sponsored by the Boy Scouts of America. G. YEAR ROUND SCHOOL - Both summer remediation and enrichment options will exist through the summer at all incentive schools. This program will be in two 5 to 6 week segments. Students will participate in the program generally in an elective basis with prescription for attendance from teachers of students who are behind grade level in core curriculur areas. The summer options will be at no cost for students normally attending those schools. A few seats may be open to other students on a space available and paying basis as well. 65continued - Incentive Schools page 3 Transportation may be provided. The number of incentive schools at which summer programs will be held will be based on identified student needs and interests. Students participating in the summer \"year round\" option will be placed in classes at their own academic levels rather than by means of a specifically identified grade designation. In other words, a student functioning at grade 2 level in math would study with peers at that level but may also study with Sth grade peers in summer reading programs, regardless of his/her actual designated grade level. H. COMMUNITY ACCESS/FIELD TRIPS - A plan will be developed and implemented at each incentive school which provides for field trips and community access for students. Field trips and access will include the opportunity for student experiences with: * historical events and displays * cultural events and exhibits * scientific/mathematical events and exhibits to include both child oriented activities such as the Arkansas Arts Center Children's Theatre and also the opportunity to attend cultural events such as an Arkansas Symphony Orchestra performance. Some such exhibits and performances will also be brought to the schools. Students will also have the opportunity to visit industrial complexes to view the actual manufacturing process and to gain information relative to the world of work by means of visits to actual work sites and some shadowing experiences in the middle school grades, i.e., 5th and 6th. Among opportunities in the community which exist are: * several major manufacturing corporations * a symphony * a repertory theatre * an arts center * a ballet company * a museum of natural science and history  three previous state/territorial capitols * a planetarium at UALR * a zoo * a lock and dam (part of the McClellan-Kerr river project) * an inland sea port * a major research/teaching medical center 66continued - Incentive Schools page 4 Among other opportunities for students including, but are not limited to, banks, stock/bond houses, hospitals and law school. a I. COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT - Opportunities to participate in both Boy Scouting and Girl Scouting will exist at each incentive school with existing troops at each building. Explorer post access/membership will also be available as noted earlier. J. SPECIAL SKILLS PROGRAMS - During the 3:00 - 5:30 p.m. time period (or whatever the designated time for extended day activities), scheduling should be provided not only for the Homework Center and Peer Tutoring activities but also for students to receive special skills training. Students finishing activities early shall report either to the Homework Center, to CARE or leave the campus with a parent or guardian. These skills shall be defined as the opportunity to participate in: * choir (voice) * music (instrumental) * dance after school, one (1) day per week. Assistance will be sought from area colleges and university schools of fine arts and local organizations to provide these services at no cost to the child (and hopefully to the program), but certainly at minimal cost to the school. SCHOOL ADMINISTRATION A. STAFF RECRUITMENT - Staff recruitment and certain specific experience will be required of all staff at the outset (relative to work in an urban setting with at risk youth)\nand ongoing training will be provided on a regular basis for all staff at each school. 1. A nation wide search will be conducted for staff. Principal and staff will be asked to show documented evidence of commitment to working in an urban district\nto working with youth at risk and to commiting the time necessary to provide the kinds of support and services provided at incentive schools. 2. Staff will be hired on a one year basis with parent representation on the interview team. At the end of that year, an involuntary transfer or other district decisions may be put into effect depending on the 67continued - Incentive Schools page 5 performance and the success of the individual in working with students and procedures. This one year contractual feature will also apply to the positions of aides, clerical and custodial workers. Successful completion of the year may lead to a long-term contract with the District. 8. C. SPECIAL TRAINING- Ongoing training will be provided for staff in areas like human relations skills\nlearning and interactive styles\nTESA\nPET\nworking with youth at risk\nworking in an urban setting and analysis and use of data for enhancing student achievement. All staff, including support staff, will be involved in training. Patrons also will receive access special training in working with their students, assisting with homework, nutrition and human growth and developments. PARENTAL INVOLVEMENT - Parents will be absolute partners in the learning process. Parents will be asked to sign all homework assignments on a daily basis, r.,,,:, _  will take place, both through written and oral means. Regular communication Day visits for parents will be arranged to come to school to volunteer for the day and to work with students as well as to visit their children's classes. Regular meetings, monthly, will be held at the school. Parental access will be provided for identified pick-up points within the school community. Parents will be encouraged to provide classroom support in the form of tutoring, storytelling, general assistance and may be paid a stipend for this. D. LEARNING TIME SCHEDULES - Daily schedules for 3:00 - 5:30 will be set to meet the needs of students to include the Homework Center, special skills training and leisure time activities, for example: * Homework Center - Monday-Thursday * Special Skills - Tuesday * Leisure Activities - Thursday (volleyball, basketball, table tennis, dance, karate, chess, checkers, soccer, tennis, etc. based on student interest and access to appropriate playing fields etc.) * Clubs, Extra Curriculars - Wednesday E. HOME/SCHOOL COMMUNICATION - Monthly reporting to parents will take place. Early indicator and early intervention programs will be formulated with \"alert\" and \"success\" cards to be H sent to parents to update them on their student's needs and achievements. - _ BScontinued - Incentive Schools page 6 F. EXTRA CURRICULAR' PROGRAMS - Extra curricular programs will be established to allow students recognition, leadership experience and a chance to be involved in school activities. Among these will be future teachers programs. Oust Say No Clubs, intermurals, monitor \"jobs\" in the office*, library, with the flag, safety patrol, fire marshalls and student council memberships. * at recsss or lunch time, not class time G. ATTENDANCE ANO BEHAVIOR GUIDELINES - Attendance and behavior guidelines will provide unique opportunities to assist students and keeo them in school. Time-out rooms staffed with trained personnel will help students with problem solving. Students will participate in the process of developing school based management rules. Students and parents will sign a contractual agreesment to be at school and on time each day. H. SUBJECT RELATED EXTRA CURRICULAR ACTIVITIES - Other options for students may include, but not be limited to, activities like math olympiad, junior great books, young authors' club, young scientists, Olympics of the mind, elementary band and a string program. Parents will be informed of all of these options. Students will be encouraged to participate in these activities and a regular schedule will exist for club/academic related activities. COUNSELING/SOCIAL WORK A. COMMUNITY SERVICES ACCESS - There shall be access to community based support programs provided to students who attend the incentive schools. Among these supports will be projects to be negotiated and/or secured by compact such as: the availability of students from area colleges and universities to teach music, dance and choir in the schools\nvolunteers and pre-professionals from Philander Smith College to assist with teaching activities and extra curricular activities\nassistance from social agencies to intervene if students need assistance in health and/or personal need situations. B. COLLEGE/POST GRADUATION AWARENESS - A mentoring program will be established which will provide interactive time for students to work with young professionals to enhance awareness of skills necessary for successful entry into the world of work. The program will also serve to heighten student expectations with regard to their own abilities and potential to attend college and to graduate. Parents will also receive this information so that they may be aware of the options which truly are open to their students. 69continued - Incentive Schools page 7 c. STUDY SKILLS - Counselors and teachers will be responsible for working with students to enhance test taking skills, listening skills and study skills. Practice will be provided for students in test taking, i.e., bubble sheets will be used on some class tests and a variety of question types will be used by teachers. 0. HOME/NEIGrIBORHOOO MEETINGS - Meetings with parents will not always be held at the schools. Other meetings, for small groups of parents, will be scheduled at community locations such as churches and some homes as invited by parents. less formal meetings out of the school environment may be more productive and can help forge a school/neighborhood partner- These ship. It is suggested that local ministers be considered as part of the school partnership and community. E. INDIVIDUAL ANO GROUP COUNSELING - Individual and group counseling as well as peer facilitators will be employed at the school to assist students as they attempt to work through concerns and the normal issues which arise as student growth and development takes place. Students will also be taught conflict resolutions. F. INCENTIVE/RECOGNITION PROGRAMS - Incentive/recognition programs will be developed by students, staff and patrons at each school. committee meeting included: Ideas (suggestions) presented in the subawards programs, recognition days, good citizen clubs, free tickets to community and athletic events, tangible rewards such as a book of the student's choice for academic growth and the like. G. WELLNESS PROGRAM - A wellness program will be in place at each building with availablity of a full time nurse. Students will be screened for physical health and will also receive information on topics like self-esteem, nutrition, drug prevention and awareness and first aid. Presentations will likewise be made to parents on similar topics for their information on a continuing education basis. H. CAMP PFEIFER - Students in need of additional academic assistance will have access to programs such as that currently in place at Camp Pfeifer, whereby, they spend some time in residence at a program away from the school and the home which provides counseling, intensive academic support and time management skills. Parent involvement is an inherent part of this program in assisting them to work with students on homework and academics. 70continued - Incentive Schools page 8 MONITORING AND EVALUATION A. B. C. VERIFIABLE MONITORING OF STUDENT GROWTH - The testing department of the district will be assigned the task of developing a plan for verifiable monitoring of student growth and for the development of reliable procedures to accomplish these tasks. This plan and its accompanying procedures should take into account not only test scores achieved on norm referenced tests but also class achievement as evidenced by teacher tests and curriculum/criterion referenced tests. There should be a longterm monitoring which also takes into account student matura- tional patterns. REGULAR TRACKING OF STUDENT ATTENDANCE, DISCIPLINE/BEHAVlOR AND ACHIEVEMENT - Regular tracking of student attendance, discipline/behavior and achievement shall be accomplished through the development of and use of individual and class profiles by classroom teachers and the building administrator This assessment will be done on a minimum of a quarterly basis. Individual student planning, selection of interventions and/or programmatic changes will be predicated on identified needs or enrichment indicators determined through ongoing review of data. INVOLVE PARENTS IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF STUDENT EDUCATIONAL EXCELLENCE PLANS - The school staff shall involve parents in the development of student educational excellence plans. Parents are the first teachers of their students and see them in a context outside of the school. In the parental capacity, there is special awareness of a child's potential, talents and interests. As such this input is extrememly important in reviewing not only academic programs but also extra curricular, special skills and extended day activities. D. QUARTERLY REPORTS ANO VISITATIONS - Quarterly reports will be made and visitations will take place for the purpose of assessing student progress, facility upkeep and care of grounds and equipment. The monitoring team will be composed of district staff, school staff, patrons and representatives from the community. All staff shall write goals, not only for the school in general, but also personal goals since every staff member has a duty to provide a climate conducive to learning and should hold and model high expectations for all students. Students will also be involved in the goal setting process and will formulate \"contracts\" for their own achievement. 71continued - Incentive Schools page 9 E. STUDENT EVALUATORS - Student evaluators will be asked to complete evaluations relative to the school, its climate and their educational experience twice a year. Students will be selected at random to participate in this process based on a 5S involvement from each grade level. Students will be involved in the designing of questionnaires to be used, analysis of data collected and the generation of conclusions. Reports will be given back to the students regarding changes made in response to student issues raised in this evaluation process. F. COMPUTERIZED DATA ACCESS - Computerized data access will be a reality in alT incentive schools so that student data is easily accessible and access can be immediate for reports which might be needed relative to all school program aspects. G. SCHOOL SITE TEAMS - School site teams will be created to work to implement needed programmatic modifications which will be of greater benefit to the students. Membership on these teams will be rotating and on a semester basis so that staff (including custodial, aides and cafeteria workers), patrons and students have an opportunity for input. SCHOOL POLICIES AND PROCEDURES A. FLEXIBLE PROGRAMS - Every student will receive some individualized instruction every day. Programs will be flexible such that team teaching and extended time blocks for additional student assistance as needed will be provided. 8. ADDITIONAL ITEMS - It is recommended that each incentive school have: * a permanent assigned substitute who is familiar with and dedicated to the building and program philosophy * at least a half time assistant principal depending on school population (where there is a part time assistant, that person will devote the rest of his/her time to working with program development and community outreach) * uniforms for students (such as blue jeans and a white shirt) dress code for staff * required PTA attendance, at least two (2) meetings per year, one of which shall be the Open House 72continued - Incentive Schools page 10 student handbooks available at every building which are produced in and reflective of the philosophy and program at that building a science lab a computer lab (to be used for other than remediation) * a playground for PE purposes * additional compensation will be given to teachers/ principals who work these extra periods of time at the incentive schools * community education classes should be investigated for presentation at incentive schools on a rotating basis for parents in those communities to enhance their skills * Saturday programs will be developed at each school site to enhance learning. These programs will include but shall not be limited to: field trips enrichment activities tutoring parent/child \"make \u0026amp; take\" sessions book fairs 73I. GOAL: OBJECTIVE SCHOOL OPERATION'S IKPLtKiKTATION PLAN To develop support programs and procedures which will allow incentive schools to provide enhanced educational opportunities for all students attending them. STRATEGIES/ACTIVITIES IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE 19e9 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 199f Page 1 RESPONSIBILITY To provide Homework Centers and Homework Hotlines for the students at these schools. Schedules will be set at the schools to meet their students' needs. Hours will meet student needs. To establish training for peer tutors and an ongoing peer tutoring program for students. Teachers and students will receive training in peer tutoring. A mode! will be put in place. Teachers will supervise the process Fall-(P) Spring - (I) Budget- ______ tai Summer- (P) Fai 1-(1) Ongoing with evaluation Budget Item (fc r staff) All Divisions VIPS To use the skills of retired teacher mentors to tutor and sponsor clubs. To enhance student learning through extensive use of classroom based instructional aides. S - STUDY I I. R - RECOMMEND Mentors will either volunteer or be paid a minimum amount. They provide extra support to students t supplement teacher work. Certified instructional aides with a minimum of 60 college hours will be employed one to a classroom to assist teachers and students. E - EVALUATE 0 - ONGOING P - PLAN Summer- (P) Fall-(l) Pilot B - BUDGET ITEM Ongoing with evaluation Ongoing with evaluation (1) Ongoing with evaluation Some b Budget  Budget* Staff Development Asst. Supts. dgetary axpenditu| e Item Item I - IMPLEMENT PI - PILOT Office of Deseg Div of Schools VIPS Human Resources Sch Principals I 4^ Page 2 I. GOAL: (continued) OBJECTIVE STRATEGIES/ACTIVITIES SCHOOL OPERATIOK'S IMPLEMENTATION PLAN IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE RESPONSIBILITY 1989 1990 19(91 1992 1993 1994 199! To develop and implement a career skills development program which will help students develop awareness and motivate them to enhance skills leading to specific careers. Written information, guest speakers, films will be used to make students aware of career choices. Summer- (P) Fall- (1) Ongoing with evaluation VIPS Maybe 1 budget item To develop a program for year round school including enrichment and remedial options. Community access/field trips are to be arranged for enhanced experience for students. Sumner segments in remediation/ enrichment, prescriptions for courses to be taken Transportation may be provided Visits to historical, scientific and cultural events and exhibits within the city and around to state and region with appropriate chaperones to provide educational input. Summer- (P) Fall-(I) 1989-90 plan t pilot at one school S - STUDY E - EVALUATE P - PLAN I I R - RECOMMEND 0 - ONGOING B - BUDGET ITEM I cn Ongoing with evaluation Implement at all incentive schools Budget item Bu^t item I - IMPLEMENT Divisions of Schools Curriculum VIPS Division of Schools - Curriculum Desegregation PI - PILOT Page 3 1. GOAL: (continued) OBJECTIVE To build a program of community involvement to be provided for students with access to community organizations and volunteer experiences. Special skills programs to be offered after school on a four day per week basis. S - STUDY R - RECOWEND STP.ATEGIES/ACTIVITIES SCHOOL OPERATIOKS IMPLEMENTATION PLAN IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE RESPONSIBILITY 1989 1990 1^91 1992 1993 1994 199: Establish Girl/Boy Scout and Explorer programs at each school Establish offerings to include some of the following: choir, music A dance in addition to Homework Center A peer tutoring E - EVALUATE P - PLAN 0 - ONGOING (I) Quapaw Council Asst Supts for Schools Fail-(1) Ongoing with evalua-tion Maybe budget tem 1 I - IMPLEMENT PI - PILOT B - BUDGET ITEM Principals School Staff I I \u0026lt;75 11. GOAL: OBJECTIVE SCHOOL OPERATIONS IMPLEMENTATION PLAN To establish procedures for administration and staffing of the individual schools such that special skills will be brought to bear for the benefit of students at these schools. STRATEGIES/ACTIVITIES IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE 1989 1990 1^91 1992 1993 1994 199: Page 4 RESPONSIBILITY To establish a viable program for staff recruitment.  Nation-wide search  Hire staff on a one year basis Parents to be involved in the interviews.  Staff will demonstrate commitment to working with \"at risk* youth Spring/ Summer- (I) Ongoing Human Resources Div of Deseg Curriculum School Principal Budge item To provide special training for staff on an ongoing basis and special training for parents. TESA, PET. working with youth at risk, analysis and use of data human relations skills - parent training on assisting with homework, nutrition and human growth and development. Summer- (1) Ongoing S - STUDY E - EVALUATE P - PLAN Budge' it?m I ~ IMPLEMENT PI - PILOT I I R - RECOmENO 0 - ONGOING B - BUDGET ITEM I SCHOOL OPERATIONS Page 5 IMPLEMENTATION PLAN II. GOAL: (continued) OBJECTIVE STRATEGIES/ACTIVITIES IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE RESPONSIBILITY 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1991 To establish meaningful attendance and behavior guidelines.  Time-out rooms staffed with trained personnel  Student/parent contractual agreement for attendance Pilot at one school (I) Principal School Staff Bud jet i tern To provide subject related activities to enhance student learning. To include some or all of: math olympiad, junior great books, Olympics of the mind and the like. (I) Ongoing Principal School Staff Buc jet i tem 1 S - STUDY E - EVALUATE P - PLAN I - IMPLEMENT PI - PILOT R - RECOmEND 0 - ONGOING B - BUDGET ITEM I I I QD Page 6 SCHOOL OPERATION'S IMPLEMENTATION PLAN III. GOAL: To create a program of counseling/social work to provide extra support to students to ensure them opportunity for success. OBJECTIVE STRATEGIES/ACTIVITIES IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE RESPONSIBILITY 19B9 1990 1^91 1992 1993 1994 199: To provide community services access for all students who need additional support. To provide college/post graduation awareness via a mentoring program with role models to help students plan for the future._____________ To provide student training in study skills, testing skills and listening skills. To hold home/neighborhood meetings to increase parental/ neighborhood involvement in student learning. S - STUDY R - RECOMMEND I I Compacts with community agencies, universities to assist with student opportunities.  Parental information  Mentoring program  Special emphasis on schools recruiting minority students Testing, listening and study skills will be provided to students as well as particular experience in testing.  Meetings at neighborhood sites with small groups of parents  Meetings at homes with groups of parents .. Involvement of ministers E - EVALUATE 0 - ONGOING P - PLAN Study and recommend Sna1 Training Summer Fall-(I) (I) B - BUDGET ITEM Implement on a pilot basis Ongoing at all - schools VIPS Div of Deseg Curriculum Div of Schools Spring (1) Ongoing cost item Ongoing Cost item Ongoing I - IMPLEMENT PI - PILOT Pupil Personnel Counselors VIPS Div of Schools Staff Develop Div of Schools Principals School Staff I Page 7 SCHOOL OPERATIONS IMPLEMENTATION PLAN II. GOAL\n(continued) OBJECTIVE STRATEGIES/ACTIVITIES IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE RESPONSIBILITY To increase parental involvement so that parents become true partners in the learning process. To establish learning time schedules for the afternoon's extended day.  Parent assistance at schools  Parents will sign homework  Regular communication between school and home will take place  Day visits for parents  Schedule settings Schedule (settings) weekly extended day programs based on individual school needs 1969 1990 1^91 1992 1993 1994 1991 Fa11-(1) Fall-(I) Ongoing Ongoing To improve horoe/school communication To establish meaningful elementary extra-curricular activities for students. S - STUDY R - RECOMMEND on c Principal School Staff Principal School Staff  Early indicator and early intervention programs  Alert \u0026amp; Success cards sent regularly to parents Give students recognition and leadership opportunities via clubs and monitoring responsibilities E - EVALUATE 0 - ONGOING (I) (1) 1 P - PLAN B - BUDGET ITEM Ongoing Ongoing I - IMPLEMENT PI - PILOT Principal School Staff Principal School Staff HI. GOAL: (continued) OBJECTIVE To Implement Individual and group counseling for all students. Incentive/recognition programs will be Implemented by 1990-1991 To structure and begin wellness program for students at each school. To work with community programs like Camp Pfeifer to supplement school programs for students. S - STUDY R - RECOMMEND STRATEGIES/ACTIVITIES  Peer facilitators  Counselors doing individual and group counseling  Conflict resolution will be taught_____________  Student recogniton programs  Good Citizen programs  Community involvement In recognition SCHOOL OPERATIONS IMPLEMENTATION PLAN IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE 1989 Fall- Train students Sprlng- Hl (P) Pilot one school 1990 Ongoing Budget (I) 1991 1992 1993 1994 199: Pge B RESPONSIBILITY Pupil Personnel (PossltI e Budge Item) VIPS Partners Program  Full time nurse at each building  Student screening  Parent presentations  Study success of Pfeifer program  Mork with Director to target incentive students  Mork with other community groups to undertake similar projects E - EVALUATE P - PLAN 0 - ONGOING (1) (P) A (S) (Budge' Implement on a pilot basis ' Item) TiT\"\n(Budget Item) I - IMPLEMENT B - BUDGET ITEM Health Services Pupil Personnel District divisions PI - PILOT oc IV. SCHOOL OPERATION'S IMPLEMENTATION PLAN GOAL: To more closely and thoroughly monitor incentive schools in order to develop a clearer picture of student achievement at these buildings. Page 9 OBJECTIVE STRATEGIES/ACTIVITIES IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 199: RESPONSIBILITY To develop a process for obtaining verifiable information regarding student growth.  Development of valid/reliable monitoring instrument(s)  Establish training for monitoring teams in use of the Instrument (S)  (R) Spring semester (I) Ongoing with evaluation Testing/Eval Assoc Supts To provide a systematic program for tracking student attendance, discipline, behavior and achievement. To Involve parents In the development of student educational excellence plans (EEP). To plan and set parameters for quarterly reports and visitations by a multi faceted monitoring team.  To be done on a quarterly basis * Class \u0026amp; school profiles will be kept in regard to attendance, be-havior, discipline A achievement  Develop EEP format  Involve parents in writing plan based on student needs  To include extra curricular activities also________________ _  Develop reporting format  Involve staff, patrons, in monitoring  involve all staff in goal setting  Evaluate goal achievement Summer (P) (1) Develop plan Budget Summer- (P) Fall - ..(I) S - STUDY E - EVALUATE P - PLAN I I R - RECOMMEND 0 - ONGOING B - BUDGET ITEM I OD Ongoing with evaluation Spring- Ongoing Testing/Eval Div of Schools Curriculum School Staff Pupil Personnel School Staffs PTA Officers (I) \u0026gt; Testing/Eval Div of Schools School Staff Community (BudgIi t Item) ' I - IMPLEMENT PI - PILOT SCHOOL OPERATIONS Page 10 IMPLEMENTATION PLAN IV. GOAL: (continued) OBJECTIVE To establish a student evaluator program for student input and ideas. To establish a program for computerized data access at each incentive school. To establish site t6ams at each school to implement programmatic modifications to benefit the students. S - STUDY R - RECOMMEND STRATEGIES/ACTIVITIES IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE RESPONSIBILITY 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 199: I QD Co  Random selection of students to participate each year  Student \"training\"  Student generation of questionnaires  Analysis of data collection * Conclusions generated  Report back to students on response to student evaluation  Install computers  Tie into mainframe  Write programs for reporting (S) with students (R) Fall - (I) (Bui get Item) Ongoing Testing/Eval School Staffs Principals (1) 1990-91 school - year Data Processing School Staff Assoc Supts \u0026amp;(S) FalHP) student data in a variety of mode\u0026gt;  Include representatives of al) school departments (custodial, food service, aides t teachers)  Team membership to be rotating and-on a semester basis  Plan for parent/student meetings for input E - EVALUATE 0 - ONGOING P - PLAN Spring (R)  Plan for implementation of changes  Make recomiendations for changes * Implement changes 1 .e. Plan  Evaluate changes (Each aspect will occur on a regular and rotating basis with a semester for each. B - BUDGET ITEM Evaluate Recoin nend Implement I - IMPLEMENT PI - PILOT V. GOAL: OBJECTIVE SCHOOL OPERATIONS IMPLEMENTATION PLAN To reassess individual school policies and procedures as they relate to meeting the needs of all students. STRATEGIES/ACTIVITIES IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE 1969 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 jogt Page 11 RESPONSIBILITY To establish a flexible programming approach at each incentive school which complies with standards and also meets individual student needs. * Allow for team teaching by means of scheduling  Provide for opportunities for students to remain in classes fur extended time periods as needed.  Develop a plan for individualized instructions within the specific building (1) 1 (E) Areas to be investigated for possible plan inclusion  Permanent assigned substitute in each incentive school to be available as needed  At least a 1 time asst prin  Uniforms for students  Standard dress for teachers  Required PTA attendance (at least two (2) meetings per year for parents/all meetings for staff * Student handbooks will be available ^t every school and individual to that school______ (S) (I) S - STUDY E - EVALUATE P - PLAN (Budge] Item) . . I - IMPLEMENT PI - PILOT , R  I ! RECOMMEND 0 - ONGOING B - BUDGET ITEM I OD School Principal Staff Assoc Supts Asst Supts SCHOOL OPERATIONS Page 12 IMPLEKEKTATIOfi PLAN V. GOAL: (continued) OEJECTIVE STRATEGIES/ACTIVITIES IKPLEHEKTATION SCHEDULE RESPONSIBILITY 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 199: * A science lab at each school  A computer lab at each school  A complete playground for PE purposes  Additional compensation for teachers/principals who work the extra time periods  Community education classes should be investigated for parents in the incentive school communties * Saturday enrichment programs Schoo! community members (Budget Items) S - STUDY E - EVALUATE P - PLAN 1 - IMPLEMENT PI - PILOT I I R - RECOMMEND 0 - ONGOING B - BUDGET ITEM I QD SECTION THREE STAFFING 86 INCENTIVE SCHOOLS STAFFING The selection and support of guality staff members will be critical factors in the success of Incentive Schools. Carefully planned staffselection criteria and procedures will provide the quality personnel capable of successfully attaining the goals and implementing the programs and curriculum of these schcols. Ongoing staff devslocment for Incentive devsioc-en Schcols must preoare the staffs to attain the standards of excellence thev will uphold for achieving student success and fulfillment of potential. STAFFING A. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT (LRSD) INCENTIVE SCHOOLS STAFFING COMT'IT - A conmittae will be established to assess staffing neeos for Incentive Schools, to set criteria for staffing, to recruit quality staff members, and to determine procedures for staffing. The cormittee v/ould be composed of teachers, parents, B. supervisors, principals, and other administrators. STAFFING NEEDS ASSESSMENT - The needs and interests of student populations in the Incentive Schools will be considered before staff selection is initiated, the following. Factors to be considered include J Number of students per grade level Race and gender Academic achievement needs and interests Disciplinary needs * Social interaction needs * Health needs Program goals and curriculum of the Incentive Schools will also be examined. The LRSD Incentive Schools Staffing Commi SO wi 11 then utilize the student data, goals, and curriculum to identify staffing needs for the Incentive Schools. The following full-time positions are recomrended for each school but are not all inclusive of positions which may be identified during the needs assessment process. * Classroom teachers (1:18 pupi1/teacher ratio) * Counselor * Media specialist * Music 87Incentive Schools page 2 * Art * P. E. * Social Worker Permanently assigned substitute teacher (for each Incentive School) * PAL reading  PAL math PAL lab attendant Resource Speech * Specialist for alternative classroom * Media clerk * Certified instructional aides (1 per classroom) * Program specialist * Principal * Assistant principal * Non-certified supervision aide c. STAFF RECRUITMENT - The LRSD Incentive Schools Staffing Committee will implement ongoing nationwide recruitment strategies with special emphasis on recruiting qualified minority staff members. Current recruitment files will be maintained on an ongoing basis. A pool of prospective staff members also will be drawn from promising student teachers participating in the Master Teacher Program (as mentioned in the Staff Development Section, Item E). D. STAFF SELECTION 1. The LRSD Incentive Schools Staffing Committee will develop criteria for principal and staff selection. be declared vacant. All positions in each school will Principals shall be selected first for each school so that they may be involved in staff selection and collect- ion and review of student data. Selection criteria will include, but not be limited to, the following. * Race and gender Successful teaching and/cr administrative experience with at-risk youth * Record of commitment to quality desegregated education * Strong recormendations from a variety of sources (i.e., colleagues, principals, college professors, and other administrators) ... 88Incentive Schools page 3 2. The LP.SO Incentive Schools Staffing Committee will work with the Human Resources Department to develop job descriptions and special contracts ou\nThis project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resoources.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1230","title":"Oral deposition of Ruth White Tucker","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":["Bushman Court Reporting"],"dc_date":["1992-06-25"],"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--20th century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Education--Finance","Educational law and legislation","School board members","School management and organization","Court records"],"dcterms_title":["Oral deposition of Ruth White Tucker"],"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/1230"],"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":["filing"],"dcterms_extent":["27 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\nDeposition taken at Wright, Lindsey and Jennings\nLittle Rock School District, plaintiff vs. Pulaski County Special School District, defendant\nThis transcript was created using Optical Character Recognition and may contain some errors.\n Case No.: LR-C-82-866 * LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, * et al. * Plaintiffs * vs. * PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al. * UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT * * EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS Defendants * * WESTERN DIVISION MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, et al. * Intervenors * * KATHERINE KNIGHT, et al. * Intervenors * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * THE ORAL DEPOSITION OF RUTH WHITE TUCKER * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * APPEARANCES: MR. SAMUEL JONES, III, Esq., Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings, 2000 Worthen Bank Building, 200 West Capitol Avenue, Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 *** For the Plaintiffs*** MESSRS. JOHN w. WALKER \u0026amp; MARK BURNETTE, Esqs., 1723 Broadway, Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 *** For the Joshua Intervenors *** ALSO PRESENT: MR. BOBBY LESTER, Superintendent * * * * * * * BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING, INC. 201 East Sixth Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72202 (501) 372-5115  2 - (Y) THE ORAL DEPOSITION OF RUTH WHITE TUCKER, a witness produced at the request of the Intervenors, taken in the above-styled and numbered cause on the 25th day of June, 1992, before Jeff Bennett, CCR, LS #19, a Notary Public in and for White County, Arkansas, at Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings, 2000 Worthen Bank Building, Little Rock, Arkansas, at 2:30 p.m. pursuant to the agreement hereinafter set forth. * * * * * * * * * * STIPULATIONS IT IS STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between the parties through their respective counsel that the deposition of RUTH WHITE TUCKER may be taken at the time and place for the purposes of discovery, pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and that all formalities with regard to the taking of said deposition are hereby waived including presentation, reading, subscription by the witness, notice of filing, filing, etc.\nand that all objections as to relevancy, materiality, and competency are expressly reserved, except as to form of questions, and may be raised if and when said deposition, or any part thereof, is so offered at the trial of this case. * * * * * * * * * * RUTH WHITE TUCKER the witness hereinbefore named, being first duly cautioned and sworn, or affirmed, to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, testified as follows: BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING, INC. 201 East Sixth Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72202 ( 501) 372-5115  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 - 3 MR. JONES: The same observation I made on Mr. Matthews' deposition. MR. WALKER: All right. EXAMINATION BY MR. WALKER: Q. What is your name? A. Ruth White Tucker. Q. You're the President of the Board, Ms. Tucker? A. Yes, sir, as of right now I am. Q. I'm going to ask you a few questions, Ms. Tucker, about the proposed reorganization and budget cuts? A. Yes, sir. Q. Could you tell me whether or not the budget cut recommendations were made before the millage election? A. Which one? Q. The ones of March 17. A. Yes, sir. Q. Were they made with the anticipation that the millage would pass or would fail? A. Well, I anticipated it would pass. Now, maybe some of the others did not. But I felt like all along it was going to pass this year. Q. So these budget reductions that you voted upon on March 17 were passed or approved, in the cases where they were approved, with the notion in mind that you still with the millage increase BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING, INC. (501) 372 - 5115  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 4 that you got would need some more money to operate the schools? A. Well, yes, sir. But my anticipation might not have been the same as the others were. But we had to be prepared in case. Just like you do at home. Q. Now, did you all have in mind how much more money you would be needing if the millage was approved, than you would be needing that if the millage failed? A. Restate that, sir? Q. Did you have a view that if the millage passed you would not need to make cuts as deep as if it failed? A. Q. Yes, sir. Did you ever have an idea or a writing which recommended or which suggested before the millage vote was taken how much you would need for operating cost with the millage passing, and with the millage failing? A. Dr. Stewart kept us aware of what -- Q. Did you ever get a writing in that respect? Is there anything in writing which said that if the millage passes, we'll still need this much money to be applied in this way? A. Q. I have to think a minute. That if the millage passes? Yes. If the millage passes we'll still need this much money to come from savings in the district or cuts in the district\ndid he ever reduce to writing such a proposition? A. I'm not certain about that. I don't recall. It seems that we did have. But I won't say that to be of certain. BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING, INC. (501) 372-5115  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 - 5 Q. Now, did you ever have a writing from Dr. Stewart, or Mr. Lester, or anybody under Mr. Lester's direction which said that if the millage fails we'll need this amount to be applied in these ways? A. The total amount was estimated to be 2.5 million. Q. If the millage failed? A. Right. Q. And if the millage passed how much would you need? A. I believe still 2.5 million to have a contingency fund. Q. You wanted to have 2.5 million in a contingency fund MR. JONES: No. She said to help with a contingency fund. A. In order for us to have a contingency fund. Q. Did you say help with or have, Ms. Tucker? A. Well, help with. We had a little. Q. Now, your words earlier were have, were they not, to have a contingency fund? MR. JONES: But she never said they would have a contingency fund of 2 1/2 million. A. I didn't mean to intend to imply that we would have a contingency fund of 2.5 million. Q. Let me understand this. If the millage failed you needed 2 1/2 million dollars from savings of budget cuts to operate the district? A. Right. BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING, INC. 1501) 372-5115  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 6 Q. If the millage passed then how much would you need in order to operate the district at the same level, according to Dr. Stewart's information to you, before dealing with the contingency fund consideration? A. Q. I'm sorry, but I can't answer that. Was that question ever addressed to Dr. Stewart or to Mr. Lester? A. Q. I depend on Dr. Stewart to tell us what -- But my question was, was that question ever addressed to Mr. Lester or Dr. Stewart? I guess I need an answer to that. Did you all ever ask him that question? A. Q. A. How much we would need? Yes, in the event that the millage passed. No, because I believe that we agreed that we would have to have 2.5 million. Q. A. Q. Whether or not the millage passed? To operate and to have any kind of contingency fund at all. How much was your contingency fund at the end of the 1990-91 school year? A. I'm going to say -- at the end of 90-91? Q. Yes. That's the last school year, because this year is just now about to end in another few days. A. Q. I'm going to say $100,000. That's just merely a guess. Okay. Now, if the millage passed you would be able to operate the schools and still have $100,000 contingency fund, BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING, INC. (501) 372-5115  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 - / 7 couldn't you? MR. JONES: John, I object to the form of the question. You've leaped ahead a year. Q. I understand. Well, no, I haven't. Do you know what the amount of the contingency fund is right now, three days before the end of this 1991-92 school year? A. Not to be accurate. Q. Approximately what is it? A. I'm just going to have to say I don't know. Q. Is it more than $100,000? A. I'm going to have to say I don't know on that. Q. Have you discussed the subject with Mr. Lester? A. Not lately. Q. After the millage passed, did you have any discussion with Mr. Stewart about the contingency fund? A. No, I haven't. Q. Has Mr. Stewart appeared before the Board formally or informally with respect to the budget needs since the millage passed? A. I'm trying to remember. Yes. He has told us that we will be able to replace the maintenance and operation funds, the funds that we had taken out to start building Crystal Hill. Q. A. Q. How much was that? I'm not sure how much we had borrowed at that point. was it about $700,000 to $800,000? BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING, INC. (501) 372-5115  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 8 A. It had to be that much or more. Q. And that was taken from a contingency fund, wasn't it? A. No, it was taken from maintenance and operation. Q. From maintenance and operation? A. As I understand it, that's where we were taking it from. Which is certainly not the same as a contingency fund. It was earmarked for operating expenses for this year. Q. Well, that means then that you will have $700,000 to $800,000 more funds to operate this year than you had last year, won't it? A. No, sir. We have to take care of our current expenses. Q. Once you replaced that $700,000 to $800,000, that was sort of like a loan to yourself, wasn't it, you were loaning yourself money to build this school? A. We were borrowing from Peter to pay Paul. Q. So now that you have paid Peter back, that means that you have that money available for discretionary uses as you did before? MR. JONES: That all assumes there was ever any extra money in that account. Q. Did you all operate at a deficit during the 90-91 school year? A. We hadn't gotten to that point, but we're getting close to it. Q. I guess we'll know by July 1st what the budget deficit is BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING, INC. (501) 372-5115  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 9 in the district, won't we? MR. JONES: I don't thjnk the books close that early. Q. Don't you have trial balances, Ms. Tucker, which show you what the anticipated carryover is? A. We can get it, I'm sure, if we ask for it. MR. WALKER: I would like to have that, Mr. Jones, before the hearing. MR. JONES: I can't promise a good figure. I'll get you what we got. A. Q. It would only be a guestimate. That's fine. I'm sure that that guestimate won't be 100 percent off. Ms. Tucker, have you been presented any budget to show what use wjll be made of the 2 1/2 million dollars? Well, no, you said that the 2 1/2 million dollars is needed for the contingency fund\nis that correct? A. No, I didn't say that. Q. You said that without the millage you would need 2 1/2 million dollars to operate\nis that correct? A. To complete the year. Q. All right. Now that the millage has passed, Dr. Stewart has told you that you need this 2 1/2 milljon dollars to go in a contingency fund? A. No. To go in maintenance and operation. MR. JONES: That's not what she said. BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING, INC. (501) 372-5115  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 10 A. There is a distinct difference, Mr. Walker. Contingency means your savings, as far as I'm concerned. And if I'm wrong you correct me. But maintenance and operation, that is just like I pay out for my groceries and my shelter. Q. Let me understand this, Ms. Tucker. If this millage had passed, you would need 2 1/2 million dollars in order to pay for your maintenance and operation\nthat would come from savings. Now that the millage has passed, can you tell me what you have realized from the increased millage that can be devoted to -- A. we won't get but about 1.4 million of that in this next year. And all because of the 40 percent pullback. Q. Okay. That's a million-four. So that means then that you will have $1,100,000 available for something that you would not have had available had this millage not passed\nisn't that right? A. It's to continue programs and replace as many of the cuts as we could. We replaced the five days that we cut off the end of school year, had proposed to cut off the end of school year, which was 1.5 million dollars. Q. So what you all have done is, you have gone aheld and come up with a replacement budget now that the millage has passed, not a replacement budget, but a budget which takes into account some of the savings that you were going to effect through this reorganization plan? In other words, you're saving some money through reorganization, right? BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING, INC. (501) 372-5115  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 - A. very little. We're saving some. Q. Approximately how much do you think you're saving? A. I don't know. MR. JONES: Can you look on that sheet? 11 A. I guess this combined savings. Some of these things we didn't cut. We were looking to cut $3,000,000 out. Q. But you didn't cut them out, did you, you didn't cut all those items out, did you? A. We did at first. And we've only reinstated two things. Q. What are they? A. Those are the five days that we cut off the end of school year and the 2 mile bus limit. Q. So that's $1,500,000? A. For that. Q. And the 2 mile bus limit? A. Is about $100,000, I believe. Q. That's $1,600,000. Can you tell me whether or not you all had any -- was this just an arbitrary judgmental kind of thing by the Board, or did you all have any criteria for determining the priorities of reinstatement of items onto the budget? A. Are you talking about the reinstatement of days and the 2 mile? Q. Yes, ma'am. Was this just arbitrary? A. No. When we cut those, those were two of the items that we had agreed on, that if they were priority items to reinstate. BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING, INC. (501) 372-5115  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 12 Q. I see. Now, did you all cut all certified salaries by 2 percent? A. No, we didn't. Q. Can you tell me which items go into your figure of $3,041,626? A. All of these here that were cut. Do you have a list of these? Q. Yes, ma'am, I do. MR. JONES: Ya'll are looking at the same thing, Ms. Tucker. A. We've cut number 3. We cut number 6. We cut number 7. We cut number 10. We cut number 11. We cut number 14 with the exception of 9 and 15 below. We cut number 15, Q. You cut number 15? A. All out of district travel. Q. Number 15 A. 15 and 25 actually were combined. Q. With the exception of what below, you said 9 and 15 below? A. 9 and 15. Q. Under the breakdown by category? A. Yes. Q. You're relating 9 and 15, meaning Specialty Fuller and Futures Program at Fuller? A. Yes, sir, we kept those. But all other teachers except these had to have only one planning period per day. We cut them BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING, INC. (501) 372-5115  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 down to one planning period per day. Q. Where is that reflected? 13 A. It's reflected in the teachers teaching full load in 14, with the exception of 9 and 15, which was Fuller Futures Program. And we felt that was the success of that program. Q. Go on with the other items that you cut? A. 19. Q. Let me understand. You're giving me the items that you kept, or the ones that you cut? A. I'm giving you the ones we cut. I circled them in red. Q. Okay. You said 15, 19? A. 19. We cut 22. Now, these were the original cuts. Q. But 22 is reinstated? A. Right, reinstated. So was the 2 mile transportation. It was number 7. It was reinstated. 25 was combined with 15 above. All district travel, that meant district employees. And then the Board cut their own travel out, out of district travel. Q. All right. And those amounted to $3,041,626 according to my figures. Number 5, 9 and 12 were part of the reorganization plan. Q. 5, organization? A. 5, 9 and 12. Q. And number 5 purported to cut out a number of coordinators in special education? A. Yes. BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING, INC. (501) 372-5115  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 14 Q. And examiners. How many persons were to be cut out? A. That looks like about one, possibly two with the estimated savings. Q. And under the administrative reorganization was anybody to be cut? A. Pardon me? Q. Under number 12? No, let's go to 9. How many secondary instructional coordinators were to be cut? A. Q. A. Q. A. Q. then I believe there was 6 originally. Are they reinstated? No, sir, not at this point. You say originally? Yes, sir. We said we'd keep math and science. Now, you said originally. Does that mean that cut some others? No, sir. And on number 12 were any persons cut? That was the total reorganization. you've since A. Q. A. Q. So that meant that you demoted a number of people and you reduced the salaries of everybody at certain levels? A. There was voluntary reductions there of 8 percentage points of the current year's salary on all the assistant superintendents. That was a voluntary reduction in the directors salaries. Q. In the directors? BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING, INC. (501) 372-5115  1 2 3 4 C ~ 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 / 15 A. By 5 percent, I believe. Q. So that if a director got a raise of 13 percent, and that raise equated to say $3,000, then that person would be cut by 5 percent of $3,000 or $600. 5 percent of $3,000. MR. JONES: She said 5 percentage points. A. 5 percentage points. I don't have a calculator. Q. $3,000, 10 percent is $300, 5 percent would be $150. MR. JONES: She's talking about 5 percentage points out of 13 percentage points that was the raise. Q. All right. The raise was $3,000. Then the person would be expected to be cut by a little bit more than $1,000, about $1,200? A. Yes. Q. Now, you all directed or mandated that, or did you all solicit voluntary responses? A. They volunteered to do it. And we accepted their voluntary salary reductions. Q. Now, with respect to these coordinators, did you all consider the desegregation plan before you did it? A. Well, yes, I did. Q. Did the Board have a discussion about it? A, I don't recall a formal discussion. Q. With respect to the secondary instructional coordinators, did you consider the implications of this upon the desegregation plan before you voted upon it as a Board in public meeting? BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING, INC. (501) 372-5115  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 - 16 A. I don't know that the group did. I know the individuals Q. Did you all ask Mr. Lester for his opinion about what the desegregation impact of this would be? A. I don't think that we felt that it would make that great an impact since other Q. I understand that you felt that way. But my question is, did you ask Mr. Lester to give his opinion about what the impact would be? A. I think we did. And I think he responded that other people were going to take up the slack. Q. Let me ask you, did you ask Mr. Bowles' office to tell you what the desegregation impact would be? A. I did not. Q. Did you all before you voted upon this seek the involvement of the court? A. In what way? Q. In any way. Were you aware, Ms. Tucker, that since you all have alleged that almost everything affects desegregation, that you could not change anything under those circumstances unless you had court approval? MR . JONES: I'll object to the form of the question. Q. Ya'll have taken the position in court, have you not, that it's very difficult to segregate desegregation expenses from BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING, INC. (501) 372-5115  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 - normal operating expenses, have you not, you've taken that position, haven't you? 17 A. I don't recall having taken that specific position. I know in court when Dr. Stewart was giving his testimony, our desegregation expenses as divided out by year seems to be right on the money. Q. Can you tell me how much money last year was devoted to desegregation expense? A. No, I can't. Q. Now, isn't it true though that you all have taken the position that almost everything that you do has desegregative implications? A. I do not know that we've taken the official position but Q. That's your position, isn't it, Ms. Tucker, personally, isn't it, that almost everything that you all do through the teachers, and through the programs of the districts, and through the administrative staff for which money is spent has some desegregation benefit or expectation? A. we hope to enhance it. Q. Now, is there any particular reason, since you were making these changes, that before you implemented them you did not get court approval? A. Not that I know of. Q. Is there any particular reason you did not get our input as parties in this case pursuant to the desegregation plan? BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING, INC. (501) 372-5115  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 - 18 A. There's no reason that I know of. Q. Were you aware that you all have agreed that before you take any action to alter or modify the operative mechanism of the school system, that you all will discuss it with us first, before helping the Board formally vote on it? A. We don't feel that we modified it to such an extent that it would be necessary. Q. To such an extent. But when you cut out a number of coordinator and examiners, does not this diminish your ability to carry out the desegregation plan? A. Not necessarily. Q. Were you in court when the court got Mr. Jones to make a comment about certain things being put in the plan? You wouldn't put things in this plan that were not necessary, would you? In other words, if you got these coordinators of special ed and the education examiners, they are there for a purpose\nisn't that correct? A. That's right. So are these other positions. Q. By taking them out you therefore increase the burdens on other remaining staff members, don't you? A. Yes, sir. But that's been true of any cut we've ever made. Q. I understand. But when you do that you are burdening an already overburdened desegregation process, aren't you, because you're causing the people who are already overburdened to take on more responsibility for making the desegregation plan work? BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING, INC. (501) 372-5115  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 - 19 A. I don't consider those people anymore overburdened than I do teachers and people out in the field. Q. But you all have not cut any teachers, have you? A. Yes, I think there have been some teachers cut. Q. In the budget reduction considerations for March 17 can you show me where they are: look in there and tell me where the teachers are cut? A. I believe that in number 10 they would have been cut, alpha positions. Q. Number 10. Where else would some teachers have been cut? A. Now, I'm talking about classroom teachers. Q. We're talking about classroom teachers. I don't know any others. A. There could have been some in 11. I couldn't tell you how many. That's all that I see that I can say for certainty. Q. So how many teachers positions were actually cut by the reorganization plan? A. I'm going to say possibly six. Q. Possibly six. And how many coordinators were cut? A. Four. Q. That is secondary instructional coordinators were four: is that your position? A. We've kept math and science because of the strong emphasis on math and science that we're exercising. Q. Who made the judgment to keep math and science, the Board BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING, INC. (501) 372-5115  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 20 or Mr. Lester? A. Q. All of us together. Who made the recommendation, since the Board only operates on the basis of recommendations from the superintendent, according to its preamble? As I understand your operative documents, the Board acts on the recommendations of the superintendent with respect to operative matters, and does not itself initiate administrative action\nis that correct? A. Q. A. Q. That's right. That's not the way you've been doing it, is it, Ms. Tucker? As far as I know. The alpha positions, what was the purpose of the alpha positions? A. Q. A. Q. Being cut? No. What did the people in the alpha positions do? Alpha is elementary talented and gifted. And as I understood it, the alpha positions were being used to promote desegregation? A. That's right. But what we asked them to do was to teach five full days instead of four. Q. You said you cut teachers, so you said the alpha positions were cut, four to six teachers. Now, were four to six -- A. That was four to six alpha and secondary TAG. I think there was only four, if I remember correctly. Q. Whatever the number. Whatever it was, you do understand BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING, INC. ,(501) 372-5115  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 21 that you all were trained to use the alpha type and TAG type positions to desegregate hard to desegregate schools, weren't you? A. That's right. Q. Now, this necessarily had desegregative effect, didn't it? A. No, sir, for this reason -- MR. JONES: Let her finish, John. MR. WALKER: She said no, sir. I want to ask the followup question. MR. JONES: She's entitled to explain her answer. MR. WALKER: Not on my deposition. MR. JONES: Yes, she is. She is absolutely entitled to. A. Let me explain to you what this entailed. That's what I'm trying to say. Up until this cut was made the alpha teachers taught in the classroom four days a week. The fifth day they went to the central office for inservice and preparation of materials and what have you. We asked them to teach a full five day load. Q. Does that mean that you have cut any positions, alpha positions? A. There might have been four. Q. Now, if you had four actual positions cut, and since the desegregation of hard to desegregate schools was being achieved through alpha and TAG positions, does not this reduce your BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING, INC. (50)) 372-5115  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 22 ability to desegregate? If you have fewer teachers to relate to desegregation specifically, doesn't that mean that fewer pupils can be accommodated? A. No, sir. Q. You have to operate within certain pupil/teacher ratios, don't you? A. You have to understand that some of these alpha people you don't get the full picture unless you let me explain it to you. Some of these alpha teachers would go to school for a half a day, then they would have traveling time to another school. What we're asking them to do is to schedule their time so that they can spend that whole day at one school. Q. If they are terminated from the district, that means they don't have any time to spend at a particular school, doesn't it? If you terminate four teachers, Ms. Tucker, that's my question? A. Take up the slack, the ones that are left. Q. What you're saying then is that these teachers were performing unnecessary tasks in the first place? A. No, they were traveling. Some part of their time was taken up in traveling. Q. Ms. Tucker, you're saying that you had these teachers, these alpha teachers in the first place doing some things that were not essential, such as traveling from school to school or doing other things like coming to the central office\nin other words, you had these teachers performing work that was not BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING, INC. (501) 372-5115  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 / 23 absolutely essential? A. Their supervisor thought it was essential, but we thought that we had to tighten our belt, and that they could perform the actual teaching that fifth day. Q. I see. so the Board initiated this action on its own, instead of waiting for the recommendation of Mr. Lester? A. This was on the original list from the year before. And I am not sure who put it on there. Q. Here's my point though. It is true that Mr. Lester did not recommend reduction of teachers who affect desegregation, isn't it, he didn't make a recommendation that the alpha teacher positions be reduced or the secondary TAG positions be reduced, did he, there was not any formal recommendation of his, was there? A. Not that I remember. Q. So that means that the Board did this on its own, doesn't it? A. we took each one of these. Q. Now, how can you be consistent as a Board when you're suppose to act on recommendations of the superintendent, but when you go ahead and take administrative action on your own as a Board\nhow is that consistent with your policy? A. I don't know how these got here. These were on the list from the year before. And we had agreed that we would take these up. BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING, INC. (501) 372-5115  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 24 Q. How many of the four teachers were black who were cut? A. I don't have any idea. I don't even know who they were. Q. Did you all consider the desegregative impact of that before you took the action? A. I don't think there was any adverse. Q. You cannot think -- let me ask you this. If you don't know what the numbers were, how can you arrive at the conclusion that there was no adversity? A. Because I think they'll be doing essentially the same teaching that they would heve done. Q. Ms. Tucker, I'm saying if you're cutting out four to six positions, let's assume it's six, if you're going to cut out six positions, and you're going to determine whether or not this has racial impact, must not you know how many of these teachers were black before you can arrive at the conclusion that there is no racial impact? Must not you at least ask the question? A. These people can bump one another. And we depend on Gary Miller to see that the affirmative action is taken care of. Q. So you all don't do that yourselves, you all don't oversee Gary Miller and you've gone ahead and taken certain actions which bypass Mr. Lester. In this situation you're saying that you didn't yourself, since you all have a responsibility for insuring desegregation, ask the question of what the desegregative impact is? A. I'm sure it was considered. BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING, INC. (501) 372-5115  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 25 Q. I'm sure you say it is. Now, with respect to these coordinators, how many of them were black, do you know? A. Q. A. Q. Frank Smith I think is the only one. And the others are all white? I believe that's right. Let me ask you, did Mr. Lester recommend that the School Board Member Goss' wife be promoted during the -- A. State that again? Q. Was Mrs. Goss promoted or given a title change and a pay increase during the 1991-92 school year? A. Q. A title change. She was given a title change. was she also given a pay increase? A. Q. we denied it at first. I know. Just listen to the question. During the 1991-92 school year was she given a pay increase? A. Q. A. Q. Last month. Now, was that on recommendation of Mr. Lester? Yes, sir. Mr. Lester came before you all and told you that he wanted her to be given a pay increase? A. It was a recommendation in personnel. Q. I see. Do you know any other teacher who this year was recommended for a pay increase or other administrator in central office who was recommended for a pay increase other than Mrs. BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING, INC. (501) 372-5115  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Goss? A. This year? Q. Yes. A. Not that I know of. 26 Q. Now, before you've had other people who have had grievances that were submitted through Mr. Lester, have you not, which grievances were passed upon by Mr. Lester before being passed on to the Board, have you not? A. That's the sequence. Q. Mr. Lester denied her grievance, didn't he, initially some four years ago? A. Do you have Q. Before Mr. Goss became a School Board member Mr. Lester denied it? A. He denied it this year earlier. Q. Earlier this year. All right. You're not contending that four years ago you all had made a promise to Mrs. Goss, are you? A. I wasn't on the Board four years ago. Q. Well, this year Mr. Lester denied the grievance, and the Board voted to uphold Mr. Lester, didn't they? A. Right. Q. Now, do you know what caused Mr. Lester to come back later on after this grievance was denied, and recommend that she be given a pay increase right after the millage passed? A. No, I don't. BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING, INC. (501) 372-5115  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q. A. Did that seem strange to you? No, it doesn't, because she was doing extra duty. It 27 doesn't. Q. I thought all of these teachers now had to do extra duty after the budget cuts. Everybody, as I understand it, for the last year has had extra duty. Now, why should she get paid for her extra duty, and all the other teachers not get paid for theirs? A. They're not doing the extra duty this year. Q. Here's what you're saying. You're saying they're going to be doing it next year. What you're doing is causing all of these people\nMr. Bowles, Mr. Collins, all of these other people to have greater duties this year than they had last year -- this next year than they had last year, but you're not giving them extra pay, you're giving them less pay. So I would like to understand how on the one hand you can give the School Board member's wife more pay for extra duties this year, let's just say this year, and then next year give all of the non-School Board members more duties but less pay? A. Q. We're talking about separate years. Okay. I won't take advantage of you. I think that would be just too easy. would you like to think about your answer and try to enlarge it, because the concept is that you pay a person more money -- let me back up. Here she is because of extra duties getting more pay this year. Next year when other BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING, INC. ,(501) 372-5115  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 28 teachers will be having extra duties because of budget cuts, they won't get extra pay, they'll get less pay. A. That hadn't been negotiated yet. Q. Well, we do know that Mr. Lester is going to have more duties this year than he had last year, and he's going to get less pay. Why should he get less pay for more duties, while a School Board member's wife gets more pay for less duties, irrespective of the year? MR. JONES: She never said the lady was going to have less duties. A. She has had these duties all along. Q. For four years she's had them all along? A. I don't know about before I got on the Board. Q. For the last three years she has? A. She has been the Facilitator of Nursing. I don't know when that title change came about. Q. She was actually doing the work, and her grievance was that she was doing the work and not given the pay\nisn't that correct? A. Essentially. Q. And she didn't have the title either, did she? So Mr. Lester simply gave her the title this year? A. No, now wait just a minute. Mr. Lester I don't believe had one thing to do with that title change. I think she and Eddie Collins worked that out. BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING, INC. 1(501) 372-5115 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 29 Q. Are you going to say that Mr. Collins has the power to change a title for an employee without going through Mr. Lester? A. He might have agreed to it. I do not know how the situation came about. But I do know that Mr. Collins had something to do, or that was my understanding, with the title change. I know what you're trying to do. You're trying to get me all up into a ball of yarn. So I'm trying to watch how you're phrasing things. Q. No, I'm not. I'm trying to get you to logically explain how when one person, who happens to be a Board member's wife, and who happens to be a Board member who was very active by his own admission in the budget reductions, how that person can get a pay increase, but nobody else does during a year, during a year when everybody has had some increases in job duties and expectations, and when during the next year it's proposed that a number of people have more job responsibilities than they already had, but they're going to get less pay. I'm trying to understand what's the logic in that, just what's the logic in it. Your explanation that it's another year is fine for me, because I'd like to present that one to Judge Wright and have her deal with it. But in order to be fair to you I want to give you a chance to see if you can come up with any other logic. And I'll be happy to start you off as my first witness and that be my first question. So I don't want to take advantage of you. MR. JONES: I'm going to object to anything at BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING, INC. (501) 372-5115  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 30 trial about Mrs. Goss is irrelevant. MR. WALKER: I understand that. But we'll be trying to put it on to show that these Board members have hidden agendas, and that they treat their own much better than they do the regular staff. And this time Mr. Goss gets the preference when he steps out of the room, and Ms. Tucker and all the others go along with this. Then the next time if Ms. Tucker has a relative or somebody else has a concern, then their people be treated the same way. MR. JONES: I agree. You can ask them in a discovery deposition pretty much anything you want to to include the individual hiring decision. I'm just telling you if that's your strategy at trial I'm going to object to it. MR. WALKER: I understand you may object. But I think that the court would be very interested to hear that, especially since she's concerned about the Pulaski County budget. Q. (BY MR. WALKER) Now, I would like one more time, Ms. Tucker, to give you an opportunity so that the record will show I've done it at least three times. Do you have any other justification other than one thing happened one year and all this other is going to take place next year? A. I don't know what the thinking of the other Board members was. I was surprised when she brought it back up again. She more than likely was going to take it to court and sue us. BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING, INC. (501) 372-5115  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 31 Q. You all haven't been too concerned about resolving other matters in court. I don't know why you're going to resolve this to avoid court matters. We've got Raymond Green pending. We've got four or five other matters pending. Why are you going to try to resolve hers and not resolve the others? A. I think that's a horse of a different color. Q. It is a horse of a different color. I want that in the record. I will not ask anymore questions. That's the way I want the deposition to end. A. You just wait a minute. MR. WALKER: You can ask her. But I want the deposition to end with her saying that that's a horse of a different color. MR. JONES: would you like to explain your last answer? A. Yes, sir, I would. MR. JONES: Go right ahead. A. Because that is an expression I've used all my life. It's a family expression, and it has nothing to do with racial overtones. And let me tell you something. That I am certainly not as racially motivated against people of different races as you are. And I dare you to prove it. MR. WALKER: Ms. Tucker, I'm not on trial. But I want you to understand that I have Mr. Burnette here in the deposition with me. My staff is far more integrated than any BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING, INC. (501) 372-5115  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 - 32 staff that you've ever been associated with. And all of my practices have been trying to bring people together rather than to separate them. A. You go back and check my record. MR. WALKER: I would like to do that. But for now, Ms. Tucker -- MR. JONES: Wait a minute. You're done. And I don't have anymore questions. MR. WALKER: On the basis of since she's still talking, I would like for her to continue. A. Do you not have expressions that have been handed down to you from generation to generation that are peculiar to your family and to your race? CONTINUING EXAMINATION BY MR. WALKER: Q. Give me some examples? A. I'm asking you. Q. I don't know. I don't really know. But horse of a different color when we're talking about Mr. Green and A. I had no intention of having racial overtones. And I can look you in the eye and tell you very certainly. Q. Ms. Tucker, there's no use being upset. A. I'm not upset. I want it for the record. Q. I want it for the record too. When you say it's a horse of a different color you were trying to avoid a lawsuit from Mrs. BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING, INC. (501) 372-5115  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 33 Goss, who's the wife of a member of the Board who would have to sue her own husband, as over against having these other lawsuits and these other people who were affected A. You take it out of context. Q. You got other people out here who are potential lawsuits too, but you didn't concern yourself about them. Even if the coordinators, and you've got grievances pending on some of them, even if the coordinators are white, they are not being given the same treatment as Mrs. Goss, because you don't care about them filing a lawsuit. A. The coordinators have gotten their raises all along as the other people have. Q. You're saying that you're now trying to rectify something that should have been rectified two years or three years ago? A. Possibly. Q. Ms. Tucker, aren't you aware that you have a continuing contract law in Arkansas, and that when she worked for her salary in the 1991 year or the 1990 year she was paid in full. She didn't have a right to go back. And if she had a claim that she was going to make that she was being mistreated, she had to assert it within a certain time? You by doing this negated the necessity for her to go to court. She couldn't have possibly gone to court anyway because she was out of time. And you gave her benefits that the other teachers weren't given, if you were trying to do that. Are you taking the position -- BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING, INC. (501) 372-5115  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 34 MR. JONES: Is there a question in all this? Q. That raises another interesting issue. Because she was mistreated three years ago or two years ago, in your opinion, are you taking the position that she alone is entitled to some remedy, while all the other teachers who may contend they were mistreated two or three years ago may not come to court? A. I don't feel that she was mistreated. What we do, we act as a Board. We don't act as individuals. And you don't know how my vote went on that. Q. How did it go? It's a matter of public record. A. I accepted the superintendent's recommendation, the same as I did before. Q. Have you ever voted against Mr. Lester on a recommendation regarding personnel that he's made? A. I have, but I can't tell you exactly what they were. MR. WALKER: Thank you. !(WHEREUPON, the above-entitled deposition was concluded at 3:30 p.m.) * * * * * * * * * * BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING, INC. (501) 372-5115  STATE OF ARKANSAS} }ss. COUNTY OF WHITE } C E R T I F I C A T E RE: THE ORAL DEPOSITION OF RUTH WHITE WCKER: I, JEFF BENNETT, CCR, LS #19, a Notary Public in and 35 for White County, Arkansas do hereby certify that the facts stated by me in the caption of the foregoing deposition are true\nand that the foregoing deposition was transcribed by me, or under my supervision, on the Cimarron III Computerized Transcription System from my machine shorthand notes taken at the time and place set out on the caption hereto, the witness being first duly cautioned and sworn, or affirmed, to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. I FURTHER CERTIFY that I am neither counsel for, related to, nor employed by any of the parties to the action in which this deposition was taken\nand further, that I am not a relative or employee of any attorney or counsel employed by the parties hereto, nor financially interested, or otherwise, in the outcome of this action. GIVEN UNDER MY HAND AND SEAL OF OFFIC day of June, 1992. JEFF BENNET, CC, #19, Notary County, Arkansa My commission expires 11-29-2000 BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING, ~INC. 201 East Sixth Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72202 (501) 372-5115 the 30th\nThis project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resources.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\u003cdcterms_creator\u003eBushman Court Reporting\u003c/dcterms_creator\u003e\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_775","title":"Westside Junior High School site","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["1991/1992"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Westside Junior High School (Little Rock, Ark.)","School buildings","Educational planning","Educational law and legislation"],"dcterms_title":["Westside Junior High School site"],"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/775"],"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":["documents (object genre)"],"dcterms_extent":["370 pages"],"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\nSite Evaluation and Study V/ 'Stside Junior High School L.\\ 'e Rock School District \u0026gt; August 1, 1991 CHILCOTE CARTER GASKIN BOGART \u0026amp; NORCROSS Architects I Engineers STUDY/EVALUATION OF EXISTING WESTSIDE JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL BUILDING AND SITE This study is prepared to assist the Little Rock School District in determining the feasibility of retrofiting the existing school versus demolition and new construction on the site for an elementary school to accommodate approximately 650 students from 4 year olds. Kindergarten and grades 1-6. The results of this study/evaluation are presented in a format in accordance with our proposal outlined in our letter of July 17, 1991, based on information contained in a request for proposal from the Little Rock School District dated July 9, 1991. A. Structural Evaluation and Basic Modifications Required Existing school consists of two separate buildings of three levels each. Structural systems vary within each buildin, g from floor to floor. In most instances columns are reinforced concrete with floor construction consisting of reinforced concrete flat slabs and in some areas, concrete joists with tile fiUer between. In some instances there are concrete beams with one-way slabs while in others, metal pan, concrete joists span between concrete beams. The roof system consists primarily of wood frame structure with 2 x 8s at 16\" on center supporting 1x6 wood decking. Lesser portions of the roof system consist of: - Heavy steel trusses supporting wood framing above the gymnasium with wood frame clerestory windows providing illumination. - Light steel bar joists using chicken wire support for concrete fill. Interior walls appear to be 12\" masonry with one inch plaster each side. All interior walls appear to be load bearing. While interior walls could be added to sub-divide the existing rooms, no interior walls can be removed other than on the top floor since they are load bearing. The possibility exists for the removal of certain interior walls at the third level, provided the appropriate roof framing is utilized spanning between the outside and major corridor walls. This does severely limit the flexibility in changing interior configurations to more appropriately accommodate elementary classrooms.  The resistance to wind loading would take precedence over seismic factors in Little Rocks seismic Zone 1. The buildings appear very stable, with minimal evidence of settlement or cracking.  Major structural considerations, other tha.n the new roof smcmre, would be the requirement to add an elevator for both the east 3 west handicapped accessibility and the additicn of two fire s requirements. uilcm: drs to 25 . m: ide fcr .s:c :x: 1B. Evaluation of Feasibility of Meeting Current Fire and Life Safety Codes, and for Provision of Handicapped Accessibility to the Building The building is considered to be Type II construction. If sprinkled, this structure could contain unlimited square footage per level or unlimited heights. If the building were sprinkled, two fire stairs would be required to provide for the required exiting from both buildings. Without sprinkling, three stairs would be required\nhowever the main monumental stairway on the east side of the east building could be enclosed to provide for the third exit way. One elevator would be required for each building since changes of level by stairway are now required to move horizontally between the two buildings. Handicapped accessibility would be limited to grade level entrances and elevators utilized to provide access to the various levels between the buildings. C. Evaluation of the Buildings Ability to Accommodate an Elementary School and of the Sites Ability to Accommodate Nevp Construction in Related Areas for an Elementary School. Existing buildings contains 84,870 gross square feet of enclosed space, exclusive of court yards.  First level of entire east building is approximately 1/2 level below grade. It would be necessary to \"tunnel\" north and south out of the building to provide grade-level access for 4 year old, Kindergarten, and 1st grade students. The lower level of this building could be modified to accommodate the areas necessary for these age children, including those areas where access would be required. The area of this level appears adequate to accommodate the Media Center (Library), Cafeteria, and Music Areas. Four year olds. Kindergarten, and 1st graders would not be allowed accessibility to the Auditorium, Multi-purpose, P.E., Pal, Gifted and Talented or Art Areas in accordance with State Department of Education requirements that these age youngsters not be allowed above grade level elevations. Request for deviations from this requirement have historically been rejected by the Little Rock Building Code officials and the Board of Appeals.  Modifying thi lower level of the building to accommodate 4 year old Kinderganen and 1st grader facilities would reduc square feet per room resulting in many small, odd-si som: e rooms be onr\nh 909 2The site does not conform to the minimum requirement of acreage for an elementary school however this requirement has been waived consistently by the State Department of Education in the Little Rock area. The school existed in the area before many of the commercial and residential siuToundings, therefore current set-back requirements are undetermined at this time. The existing building and site relationships limit the amount of outside play area however a total of the interior courts and the existing grounds appear to provide the minimum playground space requirements. While parking might be arranged for after-school events on adjacent property through cooperative efforts, general parking available for staff appears to be inadequate with existing building configuration. Four alternate configurations are presented for new structures in the 70,000- 75,000 foot range in accordance with information previously provided by the Little Rock School District. One drawing is provided showing possible modifications of the existing building to provide for the program requirements. The reduced prints provided for our review of the two buildings are of different scales and we are providing new drawings of the three levels of both buildings at the same scale for clarification of study comments. Many of the substantial modifications required to accommodate an Elementary School would not be required if the building was upgraded to current standards for Junior High level students. Several items of significance might be utilized elsewhere if the building is to be demolished, i.e.: the auditorium seating is in remarkably good shape and appear to be useful without refinishing, entablature and frieze trim at main entrance, stone urns at monumental stair - all have intrinsic values as memorabilia. Since the major corridors are twelve foot wide and requirements are for eight foot corridors, a 2 deep storage area could be constructed on each side of the corridor. This would also provide \"pockets\" for out-swinging classroom doors and \"excess\" circulation space could provide supplementary classroom and general storage area or house lockers. 3D. General Cost Analysis between Renovation of Existing Building and Construction of New Two Story Facility 1. Renovation No portions of the electrical, heating, ventilating or plumbing systems are salvageable. Electrical distribution would be through the generous space above the ceilings on each floor and surface mounted on the walls, after the removal of the existing ceiling systems and prior to stripping and furring the existing masonry walls. The utilization of metal supported accessible ceilings would allow for new lighting throughout the building. HVAC could be introduced by the utilization of duct work in the generous above-ceihn^ spaces, however it would appear to more appropriate to utilize hot and chill water distribution from central boiler and chillers to individual room units to provide the required comfort. All plumbing risers, major drain lines and all new fixtures would be required as well as additional toilet rooms to provide for minimum requirements. New food service equipment and support systems would be required.  We estimate the installation of new MEP systems in the existing structure to cost $1,250,000. We estimate the total cost of renovation and reconstruction required within the existing facility to cost between $2,250,000 and $2,500,000. 2. New Two-Story Facility A new two-story Elementary School constructed on this site will require grade level access, an elevator to accommodate the handicapped, controlled outside play areas, and can be expected to cost approximately $47.50 a square foot for a total cost between $3,300,000 and $3,500,000. A flat site, sufficiently large to accommodate the square footage requirements and related facilities for an Elementary School on one level could allow ccnstrucdon costs to bs reduced to appr square foot. iy $40 per ix: 4Current data indicates that life-cycle maintenance and operational costs escalate in instances where there is dilution of building system qualities and energy and quality construction considerations are compromised. We estimate that demolition of the existing structure would cost $110,000. Additional site preparation is not being considered since the exact configuration of a new facility is as yet undetermined. The existing site has a fall of approximately 11 foot along Marshall Street, from north to south\napproximately 3-4 foot fall from north to south along Wolfe Street and is approximately level east to west along 13th Street. Therefore grade-level access and egress could be easily provided if the site were reconfigured closer to the existing, surrounding grades without the loss of tress around the perimeter of the site. E. Summary of the Four Major Factors in the Study and Recommendations  1. Structural Integrity  The roof structure must be entirely replaced and some minor patching of concrete slabs will be required where reinforcing steel is exposed. Other than this the building appears to be sound and stable with little or no evidence of settlement or deterioration. New window and doors together with the new roof structure and roof would restore the building envelope. 2. Code Compliance and Handicapped Accessibility Sprinkling of all three levels of both buildings is required.  The addition of two elevators is required. The construction of two fire towers is required. The above plus the installation of completely new mechanical and electrical systems and fire and smoke alarm/detection systems would bring the building into compliance with current codes with the exception of parking provisions. 53. Ability to comply with State Department of Education Standards and to be Modified for Practical Classroom Utilization. As can be seen from the sketches indicating possible reconfiguration of the existing building (particularly the lower level for 4 year olds, Kindergarten and 1st graders) even with extensive modifications and the introduction of \"tunnels\" out to grade, the building still provides questionable classroom configuration for students 6 years old and under and can not provide for participation of these ages occurring above the first floor (assemblies, special education areas, etc.) and seriously compromises the function of the school for 4 to 6 year old students. 4. Economic Considerations The building can be renovated for approximately $1,000,000 less than demolition and subsequent new construction on the same site and this can be accomplished in less time. The necessity to review all decisions with all the appropriate agencies, resolve the obvious concerns regarding 6 years and under age children confined to the first level and the compromises required to meet bare minimum room size standards would require substantial planning time. Development of food service and the many other support areas that would be required to be located on the first floor with the resulting traffic flow impacts would also necessitate much evaluation and study time, cutting into the time gained by starting with a substantial building shell. Architect/Engineer fees would fall in the 10% range for renovation work. 5. Recommendations We suggest that even if the building were renovated successfully, the heritage of this school maintained, money and time saved, the resulting facility would be a substantial compromise to education standards and functions, and the best interest of the School District and its patrons would not be served. We believe that if this is a desirable location for an Elementary School, the long-range benefits of appropriate new construction outweigh the economic advantages of renovation of this existing facility. 6I ff o a a a 7^ I F T1 3-0 \"1 f/ J v I 3 L 7 I44u si-. d 'i I I nz I -i* lT e JL 4 Tf I 0 0 o 9 0 a 'r 0 Q r. ti  I x) I y l'=b-Hi feXI^TtNC^ Puootx, peA^ L.^\u0026lt;4. Or\u0026gt;\u0026lt;-. oSr-  WG^TSiog-Jri-.H-IMH- school t- ilr^h\\ op-Tl-^ ToTn^ sF - S4-\n\\oo.6o S iril UjG\u0026lt;\n'TSlOS- Jrt-. hh\u0026lt;oAr \u0026lt;ic44-.ou-' NorX-TUr , J i' fi L,. I If L  J L r* J ! li J 'Zl' u li A ir L J\" 5 I ] (pTH \u0026lt;2\u0026gt; Fn-ooA- P c-A^ LcaJ*X^ 'tKr-tx- 'Z.Z,^ oo P t \\aJ\u0026amp;\u0026lt;t'TSiD\u0026amp;'J/T-. kKot+- Sc-*+oo|_ . r ^\u0026lt;^o' -t-\n7 7I ofvrH- / U. low I %oo Sin? j u. 5%o I I I I CoIcA|U~T , IXtO  loSu Ito ' 4Xr.. I  (a\\l. J v l^T loSo %oo i too g\u0026gt;^4 i 'll?, HAVrtt Ko -p-iwin CoOC^ NVjitC, Lao\u0026lt;U\u0026lt; .fi 4lo KT U'i r Ek^+. J C/\u0026gt;ry\u0026lt;roM \u0026lt;:\u0026gt; $ I 5 s I '. I I T I I s 56 AOM^^ s I '\\'fc Mi\u0026lt;3iA tMPV . J c r I b'H^ H\u0026amp;Va/ Fvooi\u0026lt;. PlAtsJ_______ L\u0026lt;.vt3L On-c^ ulesTs^'oe i^'+ scrFoo  - f So'  I I Ho^T(4-.\\ INC 114-1- o. i^a b Cr b OSS tslevJ r- I ihS-A% o : I I SToo. it \\'bo ! ! I l I C-ou*JX M-T [BS AjtfiToiuuM c.roo TA fag. C JUt [14V r A\u0026lt;*--T %4r 1.4^ b \u0026amp; e\u0026gt; lis?' oo- Pl\u0026gt;a^ vjesTSloe r= so't jaauM \u0026lt;\nchool^ fsj O /^'T~ / II tl!i- 1140. tiH 1.45 e\u0026gt; 'll \u0026amp; fc 4 TH 1159 I I '=ltx\u0026gt; 1 1 6Za-cjo4'f ~ 15 3'^ 1 Q N 11 loTrt Soo t-w T5O 5^0 pl [ I w/ Of A u= )\u0026gt; \u0026lt;.Ty- bKJ c\u0026lt;x\u0026gt;cT XAiuo UTrt ^50 ope4 TO A0OlT\u0026gt;-\u0026gt;i^M 5TH v4V 5T4 B4S- fe ?TH I I I ^l ^TAi-e Nv^ Fcoo'^ FLAtvI J'A-. *^+0^1' l*-=5o'i '7/S'^A I H o/2 tf4144U 7 5^.Ga. J,. .GJ. k r 7 O) T !7S^3ar ..^^,-74?. TL|Tf. B I'l 4\u0026gt;3\u0026lt;. JAh i' jii K I I o \u0026gt; o ,2 ^Ac^to^C c\u0026gt;A \"Vcaz* JTTW VJGtT?106 l= 9O' Mv$ - or-= f HtJLK 1^0*1 1(^ 5V. Cou, Cor\\$^lv^ \u0026lt;* ^\u0026gt; {*^ L*. Io $ 2%O* 54\" 5 ITS 'i-/T-l/'\\ 1 IH +1 o O I j+ r I \u0026amp; i\u0026amp; I X Hi 6\\T -siifAU.^ f^7 H 4- mw uiun 1 I  1 J o 3I \u0026lt; ?c-K-oot. ieess*. \u0026gt; U2-SP 1. r I X (? '1. I pToit, ( \u0026amp; c\u0026gt; l%o -'\u0026lt;t c I ? I B Ic. I 4 $ 5 t 4 n I 7 f t fjo A-T rt ^Cof^N AVc^.i/tA I 1 ^A4-t^'4or- 1 C^-Vk . /\"cL Hti+st. tv 1st IS.\" \u0026amp; fo ^.6  . .^ .s,- 2?' 4 l5T UT \\ST. wisjss sfo\u0026gt; I I fUa-Ih-i Coov-4y\u0026lt;Kvtk. T I 1 r I 1 4-\np- f'j.'. k- :---------- Connp.LuU , 'L^ \u0026lt;3 I P. -^s- '.,'X K I ! I :U I Cr r y ^'\\- pAt. o U N D Q \u0026lt;6 CJ! V , I I 1 I I J o 3 Lnrrn I^TH- 5T ujiin ^J\u0026amp;W Sorioou - UP-SP 4.  ^f'fcooS T' WCSTlioe JO-.H-iWH-siTt r^.^' 5?' t I I NoP-THI -4ii3A\" I \u0026amp; \u0026amp; 1 IrA I G-To. t,S-OCAJ ai^aacaeEMgyi^ r wwK^  *a I wrvisfJi!**' -rii' 's'lk 44U c \u0026gt;'A.'r'fA-io 74k t 1 ! 4K C *r'' 4-hA I fc-Hx ^-Tk +k C44\\ no ^. HEW ^g\u0026gt;H-ooU  LA-SO L*mU TwJa v4e5T\u0026lt;\u0026lt;oe J A.. $iT6^ r^r* I  I I K CxUM p i T ^.r. L. A Lb/ec two  U/\u0026amp;5-r*it:e IlE I L^-51^ Hl^H -blT^  L. ^44 2\u0026gt; S L -z. liUlllll I  I tt { 1 t lJe?E.-rH14-th \u0026gt;'n rase, ComP. Ae-r SP.ER sp.ee\u0026gt; SF.Ecj :!5SSS3Sa^\u0026lt;ieS!STJiKE^e3aiSf5395?: I I J 6104- 1 -TH-k k coJu, ------------------ rr^ 4rR. x ^^fTFroejo^q l-rfz. I \u0026lt;I 3!t fc fXc. -/ 5 o 2 I 4 inrm KJ hl\u0026amp;O 4^e\u0026gt;looL  L\\fe^.ok\u0026gt;./^lTE.'PLfcJ'\u0026gt; e=-e\u0026gt;oi ' To-Ya^ ^P, - / I 1 fc\u0026gt; I t 3 J I 5 !=\u0026gt; T + b Jk I 1 I slew scHbot kIo^'th 1*^ I \"ll?f\u0026gt;h\\ t I tJanuary 17, 1992 CENTRAL HIGH NEIGHBORHOOD ---------------r INC. \"J--------------- \"Weve Got Heritage? Ms. O. G. Jacovelli President Little Rock School Board 6622 Gold Court Little Rock, Arkansas 72209 Dear Ms. Jacovelli: The undersigned residents of the Central High neighborhood and patrons of the Little Rock School District hereby submit for consideration by the Little Rock School Board an alternative proposal for the development of an interdistrict school in the Central High neighorhood. We propose creation of a two-campus educational facility--the Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Educational Park--as the centerpiece of a neighborhood redevelopment initiative. Our proposal also would enable Ish Elementary School to remain in operation as an incentive school, an approach supported by patrons of Ish. The School Board's response to this proposal should be directed to Ethel Ambrose, president of the Central High Neighborhood Association, who can be reached during the day at 370-5950. 7^/z. Qi. Ms. Jacovelli 1/17/92 Page 2 cc: Little Rock School Board Members Dr. Ruth Steele Ann Brown Sam Jones John Walker Steve Jones Richard RoachellDr. Proposal to create the Martin Luther King, Educational Park Jr. and Neighborhood Redevelopment Initiative Submitted to the Little Rock School District by residents of the Central High Neighborhood January 17, 1992 BACKGROUND In its heyday during the'first half of this century, 'the area of Little Rock now known as the Central High neighborhood was served by three public schools: - Centennial School, an elementary school built in 1888\n- West Side Junior High School, built in 1917\nand - Little Rock Central High School, which opened in 1927. Only one of these schools--Central High--remains in operation in what now is a predominantly low- and moderate-income neighborhood. Children who live in the neighborhood presently are assigned to a variety of schools. Residents of the Central High neighborhood believe the neighborhood would benefit enormously from the existence--once again--of additional educational facilities.Page 2 In accordance with the Desegregation Plan, the Little Rock School District (LRSD) has proposed locating a new interdistrict school, the King Elementary School, in the Central High neighborhood, utilizing the one-square-block (2.2 acre) site of West Side Junior High School at 14th and Marshall Streets. While residents are enthusiastic about the prospect of the neighborhood again being served by an elementary school, the Central High Neighborhood Association (CHNA) opposes the LRSD's plan as proposed. Members of CHNA believe the West Side site is too small for a 696-student elementary school, particularly one that must attract some 250 white students from the Pulaski County Special School District in order to meet desegregation requirements. In addition, members of CHNA, along with historic preservationists and other concerned Little Rock citizens, oppose the demolition of the historic West Side Junior High building, an irreplaceable resource that is an asset to the Central High neighborhood and should be incorporated into revised plans for a Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Educational Park,\" which canand should--serve as the centerpiece for a badly-needed neighborhood redevelopment initiative.Page 3 DE. MARTIN LUTHER KING. JR. EDUCATIQNAI^ PARK Residents of the Central High neighborhood advocate creation of a new educational facility, named for Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. , which would include a rehabilitated West Side Junior High building and construction of a new school building on the former site of Centennial School at 15th and Wolfe Streets. The new building should serve as the downtown early childhood center, providing facilities for pre-schoolers (6 weeks-3 years), 4-year- olds, kindergarteners, and Ist-graders. The West Side Junior High building should be rehabilitated and converted to use for grades 2 through 6. Additional land, in blocks located adjacent to the West Side and Centennial sites, should be acquired to make certain the new educational facility has adequate space for playground areas and parking. Centennial site/Earlv Childhood Center The Centennial School site, located one block south and one block west of West Side Junior High, is bounded by 15th, 16th, Wolfe, and Battery Streets. The site presently is owned and maintained by the City of Little Rock as a public park, but CHNA believes the loss of the park, now frequented primarily by drugPage 4 dealers, would be more than outweighed by the benefits the neighborhood would derive from construction of an early childhood center. CHNA further believes the City would return the Centennial School site to the LRSD for the proposed educational use. center Finally, CHNA believes construction of an early childhood could be funded with the $1 million savings the LRSD would realize by rehabilitating the West Side Junior High building rather than demolishing it and constructing a new school on that site. Constructing an early childhood center on the Centennial site would take the place of the LRSD's current proposal to convert Ish Elementary School, an incentive school, into an early childhood center. The closing of Ish as an incentive school, which would entail reassigning Ish students to Rightsell and Mitchell Elementary Schools, is opposed by Ish patrons and would become unnecessary if an early childhood center were built on the Centennial site. West Side Junior Hiah/Grades 2 thrQuqh._ The West Side Junior High building, a landmark since 1917 in the Central High neighborhood, is structurally sound and a viable candidate for rehabilitation--as acknowledged by the LRSD's own study of the building, prepared last summer by the BlassPage 5 architectural firm. The Blass study further indicates that rehabilitating West Side would cost approximately $1 million less than demolishing it and building a new school. (As noted above. this $1 million savings would build--or at least go a long way toward building--an early childhood center on the Centennial site.) The major obstacle to the rehabilitation of West Side as an elementary school resulted from safety requirements that prohibit children 6 years old and under from occupying anything but grade- level space. Limiting the West Side building to use by children between the ages of 7 and 12 (grades 2 through 6) would solve this problem. The rehabilitation of the historic West Side building. in conjunction with construction of an early childhood center, also would constitute a major turning point for a neighborhood where disinvestment, deterioration, and demolition have been the norm for nearly three decades. The LRSD could lead the way in a neighborhood redevelopment initiative that would dovetail with neighborhood programs presently being developed by the City of Little Rock and major lending institutions.Page 6 Acquisition of Additional Land for Plavgrounds and Parking The Central High Neighborhood Association obviously is sensitive to the problems inherent in acquiring land occupied by houses in order to provide sufficient space for school playgrounds and parking. Nevertheless, CHNA believes additional land could be acquired, with cost, in any of minimal displacement of residents and at modest : several blocks adjacent to the West Side and Centennial sites where many houses are some lots already have been cleared. vacant and condemned and The likeliest candidates for whole or partial acquisition appear to be: - Block bounded by 13th, 14th, Battery, and Wolfe Streets\n- Block bounded by 14th, 15th, Battery, and Wolfe Streets\n- Block bounded by 14th, 15th, Wolfe, and Marshall Streets. The north end of the block directly south of the Centennial School site also contains several vacant and condemned houses on lots which might be acquired to expand the site for the early childhood center.Page 7 NEIGHBORHOOD REDEVELOPMENT INITIATIVE In conjunction with creating the Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Educational Park, the LRSD should become a leader in efforts already underway to stabilize and revitalize the Central High neighborhood. The City of Little Rock has designated the neighborhood a target area for revitalization efforts and is developing a \"model block\" program on Dennison Street just north of Central High School. A community development corporation (CDC) created by Worthen Bank is expected to operate in the neighborhood, and the \"Paint Your Heart Out\" program, spearheaded by First Commercial Bank, will improve the appearance of selected houses in the neighborhood. The Central High neighborhood also will be one of the areas investigated by the Local Initiatives Support Corporation (LISC) as a potential site for a neighborhoodbased CDC. Rather than working at cross purposes with neighborhood residents, the LRSD should become active in helping the neighborhood by: - soliciting input from residents on the design of new and rehabilitated educational facilities, including cooperating in efforts to create neighborhood meeting space and a branch library\n- helping to develop a master plan for the neighborhood's redevelopment (a major part of which should be information on thePage 8 LRSD's plans not only for the West Side and Centennial sites but also for Central High School)\n- assisting neighborhood residents in working with the City of Little Rock and financial institutions on creating programs aimed at rehabilitating existing housing stock and constructing new affordable housing on vacant lots in the neighborhood. SU14MARY There is rich potential for the development of a true schoolneighborhood partnership in the Central High area. Such a partnership could develop quality education for the children of this inner-city neighborhood and at the same time improve'the quality of life for children and adults through improved housing and reduction in crime. Such a partnership would be in the spirit of what Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. stood for and would benefit the entire city.TO\ncz FROM: SUBJECT: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST K-ARKH-AM STREET b'c -  Ruth S. Stesle, Superintendent of Schools SELECTION OF WEST SIDE SITE FOR CONSTRUCTION OF AN INTERDISTRICT SCHOOL For many months the Little Rock School District has engaged in discussion and inquiry regarding the selection of a site for one of the interdistrict schools approved in the Desegregation Plan. Even as early as Aubrey McCutcheon's tenure as special master in this case, the West Side site was toured and viewed as at least one possibility to be considered when new schools were constructed in the central part of the city along the 1-630 corridor. Later, on June 29, 1989, the Board adopted a resolution to deed West Side to the State Health Department. Costs associated with asbestos removal and other concerns prevented the Health Department from taking possession of the building. What follows is a chronology of the process since March 20, 1991, by which the parties have reached agreement that an interdistrict school should be located on the West Side site. DATE EVENT OUTCOME March 20, 1991 Hearing on School in local District Court The Court was informed that West Side was one of 4 possible sites for construction of a new interdistrict school.* (see fax p.l5) March 21, 1991 Receipt of Court order from Judge Wright Construction at Forest Heights Jr. High could not begin until \"...the Court receives notice from LRSD that a site for Stephens (King) has been selected and approved by all parties, along with definite rationale. plans, site and dates for acquisition. and anticipated dates for the school's construction. completion and opening.\" (see Fax p.8, 9, 10, 11)A r.sw Ki lc Elementary School in downtown Little Rock (14th \u0026amp; Marshall). (See fax p.l2) May 30, 1991 Letter from Chris Heller to the parties and the desegregation monitor The parties and the monitor were notified of our intention to begin asbestos removal and demolition of West Side. The parties and the monitor were asked to notify Mr. Heller if they had any questions or July 19, 1991 Official notification to the Court from Mr. Heller regarding West Side August, 1991 Review of Preliminary study by architectural firm regarding construction of West Side. November 4, 1991 Letter from Dr. Randall L. O'Donnell from ACH regarding its interest in purchasing West Side. concerns actions. response. about There these was no The Court was informed that all parties had agreed to the construction of an interdistrict school II at 14th \u0026amp; Marshall Streets near Arkansas Children's Hospital in Little Rock. II The Court was told that construction would begin no later than June 1992 and be completed no later than August 1, 1993. (see fax p. 5, 6) After discussion of possible renovation, a determination was made that a new school would be necessary for the student population which the school would serve. Conversation between Dr. Steele and Dr. O'Donnell regarding the timing of the request to purchase West Side in light of other events having taken place since March.O V r. to zucrs to discuss plans for King. that the Tns raspcnse was land area small and we could was not initiate construction in the middle of the lot. However, we would attempt to save scroll as much of the work and other building trim as possible and incorporate that into the building design. November 7, 1991 Second letter from Dr. O'Donnell regarding the building of a new King school on the old West Side site. Dr. O'Donnell committed the support of Arkansas Children's Hospital to the District in the event that a building was constructed, (see letter November 7) November 8, 1991 Meeting with Ann Brown and Bob Morgan to discuss interdistrict school sites. The issue was raised by Ms. Brown that problems pertaining to the use of the King site, e.g., parking, would need to be addressed to the Court's satisfaction prior to the District approval to go receiving forward with the project. proposal A for consideration of Woodruff a s one o f the interdistrict schools was discussed. November 11, 1991 Meeting with Ms. Ambrose's committee and Doug Eaton Mr. Eaton was shown pictures of some of the trim items and agreed to buy and incorporate them into the construction of the building.pat\nCUTCCMP ^-3 _ November 19, 1991 by the Ce High Neig' :cc-i T -3 Association to request renovation of West Side and stoppage of demolition plans. Special Board meeting to discuss the concerns of the Central High Neighborhood Association.M C . X J I U  X -* I k X\\J1 X* X s, t 4*J \u0026gt;.\u0026lt;. SR.TCMCU M. rR.DAV. R.A, . 9. CLARK OBt* V. L'O*'^. *'* IVLIAM M. SUTTOn. R.A, A-ea **. HooPE vwOM M, cise-A-*, j-..  oc o. \u0026gt; C'.u.   rBIDAT, EIDHEDGE A CLAEK A rARTNERSHIB QF INOIVIOUALS ANO PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATIONS ATTORNEYS AT LAW CIIT \u0026gt;. BMArci*. 1' N tC *411: 3500 FIRST COWMEROIA:. au'uONO WiLl'ah m. oriff THQmaS n. rose, IN III, OM   Cl. S. MOORC .M 1.  f iC.-\u0026lt; :l.272Ou 4 -io. Oi-27 S.-iiA' AMS c. c \u0026gt;.O-A OWN .A- AUX a. CCN-aH !. , A. AHRT W. tun Ka, \u0026gt;. A. . WTC KUI F F N la ftCT. J R.. R.  AM eft COWARb WARR. , BHikXiR mauCOM. R.A. AMES M. SIMOSON, R.A. lERCOiTrt A CAtLCTT. R.A. AMES M. SAXTOr4.  A. . SHERNCRB RU9*CLL lit )ONXI,O M. BAOON. A.A. riLLIAM TMOMAB AMTCR.  MLTKR a, RAUL0ON |l. R.A. lAARY K. COPLIN, P.A. liOHARO 0. TATLOR, P.A. lOSCRH 0, MUPSf. JR.. R.A. LIEAOCTW 4. ROSBCN, R.A. :KRiaTORHER MELLCR. R * 'o^ -i-O ! h. iHARLXa 9CMWn0. .ir. SeOTT H. rUCKCR JOHN OUAYTON ANfiOt.RH OUY ALTON WAOC RRlOe e. AARONCR TUOHAfl MECX J, WICHACL PIOKCNO TONIA R. JONCS OAVie 0. WIL9OM JCFFRCY H. MOOr eOJHBCX WILU'AM 4. SMITW WILLIAM A. ELOnCO^e. JRi WILLIAM L. TERRY WILLIAM L. PATTON, JR.. P. WITR IR* . Dr. Ruth Steele Superintendent Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 370-1506 Re\nWestside Junior High School Dear Dr. Steele\nI am writing to provide you a chronology of the process by which the parties agreed that an interdistrict school should be located at the Westside Junior High School site. ~ 'g  At a hearing on Kdicu 20, 1951, I told the district court that LRSD and the other parties were considering four potential interdistrict school sites: The Philander Smith Campus\nthe Stephens school site\nthe King The following day, the March 1991 school site\nand the Westside school site. . . _ district court ordered that construction at Forest Heights Junior High School could not begin \"until the Court receives notice from the LRSD that a site for Stephens has been selected and approved by all parties, along with definite plans, rationale, and dates for sits acquisition and anticipated for school's dates the Copies of the relevant pages construction, completion and opening. of the transcript of the March 20, 1991 hearing and the Match 21, 1991 order are attached. In LRSD filed a proposed desegregation plan on May 1, 1991. that plan, the first interdistrict school to be built in LRSD is called \"King\" rather than \"Stephens\". The plan says that LRSD \"proposes to build a new King Elementary School in downtown Little  -.A copy of the relevant page of II Rock (14th and Marshall Streets). the May 1, 1991 proposed desegregation plan is attached. H On May 30, 1991 I wrote to the other parties in this case, with a copy to the Monitor, to notify them of LRSD's intention \"tou n. ot.uuux ^1 M M begin asbestos removal and demolition of the old Westside Junior - st'.-ar the rartiss 2*.d the Monitor to notify me ir C 9 Ci iO urr tha senco- A .1' old Westside Z 0 C Z. 5 school ta Icca cr. July IS,\nf ar. inter-dis at 14th \u0026amp; Kar ii We Streets, near Arkansas Children's Hospital, in Little Rock also notified the court that construction would begin no later than June, 1992 and be comoleted no later than August 1, 1993. A copy completed fl of the \"Notice of Site Selection and Construction schedule\" is attached. As you know, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled last week that \"no retreat should be approved\" from the requirement that the parties operate \"the agreed number of interdistrict schools according to the agreed time table\". Slip Op. November 14, 1991, p. 5. 7 9  I recall touring Westside during Aubrey McCutcheon's tenure as  . . \u0026gt; * L - 5^ _ 1  m-U yii 1 AS 1 nrre  special master in this case, but I have not located any pleadings, . z,-------ju.j _iwhich specifically concern other than those described above, -------- The present status is that all Westside Junior High School. xs parties have agreed to the location of an interdistrict school at the Westside Junior School site and the district court has been formally notified of that agreement. Yours very trulv Christo: er slier CJH/k Enc.1 i ' i y y i M y : i 0 0/0^X4 / 'O OM i r 1 RJi L n dUUUMX VX5\u0026gt; TRSCHEV H. FRIOAr, F. s. CVaRR IBCRT V. L'OHT. B.A. LLtAM H. button. F.A FKIDAY, ErDEEnOS * CXXEK PARTNERSHIP OP INOtvlOUALS ANO PROFESSIONAL ASSOC!ATIONS .M C\u0026gt; W. ICC. B  eo  \u0026lt; attorneys at law 2000 R:R3T COWmCRCIAL BVILDm\u0026lt;3  TC wes- CA*i*Ov 0AN\u0026lt; e. ,C^ 8. M9\u0026lt;8AC C-' I C.    A\nZ U? 722Ot-J * 5^1 H A, dC!- kRVW. auRK.  A. NI8SCT, JR., .A. KMC8 CDWARO hARRK. RHlUkl* MAUCOM, R.A. hMO M.aiMR8OH, R.A. CRCO\u0026lt;TM n. dATUlTT. R.A. LMCa H. SAXTOH, r.a.  hcrmcro RusatuL III ONAUO H, BACONt R.A. IbUIAM tMOMAa BAXTCA. .A. AbTC\" A. RAUVaON H, R-A. aRRV K. CORVIN. R.A. IQHARO O. TatVOR. R.A. OaCRH 8. MVRST. JR.. VJZABCTM J. rObbCN. MRI3VORHCR MKVLtR, R.A. May 30, Mr. Sam Jones WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026amp; JENNINGS 2200 Worthen Bank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock', AR 72201 Mr. John Walker JOHN WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Re: 7S 2\n-** * T  7 .  t. tA pO -SL-** J. LS a4CNN H. CHARVCB O3e\u0026gt;\u0026lt;WBN9. JR. marrt a. viort aeOTT H. TWCKCR JOHN CVAVTON ranOOvRm OUT AVTOH WAOC RRtCS C. 9ARON CO THOMAS R. HCCKS J. MICHACV RiQKCNS TONIA JONCB OaVIS D. WIVSQN JCRRRBT H. M9ORC WtVViAM SMITH WtVVIAM A. \u0026lt;VBRE0OG. JR., B. WILLIAM Li terry WILLIAM L Ratton, jr., r.a. 0*1 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON \u0026amp; JONES, P.A. 3400 Capitol Towers Capitol \u0026amp; Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell MITCHELL \u0026amp; ROACHELL, P.A. 1014 West Third Little Rock, AR 72201 Interdistrict School 370-1506 r nxi^Ai M U 4  d S a ' Dear Counsel\nIn accordance with our agreement that the Westside Junior High School site will be the location of a new interdistrict elementary school, the Little Rock School District intends to begin asbestos removal and demolition of the old Westside Junior High School, LRSD will also hire an architect to begin planning the new school so that we can be sure the school will open on the date set forth Please let me know if you have in our proposed desegregation plan. any questions or concerns about these actions. Yours very truly/' Christopher, Heller CJH/k cc: Ann Brown Chip JonesXX Xy yX uy\nxo O'OMl J/0.\nX4/ rniUAi LA MK.'l -*-* L K :\u0026gt;cnooi uist w~ 1^005 V, IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EA3TE31I CTSTRIC OF ARKANSAS iSION LR-C-82-8S6 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL Uli ,1.9 1991 I ,1 1 -.K DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS NOTICE OF SITE SELECTION AND CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE For its notice, the Little Rock School District (LRSD) states: 1. The parties have agreed that the first interdistrict school constructed in LRSD should be called \"King\" rather than \"Stephens\" because the present Stephens school site is under consideration for the location of the second interdistrict school. which would logically be named \"Stephens\". 2. LRSD hereby notifies the court that a definite site for the location of the King Interdistrict school has been selected and approved by all parties. That site is the old Westside school site located at 14th \u0026amp; Marshall Streets, near Arkansas Children's Hospital, in Little Rock. The site is presently owned by the Little Rock School District. The construction of King I p ii B J J  u M X n \u0026lt; X' n\\Ji .M O interdistrict School will begin no later than June 1992 and be 1 p cc than Au: c. fc. 1532 . c\u0026lt; Iha Kino Interdistrict LITTL2 ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK 2000 First Commercial Bldg. 400 West Capitol Street Little Rock, AR 72201 (501) 376-2011 Christopher Hell CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE Selection I certify that a copy of the foregoing Notice of Site and construction Schedule has been served on the following by depositing copy of same in the United States mail on this 19th day of July 1991: Mr. John Walker JOHN WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Mr. Sam Jones WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026amp; JENNINGS 2200 Worthen Bank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON \u0026amp; JONES, P.A. 3400 Capitol Towers Capitol \u0026amp; Broadway Streets Little Rock, AR 72201 So^oetlan 2 li ly yi oy: IB '0501 37B:\n147 FRIDAY LAW FIRM L R School Dlst 1^007 Mr. Richard Roachell MITCHELL \u0026amp; ROACHELL, P.A. IC 14 West Third a arr C of Ksn i tor Heritage West Bldg., Suite 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 9 Christopher Heller bUAloo 3 ii-iy-yi Uy: IB O'BDi 3702147 tKlUAi LA\" HK.'l L K SCHOOL UI St 1^)008 0 5   r COJST filed Mi.? 2 1 ^53J '8A* L. V. CCL C J NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL district no. 1, et al. DEFENDANTS KRS, LORENE JOSHUA, et al. INTERVENORS KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, et al. INTERVENORS Q R-P E R Bafor* the Court ia a motion filed by plaintiff Dittla Rock school District (LRSD) seeking approval of construction projects at eight schools. On March 20, 1991 the Court held a hearing on this motion to discuss each construction project and its impact on the desegxegation plane. Construction projects at Rightaell Incentive School, Mitohell incentivs School, Cloverdale Junior High School, Cloverdale Elementary School, Geyer Springs Elementary School, Woodruff Elementary School, and Western Hille Elementary sohool are approved. However, the Court is concerned that at least some of the projectB reveal a certain lack of foresight as to the long range consequences of increasing the capacity of these schools. For example. the plaintiff states in paragraph 19 of its notion that \"[n]o change in the assignment of students to Geyer Spring* . . . will result from the construction project.\" This assertion is contradicted by language in the following paragraph which indicates that students Who reside in the schools attendance zona will oooupy only 65% of the school * s capacity, thus1 i' 11  y 1 '00 Mi .J/0^14/ r Ki PAI LA nK.n L K i\u0026gt;cnooi uist 009 r.ec*^ s:. 5 C3 id* .- ar.i: by tbn 3 3 nsr.: cJ s-\na. O i2 u y\ni / ( / 1 / r a : i .4 M 4 acconunodatecf at neJ.^jibarlng' l^akaflsld Slaniatitafy Schaal which is presently operating at 99% capacity\" (smphasis added). The Court expressed similar concerns during the hearing over the expansion at Woodruff which, after grandfathering ends, will be filled to only 60% capacity by etudenta raaiding in the eehools attendance zone. The propriety of expanding the capacity of a particular school always must be evaluated within the larger context of the desegregation plans and with a view to both imroadiate and long term impact. Since the settlement plan specifies that ''[s)tudents will be assigned to the Elementary Academies by attendance zones,\" LRSD Settlement Plan, Vol, II at 1 (zlsS) , a proposal to expand the capacity of any school must be made with a clear understanding of how ths new capacity will be used and where the students populating the additional space will coma from. The parties to will present to the Court at the end of March 1991 a document delineating proposed \"adjustments\" between the settlement and Tri-District plans. in view of the construction already underway (without ths prior knowledge or approval of ths Court), the Court expects the March transition document to reflect that much oaraful thought has been given to the proposed changes in school capacity. Thadocument must demonstrate clearly the link between any proposed changes in school capacity and (1) the c.Ed V X V* identified needa which justify the capaolty expeneion, (3) the specifio, anticipated use of the expanded apace, and (3) how attendance zones will be redrawn to aaaure that \"all LRSD students ,  Xr_'' r The c curs or s.:. can b3 c nt in a sd 1 a a e  fc a 5 34 tGlying on this provision of the plan and know with certainty which school their children will attend, the court expects that there will ba aojne redrawing of attendance zones so that the proposed changas in school oapaoity logically align with attendance zones end with the numbers of students reaaonably anticipated through M- to-M and desagragation tranefora. However, the Court admonishes the LRSD that, as is the case with busing, the burden of changing schools due to redrawn attendance zones should not fall disproportionately upon black children. The proposed construction at yorast Haights Junior High School will be approved contingent upon (1) inolusion in the March 1991 transition document of the specifie information requested above as it rslates to expansion at Forest Heights and (3) the sBleotion of a definite site for the location of the stephene interdistri^ school. Construction at Foreat Heights may nob begin until the Court receives notice from ths lrsd that a site for steohens has  _ -- . _  ' \"  ~ - been selected and approved by all parties, along with definite P2\u0026gt;n, rationale, and dates for site acguialtion and anbioipated dates for the schools oonstruation, oomplgbion, and opening. If, after a reasonable time, the parties cannot agree on the 3uy\ni / ii lyyi *0*0 Ui 0/D.:i4/ rKIUAl LA** MKM -*-\u0026gt;-\u0026gt; L K ijcnooi VIST l^uil . / :n tsph-87iJl  X?. i ar, nay 'pttitiori the Court rc_ , :.cr. X?.o Qz ft *t.pcr.x a-.. soil / IT IS SO 0KD2KSD thia ^7day of Haroh, 1991. UNZTED STATEB DISTRICT Jti DSS -4- a11 ly yi oy: IS 1'5(11 37B2147 FRIDAY LA'V FIRM L R School Dlst 1^012 Vr ifl uae- it aa the Ingtegucfeienal -*u. rd a:  ch a o 1y-e a-a-nr 19^-01 Stephens and King It is proposed that the District relocate Stephens Elementary near the 1-630 corridor between 1-30 and University Avenue. The new Stephens will house prekindergarten through sixth grades and will have a capacity of -free 96 students.* It sexrves as an Interdistrict School. The new Stephens will be easily accessible to downtown office workers, state department employees and University Medical Center personnel. The Little Rock School District also proposes to build a new King Elementary School in downtown Little Rock CLlth and Marshall Streets). The facility, in anv case,., would be located in the general area along 1-630 between 1-30 and University Avenue. In addition to being an Interdistrict school, an attraction for this school will be its early childhood program and childcare facilities. This location is expected to seirve as a natural magnet for individuals who work within governmental and business centers of Little Rock. *Include5 four-vear-old program Res 02231, 02232 Page 25811  ly-Hi uy: IS 'O'si.ii jzei'i-iz tKiUAl LAW HK.'l L K scnooi DI st 1^1013 ghe pag^iea-hove had diacuaaiona wifeh pealtoga J The new_Kinq School should be constructed in time for use beginning with the 1993-94 school year. 3'h e ,QfiM Stephens School should be constructed for use beginning with I the 1994-95 school year. I Re\n02232 I Page 2591 ii y  y i i.iy: I.*! 'QOlJl\nj7b\n'147 FRIDAY LA\" FIRM L R School Dlst 1^014 55 area that wo ware considering far that school. When the plan th^h stop\ne:i .or ik -.3 District Court ordsr was i.-i 3y January 2nc we . had the Tri-Diatrict Plan, which also called for the -- a look at the capacity question and the enlargement of incentive schools and the location of a new school in central or east Little Rock. So, at some point, I had some discussions with folks from th Monitoring Office and the parties, and at some point 10 there was a general consensus that even before the Court of 11 Appeals order in December, that a school at the Philander Smith 12 campus would be appropriate under either plan, and since we were 13 essentially waiting for the Court of Appeals to rule and not 14 really pursuing the site location for either plan, we thought 15 we'd go ahead and work towards that one school, because that 16 seemed to ba the one thing that could be dona in terms of 17 construction which would work under either plan. 18 We did as this memo shows, we did have an architect 1$ do several drawings of how a Stophens school would fit on th 20 Philander Smith campus, and talked with President Titus at 21 Philander Smith about that proposal, but we werent -- wo were 22 really, I guess, a little bit premature in what we did. We 23 didn't work out an agreement. We're still now trying to do 1 I 2 3 5 6 7 8 9 w a li r \u0026lt;i\ne c u e G , ef f tl a wn \ni s . 1 I i i I I i I 24 that, and we've got three other sites identified, as well, which 25 could potentially bo used to build one or both of those schools.1119-91 09:19 0501 3762147 FRIDAY LAW FIRM --* L R School Dlst 56  015 1 An:J the other three are ths present Stephens Schoo 1 location, 1 E 1 t Kins Schoo 1 I coition, r.s prise.' Westsica I I 4 i I But theres even some consideration now of perhaps a I 5 project, if we could reach an. agreement with Philander, of a 6 school on the Philander Smith campus which would ba combined 7 with the school on the Westside site with primarily early 8 childhood through some young grade at the Westside site, and the 9 upper elementary grades at the Philander site, because Dr. .Titus 10 has said that his goal is to make that school a very strong 11 teaching school, a teacher education school, and we think that 12 gives us some optimism that we might be able to reach a joint 13 use agreement. 14 15 16 there. THE COURT: Well, I see some interesting prospects I now have some concerns that 1 really want to just call concerns. Some of them will be expressed in the form of 17 questions to you, but others are really just concerns that I 18 want you to talk with Miss Hart and Miss Brown about, because 1$ they arise from difficulties I have with the Settlement Plan 20 21 22 23 24 25 that I'm supposed to be implementing. is grandfathering. And one of these concerns And I'm not going to go into the details right now, but Miss Brown has researched this and has given me a I memo that Im sure she will share with you on ths difficulties of determining grandfathering under the Plan, and when it ends. and also sibling preference in grandfathering. I Iii'iy ai '0'51.11 3 7 (5-.HZ FKID.IV LA\"' FIRM L R School DIst 1^016 1.1 y\n19 S7 i And It is not easy, and I don't think that reasonable : 1 \u0026gt; c u K 1 don't think five reasonable people co I. i read these previsions and all come up with the same conclusion about just what they mean, And so, what I would suggest you do is meet with the other parties and determine what it means and put it in, maybe, your modified Settlement Plan or any other stipulation you might give me that would be incorporated in that Plan so our school patrons will know. just think that that's one thing parents want to know. 10 And 1 personally don't care what it is but, you know, 11 when the deadline is or when youre going to cut it off, but as 12 13 a parent. I know I'd like to know whenever it is, other parents would, too. And I am sure And so, if you can just get together J 4 5 6 7 8 9 I I 1 I 14 on that, it would be good. 15 MR. HELLER? And the intent was - I have talked with 1 6 Ann Brown about that, and I agree that you can't find a cutoff 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 date in the Plan. Our intention, I know, was -- it says, \"those presently enrolled in the schools.\" So our intention was whan the Plan was approved, those presently enrolled there could stay! there, but I think we can do better in the modification to make it clear that that is a onetime event which occurred on December 12th and it's not going to be continued. THE COURT: Okay. preference, sama thing. But anyway, the sibling I believe I brought up sibling 25 preference in the Aerospace Magnet Hearing and, again, this is\\ f I DECEIVED NO'/ -4 1S93 OHi-i'CE Randall L. O'Donnell. Ph.D. Chief Executive Officer Betty A. Lowe. M.D. Medical Director Phillip K. Gilmore. M.S.. MH A Administrator Dwight Hyde. C.PA Chief Financial Officer Larry C. Woodard Director of Development and Community Affairs Blanche Moore Director of Institutional Relations Paul Fitzgerald, Ph.D. Director of Planning \u0026amp; Clinks William J. Bogle Ella Christopher. R.N. Scott Gordon. LC.S.W. Associate Administrators Board of Trustees Doug Brandon President Diane Mackey Vice President James E. Gaston Secretary Robert L Shults Treasurer Charles B. Whiteside III Immediate Past President Joanna Seibert. MD. Chief of Staff Guy Amsler. Jr. Brenda Ashmore John Bale. Jr. Walt C. Bennett David M. Clark Hillary Rodham Clinton Stuart Cobb Wayne Cranford Robert G. Cress Craig Douglass Harry C. Erwin III Herschel H. Friday Betty Gilbert Gerald F. Hamra Mrs. Robert Hickman Dick Holbert MA. Jackson. M.D. Betty A. Lowe. M.D. Chuck Meyer Mrs. Malcolm Moore Kathy Murphy Robert D. Nabholz Randall L. O'Donnell. Ph.D. Bill Puddephatt Skip Rutherford Larry C. Wallace Harry P. Ward. MD. SOOA^arshaii Street, Little Rock, Arkansas /2202-3591, (501) 320-1100 November 4, 1991 Ruth S. Steele, Ed.D., Superintendent Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Little Rock, AR Dear Dr. Steele: Arkansas in 72201 Children's Hospital (ACH) has long held an interest obtaining the West Side Junior High School building property as a logical southern completion of our campus. you know, the and As we have had a variety of informal discussions over years regarding possible options for us to obtain property from the Little Rock School District (LRSD). events suggest that your efforts to build a new King tary School have picked up speed\nfinal request of you to consider selling this Recent Elemen-and, thus, we are making a the Vest building and property to Arkansas Children's Hospital Side and constructing the new elementary school on another site within the 1-630 corridor. Our interest has many aspects including, servation among others, preto Little of a building of historical note and significance Rock, and various ACH programs. conversion of this space for use by We are prepared to meet at your convenience to explore purchase of this property. Please call me to let us whether property. or not we can. together. work to preserve our know this I look forward to hearing from you very soon. Sincerely, Randall L. O'Donnell, Ph.D. Chief Executive Officer cc: Little Rock School Board Members Emeritus John H. Bale Stanley M. Bauman, Jr. Willis W. Johnson William R, Meeks Louis Rosen Frank D. White A major teaching affiliate of the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences Randall L O'Dcrneil, Ph.D. Qbef E.-.scutivc Oncer Betty A. Lowe, M.D. A^edkai Director Phillip K. Gilmore, M.S., MH A Auministrator Dwight Hyde. C.PA Otief Financial Officer Larry C. Woodard Director of Oevebpment and Community Affairs Blanche Moore Director of Institutional Relations Paul Fitzgerald, Ph.D. Director of Planning \u0026amp; CSnia William J. Bogle Ella Christopher, RH. Scott Gordon, LCS.W. Associate Administrators Board of Trustees Doug Brandon President Diane Mackey Vice President  James E Gaston Secretary Robert L Shults Treasurer Charles B. Whiteside HI Immediate Past President Joanna Seibert, M.D. Qii^ of Staff Guy Amsler, Jr. John Bale, Jr. Walt C. Bennett Kathy Bentley David M. Clark Hillary Rodham Clinton Wayne Cranford Robert G. Cress Hany C. Erwin III Tern' Erwin Herschel H. Friday Gerald F. Hamra Mrs. Robert Hickman Dick Holbert I'AA Jackson, M.D, Betty A Losve, M.D. Mahlon Martin Chuck Meyer Mrs. Malcolm Moore Kathy Murphy Robert D. Nabholz Randall U O'Donnell, PhD. Bill Puddephatt Skip Rutherford Phil Schmidt Lany C Wallace Hany P. Ward. M.D. Rosie Wilson % iV^fshali Sa LiSSe Reck, .Vkansas 122.Q2 ?,5i\\, (501) 320-1100 November 7, 1991 Ruth S. Steele, Ed.D., Superintendent Little Rock School District. 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Dr. Steele: In follow-up to our phone conversation yesterday afternoon and my letter to you of November 4, I understand that there may be no other option to the Little Rock School District building the King Elementary School at the old West Side Junior High site. I assure you that, should that be the case, Arkansas Children's Hospital would be very supportive of your improving that property. We certainly would be pleased to cooperate in bringing this improvement to our neighborhood. Let us know if there IS assistance we can offer in arriving at a solution. Sincerely, any Randall L. O'Donnell, Ph.D. Chief Executive Officer RLO: jcin Emerftus John H. Bale Stanley M. Bauman, Jr. Willis W. Johnson William R. Meeks Louts Rosen Frank D. White A major teaching affiliate of the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences\nThis project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resoources.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1239","title":"Oral deposition of Sue H. Strickland","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":["Cobb Court Reporting"],"dc_date":["2001-10-05"],"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","Education--Arkansas","Education--Finance","Educational law and legislation","School board members","School management and organization","Court records"],"dcterms_title":["Oral deposition of Sue H. Strickland"],"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/1239"],"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":["filing"],"dcterms_extent":["21 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\nDeposition taken at the Friday, Eldredge and Clark Law Firm, Little Rock, Arkansas\nThis transcript was created using Optical Character Recognition and may contain some errors.\n   CERTIFIED COPY IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, PLAINTIFF vs No.LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL, DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL DEFENDANT MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS INTERVENORS DEPOSITION OF MRS. SUE H. STRICKLAND DATE: Octobers, 2001 TIME: 11:22 a.m. PLACE: The Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark Law .Firm 400 west Capitol, Suite #2200 Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 APPEARANCES On Behalf of the Plaintiff: On Behalf of the Defendants: Mr. John w. Walker, Attorney John W. Walker Law Firm 1723 Broadway Street Little Rock, AR 72206 Mr. Clay Fendley, Attorney Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 400 west Capitol, Suite 2200 Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 ALSO PRESENT Joy Springer, The John w. Walker Law Firm Tony Rose, Judy Magness, \u0026amp; Katherine Mitchell, Deponents Cobb Court Reporting P . o. Box #4 Sweet Home , AR 7216 4-0004 Phone : (501) 490 - 0066 (50~) 490 - 0926 - Fax  3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11  12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24  25 26 CERTIFIED COPY 2 AGREEMENT OF COUNSEL .. SWEARING OF THE WITNESS ... EXAMINATION OF MRS SUE H. STRICKLAND By Mr. Walker .. SIGNATURE SHEET .. ERRATA SHEET. COURT REPORTER'S CERTIFICATION. * * * * * * * * * Cobb Court Reporting P , o. Box #4 sweet Home , AR 72164 - 0004 Phone : ( 501) 490-0066 (501) 490-0926 - Fax PAGE . 3 . . . . . . . 3 . . . 3-28 . . . . . . 2 9 .30 . 31  2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24  25 CERTIFIED COPY 3 STIPULATIONS The deposition of Sue H. Strickland, produced, sworn and examined at the Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark Law Firm, 400 west Capitol, Suite #2200, Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 commencing at 11:22 a.m., on October 5, 2001, in the captioned cause at the instance of counsel for the Plaintiff, and said deposition being taken according to the terms and provisions of the Arkansas Rules of Civil Procedure. It is stipulated and agreed all forms and formalities in the taking, transcribing, forwarding and filing of said deposition by witness, are hereby waived by the parties, the right being expressly reserved to object to the testimony of the witness at the time of trial as to incompetency, irrelevancy and immateriality, other than those with respect to the form of questions as propounded to the witness. * * * * * P R O C E E D I N G S THEREUPON, SUE H. STRICKLAND having been called for examination by counsel for the plaintiff, and having been first duly sworn, was examined and testified as follows: DIRECT EXAMINATION Questions by Mr. Walker: Q. Mrs. Strickland state your name for the record. Cobb Court Reporting P. o. Box i4 Sweet Home, AR 72164-0004 Phone: ( 501) 490-0066 (501) 490-0926 - Fax  2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24  25 CERTIFIED COPY 4 A. Sue Strickland. Q. Mrs. Strickland do you take the position--what is your position about the board's obligation with respect to implementation of the revised desegregation plan and the court orders in this case, what is your position regarding that? FENDLEY: I object to the form. WALKER: Well, let me make sure we know, we\"re talking about the same thing. Q. Are you familiar with the revised desegregation plan? A. I am. Q. Are you familiar with the Court Of Appeals having set forth seven elements which your counsel agreed that could not be retreated from? A. I am aware. Q. Now what is your understanding of the board's commitment with respect to implementation of the revised desegregation plan and existing court orders? What are you all suppose to be doing? A. We\"re suppose to be implementing it to the best of our ability. Q. Do you understand that you have made, that you have agreed to make a specific effort to elimination achievement disparity between the races? Do you agree with that? Do you disagree with that? A. I\"m not sure exactly if it says that and--cobb Court Reporting P . O. Box H Sweet Home , AR 72164- 0004 Phone : (501) 490-0066 (501) 490 - 0926 - Fax  2 3 4 5 6 8 9 10 11 12  13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24  25 CERTIFIED COPY 5 Q. I see. A. I believe--- Q. I\"m sorry, go right ahead. A. I believe that it is our intent to close the gap as best we can. Q. Well--- A. To make a genuine effort. Q. Do you agree--well, were you told by Mr. Fendley and Mr. Heller that you had told Judge Wright in 1998 the following: The Eighth Circuit identified seven elements of LRSD's existing desegregation obligations which it considered crucial, and with respect to which no retreat should be approved. elements were: (1) double funding for students attending incentive (virtually all-black) schools, yes? A. Yes. Those FENDLEY: Let me just object to the form of the question to the extent you\"re asking about not communications between ah, either myself of Chris and Mrs. Strickland outside the context of a public board meeting. WALKER: Well, at any time, I mean I don\"t, I'm going to ask the question--- FENDLEY: Well, we're objecting, it\"s privileged. Q. Well, well, did you have any one-on-one meeting with Mr. Heller to discuss, I mean or Mr. Fendley to discuss the Cobb Court Reporting P. O. Box *4 sweet Home, AR 72164-0004 Phone: (501) 490-0066 (501) 490-0926 - Fax  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11  12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24  25 CERTIFIED COPY 6 commitments that were being made to the court back in 1999 or at any other time? A. Have been meetings with him, yes. Q. Do you, are you, were you aware of this public document which was presented to the court? Look at it. Since he\"s now dealing with the concept of privilege. FENDLEY: I just objected to the extent of your question because you just said any conversation. WALKER: Well my question--let me go on now. Q. The second element would be operation of the agreed number of magnet schools according to the agreed timetable? A. I was aware of this, yes. Q. Intradistrict desegregation of PCSSD according to the agree timetable? A. As me a question. Q. It's the same, these are the elements that you cannot retreat from. A. Right, I was aware of this, yes. Q. The agreed effort to eliminate achievement disparity between the races, were you aware of that? A. Let me read that. Q. Were you aware of that? A. Uh-huh. Q. Ma'am? FENDLEY: You need to speak up. Cobb Court Reporting P. o . Box #4 sweet Home , AR 72164- 0004 Phone : (501) 490 - 0066 (501) 490 - 0926 - Fax  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11  12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24  25 CERTIFIED COPY Q. You have to say yes or no. FENDLEY: Well, if your answer is going to be yes or no, you need to say yes or no so she can take it down. 7 WALKER: To her without getting an answer from Mr. Fendland. A. I don\"t believe that, that I have ever seen it in writing where it says that you must close the disparity gap. Q. I\"m asking only about what is written before you. A. Uh-huh. Q. were you aware that that had been committed by your counsel? Yes or no. FENDLAND: I'm going to object to the form of the question. That's a quote from an Eighth Circuit opinion. Q. were you aware that this was committed in a paper prepared by your council? A. I was aware of the paper. Q. Were you aware of this particular commitment? FENDLAND: Object to the use of the term commitment. Q. Now you answered the first one Mrs. Strickland, number 1 and number 2, and number three and number 4 but when we get down to number 5 why can\"t you answer the same way? What makes that difficult? A. Well, I was not aware that it state, was stated exactly like that. Cobb Court Reporting P. O. Box #4 sweet Home, AR 72164-0004 Phone, ( 501) 490-0066 (501) 490-0926 - Fax  2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24  25 CERTIFIED COPY 8 Q. That's right. But that is there now, this is a surprise to you isn't it? Yes or no. A. Probably, yes. Q. All right. Why is it a surprise Mrs. Strickland, why is that a surprise to you number 5, so that the record will be clear about what we\"re talking about it's the memorandum filed with United States District Court January 29, 1998. Why is that a surprise to you? A. I have never had any doubt in my mind that it was our intent to close the disparity gap as best we could. I have never seen anywhere saying that we\"re guaranteed that we're going to close this gap. Q. But number 5, this is the first time that you have been aware of it like being presented this way\nis that correct? A. That\"s probably, it's the first time I have read those words exactly like that. Q. That's fine. A. I was thinking that it was taking it more from the revised desegregation plan which is what we had said we were doing. Q. Do you agree that the only legitimate way to achieve elimination of the achievement disparity is by improving African-American achievement\ndo you agree with that? A. No, I don't. Q. That's fine. Now let me ask you if you have a gap between black and white students, let's say students, white students Cobb Court Reporting P . o. Box #4 Sweet Home , AR 72164- 0004 Phone : (501) 490 - 0066 (501) 490 - 0926 - Fax  3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24  25 CERTIFIED COPY 9 are at the 60 percentile and blacks are in the 30 percentile and you want to achieve that gap, is it fair to say that you have to focus your attentions upon the students who are in the lower numbered? A. Certainly\nyes. Q. I see. That has to be the focus point of your efforts doesn\"t it more so than just continuing to do the same things you've been doing\nisn\"t that correct? FENDLAND: Object to the form. WALKER: I'll change the question. Q. If you\"re going to narrow the gap and raise the achievement of the ones in the bottom, you'd have to focus upon them don't you? A. I think so, yes. Q. All right. A. And I think we've done that. Q. But you don\"t recognize that the only legitimate means to eliminate the racial disparity is by improving African-American achievement? A. Well, I think--- Q. That's yes or no, I not asking for your opinion. FENDLAND: She can answer your question however she--- WALKER: This is a deposition--STRICKLAND: Uh-huh. Cobb Court Reporting P.O.Box#4 ' Sweet Horne, AR 72164-0004 Phone: ( 501) 490-0066 (501) 490-0926 - Fax  2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24  25 CERTIFIED COPY 10 WALKER: I\"m conducting this, this is not court. FENDLAND: Well, she--- WALKER: Do you agree--- FENDLAND: the witness can answer the question in anyway she feels. WALKER: You can ask her whatever you want to if you want to clear up anything\nthis is my deposition, this is discovery. FENDLAND: You can\"t tell the witness how to answer the question. Q. I\"m asking you now do you agree with the statement that the only legitimate means to eliminate the racial disparity in achievement is by improving African-American achievement? A. I think we have to improve African-American achievement\nthat is not the only way. Q. Do you recognize that your counsel has written that that's the only way? Read it down in the last paragraph. Read it. Were you aware that your counsel who has told you that you all are ready for unitary status had made that commitment? FENDLAND: Object, counsel didn't make any commitments. A. I think we\"ve done that, I think we've improved. Q. We didn't say improve, this doesn't say anything about improving. Your position seems to always be improving isn't it? Your whole statement is that you all are committed to Cobb Court Reporting P. o. Box 14 Sweet Home , AR 72164- 0004 Phone , (501) 490-0066 (501) 490-0926 - Fax  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11  12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24  25 CERTIFIED COPY 11 improving the educational options for black students? A. [Witness nodding head up and down.] REPORTER: Answer yes. FENDLEY: Object--WALKER: She nodded yes. FENDLEY: Well, let me object to the form of the question if that was finished. STRICKLAND: I think I was nodding that I was listening. Q. Well, let me ask you. Is it your position that you don't, you only have to make your best efforts to eliminate the gap, not to actually eliminate it\nis that your position? A. I think you have to make a genuine effort to do everything you can to help close that gap. Q. All right. Does that mean that you have to develop programs which are addressed and devoted to meeting the specific educational needs of the African-American children? A. I certainly do\nyes. Q. Can you tell me any program that the board has approved for eliminating, not improving, eliminating the gap\nname one program? A. I think everything we do. Q. You can't name a particular program can you? A. I think everything we do. Q. But I'm asking you right now can you name a particular Cobb Court Reporting P. o. Box #4 sweet Home, AR 72164-0004 Phone: ( 501) 490-0066 (501) 490-0926 - Fax  2 3 4 5 8 9 10 11  12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24  25 CERTIFIED COPY 12 program? A. I have given you my answer. FENDLEY: She's answered the question. Q. I understand you have given me your answer, can you tell me any program that the board approved after January of 1998 which had that intended effect\nany particular program? A. Everything we do. Q. Well, just name the programs then. Name the programs. A. Everything we do\nyou have my answer. Q. Mrs., Mrs., Mrs. Strickland you got to name a program for me\ncan you name one program, do you know one program that you all do that has that purpose? A. Yes, all of them\neverything we do. Q. I see. Are you familiar with the evaluations that are set forth on page 148 of the March 15, 2001 report? A. Yes. Q. Have you ever seen a written evaluation of any of those programs that are set forth there? A. Yes, I have. FENDLAND: At the bottom of the page? Q. Yes, you\"ve seen that? A. Yes. Q. Name the ones you have seen. A. Well, I've seen a number of them. Q. Name the ones. Cobb Court Reporting P . o . Box *4 Sweet Home , AR 72164-0004 Phone: ( 501) 490-0066 (501) 490 - 0926 - Fax  1 2 3 4 5 6 8 9 10 11 12  13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24  25 CERTIFIED COPY 13 A. Understanding your school, I have the Hippy Program, the Charter school program ah, that's just the ones I think off the top of my head. The Model Inks--- Q. Go ahead, look at them all. A. English A Second Language, Campus Leadership. Q. You've come up with five. A. That's the ones I can think of off the top of my head but--- Q. I see. Now Mrs. Strickland--- A. I would say we've probably seen all of them. Q. Do you have a Hippy program? A. Well, yes. Q. You still have a Hippy program? A. Well, we cut it back tremendously. Q. Was it working to eliminate African-American achievement disparity at the time you cut it back? A. I really don't know. Q. Can you tell me which of these programs actually worked in your opinion to eliminate African-American Achievement disparities? FENDLAND: Which are the program on the bottom of 148? WALKER: That are listed on page 148\nyes. FENDLAND: Do you want to include all the ones that are discussed in this paragraph? Cobb Court Reporting P. o. Box *4 Sweet Home, AR 72164-0004 Phone: (501) 490-0066 (501) 490-0926 - Fax  3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24  25 CERTIFIED COPY 14 WALKER: The ones at the bottom that are listed at 148. FENDLAND: The bullet points only. STRICKLAND: Uh-huh. A. Well, you know closing the disparity gap was a part of that program--- Q. I'm only asking you--- A. it's a part of everything. Q. Mrs. Strickland, I'm just asking you to tell me which of these programs had that result? FENDLAND: What result? WALKER: Of closing the disparity gap, that's what she said. Q. Which one of them had that, which ones of those had that result? A. Well, I believe most of the things we do helps to close that disparity gap. Q. Well, how do you measure the closing of the gap in your opinion? A. I don't r eally know. Q. Well, how can you say that it has that--A. When the scores have improved. Q. Let me ask you this. How can you make an assessment that the gap has been closed without knowing--- A. Ah, excuse me? Cobb Court Reporting P. o. Box t4 Sweet Home , AR 72164- 0004 Phone: (501) 490 - 0066 (501) 490-092~ - Fax  3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24  25 CERTIFIED COPY 15 Q. How can you make an assessment that the gap--are you saying that the gap has been closed? A. Nope. Q. I see. A. Did I say that? Q. Well, that's what I thought you were saying. A. I said it helps--- Q. I stand corrected. A. all of our programs helps to close that gap. Q. I see. Let me ask you, you've been on the board now seven years? A. Right. Q. What was the, what was the test in use for determining the standardize test in use at that time for assessing student achievement or student performance\nwhat was the test? A. Ah, I really don't know. Q. I see. Did the board ever discuss what test it would use for assessing or achieving, for assessing student achievement? Did you all ever have a public discussion regarding that? A. You talking about closing the disparity gap? Q. No, for just evaluating student performance, did you all ever discuss what test you all would use? A. Overall test? Q. Yes, ma'am. A. Well, we have a number of tests we use. Cobb Court Reporting P. o. Box #4 sweet Horne, AR 72164-0004 Phone, (501) 490-0066 (501) 490-0926 - Fax  2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11  12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24  25 CERTIFIED COPY Q. But did you all as a board ever discuss those test? A. Discuss them in what way? 16 Q. Well first of all, can you identify the test that you understood, the standardize test that you all used say when you came onto the board\nwhat were they? A. SAT was one of them. Q. What else? A. Ah, I really don't remember but there were several. Q. I see. What--did you all as a board ever eliminate the SAT? A. I don't think so. Q. I see. Do you know of any other test by which the administration was directed to measure student achievement in 1995, 6, 7, or 8, you know any other test, standardize test? A. Well, we do ACTAP. Q. ACTAP, is that by 1998? A. I don't, I'm not sure what year it was started. Q. I see. A. SAT is really the only one I remember. Q. Mrs. Strickland do you know of any time the board ever addressed as a board the issue of whether any program that was in place was actually working to effectively either narrow or close the achievement disparity between black and white students, any program? Did you all ever have that discussion? A. We have discussed many times the closing the disparity Cobb Court Reporting P , o. Box t4 sweet Home , AR 72164-0004 Phone, (501) 490-0066 (501) 490 - 0926 - Fax  2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24  25 CERTIFIED COP 11 gap--- Q. Listen to my question. A. and our effort to do so. Q. My question is did you all ever assess as the plan says--FENDLAND: You meaning the board? WALKER: The board\nanytime I'm talking. Q. You understand we recognize that you can't make a judgment by yourself for the board can you? A. Right. Q. All right. FENDLAND: Ah,, I'm distinguishing between you meaning LRSD and you as the board. WALKER: The board, always. FENDLAND: Okay. Q. LRSD is the board isn\"t it? You all delegate everything to staff\nis that right but you are the responsible parties? A. We\"re the responsible parties. Q. All right. FENDLAND: Well, I'm making the distinction between you ask her did you, are you saying did anybody in the district do it or did the board do it? WALKER: The board. FENDLAND: Okay. Q. 2.71 says that the district shall assess the academic programs which were implemented pursuant to 2.7 after each year Cobb Court Reporting P. o. Box #4 Sweet Home, AR 72164-0004 Phone: (501) 490-0066 (501) 490-0926 - Fax  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24  25 CERTIFIED COPY in order to determine the effectiveness of the academic programs and improving African-American achievement\nyou\"re familiar with that aren\"t you? A. Yes. 18 Q. Now in order to assess these programs they have to first be identified don't they Mrs. Strickland? A. [Witness nodding head up and down.] Q. Ma'am? REPORTER: Answer, yes. A. Yes. Q. All right. Can you identify the programs which were implemented that you all assessed? A. No. Q. Can you identi--you can\"t can you? A. No. Q. Now isn't it fair Mrs. Strickland to say that you all did not see annual assessments of all of the programs that you--you said earlier , now listen to what I'm saying, you said everything was supposed to be working toward that end didn't you? A. Right. Q. Now that meant then that you had to have an assessment every year under this of all those programs didn't you? FENDLAND: I'm going to object to the form of the question, that's a legal conclusion as to the meaning of Cobb Court Reporting P. o. Box t4 Sweet Horne , AR 72164- 0004 Phone : (501) 490 - 0066 (501) 490 - 0926 - Fax  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24  25 CERTIFIED COPY 19 the--- Q. I'm asking you the question now\nhe can object at court and that's for the record of course. In your opinion you have to under this policy, you would have to make an assessment of each one of those programs every year wouldn't you? FENDLAND: The same objection. Q. You still have to answer the question. A. I have to answer the question? Q. Yes, ma'am. FENDLAND: If you understand it. A. I think the answer should be yes. Q. All right. Now isn't it fair to say that you never saw written assessments, let's talk about them unwritten later, but you never say written assessments of each one of these myriad programs, myriad meaning many, that were in operation in the school district on an annual basis did you? A. I don't remember seeing every one\nI remember some. Q. Well, we saw on page 148--- A. Uh-huh. Q. I think you identified five but you have far more programs than the dozen that are listed on this page don't you? A. Yes. Q. All right. And is it fair to say that you all never as a board made a judgment that a particular program was working to improve African-American achievement did you? Cobb Court Reporting P. o. Box 14 Sweet Home, AR 72164-0004 Phone, (501) 490-0066 (501) 490-0926 - Fax  2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24  25 CERTIFIED COPY 20 A. We did not. Q. All right. Can you tell me as you sit there which program, in your opinion according to the administrators especially Dr. Carnine, has worked to improve African-American achievement? Can you identify any particular program? FENDLEY: Let me object to the form if you're asking her to speculate which program Dr. Carnine thinks improved the performance. Q. I'm only talking about reports that were made to you by-you don't make assessment yourself do you Mrs. Strickland? A. I do not. Q. You only rely on those people you hire. A. That's right. Q. And they come to you as a board in a board meeting and make presentations. A. That's right. Q. All right. Now can you tell me any programs that they reported to you had been effective in improving AfricanAmerican achievement? I just want you to tell me yes, if there were some and which ones they were. A. No, I don't remember. REPORTER: You're going to have to speak up a little bit more for me. A. I'm sorry. I don\"t remember. Q. Now you understand that there have been a lot of program Cobb Court Reporting P. o. Box t4 Sweet Horne , AR 72164- 0004 Phone : (501) 490-0066 (501) 490-0926 - Fax  2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11  12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24  25 CERTIFIED COPY changes in the last three years, isn't that correct? A. That's right. Q. Now those program changes came about under Dr. Lesley didn't they? A. Yes, they did. 21 Q. And they came about without there having been an assessment of existing programs\nisn't that fair to say a written assessment that was presented to the board? A. I don't know. Q. Well, you don't ever remember seeing any written assessments made as contemplated by 2.7 and presented to the board do you? FENDLAND: I object to the form. Q. Now, you can answer the question. You don't remember seeing any of those do you? A. I don't remember. Q. All right. Now you don't just go and get rid of programs as a matter of routine unless you have made as an education an appraisal that those programs are not effective do you? That would be the normal expectation wouldn't it Mrs. Strickland? A. Yes\nright. Q. Now, but you all actually did that when Dr. Lesley came in because she said I think this can work better\nshe told you that didn't she? FENDLEY: Object, that is a compound question. Cobb Court Reporting P. o. Box t4 Sweet Home, AR 72164-0004 Phone, (501) 490-0066 (501) 490-0926 - Fax  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11  12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24  25 CERTIFIED COPY 22 Q. She has come--you a friend of Dr. Lesley's now aren\"t you? A. I am? Q. Are you not? A. I\"m an acquaintance of hers I think you would say. Q. All right. A. And I hope that I'm a friend to everybody at the school district. Q. You, you\"re my friend, at least you used to be my friend\nI haven\"t talked to you for the last couple of years but you-does Dr. Lesley attend your church? A. No. She visited with me one Sunday. Q. I see. That's sort of friendship, isn't it? A. Yeah, I consider\nyeah, I guess she's a friend. Q. And you all talk about school matters a lot don\"t you one-on- one? A. Well, if I have a problem with anything, I don\"t understand anything--- Q. You call her? A. Dr. Lesley is a good one for me to call. Q. I see. And you have more one-on-one communication with Dr. Lesley than any other school administrator don't you? A. No, I wouldn\"t say that. Q. Well, who else would you have more one-on-one communication with? FENDLAND: I think you need to define a time Cobb Court Reporting P . o. Box #4 sweet Home , AR 72164- 0004 Phone : (501) 490-0066 (501) 490-0926 - Fax  2 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24  25 CERTIFIED COPY 23 period on that. WALKER: Well, I'll do that. Q. But at this time which board, which school administrator do you have the most one-on-one communication with? A. Probably the superintendent. Q. Okay, that\"s fine. Now before he came--no, in the first months after he came which school board member did you have-which school staff member did you have the most contact with? A. When he first, when, when who first came Dr. James? Q. Yes. A. Would you tell me where this is leading, I don\"t quite understand this? Q. I'm leading, I\"m trying to get up to the point of programs and I'll just go to it. A. Uh-huh. Q. Dr. Lesley told you did she not that she could put into place some better programs than the ones that were existence to help improve learning for all children didn\"t she? A. I don\"t think she\"s ever told me that\nno. Q. What did she tell you? A. I don't know\nwhat conversation you\"re referring to. Q. Well, did she ever tell you that the program that she contemplated would work better than the ones that were already in place in order to achieve improvement of African-American progress in schools? Cobb Court Reporting P. o. Box #4 sweet Home, AR 72164-0004 Phone: (501) 490-0066 (501) 490-0926 - Fax  2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24  25 CERTIFIED COPY 24 A. You mean, you\"re asking me if she told me that personally? Q. Yes, ma'am. A. I don\"t think so. Q. Did she ever tell the board that? A. I don't remember those words. Q. I see. Now--- A. But if I may clarify that, my assumption is anytime that a new program is implemented it's working toward that goal because we all know the deseg plan. Q. Well now, Mrs. Strickland you know that every time a new superintendent comes in you get new programs don\"t you? A. Well, that\"s true some time. Q. All right. Now you all don't just throw out programs that are working do you? A. we try not to. Q. All right. Did you have any programs before Dr. Lesley came that in your opinion had been or were successful in remediating African-American achievement, any one program? A. I can't think of one. Q. You can't think, now can you think of one since she's come that's been effective in remediating African-American achievement? A. I believe that our test scores are better. Q. No, we're talking about programs now rather than what somebody has told you or you believe represents better scores. Cobb Court Reporting P . o. Box t4 sweet Home , AR 72164- 0004 Phone : (501) 490 - 0066 (501) 490 - 0926 - Fax  2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11  12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24  25 CERTIFIED COPY But the thing now, can you think of any program? A. No. 25 Q. All right. Now you talk about test scores, the only uniform test score that's been in place throughout these years has been the SAT hasn't it? A. I think so. Q. So if you're going to measure progress and you've been an educator at one time haven't you? A. R.ght Q. And what you try to look at as an educator is a continuum over, things over a period of time rather than a snapshot, isn't that correct? A. That's right. Q. All right. Now if test scores show basically flatness in terms of black achievement and white achievement over a continuum, does not that indicate that whatever gap existed is still there? A. If it\"s flat? Q. Yes, ma'am. A. Yes. Q. All right. Now has the board ever said that it's going to look at some other, that it's going to adopt a different appraisal system for determining remediation of the achievement gap? A. Not that I know of. Cobb Court Reporting P. o. Box #4 Sweet Horne, AR 72164-0004 Phone: (501) 490-0066 (501) 490-0926 - Fax  4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11  12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24  25 CERTIFIED COPY 26 Q. All right. Now with respect to evaluations Mrs. Strickland, you've always wanted to have people held accountable haven't you? A. Yes, sir. Q. And you also have always presumed that your people would be truthful haven't you\nthat is your administrators? A. That's right. Q. Did you find Dr. Carnine to be truthful in your opinion? A. Sometimes, no. Q. That's right. Did Dr. Carnine report to you that he was regularly meeting with John w. Walker with respect to the issues contained in the revised Desegregation and Education plan? A. He did. Q. I see. Did he tell you that I was i n agreement with what was going on? A. I don't know that he ever told us those words. Q. I see. Now did he tell you that program evaluation was proceeding as contemplated by the plan? A. Yes, I believe so. Q. You\"re aware now are you not that program evaluation was not proceeding as the plan required\nhave you been made aware of that? A. Well, I think that's a statement you\"re making. Q. Has anybody else representing the district told you that Cobb Court Reporting P . o. Box #4 sweet Home , AR 72164 - 0004 Phone : ( 501) 490- 0066 (501) 490 - 0926 - Fax  2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24  25 CERTIFIED COPY 21 the district court has found grave problems with your programs evaluations both existence of them and the substance of them\nhas anybody told you that? FENDLAND: Let me object to the form of the question. She hasn't been told that because the district court hasn't made those findings. Q. Well, have you been in court at any time? A. Not on this particular case\nnot this time. Q. Have any of your school board members told you that they have been in court and heard Judge Wright? A. I know some board members that have been in court. Q. I see. Did any of those board members represent to you or did the superintendent represent to you in any writing or statement that the court expressed grave concerns about the district evaluation program? A. I heard her remarks. Q. All right. Now is that anything that you know--now you understand with respect to program evaluation that you all have to have written evaluations as over against somebody's thought that this thing is working or not, there's a difference between somebody's opinion about whether something is working and whether or not an assessment has been made, a written assessment, an evaluation. FENDLAND: I'm going to object\nthat's a compound question. Cobb Court Reporting P. o. Box #4 Sweet Home, AR 72164-0004 Phone: ( 501) 490-0066 (501) 490-0926 - Fax  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24  25 CERTIFIED COPY 28 WALKER: I'll change it\nthank you. FENDLAND: You started asking one question and you changed. WALKER: You're absolutely right. Q. If someone, if you make a commitment to do program evaluation for instance as it is set forth here, those programs were to be--that's a program evaluation commitment isn't it Mrs. Strickland? A. Yes. Q. All right. That's from the plan isn't it? Now 2.7 is what it addresses and it says here that you shall assess the academic programs after each year in order to determine the effectiveness of the programs and improving African-American achievement. It doesn't say anything about assessing the effectiveness of the programs from an effectiveness of white student improvement does it? It talks about improving black students, right? A. [Witness nodding head up and down.] Right. REPORTER: Answer, yes. A. Yes, I'm sorry. WALKER: All right. No further questions. FENDLAND: I don't have any questions. [The deposition ended at 11:55 a.m., October 5, 2001.] * * * * * Cobb Court Reporting P . o . Box 14 Sweet Home , AR 72164- 0004 Phone , (501) 490 - 0066 (501) 490 - 0926 - Fax ERTIFIED COPY 29 (- 1 ERRATA SHEET 2 3 (Upon completion, please sign and date this sheet below.) 4 5 Page Line Change: 6 To: 7 Reason: 8 Page Line Change: 9 To: 10 Reason: 11 Page Line Change: 12 To: 13 Reason: 14 Page Line Change: 15 To: 16 Reason: 17 Page Line Change: 18 To: 19 Reason: 20 Page Line Change: (- 21 To: 22 Reason: 23 Page Line Change: 24 To: 25 Reason: 26 Page Line Change: 27 To: 28 Reason: 29 Page Line Change: 30 To: 31 Reason: 32 Page Line Change: 33 To: 34 Reason: 35 Page Line Change: 36 To: 37 Reason: 38 Page Line Change: 39 To: 40 Reason: 41 42 Page of - 43 SUE H. STRICKLAND Date 44 Cobb Court Reporting P. 0. Box t4 Sweet Horne, AR 72164-0004 Phone: (501) 490-0066 (501) 490 - 0926 - Fax 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 CERTIFIED COPY SIGNATURE PAGE I, SUE H. STRICKLAND, hereby certify that the above and foregoing deposition is a full, true, correct and complete transcript of the proceeding [mark the appropriate box]: had at the time of the taking of my deposition. (OR) subject to the notations on the attached Errata Sheet made by me or at my direction. - Date STATE OF ARKANSAS COUNTY OF PULASKI ss. SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO before me, a Notary Public in and for the aforesaid county and state on thi s o-\u0026lt;'7.\u0026lt;/o --u. of {Jc\n/: (SEAL) Cobb Court Reporting P . o. Box t4 Sweet Home , AR 72164- 0004 Phone : (501) 490 - 0066 (501) 490-0926 - Fax day    1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 CERTIFIED COPY 31 REPORTER'S CERTIFICATE STATE OF ARKANSAS ss. 429-84-1622 COUNTY OF PULASKI I, Gloria Y. Cobb, A Certified Court Reporter and Notary Public in and for the aforesaid County and state, do hereby certify that the witness, SUE H. STRICKLAND, was duly sworn by me prior to the taking of testimony as to the truth of the matters attested to and contained therein\nthat the testimony of said witness was taken by me in stenomask and was thereafter reduced to typewritten form by me or under my direction and supervision\nthat the foregoing transcript is a true and accurate record of the testimony given to the best of my understanding and ability. I FURTHER CERTIFY that I am neither counsel for, related to, nor employed by any of the parties to the action in which this proceeding was taken\nand, further, that I am not a relative or employee of any attorney or counsel employed by the parties hereto, nor financially interested, or otherwise, in the outcome of this action\nand that I have no contact with the parties, attorneys, or persons with an interest in the action that affects or has a substantial tendency to affect impartiality, that requires me to relinquish control of an original deposition transcript or copies of the transcript before it is certified and delivered to the custodial attorney, or that requires me to provide any service not available to all parties to the act. My Commission Expires: Cobb Court -Reporting P. o. Box #4 Sweet Home, AR 72164-0004 Phone: (501) 490-0066 (501) 490-0926 - Fax\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\u003eCobb Court Reporting\u003c/dcterms_creator\u003e\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_474","title":"Incentive Schools: ''Little Rock School District Incentive School Monitoring Report (1992-93) Summary of Recommendations,''","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["1993-12-09"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Educational planning","School improvement programs","School integration","Educational law and legislation"],"dcterms_title":["Incentive Schools: ''Little Rock School District Incentive School Monitoring Report (1992-93) Summary of Recommendations,''"],"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/474"],"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":["documents (object genre)"],"dcterms_extent":["99 pages"],"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\nSummary of recommendations for U.S. District Court hearing for January 26, 1994\nLittle Rock School District INCENTIVE SCHOOL MONITORING REPORT (1992-93) December 9, 1993 Summary of Recommendations U. S. District Court Eastern District of Arkansas Hearing, January 26, 1994 Incentive Schools Franklin Ish Rightsell Stephens Garland Mitchell RockefellerApprox. 12/9/93 12/10/93 12/10/93 12/14/93 12/20/93 1/3/94 1/6/94 1/12/94 1/12/94 1/13/94 Little Rock Schoo! District INCENTIVE SCHOOLS MONITORING REPORT (1992-93) Done (1/26/94) ________ Item Received copies of report____________________ Distributed copies of the Report for reading to: / School Board / Superintendent's Council / Desegregation Facilitator / Incentive School Principals / Other administrators responsible___________ Report was discussed in Superintendent's Cabinet meeting____________________________ Recommendation summarized in chart form Administrative Offices Close__________________ Administrative Offices Reopen________________ Superintendent's Council met all day together reading each page and discussing: / implications of each recommendation on our progress in implementing the plan, court orders, and directives / Impact on our budget and resources / Listing who is and should be responsible for the recommendation____________________ Superintendent's Council met all day together reviewing each recommendation and determining which administrator is or should be responsible Feedback from each of those administrators responsible was solicited_____________________ Met with curriculum supervisors to discuss and receive input concerning recommendations in the Report Approx. 1/13/94 1/19/94 1/20/94 1/20/94 1/22/94 1/26/94 1/27/94 2/3/94 ____________________Item__________________ Met with Student Assignment Office Staff, Desegregation Facilitator, Communications Director, Recruitment Staff, Director of Transportation, and VIPS Coordinator to discuss and receive input concerning recommendations in the Report______________________________ Met with incentive school principals to discuss and receive input concerning recommendations in the Report______________________________ Met with incentive school principals to plan recruitment activities for February registration to consider the relationship between the Report recommendations and registration____________ Feedback was received and follow-up discussions began with individuals who have responsibilities for areas touched by the recommendations__________________________ Feedback was analyzed and a summary compiled in chart form listing each recommendation and where we currently stand on it______________________________________ Court hearing began on the Report____________ Update School Board on status of the Report Agenda item at School Board RetreatLittle Rock School District INCENTIVE SCHOOL MONITORING REPORT (1992-93) December 9, 1993 Summary of Recommendations Included here is a summary of recommendations from the INCENTIVE SCHOOL MONITORING REPORT (1992-93). Each recommendation has been numbered consecutively based on its order in the report. This was done to facilitate discussion and cross-referencing. A breakdown of recommendations listed by these numbers appears on the first page entitled Summary of 102 Recommendations by Category. Three charts are attached to that. The first is a listing of all 102 recommendations. For each recommendation, the chart displays a number (No), page (Pg), section, and a symbol. The full name of the abbreviations used in the section column appears on the last page of section one. If either no symbol, a \" + or a \"++\" appears in the right margin beside the recommendation, we agree with the recommendation. If an The meaning of each symbol is as follows: #  *  appears, we disagree with the recommendation. Disagree + In Progress + + Completed Behind the complete chart of all recommendations, are two charts in the same format. One chart represents only the recommendations with which we agree, and the other represents recommendations with which we disagree. Included with the \"disagree\" chart recommendations are the associated requirements mentioned in the report. They are noted by a Z mark. Two of the recommendations (numbers 31 and 66) in the complete chart were duplicated when the original chart was typed. The error was discovered as the research process developed. They have been shaded. Therefore, the last recommendation is numbered 104, but there are only 102 recommendations. Duplicated entries were not removed when discovered because renumbering would confuse previous cross-referencing in our discussion notes. Number 1 7 is a reference to tsh School which closed in June of 1 993. RUSS MMO ASSOCIATE SUPERINTENDENT FOR DESEGREGATIONLrt?^llock^^Rool District INCENTIVE SCHOOL MONITORING REPORT (1992-93) Summary of 102 Recommendations by Category AGREEMENT To be done 37 Total In progress(+) 44 Total Completed (++) 9 Total Disagreement (*) 12 Total # 1 2 3 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 [17] 19 24 25 26 28 29 32 41 # 42 46 58 59 60 62 63 65 67 68 69 70 85 86 90 91 96 100 # 5 13 14 16 18 20 27 30 34 36 37 38 39 40 43 44 45 47 48 49 50 51 # 52 53 55 56 57 61 72 73 77 79 80 81 82 83 84 87 89 93 94 97 98 102 # 15 21 22 35 78 92 101 103 104 # 4 23 33 54 64 71 # 74 75 76 88 95 99 I [17] Ish closed June, 1993 01/26S4 aLittle Rock School District INCENTIVE SCHOOL MONITORING REPORT (1992-93) December 9, 1993 Summary Chart of RecommendationsNo 1 2 3 Pg 5 5 12 Section 4-Yr Enroll Compared 4-Yr Enroll Compared Staff I 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 1 12 13 15 15 15 15 22 22 22 27 30 34 38 38 38 38 38 38 Staff Staff Staff Staff Staff Staff Staff Staff Staff Test Data Discp/Susp Expul G\u0026amp;T Enroll Facilities Facilities Facilities Facilities Facilities Facilities Ish closed June, 1993. INCENTIVE SCHOOL MONITORING REPORT (1992-93) December 9, 1993 Summary of Recommendations ____________________________________________Recommendation____________________________________________ Make recruiting white students to the incentive schools among district priorities, focusing the energy and resources necessary to ensure that the incentive schools become fully desegregated.________________________________________ Identify the facts that are working to make Rockefeller a desegregated school and adopt or adapt them for the other incentive schools._______________________________________________________________________________________ Establish goals and objectives for racially balancing each incentive school staff as part of a comprehensive long-range strategic plan for implementing the incentive school features.___________________________________________________ Exempt incentive schools from being forced to accept any employees that have not been interviewed and recommended by the principal and the school's staffing committee.__________________________________________________________ ODM makes no new recommendations\nthe district remains obligated to follow all court orders and to fulfill the commitments in its desegregation plans._____________________________________________________________________ Institute staffing needs assessments as an annual process in the incentive schools._________________________________ Develop a comprehensive guide for assessing staffing needs which incorporates the factors listed in the plan as well as other relevant archival and anecdotal data.___________________________________________________________________ Train principals and staffing committees in procedures for effective assessing staffing needs._________________________ Involve the LRSD Human Resource Department as an integral part of the assessment process.________________________ Develop specific, comprehensive job descriptions for instructional and supervision aides._____________________________ Make sure all aides receive a thorough orientation to their individual job along with comprehensive, ongoing formal training in areas such as child development, supervision and classroom management, learning styles, and discipline techniques._____________________________________________________________________________________________ Provide teacher inservice training in the effective use of instructional aides that include team-building activities for teacher and aide teams.________________________________________________________________________________________ ODM makes no new recommendations\nthe district remains obligated to follow all court orders and to fulfill the commitments in its desegregation plan.____________________________________________________________________ ODM makes no new recommendations\nthe district remains obligated to follow all court orders and to fulfill the commitments in its desegregation plan.____________________________________________________________________ Increase the amount of time the gifted and talented program specialists spend in the incentive schools so they can fully implement the G/T program and spend more time identifying the children whose needs can be met through the program. Continue to repair roof leaks at Franklin as they occur. Once a leak is corrected, repair or replace water damaged ceiling tiles and carpet. Repaint the interior of Ish, if the school remains open.^ The spot-painting completed during the summer of 1992 improved the appearance of the building, but the walls need a complete paint job._______ Repair or replace the leaky roof in Mitchell's reading room.___________________________ Replace the loose floor tiles in Mitchells hallway.__________________________________ Develop a schedule of carpet repair or replacement for Rockefeller, Mitchell, and Rightsell. Repair the floor and wall in Rightsell classroom 3-B, and then replace any damaged carpet. [ * Disagree + In Progress -I- -I- Completed ] + + + + + + -I- + + 01/26/94INCENTIVE SCHOOL MONITORING REPORT - 1992-93 2 No 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 Dup 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 Pg 38 38 40 41 41 41 41 41 41 41 41 43 43 43 45 45 46 47 47 Section Facilities Facilities Prog/oper Prog/oper Prog/oper Prog/oper Prog oper Prog/oper Prog/oper Prog/oper Prog/oper Prog/oper Prog/oper Prog/oper Prog/oper Prog/oper Prog/oper Prog/oper Prog/oper ____________________________________________Recommendation ___________________________ Take steps to correct the remaining drainage problems at Rightsell, including relocation of any down spout draining toward the foundation._________________________________________________________________________ Make sure all incentive school principals are aware that district funds are available to improve landscaping at their schools if a parent, teacher, or community organization will take maintenance responsibility for plantings._____________________ ODM makes no new recommendations\nthe district remains obligated to follow all court orders and to fulfill the commitments in its desegregation plans___________________________________________________ Create job descriptions for council members that clearly identify the district's expectations of the council, membership responsibilities, and the amount of service time involved.______________________________________________________ Outline the council's organizational structure and its working and reporting relationship to the school board, district administrators, the incentive schools, and other monitoring entities._____________________________________________ Provide a comprehensive orientation for the council at the beginning of each school year so all members will understand their role, district policies and procedures, communication channels, and what district resources and support are available. Develop and carry out a specific plan for meeting council obligations that includes goals and objectives, tasks, timelines, persons responsible, and evaluation criteria that addresses the council's desegregation plan obligations.________________ Develop a monitoring instrument for council use that correlates specifically with desegregation plan and court order requirements. Such an instrument and the information it elicits will facilitate an ongoing assessment of how well the district is complying with its obligations.____________________________________________________________________ Help the council develop monitoring and reporting procedures, guideline, and schedules that provide members clear direction for their monitoring tasks. HeJp the council develop monhoring end reporting procedures, guidelines, and schedules that provide members dean ..................................:.....\nCoordinate monitoring activities with other internal monitoring groups including the district biracial committee, school biracial committee, and the Department of Planning, Research and Evaluation. Such coordination will help avoid monitoring gaps and duplication and also help ensure more effective use of time and other resources.__________________ Include as a member of the Early Childhood Education Task Force at least one instructional aide or teacher from each school having a four-year-old program._________________________________________________________________ Increase the involvement of area colleges and universities by naming active higher education representatives to the task force._______________________________________________________________________________________________ ODM makes no new recommendations\nthe district remains obligated to follow all court orders and to fulfill the commitments in its desegregation plan.______________________________________________________ Base staff development on activities on areas of demonstrated need.______________________________________ Utilize Teacher Assistance Plan (TAP) for those teachers who need the help available through the TAP approach.____ Encourage principals and assistant principals to attend subject area in service meetings so they, too, are well informed and understand the new curriculum____________________________________________________________________ Ensure that each school develops and executes a plan for fully implementing its theme by the opening of the 1993-94 school year.____________________________________________________________________________________ Provide equal treatment for Stephens Incentive School by providing full support for a school theme. Children at Stephens are entitled to every incentive school feature guaranteed them by the Settlement Plans, unless the district should seek, and the Court grant, permission to temporarily deviate from a particular plan provision. -I- + 4- -I- [ * Disagree -I- In Progress + -I- Completed ] uuiKiHga ITUlilO + -I- + 4- + 4- -I- -I- 01/26/94INCENTIVE SCHOOL MONITORING REPORT - 1992-93 3 No 41 Pg 48 Section Prog/oper 42 48 Prog/oper 43 I 49 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 49 51 51 51 51 52 53 55 56 57 58 55 8 61 56 57 58 Prog/oper Prog/oper Prog/oper Prog/oper Prog/oper Prog/oper Prog/oper Prog/oper Prog/oper Prog/oper Prog/oper Prog/oper VIPS 61 63 65 VIPS VIPS Career Dev. ____________________________________________Recommendation_________________ Establish a schedule of regular meetings among the incentive school program specialists so they can discuss effective theme implementation strategies, share ideas, and review experiences. Encourage interaction among the incentive school program specialists and those specialists assigned to the magnet schools. Capitalizing on in-house expertise and encouraging cooperation among the schools will help strengthen the district's programs.___________________________________ Schedule science inservice training for teachers who need or want help improving their science instruction. Principals should be able to determine which teachers are not fully using the science labs and steer them to staff development sessions devoted to enlivening science in the classroom.____________________ Ensure that the materials needed for all science experiments are available to school staff and make sure teachers are aware of procurement procedures.____________________________ Capitalize on the district's resident expertise and experience to assist the incentive schools in establishing a foreign language program as an integral part of the overall school program.__________________________________ Place as many qualified foreign language teachers as needed to provide Spanish instruction to incentive school students as part of the regular school day instructional program.________________________________ Encourage the Spanish teachers to develop a series of Spanish \"mini-lessons\" for each grade level to help the regular classroom teachers reinforce foreign language instruction across the curriculum. Increase the amount and improve the quality of Spanish language materials available in each school.________ ODM makes no new recommendations\nthe district remains obligated to follow all court orders and to fulfill the commitments in its desegregation plans.____________________________ Provide sufficient training and support to enable all schools to fully implement Abacus during the 1993-94 school year, ODM makes no new recommendations\nthe district remains obligated to follow all court orders and to fulfill the commitments in its desegregation plans.___________________________________ ODM makes no new recommendations\nthe district remains obligated to follow all court orders and to fulfill the commitments in its desegregation plans.____________________________________ ODM makes no new recommendations\nthe district remains obligated to follow all court orders and to fulfill the commitment in its desegregation plans.________________________________ Incorporate leisure time activities, which students can pursue throughout their lifetime, as part of the physical education curriculum._________________________________________________ Strengthen efforts to recruit mentors for the students. Having at least one special friend, coach, and encourager can be so important to a child's development that every student who needs or wants a mentor should have one. Consider a trainer of trainers program or similar means to equip principals or other school staff to train volunteer mentors. Abandon the practice of limiting three-and-four-year-old children to walking field trips and allow them to travel by bus to any appropriate site, with parental approval. Whatever the past misunderstanding that resulted in travel restrictions for young students, ADE should confirm that, with appropriate parent permission, it is lawful to transport children of these ages in public school buses.___________________________________________________ Treat and teach career skills development as an integral part of school life. -F -I- -I- 4- 4- . + + 4- -t- * 4- 4- 4- I * Disagree 4- In Progress 4- 4- Completed ] 01/26/94INCENTIVE SCHOOL MONITORING REPORT - 1992-93 4 No 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 Dup 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 Pg 68 68 68 68 68 68 68 68 70 70 72 72 76 76 78 Section Extended Yr/wk Extended Yr/wk Extended Yr/wk Extended Yr/wk Extended Yr/wk Extended Yr/wk Extended Yr/wk Extended Yr/wk Extended Yr/wk Extended Yr/wk Extended Yr/wk Extended Yr/wk Extended Yr/wk Extended Yr/wk Extended Yr/wk Recommendation Solicit candid feedback from summer school participants (including staff, parents, and students) about what they most and least valued about the summer school programs. Ask them to identify those elements that enticed them into the program, what facilitated their participation, and any barriers that impeded it.______________ Ask incentive school parents and students who did not take part in summer school to identify why they did not participate and what would most likely induce them to attend.____________ Seek broad-based input from incentive school staff, parents, and students to learn what course offerings or other program features make summer school most appealing to prospective participants. Routinely monitor and evaluate summer school as part of a comprehensive, ongoing process for continuous improvement. Include the incentive school principals, teachers, students, and parents in the assessment, publish and analyze the results, and when act decisively upon what the evaluation reveals._____________ Mount an aggressive marketing campaign for summer school recruitment, getting ideas from staff, students, and parents and also encouraging them to help recruit.__________ Maintain thorough and accurate records of all summer school information, including planning, recruitment efforts, surveys or other means of input and feedback, evaluations, a tally of children participating in each program category and individual class, and a record of these students home school. Comprehensive records will enable program planners to track success and make appropriate program modifications as needed.____________ Consider implementing the recommendations made by the extended year administrative staff in the district's summary report._________________________________ Consider impiementing the recommendatfons made by the extended year adminfsttative staff in the district's summary report._______________________________________________ Encourage partnered schools to develop some joint projects and co-activities so students will learn how to plan, organize, and cooperate on activities that they develop. Shared ventures could held increase participation in Saturday School activities. The principals should collaborate with each other to provide the necessary resources and to ensure successful projects.___________________________________________________ Consider pairing Franklin with two smaller incentive schools for Saturday School activities so no incentive school is without a partner to encourage sharing and variety.______________ Design the extended day survey to include a description of the skills a student develops while engaged in leisure time activities. This design will help parents and students recognize the importance of a good balance between work and play. Make sure all extended day students have an opportunity for some fun activities, such as jump rope, board games, or making up and reciting rhymes. It's developmentally and emotionally healthy for students to participate in wholesome activities just for fun. .Mgke an effortjo ^air aides and teachers who are compatible with each other, and provide training that will enable instructional aides and classroom teachers to work together as an effective team. Provide pre-service orientation and training for all aides, and follow-up with regular inservice, on topics that include behavior management techniques and other subjects that will contribute to the aides' effectiveness. Consider having VIPS train incentive school principals to serve as instructors for new mentors so these building leaders can conduct their own streamlined, on-site mentor training. I * Disagree -I- In Progress -I- -I- Completed -I- -t- -h 01/26/94INCENTIVE SCHOOL MONITORING REPORT - 1992-93 No 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 to 5 Pg 78 78 84 85 89 89 89 91 92 92 95 97 97 98 Section Extended Yr/wk Extended Yr/wk Extended Yr/wk Extended Yr/wk Extended Yr/wk Extended Yr/wk Extended Yr/wk Parent Involve Parent Involve Parent Involve Parent Involve Parent Involve Parent Involve Parent Involve ____________________________________________Recommendation___________________________________________ Allow principals to contact and select pre-professionals from institutions of higher education when the opportunity presents itself. Sometimes the best deals occur because of a chance meeting at a seminar or conference. It doesn't make sense for a good opportunity to get lost in bureaucratic wastelands.________________________________________ Expand contacts with and widen access to the variety of community-based programs designed to support children and families.______________________________________________________________________________________________ Allow teachers who want to leave the incentive schools to do so with impunity. If staff members wish to transfer elsewhere, they are not necessarily unfit or incompetent\nthey may simply not be suited for the incentive school experience. It cannot be overemphasized that the district should only assign people to the incentive schools who are not only talented, committed, and experienced, and who also want to be there.______________________________________ Comply with the requirement to develop complete student performance profiles for each child and then use the information to define and guide each student's learning path and to help determine the effect of the variables these profiles record._________________________________________________________________________________________ Make sure that each incentive school has a full-time certified guidance counselor on staff throughout the school year. Decide each incentive school's need for a social worker, then staff accordingly. Require incentive school counselor to meet as a group on a regular basis. Such meetings will provide an informal atmosphere in which to discuss problems unique to incentive schools, develop solutions, share ideas and success stories, and to explore ways to expand their resources. Counselors need the support and encouragement they could get from an organized group of peers.________________________________________________________________________________ Assign a district employee the responsibility for fully developing and implementing the plan requirements for a program that will equip parents with job skills necessary for employment at all levels within the incentive schools. Be sure to include program goals, objectives, timelines, persons responsible for each step of implementation, and evaluation criteria. Follow up to provide appropriate assistance to survey respondents who have expressed interest in receiving specialized help from the district, such as obtaining their GED.___________________________________________________________ Evaluate the cost effectiveness of using local community resources, such as the Parent Learning Center, as a means for providing education opportunities for parents._______________________________________________________________ ODM makes no new recommendations\nthe district remains obligated to follow all court orders and to fulfill the commitments in its desegregation plans.____________________________________________________________________ Evaluate the parent workshops offered to determine if they are meeting the plan's goal of helping incentive school parents understand and carry out school expectations.________________________________________________________ Ask workshop participants to evaluate each session at its conclusion to make candid suggestions for training improvement and future session topics. Then carefully analyze the feedback to assess the quality and relevancy of the training and make changes accordingly._____________________________________________________________________ ODM makes no new recommendations\nthe district remains obligated to follow all court orders and to fulfill the commitment in its desegregation plan. I * Disagr^ -I- In Progress -I- -I- Completed  -I- -I- 4- + -I- + -h -I- + 01/26/94INCENTIVE SCHOOL MONITORING REPORT - 1992-93 6 No 88 pPg 105 Section Parent Involve 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 105 105 106 109 109 109 116 116 117 117 117 100 I 11 7 101 117 102 117 Parent Involve Parent Involve Parent Involve Parent Involve Parent Involve Parent Involve Rockefeller Early Child Rockefeller Early Child Rockefeller Early Child Rockefeller Early Child Rockefeller Early Child Rockefeller Early Child Rockefeller Early Child Rockefeller Early Child _____________________________________Recommendation___________________________________________ Standardize the method staff uses to document and report home and school communication to promote data consistency and accuracy. In order to standardize reporting and minimize the burden of documentation, schools could use a simple form identifying the contact date, type of contact (such as parent/teacher conference, home visit, interim or monthly report, phone call, success or alert card), which staff member contacted whom (parent, grandparent, or other), and a brief description of the results of the contact or any other pertinent information.__________________________________ Train incentive school principals and staff to serve as trainers for new mentors so they can conduct their own mentor training, if needed, and thereby expedite mentor placement.___________________________________________________ Develop transportation policies and procedures, ensuring that principals are aware of this service, know how to identify parents' transportation needs, and understand how to arrange for it to support parent participation where needed.______ Provide parents with current school year contracts to sign when they register their children in the incentive schools. Contracts with old dates and information convey a sloppy message that parents can interpret as a sign that either the school, the district, or both don't place much value on the contracts or parent commitments.________________________ Assign a LRSD employee the responsibility for coordinating the speakers bureaus and assisting the key communicators. Without consistent direction and support, those who volunteer as a speaker or key communicator can't be expected to carry out their responsibilities effectively.___________________________________________________________________ Develop and implement a comprehensive plan for utilizing the services of the speakers bureaus and key communicators that includes specific goals, objectives, the persons responsible, and evaluation criteria to determine success and where changes need to be made._____ Develop job descriptions for the speakers bureau and key communicators that clearly identify the job goal, qualifications, performance expectations, the participant and district responsibilities, and the amount of time that will likely be required to successfully perform each job.__________________________________________________________________________ Seriously consider placing at Rockefeller an early childhood program specialist who has the credentials and experience that clearly illustrate adequate training and interest in the education of very young children._________________________ Re-establish the Rockefeller advisory group. Regularly evaluate Rockefeller's early childhood education policies as specified in the plan and then publish the results in an informational handbook for parents._____________________________________________________________________ Make sure that the early childhood students receive the services of the school's counselor. Very young children can need the specialized insights and services of a counselor professional just as much as older children._______________________ Concentrate the same level of attention, funding, and materials on the Rockefeller Early Childhood Magnet Program that the district lavishes on other magnet schools and programs.____________________________________________________ Broadly publicize the Early Childhood Magnet Program. This program is truly unique and the district should capitalize on its success.___________________________________________________________________________________________ Refrain from placing any uncertified teacher in an early childhood classroom. Provide regular, quality staff development opportunities for the early childhood education staff. I * Disagree -b In Progress -b -b Completed ] -b + -)- -b + -b -b * + -b + 01/26/94INCENTIVE SCHOOL MONITORING REPORT - 1992-93 7 No 103 104 117 120 Section Rockefeller Early Child Incent Sch Doubl Fund ____________________________________________Recommendation ______________ Ensure that Rockefeller serves as an early childhood education model, demonstration site, and training center by initiating the innovative practices described in the desegregation plan, utilizing advice and expertise from parents, teachers, and college and university staff. __________________ ODM makes no new recommendations\nthe district remains obligated to follow all court orders and to fulfill the commitments in its desegregation plan. -I- -)- -h +  Four-Year Enrollment Comparisons  Staffing  Test Data  Discipline, Suspension, and Expulsion  Gifted and Talented Enrollment Sections  Extended Year/Week  Parent Involvement  Rockefeller Early Childhood Magnet School  Double Funding Facilities Programs and Operations VIPS Career Development I * Disagree 4- In Progress + + Completed ] 01/26/94Little Rock School District INCENTIVE SCHOOL MONITORING REPORT (1992-93) December 9, 1993 Summary Chart of Recommendations (Agreement Only)No 1 F? 2 3 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 1 5 12 13 15 15 15 15 22 22 22 27 30 34 38 38 38 38 38 38 38 INCENTIVE SCHOOL MONITORING REPORT (1992-93) Summary of Recommendations (Agree) Section 4-Yr Enroll Compared 4-Yr Enroll Compared Staff Staff Staff Staff Staff Staff Staff Staff Staff Test Data Discp/Susp Expul G\u0026amp;T Enroll Facilities Facilities Facilities Facilities Facilities Facilities Facilities Ish closed June, 1993. ____________________________________________Recommendation ____________________ Make recruiting white students to the incentive schools among district priorities, focusing the energy and resources necessary to ensure that the incentive schools become fully desegregated. Identify the facts that are working to make Rockefeller a desegregated school and adopt or adapt them for the other incentive schools._____________________________________________________ Establish goals and objectives for racially balancing each incentive school staff as part of a comprehensive long-range strategic plan for implementing the incentive school features.______________________________ ODM makes no new recommendations\nthe district remains obligated to follow all court orders and to fulfill the commitments in its desegregation plans.___________________________________________________ Institute staffing needs assessments as an annual process in the incentive schools. Develop a comprehensive guide for assessing staffing needs which incorporates the factors listed in the plan as well as other relevant archival and anecdotal data._______________________________ Train principals and staffing committees in procedures for effective assessing staffing needs.__________ Involve the LRSD Human Resource Department as an integral part of the assessment process.___________________ Develop specific, comprehensive job descriptions for instructional and supervision aides.____________ Make sure all aides receive a thorough orientation to their individual job along with comprehensive, ongoing formal training in areas such as child development, supervision and classroom management, learning styles, and discipline techniques.___________________________________________________________________________ Provide teacher inservice training in the effective use of instructional aides that include team-building activities for teacher and aide teams._______________________________________________________ ODM makes no new recommendations\nthe district remains obligated to follow all court orders and to fulfill the commitments in its desegregation plan. ODM makes no new recommendations\nthe district remains obligated to follow all court orders and to fulfill the commitments in its desegregation plan.________________________________________ Increase the amount of time the gifted and talented program specialists spend in the incentive schools so they can fully implement the G/T program and spend more time identifying the children whose needs can be met through the program. Continue to repair roof leaks at Franklin as they occur. Once a leak is corrected, repair or replace water damaged ceiling tiles and carpet. Repaint the interior of Ish, if the school remains open. The spot-painting completed during the summer of 1992 improved the appearance of the building, but the walls need a complete paint job.________________ Repair or replace the leaky roof in Mitchell's reading room._________________ Replace the loose floor tiles in Mitchell's hallway.__________________________________________ Develop a schedule of carpet repair or replacement for Rockefeller, Mitchell, and Rightsell. Repair the floor and wall in Rightsell classroom 3-B, and then replace any damaged carpet.____________ Take steps to correct the remaining drainage problems at Rightsell, including relocation of any down spout draining toward the foundation. + + + + + + -I- -I- -I- 4- -I- + 01/264INCENTIVE SCHOOL MONITORING REPORT - 1992-93 (Agree) 2 No 24 Pg 40 Section Prog/oper 25 26 27 28 29 30 32 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 41 41 41 41 41 41 41 43 43 45 45 46 47 47 48 48 Prog/oper Prog/oper Prog/oper Prog oper Prog/oper Prog/oper Prog/oper Prog/oper Prog/oper Prog/oper Prog/oper Prog/oper Prog/oper Prog/oper Prog/oper Prog/oper ____________________________________________Recommendation___________________________________________ ODM makes no new recommendations\nthe district remains obligated to follow all court orders and to fulfill the commitments in its desegregation plans_____________________________________________________________________ Create job descriptions for council members that clearly identify the district's expectations of the council, membership responsibilities, and the amount of service time involved.______________________________________________________ Outline the council's organizational structure and its working and reporting relationship to the school board, district administrators, the incentive schools, and other monitoring entities._____________________________________________ Provide a comprehensive orientation for the council at the beginning of each school year so all members will understand their role, district policies and procedures, communication channels, and what district resources and support are available. Develop and carry out a specific plan for meeting council obligations that includes goals and objectives, tasks, timelines, persons responsible, and evaluation criteria that addresses the council's desegregation plan obligations._______________ Develop a monitoring instrument for council use that correlates specifically with desegregation plan and court order requirements. Such an instrument and the information it elicits will facilitate an ongoing assessment of how well the district is complying with its obligations.____________________________________________________________________ Help the council develop monitoring and reporting procedures, guideline, and schedules that provide members clear direction for their monitoring tasks.________________________________________________________________________ Coordinate monitoring activities with other internal monitoring groups including the district biracial committee, school biracial committee, and the Department of Planning, Research and Evaluation. Such coordination will help avoid monitoring gaps and duplication and also help ensure more effective use of time and other resources._________________ Increase the involvement of area colleges and universities by naming active higher education representatives to the task force._________________________________________________________________________________________________ ODM makes no new recommendations\nthe district remains obligated to follow all court orders and to fulfill the commitments in its desegregation plan.________________________________________________________________ Base staff development on activities on areas of demonstrated need.____________________________________________ Utilize Teacher Assistance Plan (TAP) for those teachers who need the help available through the TAP approach.________ Encourage principals and assistant principals to attend subject area in service meetings so they, too, are well informed and understand the new curriculum________________________________________________________________________ Ensure that each school develops and executes a plan for fully implementing its theme by the opening of the 1993-94 school year.____________________________________________________________________________________________ Provide equal treatment for Stephens Incentive School by providing full support for a school theme. Children at Stephens are entitled to every incentive school feature guaranteed them by the Settlement Plans, unless the district should seek, and the Court grant, permission to temporarily deviate from a particular plan provision.______________________________ Establish a schedule of regular meetings among the incentive school program specialists so they can discuss effective theme implementation strategies, share ideas, and review experiences.___________________________________________ Encourage interaction among the incentive school program specialists and those specialists assigned to the magnet schools. Capitalizing on in-house expertise and encouraging cooperation among the schools will help strengthen the district's programs. -I- -F- 4- -I- + + -I- -F- -F -I- 01/26/94INCENTIVE SCHOOL MONITORING REPORT - 1992-93 (Agree) 3 No 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 Pg 49 49 51 51 51 51 52 53 55 56 57 61 61 63 65 68 68 68 Section Prog/oper Prog/oper Prog/oper Prog/oper Prog/oper Prog/oper Prog/oper Prog/oper Prog/oper Prog/oper Prog/oper VIPS VIPS VIPS Career Dev. Extended Yr/wk Extended Yr/wk Extended Yr/wk ____________________________________________Recommendation___________________________________________ Schedule science inservice training for teachers who need or want help improving their science instruction. Principals should be able to determine which teachers are not fully using the science labs and steer them to staff development sessions devoted to enlivening science in the classroom.______________________________________________________ Ensure that the materials needed for all science experiments are available to school staff and make sure teachers are aware of procurement procedures._________________________________________________________________________ Capitalize on the district's resident expertise and experience to assist the incentive schools in establishing a foreign language program as an integral part of the overall school program._____________________________________________ Place as many qualified foreign language teachers as needed to provide Spanish instruction to incentive school students as part of the regular school day instructional program._______________________________________________________ Encourage the Spanish teachers to develop a series of Spanish \"mini-lessons\" for each grade level to help the regular classroom teachers reinforce foreign language instruction across the curriculum.___________________________________ Increase the amount and improve the quality of Spanish language materials available in each school._________________ ODM makes no new recommendations\nthe district remains obligated to follow all court orders and to fulfill the commitments in its desegregation plans.____________________________________________________________________ Provide sufficient training and support to enable all schools to fully implement Abacus during the 1993-94 school year. ODM makes no new recommendations\nthe district remains obligated to follow all court orders and to fulfill the commitments in its desegregation plans.____________________________________________________________________ ODM makes no new recommendations\nthe district remains obligated to follow all court orders and to fulfill the commitments in its desegregation plans.____________________________________________________________________ ODM makes no new recommendations\nthe district remains obligated to follow all court orders and to fulfill the commitment in its desegregation plans._____________________________________________________________________ Strengthen efforts to recruit mentors for the students. Having at least one special friend, coach, and encourager can be so important to a child's development that every student who needs or wants a mentor should have one._____________ Consider a trainer of trainers program or similar means to equip principals or other school staff to train volunteer mentors. Abandon the practice of limiting three-and-four-year-old children to walking field trips and allow them to travel by bus to any appropriate site, with parental approval. Whatever the past misunderstanding that resulted in travel restrictions for young students, ADE should confirm that, with appropriate parent permission, it is lawful to transport children of these ages in public school buses.______________________________________________________________________________ Treat and teach career skills development as an integral part of school life._______________________________________ Solicit candid feedback from summer school participants (including staff, parents, and students) about what they most and least valued about the summer school programs. Ask them to identify those elements that enticed them into the program, what facilitated their participation, and any barriers that impeded it._____________________________________ Ask incentive school parents and students who did not take part in summer school to identify why they did not participate and what would most likely induce them to attend.____________________________________________ Seek broad-based input from incentive school staff, parents, and students to learn what course offerings or other program features make summer school most appealing to prospective participants. -I- + -I- + -F -F + + -F -I- + -F 01/26/94INCENTIVE SCHOOL MONITORING REPORT - 1992-93 (/iffree) 4 No 62 63 65 67 68 69 70 72 73 77 78 79 80 81 82 Pg 68 68 68 70 70 72 72 76 78 85 89 89 89 91 92 Section Extended Yr/wk Extended Yr/wk Extended Yr/wk Extended Yr/wk Extended Yr/wk Extended Yr/wk Extended Yr/wk Extended Yr/wk Extended Yr/wk Extended Yr/wk Extended Yr/wk Extended Yr/wk Extended Yr/wk Parent Involve Parent Involve ____________________________________________Recommendation___________________________________________ Routinely monitor and evaluate summer school as part of a comprehensive, ongoing process for continuous improvement. Include the incentive school principals, teachers, students, and parents in the assessment, publish and analyze the results, and when act decisively upon what the evaluation reveals.______________________________________________ Mount an aggressive marketing campaign for summer school recruitment, getting ideas from staff, students, and parents and also encouraging them to help recruit.___________________________________________________________________ Consider implementing the recommendations made by the extended year administrative staff in the district's summary report.________________________________________________________________________________________________ Encourage partnered schools to develop some joint projects and co-activities so students will learn how to plan, organize, and cooperate on activities that they develop. Shared ventures could held increase participation in Saturday School activities. The principals should collaborate with each other to provide the necessary resources and to ensure successful projects._____ Consider pairing Franklin with two smaller incentive schools for Saturday School activities so no incentive school is without a partner to encourage sharing and variety.___________________________________________________________ Design the extended day survey to include a description of the skills a student develops while engaged in leisure time activities. This design will help parents and students recognize the importance of a good balance between work and play. Make sure all extended day students have an opportunity for some fun activities, such as jump rope, board games, or making up and reciting rhymes. It's developmentally and emotionally healthy for students to participate in wholesome activities just for fun.____________________________________________________________________________________ Provide pre-service orientation and training for all aides, and follow-up with regular inservice, on topics that include behavior management techniques and other subjects that will contribute to the aides' effectiveness.__________________ Consider having VIPS train incentive school principals to serve as instructors for new mentors so these building leaders can conduct their own streamlined, on-site mentor training._______________________________________________ Comply with the requirement to develop complete student performance profiles for each child and then use the information to define and guide each student's learning path and to help determine the effect of the variables these profiles record. ___________________________________________________________________________________ Make sure that each incentive school has a full-time certified guidance counselor on staff throughout the school year. Decide each incentive school's need for a social worker, then staff accordingly. Require incentive school counselor to meet as a group on a regular basis. Such meetings will provide an informal atmosphere in which to discuss problems unique to incentive schools, develop solutions, share ideas and success stories, and to explore ways to expand their resources. Counselors need the support and encouragement they could get from an organized group of peers.________________________________________________________________________________ Assign a district employee the responsibility for fully developing and implementing the plan requirements for a program that will equip parents with job skills necessary for employment at all levels within the incentive schools. Be sure to incIude program goals, objectives, timelines, persons responsible for each step of implementation, and evaluation criteria. Follow up to provide appropriate assistance to survey respondents who have expressed interest in receiving specialized help from the district, such as obtaining their GED. -I- 4- + + -I- -I- + + 01/26/94 aINCENTIVE SCHOOL MONITORING REPORT - 1992-93 [Agree] No 83 84 85 86 87 89 90 91 92 93 94 96 97 98 100 101 Pg 92 95 97 97 98 105 105 106 109 109 109 116 117 117 117 117 B 5 Section Parent Involve Parent Involve Parent Involve Parent Involve Parent Involve Parent Involve Parent Involve Parent Involve Parent Involve Parent Involve Parent Involve Rockefeller Early Child Rockefeller Early Child Rockefeller Early Child Rockefeller Early Child Rockefeller Early Child ____________________________________________Recommendation__________________________________________ Evaluate the cost effectiveness of using local community resources, such as the Parent Learning Center, as a means for providing education opportunities for parents.______________________________________________________________ ODM makes no new recommendations\nthe district remains obligated to follow all court orders and to fulfill the commitments in its desegregation plans.___________________________________________________________________ Evaluate the parent workshops offered to determine if they are meeting the plan's goal of helping incentive school parents understand and carry out school expectations._______________________________________________________ Ask workshop participants to evaluate each session at its conclusion to make candid suggestions for training improvement and future session topics. Then carefully analyze the feedback to assess the quality and relevancy of the training and make changes accordingly.___________________________________________________________________ ODM makes no new recommendations\nthe district remains obligated to follow all court orders and to fulfill the commitment in its desegregation plan.____________________________________________________________________ Train incentive school principals and staff to serve as trainers for new mentors so they can conduct their own mentor training, if needed, and thereby expedite mentor placement.__________________________________________________ Develop transportation policies and procedures, ensuring that principals are aware of this service, know how to identify parents' transportation needs, and understand how to arrange for it to support parent participation where needed._____ Provide parents with current school year contracts to sign when they register their children in the incentive schools. Contracts with old dates and information convey a sloppy message that parents can interpret as a sign that either the school, the district, or both don't place much value on the contracts or parent commitments._______________________ Assign a LRSD employee the responsibility for coordinating the speakers bureaus and assisting the key communicators. Without consistent direction and support, those who volunteer as a speaker or key communicator can't be expected to carry out their responsibilities effectively.__________________________________________________________________ Develop and implement a comprehensive plan for utilizing the services of the speakers bureaus and key communicators that includes specific goals, objectives, the persons responsible, and evaluation criteria to determine success and where changes need to be made.______________________________________________________________________________ Develop job descriptions for the speakers bureau and key communicators that clearly identify the job goal, qualifications, performance expectations, the participant and district responsibilities, and the amount of time that will likely be required to successfully perform each job._________________________________________________________________________ Re-establish the Rockefeller advisory group. Regularly evaluate Rockefeller's early childhood education policies as specified in the plan and then publish the results in an informational handbook for parents._____________________________________________________________________ Make sure that the early childhood students receive the services of the school's counselor. Very young children can need the specialized insights and services of a counselor professional just as much as older children._______________________ Broadly publicize the Early Childhood Magnet Program. This program is truly unique and the district should capitalize on its success.____________________________________________________________________________________________ Refrain from placing any uncertified teacher in an early childhood classroom. -I- + -h -I- -I- -I- + + + -I- -I- -I- 01/26/94INCENTIVE SCHOOL MONITORING REPORT - 1992-93 (/Igree) 6 No 102 103 104 Pg 117 117 120 Section Rockefeller Early Child Rockefeller Early Child ____________________________________________Recommendation_____________________ Provide regular, quality staff development opportunities for the early childhood education staff. Incent Sch Doubl Fund Ensure that Rockefeller serves as an early childhood education model, demonstration site, and training center by initiating the innovative practices described in the desegregation plan, utilizing advice and expertise from parents, teachers, and college and university staff.______________________________________________________________________________ ODM makes no new recommendations\nthe district remains obligated to follow all court orders and to fulfill the commitments in its desegregation plan. -I- -I- 4- 01/26/94Little Rock School District INCENTIVE SCHOOL MONITORING REPORT (1992-93) December 9, 1993 Summary Chart of Recommendations (Disagreement Only)No 4 23 33 54 64 Pg 12 38 43 58 68 Section Staff Facilities Prog/oper Prog/oper Extended Yr/wk INCENTIVE SCHOOL MONITORING REPORT (1992-93) Summary of Recommendations (Disagree) ____________________________________________Recommendation___________________________________________ Exempt incentive schools from being forced to accept any employees that have not been interviewed and recommended by the principal and the school's staffing committee. / The selection and support of quality staff members will be critical factors in the success of incentive schools. Carefully planned staff-selection criteria and procedures will provide the quality personnel capable of successfully attaining the goals and implementing the programs and curriculum of these schools. (LRSD Plan, pg. 190)  Progress is being made toward racially balancing both the certified and non-certified staff. (ODM 1992 Report, pg. 6) Make sure all incentive school principals are aware that district funds are available to improve landscaping at their schools if a parent, teacher, or community organization will take maintenance responsibility for plantings. / All seven incentive schools would benefit aesthetically from the addition of attractive landscaping. Once plantings are installed, train the custodial staff in proper plant care to prevent loss of plantings to improper pruning or underwatering [SIC]. (ODM 1992 Report, pg. 43.)___________________________________________________________________ Include as a member of the Early Childhood Education Task Force at least one instructional aide or teacher from each school having a four-year-old program. / / The four-year-old program uses High Scope or a comparable curriculum model and a parent component is incorporated into the program. (LRSD Plan, pg. 152) Four-year-old enrollment is limited to 18 children per class. (ODM 1992 Report, pg. 10) The Early Childhood Education Task Force is an avenue for parent, teacher, and community input. (ODM 1992 Report, pg- 17)__________________________________________________________________________________________ Incorporate leisure time activities, which students can pursue throughout their lifetime, as part of the physical education curriculum. / Physical education (PE) and health are included in the total elementary curriculum with emphasis on wellness, lifelong leisure skills, nutrition, and respect for those with disabilities. (LRSD Plan, pg. 156)___________________________ Maintain thorough and accurate records of all summer school information, including planning, recruitment efforts, surveys or other means of input and feedback, evaluations, a tally of children participating in each program category and individual class, and a record of these students' home school. Comprehensive records will enable program planners to track success and make appropriate program modifications as needed. / / / / Extended year school includes summer remediation and enrichment options at all incentive schools at no cost to students. Summer courses are prescribed for students. (LRSD Plan, pp. 172, 180) Extended year is a continuation of the regular school year. (ODM 1992 Report, pg. 25) Academic enhancements are evident in extended programs. (ODM 1992 Report, pg. 25) Attendance at extended programs is recorded by grade level, race, and gender. (ODM 1992 Report, pg. 25) Cumulative records document both host and guest school's participating in Saturday programs. (ODM 1992 Report, pg. 25) Saturday programs will be developed to enhance learning. These programs will include but shall not be limited to field trips, enrichment activities, tutoring, parent/child make-and-take sessions, book fairs, and physical education activities. (LRSD Plan, pg. 179) * 01/26/94INCENTIVE SCHOOL MONITORING REPORT - 1992-93 (Disagree} 2 No 71 IQ 76 Pg 76 IQ 84 Section Extended Yr/wk Extended Yr/wk Extended Yr/wk Extended Yr/wk ____________________________________________Recommendation______________________________________ Make an effort to pair aides and teachers who are compatible with each other, and provide training that will enable instructional aides and classroom teachers to work together as an effective team. / / 7 7 7 / Attendance and behavior guidelines include time-out rooms that are staffed with trained personnel. Students help develop school-based management rules and receive help with problem solving. (LRSD Plan, pp. 175, 184) Staff, parents, and students cooperatively design discipline policies. ODM 1992 Report, pg. 23) Discipline policies and procedures are well-publicized, clearly indicate what is appropriate and inappropriate behavior, and spell out consequences for infractions. (ODM 1992 Report, pg. 23) Policy enforcement is fair and consistent. (ODM 1992 Report, pg. 23) The district collects and closely monitors discipline data in order to make appropriate modifications to the discipline program. (ODM 1992 Report, pg. 23) Classroom management approaches are appropriate for the work being done. (ODM 1992 Report, pg. 32) Allow principals to contact and select pre-professionals from institutions of higher education when the opportunity presents itself. Sometimes the best deals occur because of a chance meeting at a seminar or conference. It doesn't make sense for a good opportunity to get lost in bureaucratic wastelands. Z Compacts provide students access to community support programs, such as volunteers and pre-professionals from colleges and universities, and assistance from social agencies. (LRSD Plan, pp. 175,183) Z Students have access to a wide spectrum of community-based programs. (ODM 1992 Report, pg. 39)_____________ Expand contacts with and widen access to the variety of community-based programs designed to support children and families. Z Compacts provide students access to community support programs, such as volunteers and pre-professionals from colleges and universities, and assistance from social agencies. (LRSD Plan, pp. 175,183) Z Students have access to a wide spectrum of community-based programs. (ODM 1992 Report, pg. 39)_____________ Allow teachers who want to leave the incentive schools to do so with ifhpunjt^. If staff members wish to transfer elsewhere, they are not necessarily unfit or incompetent\nthey may simply not be suited for the incentive school experience. It cannot be overemphasized that the district should only assign people to the incentive schools who are not only talented, committed, and experienced, and who also want to be there. / 7 7 Study skills training enhances skills in test taking, listening, and studying. Test taking skills are being taught and students practice test taking. (LRSD Plan, pp. 153, 176, 183\nODM 1992 Report, pg. 32) Meaning and understanding is stressed in all academic instruction, keeping in mind the relationship between what is taught, learned, and tested. (ODM 1992 Report, pg. 32) Emphasize continuous growth in mathematics understanding and application, reducing computation isolated from application context along with redundancy across grade levels. (ODM 1992 Report, pg. 32) Cultural infusion is evident in classroom materials. (ODM 1992 Report, pg. 32) Teacher-directed and learner-directed instruction co-exist in the classroom. (ODM 1992 Report, pg. 32) Regular tracking of student attendance, behavior, discipline, and achievement is systematic and assessed at least quarterly. Individual and class profiles are utilized. Individual students plans and interventions are based on needs determined through ongoing data review. (LRSD Plan, pp. 176, 186) Disaggregate test results to enable an assessment of the short- and long-term correlation between test performance and such variables as how long a student has been enrolled at a particular school, behavior and attendance records, and participation in such programs as early childhood and extended day, week, and year. (ODM 1992 Report, pg. 32) *   01/26/94INCENTIVE SCHOOL MONITORING REPORT - 1992-93 [Disagree] 3 No 88 Pg 105 Section Parent Involve ____________________________________________Recommendation_________________ Standardize the method staff uses to document and report home and school communication to promote data consistency and accuracy. In order to standardize reporting and minimize the burden of documentation, schools could use a simple form identifying the contact date, type of contact (such as parent/teacher conference, home visit, interim or monthly report, phone call, success or alert card), which staff member contacted whom (parent, grandparent, or other), and a brief description of the results of the contact or any other pertinent information. Z Z 7 Each school provides community role models and a mentoring program (LRSD Plan, pg. 157) The district has mounted an intense mentor recruitment campaign. (ODM 1992 Report, pg. 29) Individual school volunteer mentoring programs are coordinated with VIPS and all volunteers are screened and trained prior to being matched with students. (ODM 1992 Report, pg. 29) The school maintains mentor-student records that include the race, gender, participation hours, and types of activities shared by the mentors and their students. Records of training participants by race, gender, and classification (i.e. 95 116 Rockefeller Early Child student, mentor, parent, teacher) are also maintained. (ODM 1992 Report, pg. 30)_______________________ Seriously consider placing at Rockefeller an early childhood program specialist who has the credentials and experience that clearly illustrate adequate training and interest in the education of very young children. * / / z 7 7 The Rockefeller Early Childhood Magnet Program is available to children from six weeks to four years of age. The program serves as a model for improving the academic achievement of disadvantaged students and attracting white students to the school in order to comply with desegregation requirements, (LRSD Plan, pg, 12) Rockefeller is designated as a Cooperative Early Childhood Education Demonstration Magnet between UALR and to her area colleges. The LRSD works cooperatively with local colleges and universities to enhance and support the program, (LRSD Plan, pg, 12) At Rockefeller, the district gives special emphasis to developing and piloting innovative approaches to the education of young children, (LRSD Plan, pg, 12) Rockefeller is used as a demonstration center for training the county's teachers, administrators, aides, HIPPY (HOME Instruction Program for Preschool Youngsters), and daycare program workers, (LRSD Plan, pg, 12) Parents and educational professionals from UALR and Other area colleges advise the school and district staffs on all aspects of planning and implementation of the early childhood program, (LRSD Plan, pg, 12) Students attending the three-year-old program are allowed to continue on into the school's four-year-old program, kindergarten, and beyond, (LRSD Plan, pg, 13) Explore developing Rockefeller as a year-round, full-day school for children form infancy through sixth grade, A biracial group of teachers, parents, administrators, and experts from local universities and colleges works with the district to assess the feasibility of such a program, (LRSD Plan, pg, 13) Evaluate Rockefeller's early childhood education policies in terms of their impact on desegregation and education goals. The parent committee on early childhood education is to evaluate policies (including private pay rates, lunch charges, vacation days, enrollment age, and sick days) for their impact on the early childhood program's viability desegregation tool, its competitiveness with private schools and daycare, and its ability to retain both its private paying and Title XX students. (LRSD Plan, pg. 13) as a 01/26/94INCENTIVE SCHOOL MONITORING REPORT - 1992-93 (Disagree} 4 No 99 Pg 117 Section Rockefeller Early Child ________________________________________ Recommendation__________________________________________ Concentrate the same level of attention, funding, and materials on the Rockefeller Early Childhood Magnet Program that the district lavishes on other magnet schools and programs. / / / / 7 The Rockefeller Early Childhood Magnet Program is available to children from six weeks to four years of age. The program serves as a model for improving the academic achievement of disadvantaged students and attracting white students to the school in order to comply with desegregation requirements. (LRSD Plan, pg. 12) Rockefeller is designated as a Cooperative Early Childhood Education Demonstration Magnet between UALR and to her area colleges. The LRSD works cooperatively with local colleges and universities to enhance and support the program. (LRSD Plan, pg. 12) At Rockefeller, the district gives special emphasis to developing and piloting innovative approaches to the education of young children. (LRSD Plan, pg. 12) Rockefeller is used as a demonstration center for training the county's teachers, administrators, aides, HIPPY (HOME Instruction Program for Preschool Youngsters), and daycare program workers. (LRSD Plan, pg. 12) Parents and educational professionals from UALR and other area colleges advise the school and district staffs on all aspects of planning and implementation of the early childhood program. (LRSD Plan, pg. 12) Students attending the three-year-old program are allowed to continue on into the school's four-year-old program, kindergarten, and beyond. (LRSD Plan, pg. 13) Explore developing Rockefeller as a year-round, full-day school for children form infancy through sixth grade. A biracial group of teachers, parents, administrators, and experts from local universities and colleges works with the district to assess the feasibility of such a program. (LRSD Plan, pg. 13) Evaluate Rockefeller's early childhood education policies in terms of their impact on desegregation and education goals. The parent committee on early childhood education is to evaluate policies (including private pay rates, lunch charges, vacation days, enrollment age, and sick days) for their impact on the early childhood program's viability as a desegregation tool, its competitiveness with private schools and daycare, and its ability to retain both its private paying and Title XX students. (LRSD Plan, pg. 13) * 01/26/94\nThis project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resoources.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_540","title":"Little Rock Schools: Fair High","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["1991/2002"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","J. A. Fair High School (Little Rock, Ark.)","School facilities","Educational planning"],"dcterms_title":["Little Rock Schools: Fair High"],"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/540"],"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":["documents (object genre)"],"dcterms_extent":["31 pages"],"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\nODM Visits to LRSD Schools, Opening Days 1994 Fair Park Elementary School We -were pleased to note that:  The building was spotless.  Corridors were clean and well-lit.  Restrooms were clean and well-supplied.  Classrooms were attractively decorated with bulletin boards welcoming students.  The playground contained some new equipment.  Students were friendly and well-behaved. We also noted some areas needing attention:  Monitors noticed several teachers who were gruff or testy in their dealings with students.  A third grade class walking down the hall was separated by gender.  The principal's office lacked a computer which could be used for all sorts of word processing, including contributions to the program budget document.  Eaves in one section of the exterior had been damaged by rain, and required repair, waterproofing, and repainting.  Trees at the rear of the building extended over the roof of the school.  A broken downspout was located at the rear of the building.LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK, AR 72201 Division of Schooi Services Sadie Mitcheil, Associate Superintendent received SEP 1 3 2Q00 TO: Ice of Desegregation Monitoring OFFICE Of FROM: Carnine, Superintendent of Schools DESEGRESAliOii WOMHOWMQ DATE: September 7, 2000 SUBJECT: Magnet Schools Assistance Program Grant The Little Rock School District is in the process of developing a plan that will improve the educational offerings of four schools in Southwest Little Rock: Fair High School, McClellan High School, Mabelvale Middle School and Cloverdale Middle School. The schools have decided to adopt magnet-like school themes to focus on academic content and to increase student engagement in learning. The schools, along with the District's Director of Planning and Development, will aggressively seek resources to support the themes. The Magnet Schools Assistance Program provides grants to eligible local educational agencies (LEAs). Each eligible LEA that desires to receive assistance shall submit an application before December 22, 2000. The Little Rock School District is preparing to submit an application which will include the schools listed above. If you have questions, please call Sadie Mitchell at 501/324-2007. c: Junious Babbs, Associate Superintendent - Student Registration Dr. Terrence Roberts, Desegregation Consultant Dr. Stephen Ross, Desegregation Consultantaecesved SEP 1 3 2000 OmCEOF desegregation monitoriwg J. A. Fair High School  Medical and Environmental Sciences  Systems Engineering  Information -Processes A Comprehensive Program Design for Accelerated StudiesJ. A. Fair High School Accelerated Studies in Medical and Environmental Sciences, Systems Engineering and Information Processes COMPREHENSIVE PROGRAM DESIGN Overarching Theme: Accelerated Studies in Medical and Environmental Sciences, Systems Engineering and Information Processes Programmatic Strand: Systems Engineering - Pure Science Applications  Experience Base A first step in successful program design is to broaden the background knowledge of students so that they have common areas understanding upon which to build new levels of learning. At the beginning of the year, an initial field trip to sites that utilize specialized high tech engineenng   ' _____ ,1 f 1 1 _L  - J11 rvn 1 ohr\\rn+r(np5 This and subsequent field trips will focus on laboratories. systems technology will occur. UICU, --------------------------------------- , ,  J it, applications sci architectural, engineering and construction firms, as well as construction sites and large structures of note. Each of these will be viewed for their appEcations of mathematics and the pure sciences of physics and chemistry. Good examples of the various parts of complete systems willbe analyzed as to system design, networking, programming, communications and constructions. Analyzmg the different areas that make up a completely engineered system will enable students to see how any change in the parts wiE change the outcome of the whole system. Partnerships with the University of Arkansas, Little Rock and Autozone will open up a range of higher education and business exposure. The overall goal will be for students to develop an understanding of systems concepts and their applications. First there will be many opportunities to practice identifying the parts of a vamety of things how they connect and how parts affect other parts, in order to gam m appreciation for systems. After this, systems thinking can be made expEcit- suggesting analysis of parts, subsystems. Descriptions of parts and their interaction are important as students interactions, and matching. Descriptions of parts and their mteraction are unpuiLaxxu begin to analyze their observations in the field. Once a mindset for systems engmeenng evolves, students will be motivated to engage in the important curricular activities that wiU enable them to understand appEcations of mathematical and pure sciences and become student systems engineers. Curricular Activity Many well planned, related activities will add in-depth meaning to the students experience base and provide opportunities for higher level applications of learning. Student projects will involve designing, assembling, and trouble-shooting systems (mechanical, chemical, electrical) with easily discernible components, Project based learning will engage students in authentic problems, allow them to learn and practice inquiry and problem-solving skills, and acquire advanced academic content and SCANS skills in the project context. Activity driven student coursework will include Introduction to Networking, Introduction to Programming, Introduction to Systems Design, Technical Writing, Physics, and Computer Math Applications. CBL units and TI83 plus calculators will be used by students to collect and analyze data. Students will implement and maintain a new computerized sound system for the school and take part in the planning and project design for the system. They will judge how changing different components affects the systems output. Students will also follow larger projects funded by the city to see more networking, programming, and design in action to give them experience working alongside professionals in the field. Intensive practices involving aU forms and levels of networking, programmings design, construction, and maintenance of a complete system will ensure relevant, authentic learning in systems engineering. The most sophisticated activities will involve projects that make connections among systems, either internally or extemally-subsystems increasing the power of mega systems, or serial systems making each more effective. Small scale models will be compared with mathematical models displayed on computer to determine actual quality of design. The value of systems simplicity versus systems complexity will be assessed through modification of elements within the system. Computer technology will be invaluable due to the time consuming aspects of long, complicated, repetitive steps within systems. Also, computer testing of devices and structures parallels real life need for safety, durability, and longevity in systems support. Interactive Environments Specialized areas will be developed for students to engage in real world situations over time. Equipment is usually unique and too expensive or invasive to be used in regular classrooms. Simulated environments and learning centers, both inside and outside the classroom at Fair, assist students and their teachers in maintaining the mindset that is beneficial to systems engineering. An on-campus lab, Systems Engineering Control Center, will include 30 student computers and provide students with specialized tools and resources for the construction and maintenance of a high tech system that networks the schools computers. The mainframe for the schools networked computers and the sound system will be stationed in this lab and to be monitored and maintained by students. Students will also have access to a Robotic Systems Unit on campus which will include a laboratory equipped with techno logical tools, materials, and equipment for construction, discovery, and research of human prosthetics and other robotic entities that aid humans in their work (student- made computers that perform simple tasks or functions). A third lab area, Interactive Satellite Systems Lab, that includes video and audio equipment for transmission and reception will enable students to participate in distance learning with other high schools, universities, and the Corp of Engineers. This lab will supply digital equipment, earphones, microphones, video taping equipment, monitors and other telecommunication equipment for distant learning. In addition, the J. A. Fair school staff will apply for an EAST grant to establish an independent problem based studies technology center. This library media center based function will allow all students to pursue interests in specific areas while conducting long term research. This application will provide the next level of sophistication beyond the already strong academic comparative studies at Fair.  Curricular Content Advanced coursework will be available and within the reach of al students through affiliation with two outstanding nationally and internationally recognized programs. Strong primary sources that focus on design, formatting, networking, and trouble-shooting for a variety of system types will serve the students need for background knowledge. Extension into reference materials from professional and trade sources will round out curricular content, with the use of specialized textbooks for specific types of systems. Appropriate technology hardware and courseware that utilizes mathematical applications and related scientific concepts will be integrated throughout to emphasize how math and computer technology come together to produce systems engineering. Terminology relating to inputs, outputs, positive and negative feedback, systems properties, systems analysis, subsystems, and systems stability will be internalized as a result of constant, meaningful use.tilsoexV /M2^ r m/xit-slFJZAMCS iTrojceP *4 Aho Vic\u0026gt;ec\u0026gt; pi^aJetnor ^C\u0026gt;crr\\r\\ /  + pOSlTlOhU Cot^xPLrreTZ. iMoCULJt -----------\u0026lt;S.t2^pjC. ) Vzii^e^-cxz\u0026amp;p ir 5t\\jDV AIREA V/iT-rt ivjTetzACTr've eKrrp=v rvldim J. A. Fair High School - Systems Engineering Control Center Tliayer Design Inc. 1495 High Peak Road Monroe, VA 24574 804/929-6359  Best Instructional Practices A few selected practices that match techniques to content and that are employed consistently, are more effective than trying many different approaches simultaneously. The primary best practice that will be employed at Fair is the Project Based Learning approach. PBL is a strategy that draws on different learning styles and intelligences and incorporates experiential learning. A final product or presentation that demonstrates learning and incorporates instruction, reflection, and assessment will be essential. Project-based learning can be defined as follows: B learning experiences which engage students in complex, real world projects through which they develop and apply skills and knowledge B a strategy which recognizes that significant learning taps students inherent drive to learn,  Q  capability to do important work, and the need to be taken seriously learning in which the results are not predetermined or fuUy predictable learning which requires students to draw from many information sources and disciplines in order to solve problems learning which requires students to coordinate time, work schedules, and project outcomes in order to accomplish project goals on a predicted time schedule PBL Network, The Autodesk Foundation, 1998. Teachers will engage the students in guided practice and peer collaboration for the learning of new material and procedures. Teaching techniques/strategies will employ the cognitive-constructivist classroom approach shaped around systems engineering projects, research, testing, and presentation. Students will focus on problem-based learning and systems analysis activities to learn about networking and programming procedures and the basic principles of systems engineering. Simulations of systems design and development will combine the strong content base with skills applications in solving systems problems.  Formative and Summative Assessment Accelerated studies are based on high expectations which are made clear to students in carefully drawn rubrics prior to each unit of study. A variety of assessment formats will be employed throughout the various units of study and will serve as authentic measures for teachers to determine exactly what and how students learn about systems engineering. The assessments will include pre/post testing, matrices of skills, rubrics to evaluate projects and oral presentations, rubrics to evaluate communication and presentations, LRSD exit exams, traditional tests (multiple choice, short answer, and essay), and student selfevaluations. Arkansas Frameworks This section to be developed when the new standards and alignments are provided to staff members. The final draft of this program design will correlate benchmarks, standards, text and ancillary materials in order to ensure a tightly aligned curriculum document that is practical and user friendly within a creative and advanced content structure.  Staff Training and Curriculum Writing Programs are only successful if their staff members successfully complete appropriate training and apply what has been learned. School personnel will receive intensive training on skills that are pertinent to this systems engineering strand. This training will include Overview of Systems Engineering, Introduction to Prosthetics and Robotics, Distance Learning, Philosophy and Implementation' of Teaching throughaProject/Product-Based Approach, Formative and Summative Assessment approaches - How to effectively match curriculum to each one, Meeting the needs of all students through Multiple Intelligences, and Organizing and Managing a Classroom for Project-Oriented Learning. Diann Taylor and Jim Collins, field consultants with Phale D. Hale Education Consulting Inc, will provide leadership in systems engineering lab development and curriculum writing. They will collaborate with the science department IRC and the staff at J. A. Fair in integrating specialized lab area functions with related thematic classroom activities and Arkansas Benchmarks and Standards. Anita Tanner, principal consultant with Phale D. Hale Education Consulting Inc, will serve as program facilitator, coordinating the varied staff training activities from various sources, the leadership roles and responsibilities at the school, and authentic project design implementation.J.A. Fair Accelerated Studies High School ~ continued ~ Overarching Theme: Accelerated Studies in Medical and Environmental Sciences, Systems Engineering and Information Processes Programmatic Strand: Information Processes  Experience Base Students will participate in a series of field trips to sites that represent the importance of information processing through computer driven technology. Among these sites wiU be a visit to Geographic Information Systems (GIS) and to large computerized businesses (such as the airport). Multimedia and related graphics wUl come alive with meaning as students are immersed in exciting uses in information sciences. Technologies integral to the manipulation of information sources will be seen in action including operating systems, visual imaging, computer-assisted drawing, computer composition, real-time movement segments, and text-image manipulation. Advanced data base manipulation and spread sheet applications wiU be observed with sophisticated charting and table Ulustrations as the necessary skeletal structure that strengthens the information science experience base.  Curricular Activity Many varied activities will motivate students and enable them to use a broad range of exploratory techniques. Through hands on experience, planning independent projects, and exploring appropriate software that pursue a variety of applications, students will acquire a wide variety of technical skills that are an integral part of the information sciences programmatic strand. Specific student activities will involve video conferencing, designing a school website, designing graphics, learning web page languages (HTML), utilizing web building tools with Internet technology (webbing), drafting, and the collection and manipulation of experimental data. Coursework will include studies of computer language skills and technical information relating to programming abilities. Student projects wiU include creation and design of programs that coUect, analyze, synthesize, and format information in unique ways. These pertinent student involvement-intensive practices, as weU as a wealth of authentic classroom projects, offer students opportunities to investigate, experiment, and construct relevant meaning within the overall framework of the area of information sciences. Interactive Environments Simulated environments and learning centers, both inside and outside the classroom, assist students and their teachers in maintaining the mindset that is beneficial to information processes thematic studies. Students will have access to an Information Processes Center on campus. This will contain various work areas to support sophisticated and distinct functions. Due to the size and desired capability to have multiple classes going on simultaneously there will be sound baffles that double as signs. Two different work areas will consist 20 computers each, for a total of 40 networked computers. Smart Boards will be available in four areas of the lab for use by both students and teachers. The laboratory will also be equipped with technological tools and computer driven applications for data and graphic manipulation and web-budding. Students will be able to participate in distance learning through the use of telecommunications and other equipment available in the Information Processes Center. Some video conferencing will take place from individual student desktop computers, while other large group video conferencing will occur from an arena seating arrangement. The school win have a networked computer system, with 10 computers per classroom, that will allow for school-wide communication between classrooms and between students and teachers. The school website will be expanded by students who work in a dedicated area of the lab. There will be multiple screens for viewing various websites simultaneously. There will be experimentation in developing user friendly means for communicating sophisticated projects and providing a place for sharing samples of original and creative approaches to information processing. This electronic collaboration facility will nurture information processes as students work together on intellectual, academic, or practical endeavors. People from different parts of a building, state, country, or continent will exchange information, collaborate on shared documents and ideas, study together, or reflect on their own practices. fElectronic Collaboration: A Practical Guide for Educators, LAB Northeast and Islands Regional Educational Laboratory at Brown University, 1999 - a primary source used throughout this document.)'' i fVVA. tXT* O o V*4TU lWTUBACTI\u0026lt;a 7ouc\u0026gt;+ $MiteeM5 - A IT* o ODia ceti LAf^T^P- /^\u0026lt;WSTr'i I - ' it~\\\nipeo PfZxaJ. IB EO Blon aia n 0[a B t^r5\u0026gt; \"llo ____ 2*^3 .T:icrio\u0026gt;4^ ElO BlDD ora E) ]Q HEa B EQ- BOE Qlla B t-a.t3 o ____ 20 STAnciKt^ ^rotSA^-e E] EO oEa BOE oca 000 HE a BE a ]D B e ]0 j XJ J  o :t Gt VIPEO dJOMFei2eW\u0026lt;:'l46 AlzeA a TJ N\\OW jtor 0B! B] 1E BOB J NtUirriPCXi hAOMiTOH.'S^ KWi'TW ^i*.kApL-e \\vetfi-re J. A. Fair High School - Information Processes Center, Thayer Design (no. 1466 High Peak Road Monroe, VA 24574 804/^29-6359  Curricular Content Studies in the Information Processes strand wili be based upon electronic collaboration that takes many forms.  Discussion groups will be focused around a topic or a specific activity, goal, or project. Some groups will be open-ended and unmoderated, allowing users to solicit information from each other. Other, more structured groups may use a moderator to guide the discussion by filtering and posing questions and/or making comments.   suggestions, and connections. Data collection and organization activities will use databases and search engines to organize and retrieve data. Users will contribute data individually to a shared database and retrieve data from it as needed. Data will be in the form of references (such as pointers to related work and Web sites), information (such as weather conditions or whale sightings), curriculum projects, research papers, and contact information for fellow students. Some projects will involve sharing documents - from simply displaying them to having several people work on them simultaneously. Collaborators will display documents online and discuss the contents via email, video conference, or chat. ' They will use annotation systems to comment on shared documents and editing tools to co-edit documents online. Synchronous communication activities such as Internet chat and video conferencing differ from other types of activities in that they happen in real time, over a short period. In text based chat environments participants see what the other person is typing on the screen in real time. Video conferencing is like a conference call with pictures. These technologies wUl allow students to discuss ideas, debate problems, and share information electronically when face-to-face interaction is desired but not possible. This wiU occur in large group settings as well as through individual desktop video conferencing. Students will participate in online courses or workshops to gain dual credit at local specialized schools of study, junior colleges, and universities. These courses wUl be like traditional courses and workshops, but without face to face meetings. The instructor will distribute assignments, guide the conversation, and respond to students questions. The discussions will take place via discussion groups through integrated distance learning tools. Students will use a variety of techmeal manuals during their information processes studies. Appropriate technology hardware and courseware that focus on the manipulation of video, graphics, text, and programs will provide the tools to build web pages. Computer software featuring appropriate vocabulary related to web page building, as well as emphasizing writing and journalism skills, will help to integrate basic core subjects within the information processes theme. State-of-the-art industry standard equipment supporting high-level data collection, analysis and formatting of information, commumcation, groupware, shareware and graphic interaction software will be the necessary skeletal structure for advanced studies in information processes. Mini-conrses in computer languages and programming will provide the background needed by students who wish to explore the possibilities of program writing. Students will internalize technical terms and process sequences through many meaningfill repetitions in context. Best Instructional Practices Teaching techniques/strategies that employ the use of computer driven technologies will be the primary methods emphasized in this Strand. Peer collaboration, independent study, and teaming will be additional models used by teachers to fecilitate learning. Students wiU use their Information Processes Center to create web pages, school publications, and support classroom mvestigations and experiments. The best instructional practice in this strand of information processes will be the application of knowledge and skills across all subject areas. Manipulation and collaboration in the processing of information will become integral to all learning and will underscore the importance of information processes.  Formative and Summative Assessment Assessment formats that match each set of activities, such as computer portfolios, serve as authentic measures for teachers to determine exactly what and how students learn. Teachers will use objective and subjective criteria for assessment formats in the form of rubrics and matrices. The computer portfolio that includes the information processes learner products will be assessed with strict, precise controls as befitting the accuracy and quality desirable in information sources. The portfolio approach will help teachers to determine whether students are internalizing higher order thinking related to the information processing theme. It will be reviewed as a global evaluation measure, a summative assessment, concluding the unit of study. The portfolio will serve as a diagnostic/prescriptive tool for teachers to use to accurately modify their instruction during information processing studies.  Arkansas Frameworks This section to be developed when the new standards and alignments are provided to staff members. The final draft of this program design will correlate benchmarks, standards, text and ancillary materials in order to ensure a tightly aligned curriculum document that is practical and user friendly within a creative and advanced content structure. 1 Staff Training and Curriculum Writing School personnel will receive intensive training on various computer programs that include information sciences content and process. The University of Arkansas at Little Rock will partner with J.A. Fair through its school of Information Sciences. They will conduct a series of high involvement activities for LA. Fair High School students. Their expert staff will provide authentic training in all areas of information sciences. Sophisticated visual imaging and text programs will be basic to development of a curriculum document that appropriately reflects the best that an information science program should offer. School personnel will receive intensive training on skills that are pertinent to this information processes strand. This training will include Overview of Electronic Collaboration for Effective Information Processing, Distance Learning, Philosophy and Implementation of Teaching through a Project/Product-Based Approach, Tormative and Summative Assessment approaches - How to effectively match a curriculum to each one, and Organizing and Managing a Classroom for Electronic Collaboration and Information Pro cesses-based Learning. 5? Diann Taylor and Sheila Gragg, field consultants with Phale D. Hale Education Consulting Inc, will provide leadership in information processes lab development and curriculum writing. They will collaborate with the science department IRC and the staff at J. A. Fair in integrating specialized lab area functions with related thematic classroom activities and Arkansas Benchmarks and Standards. Anita Tanner, principal consultant with Phale D. Hale Education Consulting Inc, will serve as program facilitator, coordinating the varied, staff training activities from various sources, the leadership roles and responsibilities at the school, and authentic project design implementation.J. A. Fair Accelerated Studies High School ~ continued ~ Overarching Theme: Accelerated Studies in Medical and Environmental Sciences, Systems Engineering and Information Processes Programmatic Strand: Medical and Environmental Sciences  Experience Base Environmental science studies will bring coherence to the complex array of relationships among living things that students have learned about in earlier grades. Just as J. A. Fair students are learning about systems thinking in regard to information services and engineering, they will need to examine systems that exist within environmental sciences. Students will experience an overall immersion into major areas of environmental science through a series of field trips. These trips will include visits to a local nature center, fish hatchery, Arkansas State Plant Board, Arkansas Garrie and Fish - Aquaculture, Arkansas Highway Department, Arkansas Project Globe, EPA (Weyerhauser and recycling). Data Stream (NLR weather), and meteorology departments at television stations. These site visits will extend the knowledge base acquired at Mabelvale School of Advanced Studies during the middle school years. The in-depth experiences will provide students with a broad base for observing environmental aspects of fife systems and will prepare them for comparative studies within the programmatic strand of medical and environmental science. Field trips to high tech health institutions and agencies will occur also. Subsequent field trips will focus on local hospitals, laboratories, clinics, physicians offices and related health services. Each of these will be viewed for their applications of mathematics, earth and life sciences, areas such as nutritional science and biotechnology as well as their dependence upon knowledge of chemistry, biology, anatomy, and physiology. These trips will also include experiences relating to comparative studies in animal science and anatomy within the programmatic strand of environmental sciences.Experience Base (continued) Experiences provided through a variety of real, virtual, and imaginary field trips wUl\ndemonstrate what is meant by natural niches, habitats and biomes by observing plants and .animals in a variety of settings compare human environmental needs and functions to those of other living things review industrial processing relating to material and energy sources lead to an appreciation of how human activities, conscious or inadvertent, are seriously impacting pl^et Earth examine individual and collective roles in jobs and agencies that relate to the natural environment recognize how environmental factors meet needs assess common, everyday activities as appropriate use of resources, inappropriate acts resulting in abuse, or sensitive plan/schedule of resource use for conservation raise awareness as to how the development of scientific thinking and technology increases ability to utilize the environment wisely develop and understanding that aU environments, whether they are small communities, global areas, or part of the universe, are continually evolving Ip  Curricular Activity Project based learning wifi engage students in authentic problems, allow them to learn and practice inquiry and problem-solving skills, and acquire advanced academic content and SCANS skills in the contexts of environmental and medical studies. Student projects will emphasize the use of scientific technologies relating to ecosystems and in the medical field. Students will also study how the application of these technologies supports investigation and research of critical medical diseases of both plants and animals. Studies will also include discussion of medical ethics and government regulations on medical experimentation using animals Students wifi learn how scientists use labs to support their studies and experiments to find cures and solutions for medical problems and illnesses. Course appropriate hardware and software such as Body Works wifi be used to integrate technology throughout the accelerated anatomical and physiological studies. Mathematical and scientific applications wifi also be emphasized to complement the high tech approach to medical studies. These studies will focus on an experimental science approach to research and learning, with students acting as the facilitators and scientists leading the studies. Students will compare animal anatomy to human anatomy and discover the various physiologica designs of different animals systems and how they compare to human systems. Activities to be included during lab time will be physiological testing of nerves, training on patient techniques in medical situations, dissection, and learning universal precautions in lab and medical areas.Curricular Activity (continued) Student projects will emphasize the use of scientific technologies and how the application of these technologies supports investigation and experimentation of crucial environmental problems. Students will discover what variables lead to higher life expectancies and more productive environments with an emphasis on water, plants, and fish. They wifi participate in Arkansas Project WET and WILD Program for high school age students which will enable them to do a long-term study of a real environment. These programs require that students visit a sampling point once each month and conduct 26 different tests. The data is then compiled in a state-of-the-art computer that is provided -with the program. Students are scientists first hand. Overlapping areas of knowledge for these projects are chemistry, physics, and biology. Students will analyze the chemical, physical, and biological conditions of the land and body of water to be studied. Coursework wUl consist of learning how to -write creatively and descriptively while also paying attention to the technical aspects of writing lab reports and formal experiments. Students will also learn what factors influence the stability of an ecosystem and how different variables can impact this balance. And finally, students will implement safety features and other changes based on their research that will improve the conditions of the studied environments. A variety of activities will motivate students to use a broad range of exploratory techniques while learning about environmental science. Activities planned around outdoor and indoor water tanks win include maintenance of the fish and plants that inhabit them. These areas will also be used for research and data collection, as weU as for experimental purposes. The greenhouse and outdoor pond win provide active areas for students to help produce and maintain different plant species. Students will also take an active role in the planning and development of landscaping for each lab area by taking into account the environment, temperature, and available sunlight. Also, a schoolwide beautification project that incorporates landscaping and architecture with design, implementation, and maintenance 'wiU utilize what students have learned about growing plants and successful environments. Through these interactive experiences and involvement-intensive immersion experiences, students will be pro'vided the opportunities to investigate, analyze, experiment, and construct relevant meaning within the overall framework of environmental science. A ten hour internship, in specific environmental or medical professional roles, 'will involve students in a real life settings over the course of the semester. Through these interactive experiences and involvement-intensive immersion experiences, students wiU be pro'vided the opportunities to investigate, analyze, experiment, and construct relevant meaning -within the overall framework o: this accelerated learning strand. - Interactive Environments There will be a central area, the Ecosystem and Environmental Lab, that will support this accelerated curriculum of environmental studies. Included in this lab area wiU be specialized representations of a desert, a coastal region, river bank with subsidiaries, and rainforest environments. These interactive environments within high tech climatariums wUl have the capabilities ofmanipulationandexperimentationthroughthe change of existing variables. For each specialized environment and experiment, students will perform background research, hypothesize, coUect initial data, make predictions, manipulate the variables, coUect experimental data, record the data (by computer and on video), and then analyze their findings. A variety of advanced measurement devices will be employed at the lab area for experimental purposes and for high tech science support. Additional water labs will be available in the form of classroom aquariums and an outdoor pond so students may study the ecosystem of a real aquaculture in action. The outdoor pond wUl also consist of a variety of plant species with a connected greenhouse and lab to assist with the growing, maintenance, and manipulation of plant environments for the purpose of experimentation and study of botany. Miniature aquatic stations can be placed in each classroom as sub-studies of the larger picture of environmental science. Mathematical and scientific appEcations will be emphasized to complement the high tech approach to environmental studies. An agri-science lab wiE be included in the greenhouse to learn about how food sources can be affected by changes in the environment. An outdoor classroom for students wiU complement the other lab areas and wiE feature a nature traE to be designed and maintained by students. The pond, greenhouse, and nature traE wiE be enhanced by landscaping that is designed by students annuaEy with special attention to architectural design of planters, flower beds, and the waters edge to avoid erosion and the loss of plant life. These lab areas wiE also include pumps for water treatment (water purification), proper heat/air/water necessities for aE lab areas and fish, microscopes, and projection systems. The progress and growth of the pond, greenhouse, and nature traE wEl be documented using video equipment and digital cameras for further study. Students wiE have access to an on campus lab center that is buEt for specified research and experimentation in the human systems of biotechnology, anatomy, physiology, and nutritional science. This sophisticated center, created by Scientific Innovations, Inc., will contain sixteen activity modules containing specific tools and technology. Technological equipment avaEable in these modifies wEl include tools for organ dissection, animal dissection, computerized microscopes, high resolution/computerized graphics for pictures of tissue samples, computers for compEing scientific data, EKG equipment, CPR learning tools, mannequins of human torsos, electrophoresis equipment, histology slides, and a lab area designed for special use with identifying strands of DNA. Curricular Content Teachers will use desk references on environmental and medical sciences as primary sources to support daily planning. Teachers will utilize a wealth of reference books and materials that include National Geographic Pubheations, National Science Magazine, Field Study Guides, and the Arkansas Governmental Agencies Pubheations (Game, Fish, and Forestry). By searching the Internet, teachers and students will find authentic and up-to-date related maps and models. Course material to be included in the study of plants will be pollination, genetics, gardening, hydroponics, cloning, climate, and adaptation. These will naturally overlap with the subjects of entomology, pesticides, and agriculture. Knowledge to be learned about fish will include information about hatcheries, water purification, life cycles, water pollution, fishing culture, and economics. Knowledge about ecosystems will include learning about balance, adaptation, biomes, geography, human body system, and weather/climate. A series of visits from local professionals in the areas of horticulture, botany, biology, marine biology, and landscape architecture will provide key insight to the new developments in the high tech world and how those contributions have affected society. Course appropriate hardware and software such as Body Works will be used to integrate technology throughout the accelerated medical studies program. Mathematical and scientific applications will also be emphasized to complement the high tech approach to medical studies. Handbooks on medical technology and the human anatomy will serve as primary sources for all teachers to support daily planning. Course material and training to be included in medical studies wfil cover nerve and muscle analysis, CNA program, CPR training, EKG training, shde, preparation, BIP analysis, DNA assessment, and electrophoresis sampling and sequencing. Animal science and anatomy course content will overlap with human studies where appropriate including dietary needs, vaccinations, behavioral science, and habitats. Curriculum content wfil also focus on the training for specialized lab equipment in each area, including safety training. A series of visits from local professionals in the areas of veterinary, biology, nutrition, and other health professionals will provide key insight to the new developments in the high tech world and how those contributions have affected society and medical research Best Instructional Practices Teaching techniques/strategies at Fair High School will be based on problem-based learning Blooms Taxonomy, and scientific inquiry. Techniques for student learning wiU include self- discovery, peer coUaboration, independent study, open-ended lab activities, and expository reportmg Through scientific research. The schoolreform model. High Schools that Work (HSTW), the SECME consortia (Science, Engineering, Communication, Math, Enrichment), Coordinated Career Education organization (CCE), and Cooperative Office Education group (COE) will be used as sources of matching philosophy and procedures to strengthen practices within this strand. The p^ary best practice that will be employed at Fair is the Project Based Learning approach. PBL is a strategy that draws on different learning styles and intelligences and incorporates experiential learning. A final product or presentation that demonstrates learning and incorporates instruction, reflection, and assessment wiU be essential. Project-based learning can be defined as foUows: D   a  learning experiences which engage students in complex, real world projects through which they develop and apply skiUs and knowledge a strategy which recognizes that significant learning taps students inherent drive to learn, capability to do important work, and the need to be taken seriously learning in which the results are not predetermined or fully predictable learning which requires students to draw from many information sources and disciplines in order to solve problems learning which requires students to coordinate time, work schedules, and project outcomes in order to accomplish project goals on a predicted time schedule PBL Network, The Autodesk Foundation, 1998. Teachers will engage the students in guided practice and peer collaboration for the learning of new material and procedures. Teaching techniques/strategies will employ the cognitive-constructivist classroom approach shaped around medical and environmental projects, research, testing, and presentation. The greater number of activities wiU use the higher order thinking areas at the top of Blooms Taxonomy. Students wiU focus on problem-based learning and scientific analysis in combining strong content knowledge base with skills applications. The accelerated studies associated with this program strand requires that a number of best practices be melded for optimal results.  Formative and Summative Assessment Assessment formats that match each set of activities, such as a rubric assessment for evaluating projects based on the productivity of a lab environment, serve as authentic measures for teachers to determine exactly what and how students learn. Such formats will allow a teacher to evaluate, for example, whether students have produced harmonious ecosystems (balanced systems with little decay and loss of life) while also serving as a diagnostic/prescriptive tool for teachers to use to accurately modify their instruction during environmental studies. Performance assessments, such as in student planned projects, oral presentations, daily journals, planned experiments, and portfolios (on disk or video) will also help teachers to determine whether students are internalizing higher order thinking related to environmental principles. These performance assessments will be graded by rubric and matrix evaluation techniques. A portfolio assessment, using digital pictures to represent the stages of progress and growth, will serve as a global evaluation measure, a summative assessment, for each student.  J Arkansas Frameworks This section to be developed when the new standards and alignments are provided to staff members. The find draft of this program design wffl correlate benchmarks, standards, text and ancUlary materials in order to ensure a tightly aligned curriculum document that is practical and user friendlv within a creative and advanced content structure.  Staff Training and Curriculum Writing School personnel will receive intensive training in a series of mini-workshops that consist of trammg by local professionals in the areas of horticulture, botany, biology, marine biology and landscape architecture. Some of this training will be in the field and will include visits tosites outside of the school. Teachers wUl also participate in AP training, mini courses, team building and brief training on multiple inteUigence and implementation. Staff wifi also be trained in how to use specialized equipment/tools and application software to integrate this new technology and information into the students working framework of knowledge. In the Ecosystem and Environmental Lab, this training wUl include the use of machinery, tools, and heat/water/air systems. Teachers wiU be able to see the total picture of the schools program through a curricular outline that shows the programmatic flow of the medical and environmental sciences. In the Ecosystem and Janice Meyer, field consultant wkh Phale D. Hale Education Consulting Inc, will provide leadership in the Ecosystem and Environmental Lab development and curriculum writing. She wiU coUaborate with the science department IRC and the staff at J. A. Fair in integrating specialized lab area functions with related thematic classroom activities and Arkansas Benchmarks and Standards. Anita Tanner, principal consultant with Phale D. Hale Education Consulting Inc, will serve as program facilitator, coordinating the varied staff training activities from various sources t n d 11 1  * -  T 1 installation of the Innovative Sciences Lab, the leadership roles and responsibilities at the school. and authentic project design implementation.1 LRS - Little Rock School District School: Term: 008 FAIR HIGH SCHOOL Suaaary Haster/Teacher Schedule/Race \u0026amp; Sex SUMMAS Page: I Teacher BAILEY Per Iod 00 Per i od 01 e. X F T B W 0 T B W 0 T Period 02 M04021-i02 BIOLOGY B U 0 T B 1 1 10 Period 03 M06001-104 Teacher Period 00 BARNHI M F T B U 0 T Period 01 814001-108 EW6 RRIQ.11 B U 2 2 5 7 2 0 T 4 5 9 8 1 16 2 9 1 19 PHYSICS B U E 12 4 4 16 5 0 T ib 5 21 Period 04 M0402i-i01 BIOLOGY B W 0 T 10 s 1 16 Period 05 M06001-103 PHYSICS B U 0 T Period 02 815001-101 Period 03 S20501-101 9 2 19 1 11 1 27 2 6 3 1 5 7 4 12 Period 04 816001-108 CQVERMMMT RR E SCIEHCE RR MATH RRIQ B U 3 3 4 0 T 6 2 8 B 5 1 6 U 0 i 5 2 7 B 4 2 b U 0 T 4 3 1 Period 05 814001-112 EMC RRIQ.11 B U 2 1 3 5 1 0 T 3 3 6 Teacher Period 00 BARNHO Period 01 KllOOl-101 Perifld 02 K1100i-i02 JPsrlfld_fi3_ K09001-101 Periad Q4 K09001-102 .Periad 05 K09O01-105 M F T B U  T TRIG/ADV ALC TRIG/ADV ALG ALGEBRA II R ALGEBRA II R ALGEBRA II R B U S 6 5 4 0 11 9 20 B U 6 10 8 4 16 12 0 T 14 14 28 B U 3 5 4 i 7 6 0 T 8 5 13 B U 0 T 8 4 4 3 12 7 12 7 19 B U 0 T 6 7 5 3 11 10 13 8 Teacher Period 00 Period 01 Per i od 02 Period 03 X F Teacher BEYAH M F T B U 0 T B U 0 T B U 0 T B H 0 T Per i od 04 P24301-1Q2 TV PROD I B U 0 T X 2 1 2 Period 00 B U 0 T Period 01 P2900i-10i MflRP PROC 1 B U 0 X 1 T Period 02 P29O01-101 HORD PROC 1 6 U 0 T Period 03 P2900i-l0l MORP PROC I B U 0 T Period 04 P29001-i02 MORP PROC I 6 U 0 T 1 1 1 1 1 3 3 1 1 4 Teacher -arlfld. J0. BLACKN Period 01 P0550i-101 Period 02 P05501-101 Period 03 P05501-10i Period 04 P0S50ii02 M F B M 0 T COMPUTER GPI COMPUTER CPI COMPUTER GPI COMPUTER GPI B M 0 T 1 X 1 X 1 X Teacher Period 00 Period 01 B M 0 T 1 1 1 X SHOT 1 X 1 X 1 X Period 02 Period 03 B W 0 T 1 3 2 J__a. 4 2 X Period 04 Period 06 M04021-114 BIOLOGY B U 0 T Per i od 07 Per Iod 08 Period 09 10 4 5 5 15 9 XX 10 24 Period 06 B U 0 T Period 06. B W 0 T B U 0 T B U 0 T B U 0 T Period 07 Period 08 Period 09 U 0 T 6 U 0 T B U 0 Periflii 08 Period oy B U 0 T B U 0 T 6 HOT Period 05 P24301-102 JV PROD I B W 0 T 2 2 Per Iod 05 P29001-102 WORD PROC 1 B U 0 T 3 3 1 4 4 Period \u0026lt;g P05501-102 Per i od 06 P24301-102 TV PROD 1 Period 07 Period 08 Period 09 B U 0 T X 1 2 X B U 0 T B U  T B W 0 T ss. 30 u. 93 2 Period 06 P29001-102 WORD PROC I B U 0 T Period 07 Per i od 08 Per i od 09 3 i 3 1 Period 06 P0550i-102 COMPUTER GPI COMPUTER CPI B W 0 T 1 3 4 B W 0 T B  0 T B U 0 T B U 0 T Period 07 ferijQdJffi. Period OT 2 J__5. 2 X 1 3 2 1 S 4 2 X B W Q T B W 0 T P . W.. ..Q. .T Period 05 Period 06 Period 07 Period 08 Per i od 09 sa *0 ai 71 72 7JCn 'IS School: Terra: -=- J. 111 le.Kock- Brhnnl ftietrtrt CALLAU M X T CARTER M 1 008 FAIR HIGH SCHOOL B U 0 T B U 0 T 108101-101 INP. LIVING B U 0 T 14 5 -6- 3 20 8 19 SL 28 Parinrt M -BN 0 T Per I nd 01 P02001-10i AUTO BODY II B W 0 T 2 2 A 2 -SuMB^ry Mjit\u0026gt;r/T\u0026lt;rhr Scharfu Io/RAf A S BUMMflfi Pa^e\n\"IO * Teacher Period 00 CASTEE 3.7 X F T Teacher CHRIST M 2- B U 0 T Period 01 TO2001-102 LIBRARY SCI B 1 WOT 2______3. 2 2 4 Period 00 B U 0 T Period 01 H0402i-103 RTOinGY_____ SHOT 9 4 U 3 2B 0 = Teerher Per I nd 00 CLEVEL 18 7 13 42. 25 IiOOOl-102 PARENTING K 090700-101 090700-102 109001-101 T N F X B W 0 T farind Ql 080920-101 HEALTH B M 0 T 7 7 11 4fl 5 14 16 20. Teacher - COOPER Per i od 00 B W 0 T Period 01 204001-101 INTRO TO ART (0- T B W 7 5 8 S 15 10 0 T 1 13 13 1 26 O 80 Cr Teacher COX Per i od 00 H X T Ta^rhor B W 0 Period 00 Per i od 01 314001-101 -ENG PP\u0026lt;0,0 B U 0 4 2. 6 1 T 5 2- 7 Peri nd 01 Peri nd 0? P02001-10i AUTO BODY II PHOT 2 2 2__2. 4 Period 02 .102001-103 LIBRARY SCI B W 0 T 1 1 1 1 Period 02 B U 0 Per I nd 09 080920-103 HEALTH ..R HOT 11 5 9 2 20 7 16 11 22. Per i od 02 B W 0 T Period 02 B W 0 Par I nd 07 B 1 X 5 w 1 D T 2 ------4. 6 2erlod 03 PO2001-101 XLOTH \u0026amp; TEXT CLOTH \u0026amp; TEXT PARENTING RL B U 0 6 1 10 1____ 16 2 T 41- 18 B W 0 6 10 1 16 1 T 6 44- 17 B 6, U 0 43....1 19 1 T 6 44. 20 B U 0 T B U 0 T B W 0 T e Period 04 P0i00i-i03 AUTO BODY II AUTO BODY I B HOT 2 2 2 ? 4 -A- Period 03 T0200i-104 LIBRARY SCI B U 1 1 0 T 1 2 Period 03 M04021-105 RTni nr.Y____ B W 7 4 4-..1. 11 5 0 T 11 ------5- 16 Per I nd OX 080920-105 HEALTH R HOT 8 5 5 43 5 8 10 48. Period 03 204001-102__ INTRO TO ART B U 0 T 15 S 4 2 2L -1__U__0__T 2 3 Per I nd 05 POlOOl-103 AUTO BODY I -B- W n T 2 1 3 Period 06 POiOOl-103 AUTO BODY I R H n T 2 3 2. 4. JL 2 1 JL 21 -PerJod 07 Per i od Oa. Period 09 ,B W n T B MOT -B- H n T to ti \u0026lt;)  I i9 1 7 1 27 Period 03 S14001-102 EWG B U 0 2 2 X 5 4 3 T 4 -4- 8 Period ftX Period 04 T07001-105 LIBRARY SCI B W 0 T Per i od 05 402004=406- LIBRARY SCI B W 0 T 1 1 1 2 Period 04 M0402i-106 BTOt nr.Y a Q 10 5 7 3___ 17 8 T 15 4X 25 Period 04 B- .N. 0 T Period 04 B W 0 T Per i od 04 514001-103 FNC BBlO.n B U 0 4 4 4 X 5 Period Q4 -t 1 2 1 X 2 3 Period 06 J02001-107 LIBRARY SCI B W 0 T Period 07 Period 08 Period 09 M 1 B U 0 T B U 0 T B W 0 T Period 05 M0402i-107 . BIOIjr.Y B W 0 T 6 5 -7__1- 13 6 11 -8. 19 Per I nd 05 080920-107 HEALTH PHOT 9 4 13 10 3 1 14 19 7 A 77 Period OS 204001-103 INTRO TO ART B U 0 10 4 3 2 13 6 T 44. 5 19 Period 05 S16001-105 NATH RRIQ B U 0 1 4 7 T 4 X 1 Period OB Period 06 HO4021-104 PTOi nr.Y B W 0 T Per i od 07 Period 08 Period 09 11 3 5 3 16 6 14 -8. 22 B U 0 T B WOT B U 0 T 90 li. 98 H Period .06. Period 07 Period 08 Period. 02. * i -B u ft T BM...n T 2__U ft T 2 M .0__r Period 06 Bfl40A1-1fl4__ INTRO TO ART B W 0 T Period 07 Period 08 Per Iod 09 1 42 5 7 2 19 7 42. 9 26 B WOT B W 0 B U 0 T s * Period 06 314001-105 ZNC RRiO,ll, SHOT Period 07 Period 08 Period 09 5 X 6 1 1 6 X 1 B U 0 T B WOT B U 0 T Period OA PerQd 07 Period Oft iod 09 lySchool: Tern: -=-Li11Ut-Rock School District DECKAR M -E- T 1 008 FAIR HIGH SCHOOL B U 0 T Teacher Period 00 DELAMA M F i Teacher FNDEBI H Teacher ESKOLA M A_ a u Q T Per i od 00 B U 0 T Period 00 B U 0 Teacher Period 00 FARRAR M F i B U n T Teacher Period 00 FINCH--------------------------- -M- F B U 0 T ____Sumry /Teacher Schedule/R\u0026lt;c \u0026amp; S\u0026gt; J____3 L31001-101 CHOIR III B 13 -15- 28 U 0 T 2 8 15 -21- 36 L29001-101 MADRIGALS__ B U 0 T 021101-103 L33001-101 FWE ARTS HUS CHOIR 1 Teacher FLINN Per i od 00 06151-101 1 3 4 7 S 10 -H 15 6 10 W 3 -51. 15 6 0 T 13 -------8- 21 B U 0 1 10 5------- B U 0 T 110001-108 PARENTING K B 11 S -15. 16 U 1 1 0 T S 1 U 0 T 3 U 0 T B U 0 T M r T Pariod 01___ 080520-101 PE 9-12 B M 0 T 7 3 4 2 Al i 1 11 6 1 17 Period 01 K05011-107 ALGEBRA I R B U 8 1 6 1 14 2 0 T ____9. 7 16 Period 01 K10041-101 CEQHETRY GT B M 0 T 3 6 4 9 7 15 1 10 __11 1 23 Period 01 B M 0 T Period 01 S4ft351\u0026gt;riQ?,. V DOMAIN SC B U 4 2 2 6 7 0 T ____h. 2 8 Per Iod 01 E06021-102 ENGLISH g-EA ENGLISH R 12 B U 0 T 3 10 ,5....5. 8 15 13 -liL 23 B U 10 6 7 A 17 12 0 T 16 ___11 29 Teacher Period 00 Per i od 01 Period Q2 080520-103 PE 9-12 8 U a T Period 03 11 5 8 3 19 8. 16 11 22. Period 02 U 0 T Period 02 KlOOOl-101 GEOMETRY R B U Q T 6 10 ....7.....4.. 13 14 16 -U_ 27 Period 02 FllOOi-101 FRENCH I R U 0 T 5 3 8 4 6 1 11 9 g__1-19. Period 02 MB301-103 B U n T Period 03 K05011-108 ALGEBRA I R B U 0 T AQ____ 5 4 15 4 Afl. 9 19 Per i od 03 KlOOOi-102 -GEQMEIRY^ B U 8 9 ft 2 16 11 0 T i7 1 11 1 28 Period 03__ F1300i-i02 FRENCH III B N fl....I 3 6 3 12 h 9 -15- Period 03 .348251=102. D DOMAIN SC C DOMAIN SC B U 0 T 4 2 2 6 2 A- 2 8 B U 4 2 2 6 2 0 T ____6. 2 8 Period 02 Period 03 E06021-103 B U 0 T Period 02 -EeE-Lui_Q4__ IlOOOl-iOl PARENTING K B N n T 1 A. Period 04 K10401-101 Period 05 080520-105 PE 9-12 B U n T 11 5 7 1 a -4- 16 8 Period 05 K10101-iO2 f.er I nd 06__ H0800i-i02 PE B U n T. Period 07 Period OS far i nd. 0.9. 5 5 2 7 5 10 2 -12- Period 06 K05011-109 GEOMETRY CPT GEOMETRY CPT ALGEBRA I R B U 7 2 6 1 13 3 0 T ____9. 7 16 B U 2 3 3 5 3 0 T 3 8 B U 3. 4.. 8 11 4 0 T 8 IS B U n T B -M 0 T B M 0 T Period 07 Period 08 Per i od 09 B U 0 T B U 0 T B U 0 T Per i od 04 B W 0 T Period 04 VOlOOl-104 STUDY HALL B N 0 T 5 5 3 1 11 3 s 5 11-4- Period 04 S4fl?51-103 C DOMAIN SC B U 4  Z 2 6 2 D T ____6. 2 8 Period 04 E05021-112 EMCLISH B \u0026lt;9 FMCLTfiH R 11 B U 0 T 5 3 13 4 18 7 8 AZ 25 B U 10 3 14 7  T 13 J__2. 1 22 Period 03 Period 04 Period 05 K1004i-i02 GEOMETRY CT B U 0 T Per i od 06 Period 07 Period 08 Period 09 5 6 11 B U 0 T B U 0 T B U 0 T B U 0 u. it 30 I , 3 91-13. 8 15 1 24 Per i nd 05 FliOOl-103 FRENCH I B M n T 4 4 8 Period 06 Fi200i-i04 FRENCH II B M 0 T Eflr.j.Qd.. 07 Period OB Pariod 09 3 4 7 a 7 -15. 10 5 11 -21- 2 15 1 14 7 A.2g- B M 0 T B M....a-.3.. -BU0I- Period 05 348401.-152 R/LEISURE SC B W 0 T Period 06 Period 07 Period 08 Period 09 4 2 2 6 2 -6. 2 8 B U 0 T B U 0 B W 0 T B U 0 T Period 05 06021-104 ENGLISH B 12 Per i od 06 Per i od 07 Period 08 Period 09 B 6 2 t 1 13 3 U 0 T e -8- 16 B W 0 B W 0 T B U 0 T B U 0 T EeriQd 05 Per i od 06 Period 07 Period 08 Period 09- e 21I LRS - Litt_L_ Rock School District School: Tera = 1 008 FAIR HIGH SCHOOL Suaaary Motar/Teichcr Schdu L\u0026lt;/ft\u0026lt;ce \u0026amp; Sex SUMMAS Piqe: FORMER P15001-101 P15001-101 M F T 6 U 0 T COMPUTER P I COMPUTER P I B u 1 0 1 B U 0 1 T. \u0026lt;Cu Stu I .2. 40 2a I K O tr I Pi5001-10i COMPUTER P 1 163800-101 163800-101 B U 1 0 1 B U 0 T B U 0 B U 0 T B WOT COMPUTER PCX COMPUTER PCX B X 1 U 1 0 T 1 1 2 B U 1 0 T i 1 1 1 2  Teacher Per Iod 00 FORTSO Period 01 Period 02 Period 03 M F T Teacher W_____ B M 0 T- B U 0 T B U 0 T B W 0 r Period 04 P2700i-102 MELDING I B H 0 T 1 X Period 00 Per i od 01 Per i od 02 Period 03 M F T B U 0 T 6 U 0 T B U 0 T B U 0 T Period 04 P23001-iQ2 RADIO BRD I B U 0 T Teacher GLASSC Period 00 Period 01 1 2 2 M F T B W 0 T B W 0 T Per i od 02 816001-101 MATH RRIQ SHOT Per i od 03 816001-102 HATH RRIQ B M 0 T Period 04 S16001-103 MATH RRIQ Teacher Period 00 GRAHAM Period 01 4 1 3 1 7 2 5 4 4 2 X____ \u0026amp; 2 6 X. 8 B U 3 X- s 1 0 T 4 ____2. 6 Period 02 Period 03 090600-101 Period 04 090600-102 M F JL Teacher GRAY JL F T Teacher GRUHME M B H 0 T B M 0 T B M 0_T Period 00 B U 0 T Period 00 B W 0 T Teacher Period 00 Period 01 FOaO?l-tO4 ENGLISH R 10 B U 7__X 6 3 13 7 0 T 11 9 20 Period 01 030500-101 KEYBOARDING B H 7 5 X__2. 8 0 T 12 ____i 15 Period 91 Period 02 EQBQ21-1Q1 ENGLISH R 11 B .,,.7.6. 9 2 16 8 MOT Xi 11 24 Period 02 030500-103 KEYBOARDING B U 4 2 X_L 5 6 0 T 6 ____5. 11 Period 02 Per i od 05 P27001-102 MELDING I SHOT 1 X Period 05 P23Q01-102 RADIO BRD I 6 U 0 T 1 1 2 X 2 Period 05 316001-104 MATH RRIQ B U 0 ' 6 i 9 1 T _3. 10 Per i od OS 090600-103 FOODS \u0026amp; NUTR FOODS \u0026amp; NUTR FOODS \u0026amp; NUTR BMP T 14 2 10 1 2.4 _3. 16 11 XL Period 03 6 U 0 T Period 03 C16001-101 B W 0 T 13 1 10 1 14 1 12 g M 0 T 23 2 1 26 Period 04 E05Q21-103 10 2 10 20 2 12 10 22. Period 05 FQSO71-1O4 ENGLISH R 11 ENGLISH R 11 B 12 5 6 MOT 17 1 11 IB 9 1 28 Per i od 04 Ci650i-102 COE - RELATE CQE - COOP- B U 0 T 12 6 14 6 2 XB. 20 Period 93 B M 0 T J_2. 4 3 7 7 Period 04 B U 7-^ 5 1 12 5 0 T IL 6 17 Period 05 C16501-i03 COE - CQQP- B H 4 2 4 2 0 J. 6 Period 05 Period 06 P27001-102 MELDING I ,B.,  .P-L. 1 X Period 06 P230Q1-1Q2 RADIO BRD I B U 0 T I 2 1 2 Per Iod 06 517751-101 LEARNING RR B U 1 X- 3 1 0 T 2 ____2. 4 Period 06 B W 0 T Period 06 EQ4Q21-102 ENGLISH R 10 B U 0 T ? X 1 2 16 S 12 1 10 1 22 Period 06 Cl6501-104 CQE - CQQPl B M 0 T Period 07 Period 08 Per i od 09 B  0 T B W 0 T B W 0 T  Period 07 B U 0 T Period 07 B M 0 T Period 07 B M 0 T Period 07 B M 0 T Period 07 Cl650i-i05 CQE - COOP 2 1 3 1 1 B U 0 T X. 2 X. 2 Period 06 Period 07 Period 08 163900-101_ TV PRODCT EX B U 1 2 0 2 Period 08 6 MOT Period 08 B U 0 T Period OS B U 0 Period 08 B U D T Per Iod 08 Period 09 163900-101 TV PRODCT EX B U 1 0 T 2 2 Period 09 I B WOT Period 09 B M 0 T Period 09 B U 0 T Per i od 09 B U 0 T Period 09 \u0026lt;  9 c M ( 0 cr~' 7'  I XRS - X School: Term: i tile Rock .School Diatr-ieX 008 FAIR HIGH SCHOOL Sii*ry \u0026gt;Uter/Teacher Schdulg/Rjce A San .\u0026amp;UHMA\u0026amp; Pi^e\n5 GRUHKX 163700-101 163700-101 M X- B U 0 T B U 0 T 3 U 0 T B U 0 T B U 0 T B U 0 B W 0 T B U 0 T COMPUTER DEX COMPUTER DEX B U  T B U 0 2 J** Teacher. Period 00. HAAS M F i B H 0 T Period 01___ P0?00i-101 COM FOODS I B H 0 T 3 -X 2 3 Period 02__ P07001-101 COM FOODS I B H__0__I- 1 3 X- 1 2 3 Per i ad Q3 P07001-i0i COM FOODS I BHAT 3 X- i 2 3 Period 04 P0700i-102 COM FOODS I BHAT 3 4 -2- 3 2. Period 05. . P07001-102 COM FOODS I B H fl T 3 4 1 3 4 2. Period 06 P0700i-102 COM FOODS I R H 0 T Period 07 160705-101 Teacher Period 00 4\u0026lt;AU.----------------------------- Period 01 E0402t105 Per i od 02 EO4021-1O6 Period 03 JL B U 0 T ENGLISH R 12 ENGLISH R 12 Period 04 EO6021-107 Period 05 05021-114 T B U a B 10 2 18 10 0 T ___iX 12 28 B U IQ 5 8 4 18 9 0 T ___15. 1 13 1 28 B W 0 T ENGLISH R 12 ENGLISH R 11 B U 0 T 14 7 3 3 17 10 JX i, 21 B U 10 5 7 1 17 6  T __15, 1 9 1 24 Teacher HARTNE Per i od 00 Period 01 Per i od 02 008021-101 Period 03 008021-102 Period 04 M B U 0 T B W 0 T AM GnVFRHMFH AM CnVERNMEW B U 0 T 12 8 16 12 20 -8- 26 BHD 17 8 5..1____ 22 9 25 -X 31 B W 0 T Period OS VOiOOi-lOi STUDY HALL SHOT 8 1 4 2 12 3 9 _X 15 TearherParixul 00 HAVENS Period 01 Period 09 Per 1 ad 03 X 1 d. Period 08 160705-101 Period 09 COMM FOOD EX COMM FOOD EX 3 4 3 4 B U n T B M 0 T J....M....0 T 1 X 1 M F 4L Teacher HICTT JL F T Teacher HOBBS M XL T B . H .0 T -BU0X. B H 0 T B M 0 T Pari ad 04 P0050i-i02 AIR\u0026amp;HEAT TCI B H 0 T Per i ad 05 P00501-102 1 X Period 00 Period 01 B H 0 T B U 0 T Period 02 004111^101 AP.AMaHIST. 6 6 3 9 5 15 8 U 0 S. 14 23 Period 00 B W 0 T Period 01 40001-101 JflURHAI ISM I B W 0 T Period 02 6 3 -3.__B- 13 11 9 X5- 24 B U 0 Xaechac__Period 00 Period 01 Period 02 Period 03 004021-102 AM HISTORY 6 U X2__Z 1 4 19 6 0 T __iX 1 12 1 26 Per i od 03 E42501-i02 jnilBNAI RM RP B U 4 XX 15 4 J. 7 0 8 XX 22 Per I nd 03 Period 04 004021-103 AM HISTORY B U 7 R 0 7 6 14 14 T X5. 13 28 Per i od 04 40001-103  iniIBNAi TRM T B W 0 T 7 9 11 13 8 XX 24 Per i nd 04 Period 06 xomi=xo8_ ENGLISH R 12 B U 0 T 4 3 t B 3 3 7 6 6 1 14 Period 06 B U 0 T Pari ad 06 P0050i-i02 AIR4HEAT TCI AIRiHEAT TCI B U 0 T X Period 05 B U 0 Per i od 07 Period 08 Period 09 1 X T Period OS 42001-104 .milBNAI RM YB B U 6 4 3 12 9 16 0 T 10 ___15. 25 Period 05 SHOT X 1 X Period 06 004021-104 AM HISTORY B U fl 6 8 1 16 7 0 T ___tx 9 23 Period 06 B U 0 T Period 06 B W 0 T B U D T B U 0 T Period 07 Period 08 Period 09 B U 0 T B U 0 B U 0 T 2 2S 27 u. 2S 31 az. 3B aa. 37 Period 07 Period QB Period 09 SHOT SHOT SHOT Period 07 Period 08 Period 09 B U 0 T B U 0 T B HOT Period 07 Period 08 Period 09 B U 0 T B U 0 T B U 0 Period 07 Period OB Period 09 0L* - I ft? - f SchM Tern: School: Roch School Diatrtct OOe FAIR HIGH SCHOOL Suary MBT/.Te^hT Schadulo/ftaci \u0026lt; Sni fiUMMAS Pt9- I HULLUH O M X- T B U 0 T K0B501-i01 IMT AL\u0026amp;eBRA B W 0 10 3 13 a 3 1 12 18 6 1 25 K050it-103 ALGgBRA 1 R B U 6 2 0 Jeachai:,, far tod oo. INMAN Par Iod 01 Ki -101 10- M F B U 0 T KND A.H. B H 0 T 5 1 11 2 46 3 6 13 -12- O  Teacher JEUUIK Period 00 -t F T Teacher JOHNSM M -E- T Teacher JONES H F Teacher JQMESA __________1 F Teacher JONESJ B U 0 T Period 01 M04021-108 BIOLOGY B U .11. 11 4 22 7 0 T 44- 15 29 Period 00 B U 0 T Per i od 01 004021-105 -AM_HtaTORY B U 9 8 -4__1- 13 9 0 T 17 ------5- 22 Per i cid QQ Period 00 B U 0 T Period 00 'i w M -E- T B U 0 Teacher Period QQ 'U IP c* la 2 16 4 T 8 -12- 20 Period Qg Ki -101 KND A.M* -BU0I. 4 1 13 1 -12__2- 5 14 X2- Period 02 M04021-109 BIOLOGY B U 1 k 5 2 12 8 0 T X3- 1 2Q Period 02 004021-106 AM HISTORY B U 0 ' 11 6 ...9.... 3 20 9 T 17 -12- 29 K08501-102 IMT ALCEBRft B U D T K05011-104 ALCFBRA 1 R 9 2 -93- 18 5 11 -12- 23 B U 8 6 2 1 10 7 0 T 14 ------3. 17 B U 0 K0850i-103 IMT ALGEBRA B 8 WOT 2 3...5 1. 10 B U 0 T B U 0 T 6 U  T 11 7 1 19 Par Ind, Q3 Ki -101 KND A.M. B H 0 T Period 04 IiOOOl-105 PARENTING K B H 0 T 3 1 -11 X 10 44. 2 1 -3- 2 J. c Period 03 MO4O21-110 BIOLOGY B U 7 2 8 2 15 4 0 T ____9. 10 19 Period 04 M04021-lli BIOLOGY B H a 5 5 2 13 7  i T 43- 8 i 21 Period 03 004021-107 HTgTORY Period 04 B W 0 T 1 BUG 1 1 Period 01 P31001-101 HEALTH OC I B H n T 1 1 1 2 1 2 1- Period 01 I 24001-105 FIRST BAND B U 0 T IQ 3 7 2 17 5 43. 9 22 Period 01 E05021-105 Period 02 P31001-101 HEALTH OC I BHAT Period 03 P3i00i-101 HEALTH OC I BHAT Period 04 1 .2__L 2 -3- 1 1 2 1 1 2 -3- B H__0__I- Period 02 Period 03 Period 04 B U 0 T Period 02 04051-102 EHGLISH R 11__ewCLISH CT/H B 11 W 8 ..4.. 4 IS 12 0 T 19 ____B- 21 Period Ql B U 0 T 4 1 1 h 11 13 11 Ji 24 Period 02 BUD T B U 0 T Period 03 Period 04 04051-103 B U 0 T Period Q-T Period 05 110001-106 PARENTING K B H 0 T Period QA Period 07 J?e,r.iod QB Period OP 2 2 X 3 2 SWOT B M 0 T B HOT B HOT Period 05 Period 06 Period 07 Per i od 08 Period 09 B U 0 T B U 0 T B U 0 T B U 0 T B HOT 20 21 C Per i od 05 004021-108 AM HISTORY B U 0 T Period 06 Period 07 Period 08 Per i od 09 10 5 -25- 12 10 15 -2- 22 Period 03 B U n T Per i od 05 B U 0 T Period 05 E04051-104 B U 0 T B W D T B U 0 T B W 0 T . u. 2S u. zs w 11 HL S3 34 at. 37 C c c Period Q6 Per Iod 07 Period Qfl Period 09 SHOT B H 0 T B H 0 T SHOT Period 06 Period 07 Period 08 Period 09 B U 0 T B U 0 T B W 0 B U  T Period 06 E0502i-106 Per i od 07 Period 08 Period 09 EMCLI8H CT/H FMCI TRH r.T/H FMOLTSH P H B W 0 T 5 7 5 11 1 13 1 17 SHOT 10 18 2 30 Period 04 2 5 2 a 9 13 7 4i 22 B U 0 10 2 5 ?___ 15 4 T 12 2. 19 Period 03 Period QA B U 0 T B W 0 T B W 0 T 87 Period 07 Per I nd OP Per I nd 09 1 71  7. Izy 1 1LRS - LIttte Rock School District School: Tern: 008 FAIR HIGH SCHOOL Suaaary Waster/Teacher ScheduLe/Race \u0026amp; Sex SUMMAS Paae: *1 KHARRI M F T B U 0 T K05011-111 ALGEBRA I R B U 0 T 1 4 1 11 2 8 J. 13  28 34 M Bl ^se Teacher LOGAN Period 00 K05011-li2 ALGEBRA I R B W 0 T 3 3 1 1 3 7 A 4 6 i 11 B U 0 T K05011-113 ALGEBRA 1 R B U 0 T 8 2 _2____ 10 2 10 -2. 12 B U 0 T K05011-li4 ALGEBRA I R B U 0 9 1 5 2 14 3 T 10 _L 17 B U 0 T B U 0 T B U 0 T M F J. g W 0 T Period 01 130825-101 PHYSIOLOGY B M 0 T 2 5 7 4 9 9 1 8 11 1 19 Period 02 M0B75i-101 BIOLAB HONi B W Q T. Period 03 M0875i-102 BIOLAB HON. Per i od 04 B U 0 U Q Teacher Period 00 LOONEY______________ Period 01 M F B U 0 T B U 0 T Teacher LUCAS Period 00 M F Teacher MAGEE M F i Teacher HCDANI JL Teacher MCGflVE M F T B W 0 T Period 01 024001-101 DRAFTING B 12 10 U 0 T 22 13 10 23 Period 00 B U fl T Period 01 F05001-i01 SPANISH II B M Q T 7 3 9 10 7 1 17 16 10 1 21 4 5 6 10 10 15 9 16 25 2 7 9 7 7 1 15 9 14 1 24 Period 05 M04021-li2 BIOLOGY B 8 Q 1 6 \u0026lt; Perlod 06 M04021-113 BIOLOGY B U 0 T Period 07 Period 08 Period 09 7 13 2 2 (, 9 15 11 3 3 2 14 5 14 5 19 SHOT B W 0 T B tf 0 T Period 00 gQAtSl-140 ENGLISH R EA B U 1 1 8 4 9 11 0 T _ja. 12 20 Period 00 B W 0 T Teacher Period 00 Period 01 EQSfl41-tQ7 ENGLISH GT B U .,4 7. 9 8 13 IS 0 T 11 17 28 Period 01 B U  T Period 01 Period 02 KQ5Q11-1Q2 ALGEBRA I R B U 0 T Period 03 K11O41-1O1 AD/HON TRIG B W 0 T Period 04 K1Q0Q1-1Q3 GEOMETRY R B U 0 T Period 05 K10Q01-1Q5 GEOMETRY R B U 0 T 10 6 16 11 6 17 6__ 4 5 10 11 12 9 21 4 10 14 4 2 6 8 12 20 3 5 8 9 2 1 12 12 7 I 20 Period 02 B W 0 T Period 03 826001-102 ICT RELel B 3 15 ____L 3 22 WOT 18 25 Period 02 B H 0 T Period 03 F0500i-102 SPANISH II B . iL-n I. 1 2 10 b 1 10 16 17 8 1 26 Period 04 028001-103 Period 05 028001-103 IND COOP C I IND COOP C I B 1 U h JL 1 9 0 T 7 -J. 10 B W 0 T 1 14 ___7- 1 21 15 22 Period 02 05021-108 ENGLISH R 11 B 5 6 U 5 2 0 T 1 11 8 Period 03 EQSQ41-109 ENGLISH CT 11 7 1 19 Per i od 02 K08501-104 INT ALGEBRA B W 7 4 Alls JL 5 0 T 11 12 23 Period 02 Period 06 KlQQOl-104 GEOMETRY R B U 0 T Period 07 Period 08 Period 09 7 4 11 B H 0 T B WOT B U 0 T 6 5 1 12 13 9 1 23 Period 06 028001-103 IND COOP C I B U 1 16 ____2. 1 23  T 17 ____L 24 Period 07 028001-103 IND COOP C 1 Period 08 Period 09 B U 3 16 ____1 3 23 0 T 19 ____1. 2b 6 U 0 T B U 0 27 u. 0 u. 3S afi. 37 B U 4__2. 10 7 14 10 0 T _-Z- 17 24 Period 03 K05011-105 \u0026lt;M.6EBRA 1 R B U 0 11 2 7 3 18 5 T 13 -111. 23 Period 03 Period 04 F0500i-103 SPANISH II B M 0 T 5 6 11 9 5 1 15 14 11 1 2b Period 04 TQtOQt-lQl___ STUDENT CNCL B U 5 5 14 4 19 9 0 T ___ifi. 18 28 Period 04 K08501-105 INT ALGEBRA B 13 _2. 22 W 5 5 0 T 1 19 ____2. 1 28 Period 04 Period 05 F06001-106 SPANISH III B M -tl-T- 3 5 7 2 9 9 10 7 1 la Period 05 B W 0 T Period 05 K08501-106 IHT ALGEBRA B H 0 T 12 3 15 8 1 1 10 20 4 1 25 Period 05 Period 06 F07O11-101 SPANISH IVAP B W 0 T 3 1 9 5 12 A 14 la. Period 06 B U 0 T Per Iod 06 K05011-106 ftUSEBRA 1 R B 6 U 2 0 A 3 12 5 T 8 -2. 17 Per lftd-Q6. Per i od 07 Period OB Period 09 B M 0 T B U 0 T Period 07 Period 08 Per Iod 09 B U 0 T B U 0 T 6 U 0 Per i od 07 Period 08 Period 09 B U 0 T B W 0 B U 0 T Perlptl oy Period 08 Period 09LRB.-.Xittle Rnck-SctuMUJU\u0026lt;lrJx.t- School: Term: 1 008 FAIR HIGH SCHOOL Suaoi HJ0HN3 F04001-111 RPAMTSH T K X T B WOT 8 9 U 9 3 18 9 0 T 15 12. 27 B U 0 T B U 0 T B U 0 T 8 U 0 T BUG T 8 U 0 T B W 0 T B U 0 T -\u0026lt; 0 Teerher__Raclod-QIL MOREY Period 01 Period 02 M0850i-i01 Peri ad Q3 M08S0i-i02 Period 04 M08501-103 Period 05 M08501-i04 Per lad 06 848401-110 PBriod 07 Parlpd 08 Period 09 M F B W 0 T B W 0 T SCIENCE/TECH SCIENCE/TECH SCIENCE/TECH SCIENCE/TECH R/LEISURE SC B M n T 12 4 7 7 19 11 16 1 IS 1 31 B M n T 8 5 9 3 17 a 13 12 J25. 8 U 0 T 8 12 3 1 12 12 B M n T 20 3__1-24. 6 4 8 2 JJ. X. 10 10 .20. J__U__n T 8 6 8 2 16 B 14 10 B M n T B M n T B JL..-0- T o- o Teacher Period 00 HAHIiga------------------------- X B W 0 T Period 01 CO4501101 KEYBOARD A I 20 T 8 U 7 3 7 2 14 5 0 T XL 9 19 Period 02 C11501-.i01. COMP.TECHBS B U 0 T 4 4 7 1 13 5 J8. 8 18 Teacher NORTH Period 00 Period 03 Period 04 Period OS 011175-101 Period 06 XSOASS\u0026amp;iXU. Period 07 Period 08 Per i od 09 B W 0 T B WOT COMPUTER APL WORD PRS I S B U 0 A. 1. 14 1 J__a. IS 8 W 0 T 20 2 1 23 9 2 18 3 IQ 11 21 6 W 0 T B W 0 T B W 0 T C 2t 2* M X T B W 0 T Period 01 R04101-10i REAPTMC/EMG 8 U 0 T Per i od 02 R04101-102 READIMC/EHC 5 1 6 9 1 10 8 5 J. 8 U 0 T 5 -------3. 8 Period 03 R04101-103 READIWC/EMC B W 3 1 4 0 T 4 -------1_ 5 Period 04 R04101-104 REAPINC/EMC Period 05  PALMER Period 00 .Earod_0i Peri ad 02 006001-101 Pgr.iQd.,Q3,, 006001-102 M F X B a 0 T Teacher -RGRRY Per i od 00 Period 01 paisouioi O-' E i\" X F T 8 W 0 T (p 8 W 0 4 8 4 8 Perlod,,0.4 ,. 006001-103 B U 0 T Period 05 006001-104 Teacher Period 00 PEYTON M JE. T 8 W 0 Tearher Per iod, 00 Period 06 R04101-105 READINC/ENG B W 0 T Period 07 Period 08 Period 09 27 1. c A X 7 h 7 8 WOT B U 0 T 8 U 0 T Pur, Iod .06 006001-105 Parinil Q7 Period 08 Period 09 ULD GEOGRAPH WLD GEOGRAPH ULD GEOGRAPH WLB GEOGRAPH ULB CEOGRAPH B a 0 T 8 4 12 2 20 6 12 14 .26. Period 02 pai5Oi-ioi COMPUTER PTI COMPUTER PTI B W 0 T j- 3 3 Period 01 C0800i-10i ACCOUaT I B W 8 2 0 T 10 1 12 IS 6 1 22 Period,,01 8 W 0 T 3 Period 02 8 W i 3 D T Period 02 .Ba0r 8 9 6 3 17 9 14 12 .26. B a 0 T 13 3 7 4 2Q 1 16 11 B W n T 8 8 1 lA 2 9 9 .18. B a 0 T 8 3 8 3 16__6. 11 11 B a n T B M n T B a__0__r Period 03 P21501-101 COMPUTER PTI Period 04 Period OS Period 06 Period 07 Period 09 163650-101 Period 09 163650-101 B J. 3 W 0 T 3 Period 03 C045O1-102 8 W 0 T B U 0 T 8 U 0 T B W 0 T COMPUTER PEX COMPUTER PEX 8 U 0 B W 0 T 1 1 1 1 1 Period 04 C04501-103 KEYBOABD A TKEYBOARP A I B U 1 2 0 T B W fl ? 1 11 15 4 1 20 1 5 7..4 14 9 0 T 12 __il_ 23 Period 05 C02501-101 IWI.OWe-JEC 8 U 0 T 13 2 1 16 5..1., 18 3 ____6. 1 22 Per i od 06 Period 07 Period 08 Period 09 8 W 0 T 8 U 0 T 8 U 0 T B U 0 T Period 03 Period 04 Period Q5 Period 06 Period 07 Period 08 Period 09 lx c c W * cJ-RS- School: Tere: Llttla-Rock 3chooX-l\u0026gt;4fttr ic- 008 FAIR HIGH SCHOOL -5- PICKER 9 M X T B WOT 05021-110 EMCLISH R 11 B W 5 4 _2__4- 12 8 0 T 1 10 __IX 1 21 B WOT 05021-111 ENGLISH R 11 B U 0 T 7 4 S 1 12 5 11 -6- 17 B U 0 T E06101-109 ENGLISH AP B U 0 T E0502i-113 FMCLISH B 11 S *7 *0 Teacher__Period QQ PURDY Per I nd O1 P17001-10i Per I nd 02 P17001-101 M X Teacher RIVER .... X F T Teacher RMRUTH M X T B W n T Per i od 00 B W 0 T Period 00 B W 0 T ELECTRONCS I ELECTRONCS I -B80X 1 1 B M 0 T Periad 03___ P17001-10i ELECTRONCS I B .. R-.-q....T- Period Q4 Pi8001-102 1 X X Teacher Period 00 ROBERT M i Teacher RUTHER M F T Teacher SHEHAN M F J__U. JI__T Per i od 00 B W 0 T Per i od 00 B W 0 T Teacher__Period 00 4 2 9 8 13 10 6 XX 23 B U 8 3 7 3 15 6 0 T 11 XXl- 1 22 B U 0 T B U 0 T B U 0 T -5 Period 05 P18001-i02 Per i od 06 P18001-102 Period 07 Period 08 Period 09 ELECTRONC 11 ELECTRONC II ELECTRONC II -B80X 1 1 2 B W 0 T 10 1 3. X i X 1 1 1 2 8. ..0..T- 1 2 SHOT B W 0 T B W 0 T __t 3^ ? 1 1 X Period 01 DOlOOi-101- MQNITOR 1 B W 0 T ____X 2 3 2 5 X 5 7 Period 02 001001-102 MONITOR 1 B W 0 T Period 03 MiOOt-103 MONITOR 1 X X 4 3 5 4 1_1 7 1 10 B U 4 1 5 1 0 5 6 Period 01 Per Iod 02 04021-105 Period 03 E04021-106 B W 0 T Period 01 P03001-10t AUTO TECH I R M n T 3 4 3 1 Per i od 01 vol 001-106 STUDY HALL B W 0 1 8 3 14 9 XX 11 23 Period 01 B W 0 T Period QI Period 04 001001^104 MONITOR 1 B W 0 T 2 2 1 5 9 7 _X 12 16 Period 04 04021-107 Period 05 POtOOl-105 MONITOR 1 B X-X 2 3 3 WOT X 2 6 Period 05 E04021-108 Period 06 B01001406 MONITOR 1 B W 0 T Period 07 Period 08 Period 09 6 3 6 5 12 8 -2- 11 20 B W 0 T B W 0 T B WOT Per Iod 06 04021-109 Period 07 Period 08 Period 09 FNGLTRH R 10 FHCLISH R 10 EM61TSH R 10 EHGiISH R 10 FMCI ISH R 10 B 9 W 1 0 5 4 14 5 10 S- 19 6 U 0 6 3 -8- 14 3 T 9 -8- 17 B W 0 12 4 6 3----- 18 7 16 25 6 W 0 8 4 -71------- 15 5 T 12 -8- 20 3 U 0 T 8 5 1 14 B U 0 T B WOT B W 0 T 30 2. -\u0026gt;------- 18 5 IX 1 24 Period 02 . P03001-101 AUTO TECH I B R Q T 3 1 4 Period 03 P03001-i0i AUTO TECH I BM__0__X 3 1 Period 04 P03001-102 AUTO TECH I R 8 n...T... 4 5 Period 05__ P03001-1O2 AUTO TECH I B W n T 4 5 Period 06 P03001-102 AUTO TECH I B 8 n T Period 07 Per i od QB 163550-101 Period 09 163550-101 1 5 ,B. M...a, I AUTO TECH EX AUTO TECH EX B W D T 2 3 B W 0 T 1 2 3 X X X 3 X X X A X X X X X Period 02 B W  Period 02 30001-101 COHMUNICTN I B W 7 3 XX 18 X 5 0 T 10 ___13. 23 Period Q2 Period 03 cn7.oot.Tjoi BUSINESS LAW B U 0 T Period 04 \u0026amp; 3 13 8 1 13 9 1 22 B U 0 T Period 05 C0700t-102 BUSINESS LAW B W 0 T Period 06 H08O01-101 Period 07 Period 08 Per i od 09 Per i od 03 E30001-i02 Period 04 30001-103 COMMUWICTW T nOMHUWlCTW 1 B 3 W 0 T _2__5. 10 11 6 1 10 __iX 1 22 BUG 9 4 6 S _ 15 9 13 XX 24 Per IOd 03 Period Q4 11 5 3 14 14 1 21 8 1 29 PE B W 31 24 3 1 34 21 0 T __5X 4 61 B W 0 B W 0 T B WOT Period 05 period 06 35001-101 Period 07 Period 08 Per i od 09 B U 0 T B W 2 1 .a__2- 10 8 0 T 3 ___iX 18 B W 0 T B W 0 B W 0 T Period 05 Period OA XexXod-XX Per Iod 08 Per I nd 09 S'LR8 ~ L i 111e_Rqck School.District School: Term: 1 008 FAIR HIGH SCHOOL SuoBary MastT/Teachor Schedule/Rice \u0026amp; Son 3UHMAS Page: 10 SHELLS Ca M -L T B U  T 004021-109 AM HISTORY B U 9 4 0 T 13 V01001-i02 STUDY HALL 2 2 15 11 6 i 18 B U 0 8 5 5 1 13 6 13 -4. 19 B U 0 T B U 0 T 005021-101 ULD HISTORY BUG 7 5 6 4 13 9 T 12 22 004021-110 AM HISTORY SHOT 4 4 2 10 10- 1 1 12 14 5 3 22 B U 0 T B W 0 B U 0 T c Teacher Period 00 SKIPPE M F T B M 0 T Period 01 POiOOl-106 AUTO BODY I SHOT 5 5 Period 02 POlOOl-106 AUTO BODY I B HOT 5 5 Period 03 POiOOl-106 AUTO BODY I B H 0 T 5 5 Period 04 POlOOl-107 AUTO BODY I SHOT 2 1 3 Period 05 POlOOl-107 AUTO BODY I B H 0 T 2 3 Period 06 P0i001-t07 AUTO BODY I B U 0 T 2 1 3 5 5 5 5 5 5 2 1 3 2 1 3 2 1 3 Period 07 Period 08 Period 09 B HOT -B - -H 0 T SHOT H 13  t Teacher Period 00 BMmmE H B H 0 T Period 01 BlQOQl-101 CCE REL.I B U 0 T Period 02 T 7 5 4 3 12 B U 0 T Period 03 VOlOOl-105 STUDY HALL B U 0 1 Period 04 612001-103 CAREER ECOPl 11 8 7 19 2 2 3 4 2 14 B WOT Per Iod 05 612001-103 CAREER ECOPl 1 8 1 2 1 3 2 2 4 B U 5 2 3 2 8 4 0 T 7 S 12 i Teacher i SODERL Per i od 00 Period 01 P13001-101 Period 02 P1300i-t01 Period 03 P13001-i01 Per Iod 04 P13001-102 Period 05 Pi3001-102 M -E. T 6 W 0 T Teacher Period 00 STEELE M F J. B H 0 T Teacher Period 00 BTFFLM______________ JL F T B U 0 T Teacher STROUD Period 00 K B U 0 T JBiCDAI__Period QQ o. r Period 06 aUOQl-lQS CAREER ECOPl B U 7 2 3 2 10 4 0 T ____9 5 14 Per i od Q6 P13001-102 C08M0T0LCY I COSMOTOLGY I C08M0T0LCY I COSMOTQLGY I CQBHOTOLCY I COSHOTOLCY 1 B U 0 1 T 1 4 2 17 S 2 1 8 Per i od 01 -B H 0 T Period 01 648301-101 D DOMAIN SC SHOT -1 2 5 3 JL 5 8 Period 01 B U 0 Period 01 B U i  T 1 ^-2 1 7 5 2 8 Period 02 617501-101 MKT.REL.I B H 0 T 15 5 6 S 21 10 20 11 -2k Period 02 646351-101 V DOMAIN SC BUG 1 2 4 1 5 3 T J. 5 8 Period 02 B U 0 T Period 02 B 1 W 0 T 1 4 2 17 5 2 8 Period 03 -B- H 0 T Period 03 646251-101 C DOMAIN SC B W 1 2 4 1 5 3 0 5 8 Period 03 B U 0 -Period 03 B U 0 T SHOT B U 0 T 1 1 J. 7 1 7 7 1 7 1 Period 07 612001-106 CAREER ECOPl Period 06 Per i od 09 B W 0 8 3 4 3 12 6 T 11 1 18 B U 0 T B U 0 T Per Iod 07 Period 08 Period 09 .iS. SI 2S . 21. 7 . aa. s t \u0026lt;L 11 B U 0 T B MOT B W 0 Period 04 617001-102 MKT.COOP I B H 0 T Period 05 017001-103 MKT.COOP I B W 0 T 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 5 5 . 7 4 8 12- Per Iod 06 617001-104 MKT.COOP I ....g....H Q T 4 4 4 5 8 9 8 9 17 Per i od 07 617001-104 MKT.COOP I B H 0 T 8 5 4 5 12 to 13 9 22 Period 08 Per i od 09 32. 33 34 Ji M 3 (I 1, B HOT SHOT Period 04 546401-111 Period 05 S48301-102 Period 06 Period 07 Period 08 Period 09 a R/LEISURE SC 0 DOMAIN B U 1 2 4 1 5 3 0 T ___1 5 8 SC B W 0 T t 2 1 5 3 3 5 8 B U 0 B M 0 T B U 0 T 6 W 0 '1 33 Pl Period 04 P25001-102 Period 05 P25001-102 Per Iod 06 P25001-102 Period 07 Per Iod 08 Period 09 CONSTRUCTS I CDHSTRUCTN I C0N8TRUCTN I B U 0 T 1 1 1 Period 04 2 2 B U 0 1 1 1 2 2 BUG 1 1 1 T 2 2 B U 0 B U  T B U 0 T -Period 05 Period 06 Period 07 Period 08 Period 09 91 \"I l 01School: Term\n- ) jnI Rock School Diitf'ct_____ 008 FAIR HIGH SCHOOL guaaary /TftAchBr Rrhxlulw/R*rg t San -SUMMAS- It 0 THOMPS la I |. |m 1 ao 3J 39 t' 1 M T B u 0 E0402t-il0 ENGLISH R 10 E0402l-ili E0402i-ii2 E0402i-il3 E04021-U4 B 9 y 1 7 .2 16 3 0 T 10 -------a. 19 B y 0 T EMCLISH R to ENGLISH R 10 ENGLISH R 10 ENO-ISH R 10. B W 6 2 -51- 11 3 0 T 8 A. 14 B y 0 9 4 A 2------- 15 6 T 13 -8. 21 B 8 3 7 2 15 WOT 5 11 9. 20 B y 0 8 2 A ?------- 14 4 T 10 -8. 18 B U 0 T B H 0 T B U 0 T Teacher__Period 00 VERTIN M F B B q-X .Pariod 01____ M0512i-101 CHEMISTRY AP B W 0 T Perind 02 Teacher -WAGE------ Period 00 1 3 8 5 9 a 13 IX Period 01 B H 0 T. Period 03 M0500i-102 CHEMISTRY B W 0 T Per Iod 04__ M05001-i03 CHEMISTRY B N 0. .T 5 4 4 1 9 11 9 11 XO- 3 6 12 2 15 R 3 14 XX JL F T B U 0 T B U 0 T Period 02 F040O1W1O7 SPANISH I B W 0 ' 10. 1. T Period 03 X04001108- SPANISH I Teacher WALKER Period 00 Period 01 S48301-104 8 5 18 12 XX 13 30 B U 9 4 17 12 0 T ___16. 13 29 Period 04 FQ400i-109 SPANISH I B U 0 T 1 2 9 i 16 e _2. 15 24 Period 02 848301-105 Period 03 S48251-104 M -F- T Teacher WILDER M F X B W 0 Period 00 B H 0 T Teacher Period 00 -UIUJA------------------------- JL F T B WOT D DOHAIN 8C D DOHAIN ST. C DOHAIN SC SHOT 3 2 -2l- 5 3 5 -X 8 B y 0 T 3 2 -2- 5 3 5 -X 8 6 U 0 T 3 2 X1- 5 3 5 X 8 Teacher WILLIS Period 00 M X B W 0 Teacher__Period 00 Period 01- K09001-i03 Period 02 K09001-i04 Per.j.Qd. 03 Ki3011-101 ALGEBRA HR ALGEBRA HR CALCULUS AAP B y 0 T 5 8 7 5 12 13 13 12 Xi- .BU0X 9 5 5 7 14 1? 14 12 X6. i M ti. T. 3 3 6 JL 1 5 9 1 14. Per i od 04 S4B401-103 Period 05 M05001-i05 CHEMISTRY SHOT 5 2 1 8 14 16 6 6 2 14 Period 05 F04001-1Q6- SPANISH I B W 0 T 9 5 8 4 il 9 XA. 12 26 Period 05 348351-103 B/i FISiJRF SC V DONAIN SC B y 3 2 Xx 5 3 0 T 5 ------3. 8 B U 3 2 -2i- 5 3 0 T 5 -------X 8 Period 04 -BU0X Per. Lod ,05,, K050il-li0 ALGEBRA I R B N n T 10 8 xa. 3 1 13 9 XX EarJ ad, .0.6 , H05001-104 CHEMISTRY B H 0 T Pgriod 07 Per IPd 08 Pgr iod 09 IO 4 5 7 10 11 15 9 17 JL u n__r B M. 0 T R M n T Period 06 F0400t-ti0 SPANISH I Period 07 Period 08 Period 09 B U 7 S B (\u0026gt; 15 11 0 T JX 14 26 B H 0 6 W 0 T B U 0 T Period 06 Per i od 07 Period 06 Period 09 B H 0 T B U 0 T B U 0 T B WOT 20 za. 30 32. 33 33 3fi. 5 Period 06__ VOlOOi-107 STUDY HALL ...B....W . IL...X Period 07 Period .OS Period 0? 6 7 1 13 5 10 8 IS. B H 0 T R H 0 T JB__y__0__x Period 01 -005051-44- INDEP STUDY B y 0 T -IX 11 23 XX 11 23 Period 01 B U 0 T Period 01 Period 02 0Q4021n-llt AM HISTORY B y 0 T Period 03 -J.6- 13 4 20 10 XX 17 30 6 W D T Period 04 004021-112 AM HISTORY Period 03 004021-113 AM HISTORY B W 0 9 10------- 6 5 1 12 B y 0 8-4------- Period 06 D04021-114 AM HISTORY Period 07 Period 08 Period 09 15 15 1 31 4 3 12 7 T -IX 7 19 B y -6L 10 5 16 6 0 T -------X 15 22 B U 0 T WOT B U 0 T Period 02 B04001-105 Period 03 021100-101 Period 04 804001-106 TMTPn rn apt fmf abtr art__INTRO TO ABT__ARX Period 05 BOSOOi-lOl B 14 y 2 0 T 16 A 4 2 12 20 6 2 28 B W 12 7 A 2 18 9 0 T 19 ____8. 27 B y 12 5 6 2 18 7 0 T 17 __a. 25 DESIGN__ASX B U 0 T 4 4 X 5 7 3 1 8 1 13 Period 02 Jariod 03 Jeriod 04 Par I art 05 Per i od 06 B05001-102 Period 07 Period 08 Period 09 DESIGN B W 0 T 6 4 5 3 1 1 11 B W 0 T B y D T fi w 0 T 11 7 JL 2 2Q Par ijid 06 Pari nd 07 .EflXlQxi-OS. Period 09 12D I RS School: Tern: UOOO Littla Rock School Dlstrici. 008 FAIR HIGH SCHOOL flMMJirv-Mfar/Tajrhar I  \u0026gt;. - SUHHA8 42- 1 1 ( ( \u0026lt; 17 S1 82 38 \u0026lt; \u0026lt;  I 1 1 \u0026lt; H -X SHOT 005021-102 ULP HTaTflPY B 5 6 U 0 T ii -St..3 1 13 i4 9 i 24 003021-103 -ULP HISTORY B U 0 T 005021-104 ULB HTSTOPY 4 10 9 5 12 15 1 15 IX 1 28 B U 5 5 B 3 13 8 0 T 10 W- 21 005021-105 ULP HTBTQPY B U 0 T 6 8 12 14 14 -13- 26 B U 0 T 005021-106 kU n HISTORY B U 3 6 9 13 0 T 9 i9- 22 B U 0 B U 0 B U 0 T u. 81 IL U. 97 I\"' I 1\" S' 1  \u0026lt; K 1'I Records seLected Records written : 1 : 1  I*. 1  1 1 ! 1 1 io 2S 1 1 2e ao *0 1 1 sc If co SI Records selected Records sorted Records written : S495\n5495 : 364  Can't ghayiaa gOQotBd file attr ibu-tett. Records selected Lines printed____ Pages printed : 364  575 : 12 24 u. za SI IS. ssREF: sen.560 PATE: 10/15/92 TIME\n12:15:11 000 LITTLE RUCK SCHOOL TISTRICT FMR HIGH SCHOOL COURSE master schedule PAGE 1 \u0026gt; COURSE------TTTCT CLASS sex MAI CH TFKTUT GROUP SEC TERM MAMES JAYS LUOM TfACH^R jAMr. MAX CAP MALE ENKULLHfcNl SbAIS AVAIL CLASS ETHNIC BALANCE FEMALE TAKEN SEATS ROLLS 01 02 ADMIN AOIOOI A01003 A02001 A02003 A030'\u0026gt;i A03003 l?C4001 P.04003 B05001 B050n3 B06O01 ADH-CONDUCT 1 1 1 102 10? 102 103 103 103 104 104 104 HOMEROOH-IO HOMEr.noM-ii H0MER03*-!! HOMEROOM-IZ HOHEROO.M-IZ I T 3 09 W 09 09 MTWRF MTW'RF KTWRF MTWRF NIVbN NIVEN NIVEH y Te quests NI 71N 'ilVtf'l NIVtL  TJTAL 100 Txnr 100 100 400 100 TOIT 100 100 rOU T Y ** NO SECTIONS DEFINE SECTIONS OEFINEO * ** NO SeCTIQ.MS DEFlNfO ** ** NO SECTIONS DEFINED ** ** NO SECTIONS DEFINED ** INTRO TO ARI----------- lOl 101 101 192 102 102 10^ 105 1J3 104 104 104 105 105 105 106 1'06 106 INTRO TO ART 101 101 101 -------------102 102 102 103 103 133 104 IDA 104 105 105 105 106 106 106 ART - OeSIGK 101 101 IJl 102 102 102 ART_DESI6N 101 101 lol 102 102 102 WATERCOLOR -------------101 lOTTIl 102 102 102 1-2 1-2 1-2 1-2 1-2 3-4 3-4 3-4 3-4 3-4 1-2 1-2 01 03 06 02 01 173 05 06 92 04 05 06 3-4 3-4 05 06 1-2 06 1 REQUESTS 1 Re^USSTS 0 REQUFSTS ? REQUESTS 9 RFrVJSSTS 0 REQUESTS MTWRF .MTWRF MTWKF MTWRF .TWRF HTWft'F .MTWRF MTwRF MTWRF MTWRF MTWRF MTWPF MTHRF MTWRF MTWRF MTWRF 140 140 140 141 \"FTT CnOPFR COOPER C'^Of^ER COOPER WILLIS '-IILL-I5 149 RFJJESTS CDUPEP. J CQ JPfR J CrriPFK J COOPEP J WILLIS L WlLLtS I * T'lTAL 30 30 30 30 30 TT 160 13 20 14 17 16 TT 97 13 6 12 S 51 26 26 TT 24 28 \"TT 148 4 TT b 2 T 32 T Y T 10 6 6 -H' 42 15 19 TT 18 20 TT 103 iS. 22 u. 28 *0 2L n SA. 140 w 140 140 141 141 COOPFR C('5Pf.R cnopr.r CPQPFR- WILLIS WILLIS 150 REQUESTS CUOPPp J CO'TPf.ll J COOPER J COOPER J WILLIS L WILLIS L * TOTAL 30 30 3Q 30 30 180 14 TT 13 17 17 17 97 14 6 5 7 12 8 52 28 TT 18 24 29 25 149 2 T 12 6 1 5 31 Y Y Y 12 T 5 6 T 42 15 XT 13 18 18 104 141 141 1,'ILLIS WILLIS 33 REQUESTS WILLIS L WILLIS L * TUTaL 30 30 60 8 11 19 5 9 14 13 20 33 17 10 27 7 1 5 11 16 \"TaT 141 WILLIS WILLIT 33 REQUESTS WILLIS L WILLIS L * TOTAL 30 30 60 8 11 19 5 9 14 13 20 33 17 10 27 T 7 14 S 11 16 PTT 140 errPTT CCGPtfP 3 REQUESTS COllPLi* * TOTAL J 35 70 T 2 3 T Z 3 34 33 67 1 1 1 1 5c* PEFs SCH.560 DATE: 10/15/92 TIME: 12:15:11 COURSE title hatch CLASS SEX GROUP SEC TERM 'MMES 806003 PllOOl C02001 C02O03 COIOOI C01003 C01501 C01503 C02001 C02003 C02501 C02503 C04251 009 OAYS WATERCOLOR 101 101 101 102 102 102 FINE ART HU INTR.COH/TEH INTR.COHP/TE CLERICAL RFC CLFPICAL REC COMP.TECH BS COMP.TECH 9S INT COMP.TEH INT.COMP.TEH INT.COMP TEC 3-^ 03 06 MTWRF MTWRF LITTLE ROCK SCHGUL DISTRICT FAIR HIGH SCHOOL COURSE MASTER SCHEDULE ROOM 140 PAGE 2 * TEACHER NAME COOPER COOPER J 3 RE-3UESTS ccom j * TOTAL\nENftGLtMS.MTSSATS AVAIL CLASS ETHNIC BALANCE CAP HALE 35 IT 7Q FEMALE TAKEN SEATS ROLLS 01 02 7^ * NO SECTIONS DEFINED ** ** NO SECTIONS DEFINED ** ** NO SECTIONS DEFINED ** ** LINK DEFINITION ( } ** ** LINK DEFINITION ( ) ** ** NO SECTIONS DEFINED ** ** NO SECTIONS OEFINEO ** ** LINK DEFINITION (M) ** ** LINK DEFINITION (M) ** 101 101 101 INT.COMP.TEC 101 101 101 KEY90ARDI/II C04253 KEYOOARn/lI 1-2 3-4 05 05 MTWRF mTWRF 146 TERM 1 TERM 1 TERM 3 0 REQUESTS 0 REQUESTS 0 REQUESTS 0 REQUESTS 0 REQUESTS C02G0X C02301 C02003 PEYTON 22 REQUESTS PEYTON E * TOTAL 30 30 16 16 146 PEYTON 21 REQUESTS PEYTON E * TOTAL JO. 30 IS. 15 ** NO SECTIONS OEFINEO ** * ND SECTIONS OEFINEO ** C04501 KEYBOARD A I 101 101 101 102 102 102 ___________________103 103 103 C04503 C04751 C04753 C07001 0 REQUESTS 3 REQUESTS 1 T 3 1 T 3 34 bl T T 1 T 1 4 6 6 A 6 ZZ ZZ 8 8 3 3 18 18 \u0026gt;s as. 7 21 21 9 9 3. 3 17 17 1-2 1-2 1-2 01 03 04 HTWRF MTWRF MTQRF 143 148 146 NAHLEN PEYTON PEYTON 63 REQUESTS NAHLEN M PEYTON e PEYTON E # TOTAL\" 30 30 30 90 10 9 12 31 9 11 11 31 19 20 23 62 11 10 7 28 5 9 13 14 15 14 43 KEYBOARD A I 101 101 101 _______102 102 102 133 103 103 WORD PRSI/II HORD PRSI/ir BUSINESS LAW 3-4 3-4 3-4 01 03 04 MTWRF MTWRF MTWRF 143 146 146 NAHLEN PEYTON PEYTON 62 REQUESTS NAHLEN M PEYTON E PEYTON E * TOTAL 30 30 30 90 9 9 12 30 9 11 11 31 18 20 23 61 12 10 7 29 Y 5 4 9 13 13 15 14 42 ** NO SECTIONS DEFINED * ** NO SECTIONS DEFINED ** 0 REQUESTS 0 REQUESTS lyREF\nSCH.560 DATE: 10/15/92 TIME: 12J15:11 008 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FAIR HIGH SCHOOL COURSE MASTER SCHEDULE PAGE 3 COURSETTTTEMATCH CLASS sex PERIOO GROUP SEC TERM '4AMPS DAYS ROOM TEACHER NAME MAX CAP HALE EURULLMENT SEATS AVAIL CLASS ETHNIC BALANCE FEMALE TAKEN SEATS ROLLS 01 02 C07Q03 to 21 W -K 101 101 101 102 102 102 BUSINESS LAW 101 101 101 102 102 102 G08001 ACCOUNT I__________ 101 101 101 C08003 ACCOUNT.I ________101 101 101 C10501 C105Q3 C11501 C11503 C145O1 C14503 C16001 C16003 C16501 OFC TECH LAB OFC TECH LAS 1-2 1-2 3-4 3-4 1~2 3~4 03 05 03 05 01 01 MTWRF MTWRF MTWRF MTWRF HTWRF HTWRF 400 107 RUTHER RUTHFR 52 REQUESTS RUTHERFOR P RUTHERFOR P * TOTAL 30 30 60 14 21 35 9 8 17 23 29 52 7 1 8 Y 9 14 23 13 14 27 400 107 RUTHER RUTHER 51 REQUESTS RUTHERFOR P RUTHERFOR P * TOTAL 30 30 60 14 20 34 9 8 17 23 28 51 7 2 9 9 14 23 13 13 26 14o PEYTON 22 REQUESTS PEYTON E * TOTAL 25 25 10 10 12 12 22 22 3 3 6 6 15 15 22 REQUESTS PEYTON PEYTON E * TOTAL 25 25 10 10 12 12 2^ 22 3 3 Y 6 b 15 15 *# LINK OEFINITION ( ) * * COMP.TECHBS 101 101 101 COMP.TECHBS. 301 101 101 JUNIOR EXEC JUNIOR EXEC COE COE COE LP4X DEFINITION ( \u0026gt; * 1-2 3-4 02 02 MTWRF MTWRF 1A3 NAHLEN 18 REQUESTS NAHLEN M * TOTAL 30 30 10 10 3 a 16 13 12 12 5 5 13 13 143 NAHLEN 19 REQUESTS NAHLEN M * TOTAL 30 30 11 11 3 3 19 19 11 11 5 S 14 14 * LINK DEFINITION I ) ** ** LINK DEFINITION ( ) **  RELATE 101 101 101 RELATE 101 101 101 COOP 102 102 102 1-2 3-4 1-2 03 03 04 MTWRF MTWRF MTWRF 14 GRUMME 20 REQUESTS GRUMHLR W * TOTAL 30 30 2 18 AS 20 10 AS. 6 6 14 14 148 GRUHE 20 REQUESTS GRUMMER W * riTAL 30 30 2 Z 18 18 20 20 10 10 Y 6 6 14 14 148 GRUHME GRUMMER H 30 7 7 23 Y 3 4 zo 21 27 u. t l 32. SB aa as. ss 40 B8RFF: SCM*560 DATE: 10/15/92 TIME: 12:15:11 003 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FAIR HIGH SC IDOL COURSE MASTER SCHEDULE PAGE 4 Ik CDURS'E nTTF CLASS sex HAILH PfcRlUU GROUP sec TERM NAMES DAYS ROOM TEACHER NAME TWT CAP MALE ENKULLNENI SEATS AVAIL CLASS ETHNIC BALAHC6 FEMALE TAKEN SEATS ROLLS 01 02 % 21 aa to 1^3 103 103 104 104 104 IOS 105 105 1-2 1-2 oF 06 07 mTkrf MTWRF MTWRF Trnn- 0000 0000 CRUMHf GRUKME GRUMME IV HE^SUfcSI^ Gft'.r:4fR ti GRUMMER W GRUMMER W  lUIAL----- jy 30 30 Tzir 1 T 6 3 2 ry \"S' 2 TT Z4- 26 26 Txrr y Y y I F ZT 3 2 TT 10 C1A?O3COE - C'6'o\u0026amp;---------------- 102 102 102 103 103 103 ---------------------------------104 132\n10^ 105 105 105 001001 P01003 E04021 F04023 3-4 3-4 yy 3-4 04 05 TF 07 MTWRF MTWRF HI'WRF MTWRF 143 0000 wnir 0000 GRUMME GRUMME SRUHMt GRUMME 19 REQUESTS GRUMME-\u0026lt; W GRUMMER GRUMMER W GRUMMER  * TOTAL 30 30 \"nr 30 120 T 1 7 6 \"n 2 18 7 6 V 2 19 23 24 ~zy 28 101 Y y 3 2 T 6 4 4 y 2 13 MONITOR 1 -------------101 101 101 132 102 102 103 103 103 -------------104 104 104 105 105 105 106 106 106 MONITOR 2 101 101 101 102 102 102 -------------103 103 133 104 104 104 105 105 135 106 136 106 ENGLISH R 10 101 ini 131 102 me 102 105 105 105 106 106 106 -------------107 107 ICT 108 103 108 lOP 109 139 110 110 110 111 111 111 112 112 112 \"m 1-2 1-2 1-2 1-2 3-4 3-4 T=y 3-4 3-4 3-4 1-2 ry 1-2 1-2 1-2 1-2 1-2 1-2 1-2 1X3 113 113r=r 114 114 114 ENGLISH R 10 1-2 irr 02 03 yy 05 06 01 02 TT 04 05 C6 01 C6 02 03 TF 05 06 01 03 04 TV 06 wmF MTWRF MTWRF MTWr.C' HTWRF MTWRF MTWRF MTWRF TCrWAF MTWRF MTWRF MTWRF MTWRF MTWRF MTWRF MTWRF naRF MTWRF MTWRF MTWRF MTWRF MTWRF MTWRF --------------------rrvnr RIVER RIVER --------------------rpTTT RIVER RIVER RIVER RIVER --------------------rrrvFTT RIVER RIVFR RIVER 65 REQUESTS 125 125 102 102 Tuy 102 102 142 142 142 Try 142 GRAY GRAY PMRUTH RHPxUTH HlVcKS 5. RIVERS S, RIVERS S, \u0026lt;lvF{k5 5. RIVERS S. RIVERS S. * r/XTAL RIVERS S. RIVERS S. RXVERS S. RIVERS S. RIVERS S. RIVERS 3. * TOTAL GRAY V GRAY y RUTHERFORD .M RUTHERFORD,RM SMRUrH 1UJMVRFBRb,RM RMRUTH Rutherford,RM RMRUTH THOMPS THOMPS THOMPS I HUMPS THOMPS 242 REQUESTS RUTHERFORD,RM THOMPS IH P THOMPSON P THOMPSON P TH-JMPS'JN P THOMPSON P * TOTAL \"nr 30 30 yy 30 30 Tnr 30 30 3Tr 30 30 40 190 30 3y 30 30 TT 30 30 30 30 30 jy 30 360 y 1 y 4 8 zr 4 n 3 6 9 26 11 yr 10 9 yy 12 14 10 8 13 yr 10 136 1 5 yy 2 11 ^z\" -~r 10 6 ly 6 19 yy ~Z3' 20 24 TV 24 11 TTF y Y y y Y S 4 1 y 3 7 yr y 5 5 y 3 12 35- as. ai it i? IL i9 31 IL  % % 1 4 7 11 2 11 39 5 T 14 8 7y 65 25 19 ZT 16 22 125 y Y y 4 5 ~r 6 3 T 23 1 5 y 8 5 TT 35 % 9 10 8 -----T 8 10 6 8 -----T S 103 20 2y 19 17 yr 20 24 ~TT 14 21 \"nr 18 239 10 y 11 13 r 10 6 \"TT 16 9 nr 12 121 y T y y 7 T 5 3 y 5 5 T 3 6 y 4 13 TT 14 14 TT 15 18 yy 11 15 IT 14 53 . 179 % Aref: SCH.560 DATE: 10/15/92 TIMES 12:15:11 008 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FAIR HIGH SCHOOL COURSE MASTER SCHEDULE PAGE 5 COURSE TITL5 CLASS SFX MATCH PERIOD GROUP SEC TERM NA-'\u0026lt;eS DAVS ROOM TEACM'ER .MAME CAP MALE ENROLLMENT SEATS AVAIL CLASS ETHNIC BALANCE FEMALE TAKEN SEATS ROLLS 01 02 -k E04051 101 101 101 102 102 102 105 105 105 106 106 16^ 107 107 107 103 108 108 109 109 109 110 110 110 111 111 111 112 112 112 113 113 113 114 114 114 ENGLISH rrT/H 102 102 102 103 103 103 104 104 104 3-^ 3-4 3-4 3-4 3-4 3-4 3-4 3-4 3-4 3-4 1-2 1-2 1-2 01 06 02 04 0 5 06 01 03 04 05 06 02 04 05 w 2 27 E04053 ENGLISH GT/H 1-02 10^ 103 103 103 104 104 104 3-4 3-4 04 05 04061 ENGLISH HOUR F04063 -ENGLI-SH BONR E04071 E04073 ENGLISH GT ENGLISH GT EO5O21 E05023 l\u0026gt; B MTWRF MTWRF MTWRF ' \"mTTpT' MTWRF MTWRF MTWRF MTWRP MTWRF MTWRF MTWRF MTWRF. 125 125 102 ------PTT 102 102 102 142 142 142 142 GRAY GRAY R.MRUTH GRAY V GRAY V RUTHERFORD,RM RMRUTT RMTTERFQROtRM RMRUTH RUTHERFORO.RM RMRUTH THOMPS THUMPS THOMPS THORPS 241 REQUESTS MTWRF MTWRF MTWRF 115 115 115 -MTWSE MTWRF MTWRF RUTHERFORD,KM THOMPSON P Tf'UMPSON P THOMPSON P T.HDMPSCN P THUMPS THJMPSON P * TOTAL 30 30 30 TT 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 360 11 13 11 9- 14 12 15 10 8 12 11 _iS. 136 9 10 9 ___ 10 9 6 8 9 _S. 103 20 23 20 23 20 25 19 14 20 20 18 239 10 7 10 TT 7 10 5 11 16 10 10 12 121 Y V 7 7 5 6 T (\u0026gt; 5 h 3 3 5 5 53 13 17 14 I 17 15 18 16 11 15 15 14 179 JONESJ JONESJ 76 REQUESTS JONES J JONES J JONES J * TOTAL 30 30 30 90 11 13 7 31 13 17 15 45 24 30 22 76 6 8 14 Y 13 18 13 44 11 10 9 30 115. 115 115 jaNt.--SJ- J JONESJ JONF.SJ le, REQUESTS JOMuS J JONES J * TOTAL 30 30 30 90 11 13 7 31 13 17 15 45 24 30 22 76 6 Y * NO SECTIONS DEFINcO ** ** NO SECTIUN5 D^FINEO * 0 REQUESTS 8 14 13 18 13 44 11 10 9 30 20 21 22 ii. 2S 27 20. 31 BO. 87 ** NO SECTIINS DEFINED ** * NO SECTIONS DEFINED ** ENGLISH R 11 101 101 101 103 AQ3 -103 104 104 104 IOS 105 105 106 106 106 108 103 lOR 110 110 110 111 1X1 111 112 112 112 113 113 113 114 114 114 ENGLISH R 11 101 101 lOl 103 103 103 0 ^U^STS 0 REQUESTS 0 REQUESTS 1-2 Ari. 1-2 1-2 1-2 1-2 1-2 1-2 1-2 1-2 3-4 3-4 02 04 05 01 06 02 01 03 04 06 05 02 04 MTWRF MTWRF MTWRF HTWRF MTWRF MTWRF MTWRF MTWRF MTWRF MTWRF MTWRF MTWRF MTWRF 125 125 125 115 115 106 123 W. 122 123 124 GRAY GRAY GRAY JONESJ JONESJ MCOANI PICKER PICKER FLINN PICKER MALL REQUESTS GRAY V GRAY V GRAY V JONES J JONE? J MC0AT31EL 8 PICKERING J PICKER IfiO J FLINN T PICKERING J HALL L * TOTAL 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 330 13 17 12 20 12 11 10 13 11 15 145 11 JX 6 a 7 8 11 _k 9 11 9 97 24 18 28 19 19 21 -JJ- 22 22 24 242 6 2 12 2 11 11 9 13 8 8 6 38 Y Y Y 8 9 6 13 4 7 3 5 7 6 6 79 16 18 12 15 15 11 12 12 14 15 157 125 125 GRAY GRAY GRAY V GRAY V 30 30 14 16 11 II 25 27 5 3 9 3 16 13 70 71 nREF: SCH.560 DATE: 10/15/92 TIME: 12:15:11 003 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FAIR HIGH SCHOOL COURSE MASTER SCHEDULE PAGE 6 % COURSE TTTlF CLASS SEX MATCH PERIOO GROUP SEC TERM NAMES OAYS ROOM TEACHER -JANE MAX CAP MALE ENROLLMENT SEATS AVAIL CLASS ETHNIC BALANCE FeMAtS TAKEN SEATS ROLLS 01 02 104 104 104 105 105 105 106 106 106 3-4 3-4 3-4 05 01 06 108 108 103 ST 110 110 110 111 111 111 112 112 112 113 113 113 114 114 114 3-4 3-4 3-4 3-4 3-4 01 03 04 06 05 MTWRF MTWRF MTWRF MTWRF MTWRF MTWRF MTWRF MTWRF MTWRF 125 115 115 106 123 12 3 122 123 124 GRAY JONESJ JONESJ GRAY V JONES J JONES J MCDaNI ^iSANIEL 8 PICKER PICKER FLINN PICKER HALL 2A.it- REQUESTS PICKERING J PICKERING J FLINN T PICKERING J HALL L_______ * TOTAL IB IB 05041 ENGLISH GT 107 107 107 _______109 109 109 1-2 1-2 01 03 NT4RF MTWRF 106 106 HCDANI MCOA-NI 20 21 52 REQUESTS MCDANIEL 6 MCDANIEL 9 * t^AL F05043 ENGLISH GT 107 107 107 _______109 109 109 3-4 3-4 01 03 MTWRF MTWRF 106 106 HCOANI HCDANI 32 REQUESTS MCDANIEL B MCDANIEL B TOTAL ae  E05051 E05053 E05061 E05063 F06021 E06023 E06031 06033 30 30 30 12 20 12 30 11 30 30 30 30 30 330 10 11 13 11 IS 145 6 8 8 3 11 6 9 10 9 97 18 26 20 19 21 17 22 21 24 242 12 2 10 11 9 13 8 9 6 88 Y Y Y 'f 30 30 60 30 30 60 11 7 18 17 17 34 28 24 52 2 6 8 Y 11 7 18 17 17 34 28 24 52 2 6 a E?jGLISH HHRS ENGLISH HNRS ENGLISH GT ENGLISH GT ** NO SECTIHHS \u0026amp;FI?jS ** ** NO SECTIONS OEFINEO ** * NO SECTIONS OEFINEO ** ** NO SECTIONS DEFINED ** ENGLISH R 12 _______102 102 102 103 103 103 104 104 104 _______105 105 135 106 106 106 107 107 107 103 108 103 ENGLISH R 12 102 102 102 0 RFgUESTS 0 REQUESTS 0 REQUESTS 0 REQUESTS 6 13 5 7 3 5 7 5 6 79 15 10 25 15 10 25 1-2. 1-2 1-2 1-2 1-2 1-2 1-2 3-4 103 103 103 3\u0026gt;4l 104 104 104 105 105 105 106 106 106 107 107 107 108 lOa 108 ENGLISH IS R ENGLISH IS R 3-4 3-4 3-4 3-4 3-4 01 03 05 01 02 04 06 01 03 05 01 02 04 06 HTWRF MTWRF MTWRF MTWRF MTWRF MTWRF MTWRF MTWRF MTwat MTWRF MTWRF MTWRF MTWRF MTWRF 122 122 122 124 124 124 Aik -FLI^ FLINN FLINN HALL HALL HALL HAVL.... 170 REQUESTS FLINN.T FLINN T FLINN T HALL L HALL L HALL L HALL L * TOTAL 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 210 16 6 9 15 15 21 32 13 17 8 12 13 h 7 76 29 25 17 27 28 27 15 168 1 5 13 3 2 3 15 42 Y Y Y 12 7 3 10 9 10 6 57 122 122 124 124 124 124 FLINN FLINN FLINN HALL HALL HALL HALL 16^ RSQUeSTS FLINN T 1 FLINN T HALL L HALL L HALL L HALL L * TOTAL 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 210 16 _a. 9 15 15 21 8 92 13 JJ. 8 12 13 6 7 76 29 25 17 27 28 27 15 168 1 -_s. 13 3 2 3 15 42 12 7 3 10 9 10 6 57 ** NO SECTIONS OEFINEO ** ** NO SECTIONS OEFINEO ** 0 REQUESTS 0 REQUESTS 12 15 15 11 12 12 14 15 17 157 H * 13 14 27 13 14 27 20 21 27 za. 29 i 17 18 14 17 18 17 ___a. 109 rA 49 BO SI C 17 18 14 18 17 8 109  C \u0026lt;REF: SCH.560 DATE: 10/15/92 TIME: 12:15:11 008 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FAIR HIGH SCHOOL COURSE MASTER SCHEDULE PAGE 7 COUffSF I IJLt CLASS SEX HMtH' PFRIUU GROUP SEC TERM NAMES OAVS ROOH TEACHER NAME IVJiT CAP HALE ENRULLHcNl StAIS AVAIL ttASS eTHNIC\"B7n\nJ5NCF FEMALE TAKEN SEATS ROLLS 01 02 as *0 M to I* E06053 fcOfclUl E06103 e06151 E06153 E30001 E30003 E31001 E3i003 E33Q01 F33003 E35001 F35OO3 ENGLISH GT ENGLISH GT ** ND SECTIONS JEfl..-O * ** NO SECTIONS DEFINED ** EMCLTSH RP---------------- 109 109 109 ENGLISH AP -------------10 109 104 ENGLISH R EA 101 101 101 -------------liU lie iiO ENGLISH R EA 101 101 101 -------------no 110 115 COMMUNICTN I 101 101 101 -------------102 1U2 lUa 103 103 103 COMMUNICTN I -------------101 101 101 102 102 102 103 103 103 COMMUNCTN II COKHUNCTN II I COMMUNICTN I communictn RAMA 1-2 1-2 T=T 3-4 1-2 1-2 3-4 3-4 05 ITT 00 TT 00 00 02 TT 04 or 03 04 HTHRF HTMRF MTWRF Hiwirr MTWRF MTWR\" MTWRF TTTWr MTWRF Tmnrr MTWRF MTWRF 123 0 Requests 0 REQUESTS PICKER 23 REQUESTS PICKERINS J * TOTAL 30 30 6 6 17 17 23 23 1 1 Y 10 10 13 13 T to TTT ZU REQUESTS 122 nrr PICKESPICKtRIMC J * TOTAL Tir 30 b TT 17 TT 23 1 T nr 10 TT 13 FLINN HCDANl 44 REQUESTS FLINN T xcuznrmr * TOTAL 30 XT 60 13 T 21 10 TT ZZ 23 ZT 43 nr 17 x 15 TT 26 8 17 122 TUT FLINN FLTNN T 42 REQUESTS mcoamiMcwncL n * TOTAL 30 XT bQ 12 20 10 TT 22 22 TT 8 TT 18 Y X 16 TT 26 6 TT 16 S2. 126 TXT 126 SHEHAN S'HtHAN' SHEHAN 7Q REQUESTS SHEHANE M SHgHANg SHEHANE H * TOTAL 30 XT 30 90 10 TT 13 33 13 TT 11 35 Z3 TT 24 69 F b 21 X Y 5 TT 9 25 18 TOIS 43 TIT 126 126 SH5HAN SHEHAN SHEHAN 69 REQUESIS SHSHANg M SHEHANE M SHEHANE M  T3TAL TT 30 30 90 TT 10 12 32 TT 12 11 36 TS zz 23 68 b 1 22 X y Y T 11 9 TT TT 10 14 5T ** NO sections defined ** ** NO ggCTlBHS DLFUJLiJ \u0026gt;* * NO SECTIONS DEFINED ** ** NO SECTIONS DEFINED ** 101 101 101 ORAMA\" 101 101 101 1-2 3-4 06 06 MTWRF MTWRF 126 0 REQUESTS 0 RgQJSSTS 0 REQUESTS 0 REQUESTS SHEHAN 18 RSQiJkSIS SHEHANE m * THTAt 30 TT 3 15 TT 18 TT 12 TT Y 8 T 10 TT 126 SHEHAN 18 REQUESTS SHcHANE M * TOTAL 30 30 3 3 15 15 18 18 12 12 8 3 10 10REF: SCH.560 DATE: 10/15/92 time: 12:15:11 008 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FAIR HIGH SCHOOL COURSE MASTER SCHEDULE PAGE 8 Tnrr CLASS sex MATCH PEftlOO' GROUP sec TERM NAMES DAYS ROOM TEACHEft *iAM sat CAP MALE EHRCitLHENTSEATS AVAIL CLASii fclHNit BALANtfc FEMALE TAKEN SEATS ROLLS 01 02 l\u0026gt; E* eisioi E35103 35251 DRAMA IS DRAMA IS RAMA 11 635253 DRAMA II ** NO SECTIONS DEFINED ** ** NO SECTIONS DEFINED ** * flO SECTIONS DEFINED ** ** NO SeCTIOUS OEFINEO ** 0 REQUESTS 0 REQUESTS 0 REQUESTS : 6 E40Q01 JOURNALISM I 101 101 101 103 103 103 40003 JOURNALISM T 101 101 101 103 103 103 E42001 J0URMAL5M YB 104 104 104 E42003 642501 E42503 F04001 F04003 1-2 1-2 3-4 3-4 1-2 01 04 01 04 05 MTWRF MTWRF MTWRF MTWRF HTHRF 117 117 HOBBS HOBBS 49 REQUESTS HOBBS P  HOBBS P * TOTAL 30 30 60 9 6 17 15 16 31 24 24 48 6 6 12 Y 11 13 24 13 11 24 117 117 HOBBS HOBBS REQUESTS HOBBS P H0B8S P  TOTAL 30 30 60 9 8 17 15 16 31 24 24 48 6 6 12 11 13 24 13 11 24 117 HOBBS 25 REQUESTS HOBBS P * TOTAL 30 30 10 10 15 15 25 25 5 5 16 16 9 9 JOURNALSM YB _______104 104 104 JOURNALSM SP 102 102 lOZ JOURNALSM SP 102 102 102 SPANISH I 106 106 106 3-4 1-2 3-4 1-2 107 107 107 1^2 108 10\u0026amp; 108 109 109 109 110 110 110 111 111 111 SPANISH I 106 106 106 107 107 107 _______108 109 109 1-2 05 03 03 05 03 1-2 1-2 3-4 3-4 3-4 MTWRF HTwRF MTWRF 117 HOBBS 25 REQUESTS HObBS P * TOTAL 30 30 10 10 15 15 25 25 5 5 16 16 9 9 27 zi. 20 a. 27 117 M08SS 23 REQUESTS H038S P * T3TAL 30 30 8 8 14 14 22 22 8 8 'f 7 7 15 15 % 117 H0B3S 23 REQUESTS HOBBS P * TOTAL 30 30 8 8 14 14 22 22 a a Y 1 1 15 15  06 01 05 02 03 MTWRF HTWRF MTWRF MTWRF MTWRF MTWRF MTWRF HTWRF MTWRF 118 118 119 JJJ. 118 118 WAGE WAGE WAGE WAGE WAGE MJOHNS 162 REQUESTS 118 118 118 WAGE WAGE WAGE WAGE M WAGE M WAGE- * WAGE M \u0026lt;\nWAGE M MARY JOHNSON * TOTAL WAGE H WAGE M WAGE M 30 30 30 30 30 30 ISO 14 17 16 9 12 15 83 12 13 13 15 14 12 79 26 30 29 24 26 27 162 Y 30 30 30 15 17 16 12 12 13 27 29 29 1 6 4 3 18 Y Y 9 12 12 8 11 9 61 17 18 17 16 15 18 101 3 1 Y 9 11 12 18 18 17REF\nSCH.560 date\n10/15/92 TIME: 12:15:11 008 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FAIR HIGH SCHOOL COURSE MASTER SCHEDULE PAGE 9 CQOR^?rnrrssto\" class sex PERf^O GROUP SEC TERM NAMES GAYS ROOM TEACHER NAME MAX CAP MALE ENROLLMENT SEATS AVAIL CLASS ETHNIC BALANCE female taken seats rolls 01 02 109 109 109 110 110 110 111 111 111 3-4 3-4 3-4 04 06 01 MTWRP HTWRF MTWRF 118 II8 111 WAGE WAGE MJQHNS 162 REQUESTS WAGE M WAGE M MARY JOHNSON * TOTAL 30 30 30 130 9 12 14 83 16 14 12 79 25 26 26 162 5 4 4 18 9 11 9 16 15 17 loT F05001 F05003 F06001 F06003 F07011 F07013 F08011 F08013 FllOCl SPANISH ri 101 101 101 102 102 102 103 103 103 104 104 104 1-2 1-2 1-2 1-2 01 01 04 05 MTWRF MTWRF MTWRF HTWRF 119 119 119 119 MAGEE MAGEE MAGEE MAGEE 76 REQUESTS MA3EE Q MAGEE S MAGEF 5 MAGEE 8 * TOTAL 34 34 34 30 10 10 11 9 40 17 16 15 8 27 26 26 17 96. 1 8 8 13 Y Y Y 10 8 11 6 16 17 14 10 57 SPANISH II 101 101 101 102 102 102 _______103 in? 103 104 104 104 3-4 3-4 3-4 3-4 01 03 04 05 MTWRF MTWRF MTWRF HTWRF 119 119 119 119 MAGEE MAGEE MACEE MAGEE 96 REQUESTS MAGEE 6 MAGEE 8 MAGEE 6 MAGEE B * TOTAL 34 34 34 30 132 10 10 11 9 40 17 17 14 8 56 27 27 25 17 96 7 7 9 13 36 Y 10 9 10 6 35 16 17 14 10 57 SPANISH III _______105 105 105 106 106 106 SPANISH III 105 105 105 106 106 106 SPANISH IVAP _______101 101 101 SPANISH rVAP 101 101 101 SPANISH V SPANISH V 1-2 1-2 3-4 3-4 i~2 3-4 06 05 06 05 06 06 MTWRF MTWRF MTWRF MTWRF MTWRF MTWRF 119 119 MAGEE MAGEF 11 REQUESTS MAGEE 8 MAGEE S * TOTAL 30 35 65 1 1 9 1 10 10 1 11 20 34 54 Y 3 4 1 7 iS. 7 u. 39 91 u. S 99 SL 97 112. 119 MAGEE MAGEE 11 REQUESTS WA S MAGEE 3 * TOTAL XS. 35 65 1 9 1 1 10 10 1 11 20 54 X 3 1 4 7 ii2. MASEE 10 REQUESTS MAGEE 3 * TOTAL 2^ Z5 X 3 X 5 J. 8 JX 17 X 3 3 5 5 119 MAGEE a REQUESTS MAGEE 3 * TOTAL Z5 25 3 3 5 5 3 8 17 17 Y 3 3 5 X * NQ SECTIONS DEFINED **  NO SECTIONS DEFINEO * FRENCH I 101 101 101 103 103 103 1-2 1-2 02 05 MTWRF MTWRF 116 116 0 REQUESTS 0 REQUESTS FARRAR FARRAR 34 REQUESTS FARRAR E FARRAR E * TOTAL 30 30 60 8 8 16 11 18 19 15 34 11 IS 26 V 9 8 17 9 7 16P.EF: SCH.560 DATE: 10/15/92 TIME: 12:15:11 008 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FAIR TIGH SCHOOL COURSE MASTER SCHEDULE PAGE 10 Luuk^E TITLE' % CLASS sex hailh PfcKlUU GROUP SEC TERM NAMES DATS ROOM TEACHER .'iAME TWC CAP MALE tNHOLLHENT stAl6 avail CLAb:\u0026gt; ETHNIC BALANCE FEMALE TAKEN SEATS ROLLS 01 02 20 21 e F11003 F12001 F1P003 F13001 F13003 F14011 TIAOIST F15C11 F15013 H08001 H08003 106501 mSSTJT 108101 FRENCH I 101 101 101 -------------103 103 1U3 FRENCH II 104 104 104 FRENCH II 104 104 104 FRENCH III 102 102 IJ^ FRENCH III 102 102 102 FRENCH IV AP FRENCH IV AK FRENCH V AP FRENCH V AP PE PE 3-4 1-2 3-4 T=T 3-4 02 W 06 06 03 MTWRF MIWRF MTWRF HTWRF HT'Jft'P MTWRF 116 Trr FARRAR FARRAR 34 REQUESTS FARRAR E FARRAR e * TOTAL 30 Ttr 60 8 16 11 T 13 19 TT 34 11 TT 26 9 T 17 9 -y 16 116 FARRAR 29 RfcflUtSTS FARRAR 6 * U1AL 40 w 15 TT 14 TT 29 W 11 TT 7 y 21 TT 116 FARRAR 29 REQUESTS FARRAR E * TOTAL 40 40 15 15 14 14 29 29 11 11 7 1 21 21 Try FARRAk 16 REQUESTS FARRAR E * TOTAL Tq 30 b 6 10 16 TT 14 y TT 12 116 FARRAR 15 RF3UESTS FARRAR E  r:TAL 30 3 0 6 6 9 V 15 TT 15 TT Y 11 TT 4 V 70 SI SB. SO 91 is. 5B Bfi. S7 4k % ** NO SECTIONS DEFINED * * NU SFCIIdNS OFFIMEP ** ** NO SECTIONS DEFTNED ** ** NO SECTIONS OEFINEO ** 101 101 101 102 102 102 103 103 103 101 101 iur 102 102 102 103 103 103 FOODSCNUTR. FUUUSHNUrR. INO. LTV TNG 1-2 y=y 1-2 06 IFF 06 3-4 06 3-4 06 MTWRF MTWF MTWRF HrWRF HTWRF MTWRF 200 TTCr 200 0 REQUESTS 0 RLUUfcSlS 0 REQUESTS 0 REQUESTS RUTHER RUTHERFOR P OFLAMA iirLAMAR\"t' JOHNSM 74 REQUESTS JOHNSON M A TOTAL 150 40 230 58 nr 68 y 6 4 62 TT 74 88 ZF 40 156 Y y 28 T 34 -y 33 41 20Q 2Q0 RUTHER OeUMA JOHNSM 74 REOUeSTS RUTHl-ftFQR P DtLAMAR C JOHNSON M * TOTAL TST 150 40 340 5F 12 63 V 2 6 W 14 74 9tr 136 40 y^ yr \u0026gt; JF 8 33 ^r ** NO SECTI3NS DEFINED * ** HU SfcCnU^'S OfFINbU * 0 REQUESTS 3 RLUJfcSTS 101 ini HI yy T7T wr c'xmy\n? 28 REQUESTS CALlaUA'Y\" L' * TOTAL TT 30 pT 19 T 9 ?F 23 T 2 y T 8 20 t 4 tREF: SCH.560 date: 10/15/92 TIME: 12:15:11 003 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FAIR HIGH SCHOOL COURSE MASTER SCHEDULE PAGE 11 0 TTTUT CLASS sex MATCH PF.ftlOa GROUP SEC TERM NAMES DAYS ROOM TtACHER -lAH-J HAiT CAP MALE NftOLLHENT SCATS AVAIL CLASS ETHNIC BALANCE FEMALE TAKEN SEATS ROLLS 01 02 2\u0026lt; it 2* 2S *0 0 r* IORIOS 109001 109003 IlOOOl 110003 IND. LIVING 101 101 101 PARENTING RL 101 101 101 PARENTING HL 101 101 101 PARENTING K 101 101 101 102 102 102 103 103 103 104 104 104 105 105 105 106 106 106 107 197 107 108 108 108 PARENTING K 101 101 101 102 102 102 103 103 103 104 104 104 105 105 135 106 106 106 3-4 1-2 3-4 1-2 1-2 1-2 1-2 1-2 1-2 02 06 06 C4 03 01 02 04 05 1-2 06 1-2 06 3-4 04 3-4 3-4 3-4 3-4 3-4 107 107 107 3-4 IOS 108 108 03 01 02 04 05 06 06 MTWRF MTWRF MTWRF MTWRF MTWRF MTWRF MTWRF MTWRF MTWRF MTWRF MTWRF MTWRF MTWRF MTWRF MTWRF MTWRF MTWRF MTWRF MTWRF 144 CALLAW ZirX: quests CALLAWAY 6 TcTal  30 19 9 26 T Y 8 T 20 TIT 144 CALLAW 20 REQUESTS CALLAWAY E * TOTAL 30 30 6 6 14 20 20 10 10 Y 1 19 19 144 CALLAW 20 REQUESTS CALLAWAY E  TOTAL 30 30 6 6 14 14 20 20 10 10 1 19 19 K09041 HON/GT ALGII K09043 HON/CT ALGIT K05011 200 144 105 105 105 105 105 136 DELAMA CALLAW INMAN INMAN INMAN IN'^AN INMAN DECKAR 26 REQUESTS DELAMAR C CALLAWAY E INMAN A INMAN A INMAN A INMAN A INMAN A DECKARD K * TOTAL 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 240 1 2 2 1 2 3 4 3 4 1 2 1 6 5 5 3 5 1 12 14 1 Zb 29 24 25 25 27 25 30 29 214 Y Y Y 1 1 2 1 1 1 7 5 3 4 3 4 19 H. n UL js \u0026gt;0 at. a SB at 97 200 144 105 105 105 105 10? 136 PELAMA QgLAMAR C CALLAW IN^AN INMAM INMAH INMAN INMAN DECKAR 26 REQUESTS CALLAWAY E INMAN A INMAN A INMAN A INMAN A INMAN A DECKARD K * TOTAL 30 30 30 30 30 _20 30 240 2 Z 1 2 3 3 h 1 2 1 6 5 5 3 5 1 12 14 26 29 24 25 25 27 25 30 29 214 Y Y X ** NO SECTIONS OEFINEO ** ** NO SECTIONS OEFINEO ** ALGEBRA I R 102 102 102 103 103 103 104 104 104 105 105 105 106 106 106 107 107 107 108 108 108 109 109 109 1-2 1-2 1-2 1-2 1-2 1-2 1-2 1-2 02 02 04 03 06 01 03 06 MTWRF MTWRF MTWRF MTWRF MTWRF MTWRF MTWRF MTWRF 112 113 113 114 114 112 115 111 0 REQUESTS 0 REQUESTS LOONEY HULLUM KULLUW MCCOVE M. LOONEY HULLUM B HULLUM R MCGOVeRN U MCGOVe MCGOVERN U ENDERL ENOERL ENOERL ENDERLIN E. ENDERLIN E. ENDERLIN E. 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 11 6 14 13 9 10 7 b 12 3 10 9 7 8 17 20 17 23 17 16 19 15 13 10 13 7 13 14 11 15 1 Z 1 5 3 1 1 7 1 5 5 2 4 4 3 4 19 16 16 10 18 12 14 15 11 e. 79 7tref: SCH.560 OATF: 10/15/92 TIME: 12:15:11 000 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FAIR HIGH SCHOOL COURSE MASTER SCHEDULE PAGE 12 G0URS6riTie MATCH CLASS SEX GROUP SEC TERM NAMES 110 110 110 111 Ill 111 112 112 112 113 113 113 114 114 114 1-2 1-2 1-2 1-2 1*2 05 01 02 04 06 K05013 K08501 K08503 K09001 OAYS ROOM TEACHER NAME haT CAP MALE ENROLLMENT SEATS AVAIL CLASS ETHNIC BALANCE n FEMALE TAKEN SEATS ROLLS 01 02 MTWRF MTWRF MTWRF MTWRF MTWRF 110 116 117 108 108 WILDER KHARRI KHARRI KHARRI KHARRI 224 REQUESTS WILDER R HARRISON K. HARRISON K. HARRISON K. HARRISON K. * TOTAL 25 35 35 35 35 13 9 10 10 405 -129_ 9 5 2 7 91 22 14 11 12 17 220 3 21 24 23 18 4 3 6 2 3 13 11 4 10 14 50 169 ALGEBRA I R_______ 102 102 102 103 103 103 _______104 104 104 105 105 105 106 106 106 _______107 107 107 108 108 loe 109 109 109 110 110 110 111 ill 111 112 112 112 _______113 113 113 114 114 114 INT ALGEBRA 101 101 101 102 102 102 103 103 103 3-4 3-4 3-4 3-4 3-4 3-4 i-4 3-4 3-4 3-4 3-4 3-4 3-4 1-2 1-2 1-2 104 104 104 1-2 105 105 105 106 106 106 INT ALGEBRA 101 101 101 102 102 102 _______103 103 103 104 104 104 105 105 105 _______106 106 106 ALGEBRA II ft 101 101 101 _______102 102 102 103 103 103 104 104 104 _______105 105 105 1-2 1-2 3-4 3-4 34 3-4 3-4 02 02 04 03 06 01 03 06 05 01 02 04 06 01 03 06 02 04 05 01 03 06 02 04 3-4 05 1-2 1-2 1-2 1-2 1-2 03 04 01 02 05 MTWRF MTWRF MTWRF MTWRF HTWRF MTWRF MTWRF MTWRF HTWRF MTWRF MTWRF MTWRF MTWRF MTWRF MTWRF MTWRF MTWRF MTWRF MTWRF MTWRF MTWRF MTWRF MTWRF HTWRF HTWRF MTWRF MTWRF MTWRF MTWRF MTWRF 112 113 113 114 114 112 115 111 JAS. 116 117 108 108 LQQMEY RLLtJM H- LOONEY NULLUM 8 HULLUM HULLUM S MCGOVE MCGOVe ENPERL MCGOVERN b MCGOVERN 6 ENDERLIN E, EMOERL EfDERLIN . ENOERL ENOERLIN E. WTLOER W1L3CR R KHARRI KHARRI KHARRI KHARRI 225 RSWESTS HARRISON K. HARRISON K. HARRISON K. HARRISON K. * TOTAL 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 25 35 35 35 35 405 10 8 14 13 7 11 10 7 13 9 7 10 10 129 6 12 3 10 9 10 3 9 5 4 2 7 92 16 20 _AI. 23 16 18 20 15 22 14 11 12 17 221 14 10 -AA 1 14 12 10 15 ___3 21 24 23 18 184 Y Y y Y Y 1 4 7 5 5 2 4 4 4 3 6 2 3 50 15 16 AS. 18 11 16 16 11 18 4 10 14 170 go 29 S 2S 27 u. 2B u. 113 113 113 11^ 114 114 HULLUM HULLUM HULLUM HULLUM 8 HULLUM 8 UULLUH 8 MCGOVE MCGOVERN 0 MCGOVE MCGOVE 143 REQUESTS MCGOVERN 8 MCGOVERN 3 * TOTAL 30 30 30 __ao 30 30 160 13 10 10 AX 19 15 76 12 12 9 12 9 10 64 25 22 19 23 28 25 142 5 8 11 7 2 5 38 Y y Y Y 6 5 7 5 5 4 32 18 17 11 18 22 20 106 113 113 113 114 114 114 HULLUM NULLUM HULLUM MCGOVE MCGOVE HULLUM B HULLUM B HULLUM 3 MCGOVERN 8 MCGOVERN fi 141 REQUESTS MCGOVE MCGOVERN H * TOTAL 30 30 30 30 30 _20 180 13 10 10 11 19 15 78 12 11 10 11 9 10 63 25 21 20 22 28 25 141 5 9 10 8 2 5 39 Y Y Y Y Y 6 4 8 5 5 4 32 18 17 11 17 22 _AS. 105 111 111 110 110 111 BARNHO BARNHOUSe C BARNHO 8ARNHQ.US.e C WILDER WILDER BARNHO in? REQUESTS WILDER R WILDER R 8ARNHQUSe C * toIal 30 30 30 30 30 150 8 12 13 14 13 60 5 7 12 12 8 44 13 19 25 26 21 134 17 11 5 4 9 46 Y Y Y Y 6 7 13 12 10 48 7 12 12 14 11 56 c    nREF: SCH.560 DATE: 10/15/92 TIME: 12:15:11 ooa LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FAIR HIGH SCHOOL COURSE MASTER SCHEDULE PAGE 13 L'JURSt I HLL CLASS SEX 'lAtCN' PtKI MU GROUP sec T?RM NAMES DAYS ROOM TEACH!} MAMc CAP MALE bNKULLHbNt StAIS AVAIL CLASS ETHNIC BALANCE FEMALE TAKEN SEATS ROLLS 01 02 -7\u0026lt; to M 27  2* ao I .0 SI K09003 R09041 K09043 KI KlOOQl K10003 K10C41 K10043 KIOIOI ALGEBRA II R 101 101 101 -------------102 101' IU2 103 103 103 104 104 104 IPS 105 ALC II/HON ALC II HON KNO A.M. 3-4 YY 3-4 03 01 3-4 C2 HTWRF MTWRF MTWRF MTWRF MTWRF 111 TTT 110 110 111 105 REQUESTS BARNHO lARMUO WILDER WILDER barnhD' QARNHOUSE C nARIHnJST WILDER R WiLOCi R 'r-AR'\nH'^'iJSEC * TOTAL 30 30 30 30 150 8 TT 13 14 TT 60 5 12 12 Y 13 19 25 26 YT 104 17 TT 5 Y 46 y Y Y 6 ~r 13 12 TT 48 7 TT 12 14 TT 56 10 9 A* FK3 SeCTfONS OEFINFb * ** NO SECTIONS DEFINEO 101 101 101 1-2 01-03 MTWRF 105 INM, 16 REQUESTS GEOMETRY R T\u0026amp;riynT 102 102 102 103 103 103 104 104 IHA 105 105 105 1-2 1-2 \"T^ 1-2 03 06 TT 05 MTWRF MTWRF MTWRF HTWRF MTWRF TTY 137 112 TTY 112 0 RSQUeSTS INMAN A * TOTAL 35 35 4 12 12 16 16 19 19 1 1 15 15 fe'skoLA 0 ESKOLA LOONEY ESKOLA G M. LOONEY LflfiMey II. LO'.'SCV LOONEY 117 REiUESTS M. LOO MEY * TOTAL YT 30 30 \"YT 30 151 TT 17 8 TT 8 bO TT 11 12 TT 12 58 2T 28 20 ZT 20 118 T 2 10 \"Y 10 33 T T TY 11 6 \"Y 7 47 TT 16 14 TT 12 68 21 22 21 26 26 21 2S 22. 21 S7 GFOMETRY R -------------101 101 101 102 102 102 103 103 103 104 104 104 105 105 105 GEOMETRY GT 101 ici 101 102 102 102 GEOMETRY GT 101 101 101 102 102 102 GEOMf-TRY CPT 101 101 ini 102 102 102 T=T 3-4 3-4 3-4 1-2 3-4 1-2 GT 03 04 06 05 01 05  1 05 TIT 05 MJWKF MTWRF MTWRF MTWRF MTWRF nwKF MTWRF MTWRF HTWRF MTWRF MTWRF TJT 137 112 112 112 eSRULA ESKOLA LOONEY LGHNEY LOONEY 113 REOUeSTS tSKULA G FSKOLA G L3'.M5Y 1. LOS^EY M. LOONEY * TOTAL YIT 30 30 31 30 151 TY n 8 12 9 60 TT 11 12 TT 12 58 29 20 2Y 21 118 T Z 10 \"Y 9 33 Y y Y TT 11 6 TT 3 47 TT 16 14 TT 12 68 137 137 ESKOLA ESKOLA 47 RC1J6STS ESKOLA G ESKOLA G * TOTAL 30 30 60 10 11 21 13 13 26 23 24 7 6 13 15 15 30 7 8 15 137 137 ESKjjLA ESKOLA 4 7 RC-qUESTS eskuLa 'g ESKOLA G * TjTAL 30 30 60 10 11 21 13 13 26 23 24 47 Y b 13 Y Y TT 15 30 Y 8 15 SI a 61 BS SO TT7T 113 ENOERL ?4 REQUESTS e. ENDERLIN E. * TOTAL TT 30 60 Y 5 14 Y 3 10 TT 8 24 TY 22 36 Y T 3 b TT 5 18 71 72 73REF: SCH.560 date: 10/15/92 TIME: 12:15:11 008 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FAIR HIGH SCHOOL COURSE MASTER SCHEDULE PAGE 14 \u0026gt;7 COURSErnrr CLASS sex HATCH PERIOD GROUP sec TERM NAMES OAYS ROOM TEACHER NAME TOT CAP MALE EHROLLHENT SEATS AVAIL CLASS ETHNIC BALANCE FEMALE TAKEN SEATS ROLLS 01 SI 02 K10103 KllOOl K11003 K11041 K11043 GEOMETRY CPT 101 101 101 04 102 102 102S-4 '03 TRIG/ADV ALG 101 101 101 102 102 102 TP.IG/AOV ALG _______101 101 101 102 102 102 AD/HON trig _______101 101 101 AD/HQN TRIG 101 101 101 K13011 CALCULUS AAP 101 101 101 K13Q13 K13511 K135I3 K2 1-2 1-2 3-4 3-4 3-4 1-2 CALCULUS AAP 101 101 101 CALCULUS BAP 101 101 101 CALCULUS BAP 101 101 101 KND. P.M. 102 10? 102 3-4 1-2 3-4 3-4 01 02 01 02 03 03 03 03 03 03 04-06 MTWRF HTWRF MTWRF MTWRF MTWRF MTWRF HTHRF HTWRF MTWRF MTWRF MTWRF MTWRF MTWRF 110 TTT\" ENOERL REQUESTS 111 TIT ENOERLIN E. ^NflgRL...g.  TOTAL 30 TT 60 9 F 14 7 \"T 10 16 T 24 14 TT 36 Y T 3 T 6 13 13 EARNHO BARNHOUSE C 50 REQUESTS BARNHO ?ARNHOUSE C * TOTAL 30 W bQ 11 14 25 9 TF 24 20 \u0026lt;^9 10 T 11 Y 10 TT 22 10 TT 27 IS * 111 111 BARNHO BARNHOUSE C 50 REQUESTS BARNHO 3ARNHOUSE C * TOTAL 3^ so 11 14 25 10 14 24 21 28 ^9 9 2 11 Y Y 10 TT 21 11 TT 27 112 LOONEY 21 REQUESTS M. LODNL\u0026lt; * TOTAL 30 30 12 12 9 9 21 21 9 9 Y 11 H 10 10 37 u. 29 31 22. 33 112 LOONEY 21 REQUESTS M. LOONEY * TOTAL 30 30 10 10 6 6 16 16 14 14 9 9 7 1 SB 2a. 37 A C 110 WILDER 14 REQUESTS WILDER R * TOTAL 30 30 5 5 9 9 14 14 16 16 Y 9 9 4 14 REQUESTS wiLstn HiLoeS-R- * TOTAL 30 5 9 9 14 14 16 16 y 9 9 4 4 S3 S4 ss  110 WILDER 0 REQUESTS WILDER R  TOTAL 30 30 30 30 Y 110 WILDER 0 REQUESTS WILDER R  TOTAL 30 30 30 30 Y 105 INMAN 16 REQUESTS INMAN A *'TnTCL 35 3T 4 4 12 IT 16 TT 19 TT 1 T 15 T?\"REF: SCH.560 ATE: 10/15/92 TIME: 12:15:11 000 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FAIR HIGH SCHOOL COURSE MASTER SCHEDULE PAGE 15 I* to 21 7 to it 7 22 to COURsS TITLE CLASS SEX LUNCHl L21001 L21003 MATCH PERXOO GROUP SEC TERM NAMES LUNCH 1 FANO III BAND III L22661iiee SaHo L22003 L24001 L24003 L29001 L29003 L310Q1 L31003 L33001 3EG BAVD DAYS ROOM TEACHER NAME MAX CAP MALE ENROLLMENT SEATS AVAIL CLASS ETHNIC BALANCE FEMALE TAKEN SEATS ROLLS 01 02 ** NO SECTIONS OEFINEO * ** NO SECTIONS DEFINED ** ** NO SECTIONS DEFINED * * NO SECTIONS DEflNETT** ** NO SECTIONS OEFTNEO ** FIRST BAND 105 105 105 FIRST BAND_________ 105 105 105 MADRIGALS _______101 101 101 MADRIGALS 101 101 101 CHOIR III 101 101 101 CHOIR ITI _______101 IQl 101 CHOIR I 101 101 101 L33Q03 CHOIR 1_____________ 101 101 101 M04C21 BIOLOGY _______101 101 101 102 102 lOZ 103 103 103 104 104 104 1-2 3-4 1-2 3-4 1-2 3-4 1-2 1-2 1-2 1-2 1-2 01 01 02 02 01 01 04 04 04 02 01 06 MTWRF MTWRF MTWRF MTWRF MTWRF MTWRF MTWRF MTWRF MTWRF MTWRF MTWRF 1 34 0 REQUESTS 0 REQUESTS 0 REQUESTS 0 REQUESTS 0 REQUESTS JONESA 23 REQUESTS JONESA * TOTAL 60 60 13 13 9 9 22 22 38 38 5 5 17 134 JONESA 23 REQUESTS JONESA * TOTAL 60 60 13 13 9 9 22 22 38 38 5 5 17 17 136 15 REQUESTS DECKAR DECKARD K * TOTAL Jfi. 30 4 4 JLl 11 15 15 15 15 Y 10 10 5 5 136 DECKAR 15 REQUESTS OECKARO K * total -- 30 4 4 11 Ji 15 15. 15 25. 10 5 5 136 OECKAR 35 REQUESTS OECKARO K * TOTAL 45 45 15 15 21 21 36 36 9 9 Y 8 8 28 28 to 21 27 U. 22 90 12. 39 8. Sfi. 92 40 41 136 OECKAR 36 REQUESTS DECKARD K  TOTAL 45 45 15 15 21 21 36 36 9 9 8 8 28 28 136 OECKAR 16 REQUESTS OECKARO K * TOTAL 30 30 1 1 15 15 16 16 14 14 5 5 11 11 136 OFCKAR 16 REQUFSTS OECKARO K * TOTAL 30 30 1 15 15 16 16 14 14 Y 5 5 11 11 131 131 129 129 BAILEY PAILEY CHRIST CHRIST BAILEY M BAILEY M CHRISTENS R CHRISTENS R 30 30 30 30 16 10 13 14 11 9 12 8 27 19 25 22 3 11 5 8 Y 7 2 1 6 19 16 18 1620 31 3? REF: SCH.560 DATE: 10/15/92 TIME: 12:15:11 COURSE TITLE CLASS SEX .M04023 M05001 HO5OO3 M05121 008 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FAIR HIGH SCHOOL COURSE MASTER SCHEDULE PAGE 16 TTTrmr HfcHIUU GROUP SEC TERM NAMES 16^ 105 IOS\" 106 106 106 107 107 107 108 1U8 iO'J 109 109 109 110 110 110 111 111 111 112 112 112 113 113 113 114 114 114 BIOLOGY 101 101 101 -------------102 10? iUZ 103 103 103 104 104 104 -------------105 TOTTYT 106 106 106 107 107 107 * * OATS ROOM reACHER NAME CAP MALE LNKULLNbNI SkAIS AVAIL CLASS E1HN1C BALANCE FEMALE TAKEN SEATS ROLLS 01 02 1-2 1-2 1-2 \"r=Y 1-2 1-2 1-2 1-2 1-2 qT 04 05 YT 02 03 04 05 06 T=2SF MTWRF MTWRF MTWRF YTWF MTWRF MTWRF MTWRF MTWRF MTWRF HTWRF 129 129 129 TW 130 130 130 128 128 TJT CHRIST christens H CHRIST CHRIST JliNNlN JENNIN JENNIN .jr-.NNIN LOGAN LOGAN OAIL\u0026amp;V 301 REQUESTS CHRISTENS R CHRISTENS R JENNINGS C JENNINGS C JENNINGS C JcTunk^Gsc' LOGAN V LOGAN V sATtrv H * TOTAL To\" 30 30 YF 30 30 30 30 30 YT ^20 11 15 TY 13 9 TT 6 14 TY 173 ------5- 10 8 TY 7 10 9 5 TY 127 TY 25 19 TT 20 19 TT 15 19 TY 300 TY 5 11 r 10 11 T 15 11 Y 120 Y y Y Y y T 8 b lOfl 103 108 109 109 109 110 110 110 111 111 ill 112 112 112 113 113 113 114 114 rrg CHEMISTRY 102 102 102 -------------lOJ 103 lOJ 104 104 104 105 105 iOS CHEMISTRY------------------ 102 102 102 103 103 103 104 104 104 105 105 105 CHEMISTRY AP 101 101 101 Y y a 4 T 2 5 Y 83 TT 17 13 ZZ 12 15 IT 13 14 TY 214 ss. 3-4 T=Y 3-4 3-4 -3Z5- 3-4 3-4 3-4 3-4 3-4 3-4 3-4 TY 1-2 T=T 1-2 1-2 3-4 3-4 3-4 3-4 TYT 04 YT 01 06 YT 04 05 02 03 04 05 06 W 03 OY 06 05 03 04 06 05 TTT MTWRF HJWHF MTWRF MTWRF MTkftF MTWRF MTWRF RTWir MTWRF MTWRF HTWRF MTWRF MTWRF MIWHF MTWRF MIURF MTWRF MTWRF MTWRF HTWRF MTWRF MTWRF MTvJRF 131 TTT 129 129 T?Y 129 129 T3Y 130 130 130 128 128 TTT BAILEY TA ILEY BAILEY M SAItEY H CHRIST CHRISTENS R CHRIST CHRISTENS R TkTYT CHRIST CHRIST JENNIN JENNIN JENNIN LOGAN LOGAN BAILtV 302 REQUESTS CHRISTENS R CHRISTENS R CHRISTENS R JCNNINY5 r\" JENNINGS C JENNINGS C J( c LOGAN V LOGAN V UAlLbY H-------- * TOTAL 30 TY 30 30 TY 30 30 TY 30 30 30 30 30 \"TY 420 17 TT 13 14 9\" 15 11 TY 13 9 14 6 13 TY 174 11 ----- 12 8 ------Y 10 8 TY 6 10 Y 9 125 28 ZT 25 22 TY 25 19 ~ZF 19 19 jy 15 17 ~ZT 299 2 T 5 8 TY 5 11 T 11 11 T 15 13 T 121 T Y Y Y y Y T 127 TTT 127 127 VERTIN VERTINO fi, VERTTMVbRIlNU H VERTIN VERTIN 34 REQUESTS VERTINO A VERTINO A  TOTAL 30 YTT 30 30 TIo 9 Y 8 TT 11 TY 17 6 48 20 TT 26 14 TT 10 T 4 16 TT T Y 127 127 127 127 VERTIN VERTING A VERTIN VERTtN VERTIN 84 REQUESTS VERTINO A VLRTIf.'O A VERTINO A  TOTAL 30 30 30 30 120 9 9 9 6 35 11 14 TT 6 43 20 23 IF 14 83 10 7 16 37 Y Trr 17 REQUESTS VcRTIH ThRTPinr * TOTAL TT 30 4 TV 13 TT n TT 13 Y 3 Y 7 6 T 9 6 7 5 T 2 3 T 84 11 Y 15 6 YY 11 a 6 40 Y 8 19 rr 18 16 r 16 13 Z1 12 14 TT 13 14 TY 212 9 TT 11 6 YT 9 15 TT 6 41 Y 9 * 27 Zfi. 2 SB afi. ST % 4 \u0026lt; cref: SCH.560 DATE: 10/15/92 time: 12:15:11 003 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FAIR HIGH SCHOOL COURSE MASTER SCHEDULE PAGE 17 \u0026gt;.] COURSETTTCT CLASS sex MATCH RERfOft G^OUP SEC TERM MAMES DAYS ROO** teacher name RaXENROtLHeNTSEATS AVAIL CLASS ETHNIC BALANCE CAP HALE FEMALE TAKEN SEATS ROLLS 01 02  M05123 CHEMISTRY AP 101 101 101 3-4 01 MTWRF 127 VERTIN 17 RfiQU5T5 VERTINO A 30 tt 4 13 TT 17 TT 13 TT 8 'W 9 T 10 to M06001 IS PHYSICS 103 103 103 104 104 104 1-2 1-2 05 C3 MTWRF MTWRF 131 131 BAILEY 3AILEY 33 REQUESTS PAILEY M SAILEY M TOTAL 30 30 60 8 16 24 5 9 12 21 33 18 9 27 Y 7 5 12 5 16 21 M06003 PHYSICS 103 103 103 104 104 104 3-4 3-4 05 03 MTWRF MTWRF 131 131 3AILEY BAILEY 33 REOUE'STS BAILEY M BAILEY M TOTAL 30 30 60 8 16 24 4 5 9 12 21 TT 18 9 27 7 5 TT 5 16 TT M0Q501 SCIENCE/TECH 101 101 101 10? 102 102 103 103 103 104 104 104 1-2 1-2 1-2 1-2 02 03 04 05 MTWRF MTWRF MTWRF MTWRF 133 133 133 133 MOREY MOREY MOREY MOREY 101 REQUESTS MOREY D MOREY D MOREY 0 MOREY 0 * TOTAL 30 30 30 30\nThis project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resoources.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1056","title":"\"Little Rock School District Compass Learning Evaluation,\" Center for Research in Education Policy, University of Memphis, Memphis, Tennessee (final report for review)","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["2005-12"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--21st Century","Little Rock School District","University of Memphis. Center for Research in Educational Policy","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Educational statistics","School improvement programs","Student assistance programs"],"dcterms_title":["\"Little Rock School District Compass Learning Evaluation,\" Center for Research in Education Policy, University of Memphis, Memphis, Tennessee (final report for review)"],"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/1056"],"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":["reports"],"dcterms_extent":["61 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\nThis transcript was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.\nCREP Cl!ntu for Ral!orcl, in duc11/lonol Polic)' RECEIVED JAN 5 2006 OFACEOF DESEGREGATION MONITORING slearning DRAFT REPORT FOR REVIEW BY Little Rock School District CREP Cenlu for Research in Educutional Policy t oc s  tri t Co Le .. s n ng  10n Fina eport DRAFT REPORT FOR REVIEW BY Little Rock School District De ember 2005 Dubor\n_ l owther St~vc1 1 Ro rrey Martind le l t I tt Rock EXECUTIVE SUMMARY INTRODUCTION This report summarizes the evaluation study results of the Little Rock School District's {LSRD) 2004-2005 CompassLearning (CL) program. The overall purpose of the evaluation was threefold: (1) to assess the effects of CL in raising the academic achievement of African American and other students, (2) to examine CL implementation processes and practices, and (3) to document the perceptions of students, teachers, principals, and district and school personnel involved with CL regarding the strengths, weaknesses, and needed improvements of the CL program. RESEARCH QUESTIONS Primary Evaluation Question 1. What are the effects of participation in CL on the achievement of African American and other students? Supplemental (Step 2) Evaluation Questions 1. What is the quality, nature, and level of implementation of CL at the 19 elementary schools identified as implementing the program in 2004-05? 2. What is the level of participation in CL by African American students relative to other ethnic groups at the implementing schools? 3. What are the perceptions of teachers, lab attendants, and technology specialists regarding CL program implementation, impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? 4. What are the perceptions of parents/guardians of CL students regarding program impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? 5. What are the perceptions of school principals, whose schools no longer use CL, with regard to past use of the CL program and possible adoption of a different program? DESIGN Participants. The LSRD identified 20 elementary schools, two middle schools, and one high school to participate in the spring 2005 evaluation. Collectively the schools enrolled 9,318 students and employed 606 classroom teachers. Over 68% of the overall student enrollment of the selected schools was African American. The CL program was provided to kindergarten through fifth grade students in 19 elementary schools. The students spent 30- to 60-minutes per week working on CL activities that occurred either in computer labs that typically had a lab attendant and classroom teacher present or in the students' regular classrooms. The lab attendants, technology specialists, and/or teachers planned student CL activities that were primarily focused on identified areas of student deficiencies in language arts/reading and/or math. Design. The evaluation utilized a mixed-method design. Both quantitative and qualitative data were collected from the participating schools by trained external researchers. The researchers observed CL computer labs, administered surveys to teachers and parents, conducted student focus groups, and interviewed school principals, lab attendants, technology specialists, district personnel and CL personnel. INSTRUMENTATION Five measurement strategies were used to collect the evaluation data: direct classroom observations, surveys, interviews, focus groups, and assessment of student academic achievement. Following are descriptions of the instruments. Classroom Observation Measure  Direct classroom observation. The Survey of Computer Use for Compasslearning (SC UCL) was used to record teacher and student activities during the use CL in school computer labs during two-hour observation periods. Teacher and Parent Survey  Teacher survey. The Teacher Compasslearning Questionnaire (TCLQ) is a two-part instrument that was used to collect teacher knowledge and perceptions of CL.  Parent survey. The LSRD Compasslearning Parent Survey was designed to capture parent perceptions regarding their child's use of the CL program. Student Focus Groups  The Student Focus Group Protocol was used to document student impressions of the nature of CL activities\nthe usefulness of CL\nand student enjoyment when using CL. Interviews Five interview protocols were developed for the evaluation.  The lab attendant, technology specialist, and district (CL) personnel interviews focused on the same general areas: CL responsibilities, level, nature, and quality of CL implementation, support for the CL program, the strongest and weakest aspects of CL, and if the program should be continued. The primary purpose of the national CL representative interview was to determine Cl's guidelines for effective implementation of the CL Program.  The principal interview was for principals that had previously used the CL program in their schools. The interview focused on past use of CL, why it was discontinued, and if the school was using a different integrated learning system, and if yes, why that program was chosen. Student Achievement Analyses of student achievement on the Development Readiness Assessment (ORA), Iowa Tests of Basic Skills, (ITBS), and the Arkansas Benchmark tests were conducted to address the following research questions:  What are the effects of the Compass Learning program on student achievement in Reading and Mathematics?  Is the program effective in meeting the academic needs of African American students?  How does the achievement of African American students compare to that of other students in the same or similar schools? 2 PROCEDURE All data were collected in the spring of 2005 by external researchers. Direct observations of CL classrooms were conducted during prearranged two hour sessions at 7 randomly selected elementary schools. The SCU-CL note forms were completed every 15 minutes during the two-hour period. External researchers conducted 20-minute student focus groups at four schools that were randomly selected from the seven schools being observed. The teacher surveys (TCLQ) were administered at a faculty meeting at each of 19 elementary schools, while the parent surveys were distributed at 5 randomly selected elementary schools by having one class from each grade at the school send surveys to the parents. Surveys were returned to the school and sent to evaluators. Researchers individually interviewed lab attendants at each of the 7 randomly selected schools and conducted 45- to 60-minute phone interviews with all CL technology specialists. The researchers also interviewed two district level personnel with responsibility for the CL program\na national CL representative\nand 4 school principals from schools that no longer used CL. Each interview lasted approximately sixty minutes. Student Achievement Analysis Procedure The elementary school sample used in the student achievement analysis included a total of 7,853 LRPS students in first grade (n = 2,016), second grade (n = 1984 ), third grade (n = 1904) or fifth grade (n = 1,949) during the 2004-'05 school year. Kindergarten and fourth grade were excluded because these grades lacked corresponding 2003-04 data to be used as a \"pretest\" (statistical covariate). All 34 LRSD elementary schools were included in the analysis. The Developmental Reading Assessment (DRA) was administered in grades K-2 in 2003-04 and 2004-05, and the Iowa Test of Basic Skills (ITBS) was administered in grades K-5 in 2004-05. The ITBS provides normal curve equivalent (NCE) scores in Reading and Mathematics. The Arkansas Benchmark test was administered in grade 4 in 2003-04, and in grades 3-5 in 2004-05. However, scale scores from the 2004-05 Arkansas Benchmark test were not available as of December 2005. RESULTS The results of the study are presented below, grouped by measurement strategy. In the conclusion section, findings are synthesized across instruments in order to address each research question. Classroom Observation Results Data from the Survey of Computer Use for Compasslearning (SCU-CL) reveled that the 19 observed CL classes were implemented in computer labs in which each student used a modern, upto- date computer. All African American and non-African American students in the classes participated equally and exhibited a high level of attention and interest in the CL activities. All observed classrooms had a high level of academically focused class time in which students were typically engaged in CL activities for language arts, mathematics, or reading. Survey Results Teacher Compasslearning Questionnaire (TCLQ) A total of 356 teachers (Caucasian= 63.2%\nAfrican American= 32.6%) working at schools implementing CL completed the TCLQ. Nearly all of the teachers reported familiarity with CL and over 60% indicated that they had received enough training to address student needs through the use of CL resources. More than one-half of the teachers indicated that they frequently used Cl's class by 3 ethnicity and class by gender reports. There was general agreement that teachers, administrators, and parents supported the continued use of CL. The primary reasons given for the continuation of CL were that the program reinforces the curriculum\nenhances student learning and skills\nand increases student engagement and excitement in learning. LRSD CompassLearning Parent Survey (Parent Survey) A total of 451 parents/guardians of primarily African American students completed the Parent Survey. Parental awareness of CL was high and most agreed that time in the computer lab was an important aspect of their child's education, had improved their child's interest in school, and had improved their child's academic achievement. Approximately one-third of the parents wrote a response when asked to describe the \"best thing\" about their child or children using CUthe computer lab. The most common responses were learning how to use computers and acquiring new learning skills. Less than one in five parents/guardians indicated that the best aspect was improvement of math and reading skills. Of the parents who provided recommended changes for CL, most indicated that their child or children needed more computer time. Student Focus Group A total of 23 fifth-grade students from four randomly selected schools participated in the focus groups, which lasted approximately 20-minutes. Student experience with CL ranged from less than one year to six years, with 43% indicating they had used CL since pre-kindergarten or kindergarten. The students reported that they primarily completed CL activities in language arts, mathematics, and reading in both computer labs and their classrooms. Of the 23 students, 10 wanted to spend more time using CL, 6 indicated the CL time was appropriate, and 2 students responded that they spent too much time in the CL lab. When asked how they would change the CL activities, the most common responses were to make the activities more fun or game-like and to add Internet access. Nearly all students thought they did better in school because CL helped them remember what they learned in class. Students indicated that the disadvantages to using CL were that sometimes the activity problems were too hard or that some were too easy or boring. All of the students responded that they would like to continue using CL. Interview Results Interview responses from the lab attendants, technology specialist, LRSD personnel, CL national representative, and principals who used CL in the past are synthesized in the summary below. Lab Attendant, Technology Specialist, District Personnel The lab attendants, technology specialists, and district (CL) personnel revealed common agreement that there was a high level of teacher support for the CL program, that the CL program was well matched to LRSD curriculum standards, and that the program has been implemented well. Interview responses indicated that the primary users of CL were students in grades K through 5 who used CL from one to five days per week. Equitable student access and appropriate implementation of CL was ensured from close monitoring by the lab attendants, technology specialists, and principals. Respondents also indicated that the teachers were regularly provided CL reports on student progress and that the teachers actively used the reports to plan student CL activities. School administrators most frequently used the CL data for year-end reports. There was unanimous agreement that the CL program should be continued due to its positive effects on student academic achievement. However, the respondents suggested that CL implementation would be improved if district guidelines were created, supervision of CL was increased, and other remediation options explored. 4 National CL Representative To obtain background regarding the CL program, an interview was conducted with a CL national representative. The responses are divided into guidelines for students, teachers, and administrators. Students. With regard to student use of CL, or time-on-task, the recommended guidelines are that students in grades 3 through 12 should spend from 60- to 90-minutes per week completing 4 to 5 new activities per content area. For students in grades K through 2, the recommended time for computer activities is 60-minutes per week per content area. Student activities should be focused on the subject that needs the most improvement. Teachers and administrators. The representative recommended that teachers should be actively involved in using the CL reports to evaluate the progress of individual students. The teachers should review student reports every two weeks in order to align classroom instruction to identified needs, plan off-line (non-CL) remediation, and adjust CL activities to address areas of non-mastery. A monthly review of CL class-by-class reports by school principals to identify any areas of need is also recommended . The CL representative indicated that teachers and administrators, who implement these \"best practices\" strategies, would be provided with formative evaluation data to help map student progress and plan needed interventions. However, the CL representative indicated that most schools do not achieve this level of implementation. School Principals The principals from four LRSD schools (1 elementary, 2 middle, 1 high) who no longer used CompassLearning were interviewed. The principals reported the primary reasons for not continuing with CL were related to technical (server and/or system) problems. Other reasons for the discontinuation of CL were insufficient Title 1 funds to fully support CL, teacher complaints that aligning lessons with CL took too much time, and the program had too many technical problems. Three principals indicated that their school had adopted different integrated learning systems (ILS). Principal impressions of the new programs were positive indicating that fewer problems were occurring and teachers were more accepting of the new systems. The fourth principal reported that a technology integration approach was being implemented rather than using an ILS. Student Achievement Results Across all grades, subjects, and achievement measures, a total of 14 separate analyses (8 Reading\n6 Math) examining treatment x School Set effects were conducted. Of these, 4 (50%) in Reading and 3 (50%) in Math showed no significant treatment main effects or interactions. Where significant effects did occur in Reading, two were main effects, respectively, showing comparison group advantages over Compass in Grade 1-ITBS (ES= -.25) and Grade 7-ITBS (ES= -0.21). The other two effects were interactions, one showing a Compass advantage within the low-poverty School Set (ES = +0.41) in Grade 1-DRA, and the other showing a comparison group advantage within the medium-poverty School Set (ES = -0.26) in Grade 2-ITBS. Significant effects in Math were associated with three interactions, showing Compass advantages in low-poverty schools in Grade 2-ITBS (ES= +0.26) and Grade 3-ITBS (ES= +0.26), and in high-poverty schools in Grade 5-ITBS (ES = +0.10). Comparison schools showed an advantage in medium-poverty schools in Grade 5-ITBS (ES = -0.15). Overall, Compass learning effects were inconsistent but positive in direction in Mathematics. Benefits were more frequent in lowpoverty than high-poverty schools. 5 CONCLUSIONS The conclusions of the present study are presented in association with each of the major research questions in the respective sections below. Primary Evaluation Question What are the effects of participation in CL on the achievement of African American and other students? Taken as a whole, the evidence provided by this study suggests that usage of Compass Learning was not associated with noticeable achievement gains in Reading or Math for the overall sample of students or for African American students in particular. Median effect size, across all analysis, indicate a weak positive effect pf Compass in the low poverty setting but essentially zero effects in medium and high-poverty settings. Supplemental (Step 2) Evaluation Questions What is the quality, nature, and level of implementation of CL at the 19 elementary schools identified as implementing the program in 2004-05? The observation data indicated that CL was implemented in well-equipped, well-supervised computer labs that provided one computer for each student. All students in each class participated equally and were highly engaged and attentive to the CL activities. The interview results indicated teachers more frequently based instructional decisions on class-level performance rather than Cl's recommended strategy of using student-level performance to achieve individualized instruction. With regard to the level of implementation, most students' scheduled time for CL activities fell below program recommendations of 60-minutes per content area per week. Thus, the quality, nature, and level of implementation was generally effective with regard to computer lab environments and student engagement during CL use, but was inconsistent with regard to the degree to which student CL activities were individualized and the amount of scheduled CL time. What is the level of participation in CL by African American students relative to other ethnic groups at the implementing schools? The Compasslearning program was implemented in 19 LRSD Title 1 schools comprised of student populations that were 67.9% African American. Triangulation of data from multiple sources indicate that African American and non-African American students fully and equally participated in CL program activities at their schools. Specifically, data from direct classroom observations of 327 students in CL computer labs revealed that all of the 277 African American and 50 non-African American students were highly engaged in the use of CL in a well-supported environment. When lab attendants and technology specialists were asked which students used CL, the responses indicated a// students within the specified grade ranges regularly participated in CL classroom and lab activities. The district personnel involved with CL reported that CL is implemented in schools with the highest level of student need, or Title 1 Schools. What are the perceptions of teachers, lab attendants, and technology specialists regarding CL program implementation, impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? There was common agreement across the teachers, lab attendants, and technology specialists that the CL program was generally implemented well and that the teachers and administrators supported the use of CL in their schools. The interviewees from each group cited program flexibility to meet individual student needs as one of the strongest aspects of CL. When asked about the weaknesses of the CL program, respondents from the three groups expressed concern that aspects of the CL software were difficult for students to use\nstudents needed more computer time to benefit from the remediation, and the CL program lacked sufficient mapping to the curriculum. There was 6 unanimous agreement that the CL program should be continued due to its positive impact on student learning. What are the perceptions of parents/guardians of CL students regarding program impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? Most parents responded that they were aware of CL and believed that the program was an important part of their child or children's education. However, there was less agreement that CL increased student interest in school or that CL improved achievement in math and reading. Most parents seemed to think that their children were going to the computer lab to learn about computers, rather than to improve math and reading skills. When parents were asked about changes they would like to see in CUcomputer lab program, half wanted more computer time for their children to improve students' computer skills. The parents who suggested more variety in CL lessons seemed to have a better grasp of Cl's purpose. Overall, parents were supportive of their child/children using computers, but they were generally unaware of the overall instructional purpose of students using the CL program. What are the perceptions of school principals, whose schools no longer use CL, with regard to past use of the CL program and possible adoption of a different program? Of the four principals who discontinued use of CL, three were generally positive regarding its past use. One of the principals, however, was less positive due to teacher dislike of the program. This principal indicated that teachers thought it took too much time to align CL activities with their classroom lesson plans, that there were too many technical problems, and the teachers did not enjoy monitoring the CL computer lab. Three of the four principals adopted different integrated learning systems (ILSs), while one chose to implement a non-lLS computer integration model. The principals that adopted new programs indicated that fewer technical problems had occurred and teachers were more accepting of the new systems. These results suggest that although these principals had discontinued use of CL, they had a generally positive regard for the use of technology to improve student learning in schools with a predominately African American population. 7 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT COMPASSLEARNING EVALUATION FINAL REPORT This report summarizes the evaluation study results of the Little Rock School District's {LSRD) 2004-2005 CompassLearning (CL) program. The overall purpose of the evaluation was threefold (1) to assess the effects of CL in raising the academic achievement of African American and other students, (2) to examine CL implementation processes and practices, and (3) to document the perceptions of students, teachers, principals, and district and school personnel involved with CL regarding the strengths, weaknesses, and needed improvements of the CL program. CL is a computer-based program designed to develop students' skills in reading, writing, and spelling. The program also assists and supports teachers with the management of student performance and allows instruction to be personalized to meet student needs. The lessons are designed around themes that incorporate cross-curricular student activities that are based on \"realworld\" contexts. In the 2004-05 school year, 19 LRSD elementary schools utilized CL programs, while 1 elementary school, 2 middle schools and 1 high school discontinued the program after using it in previous years. The LRSD schools that implemented the CL program were provided technology specialists and lab attendants to assist classroom teachers with integrating the CL lessons into their curriculum and to assist with technology-related concerns. EVALUATION QUESTIONS The CL evaluation was structured around one over-arching, primary question concerning the impact of CL on student achievement, and five supplemental (Step 2) questions that addressed contextual factors related to implementation of the CL program. 8 Primary Evaluation Question 1. What are the effects of participation in CL on the achievement of African American and other students? Supplemental (Step 2) Evaluation Questions 1. What are the quality, nature, and level of implementation of CL at the 19 elementary schools identified as implementing the program in 2004-05? 2. What is the level of participation in CL by African American students relative to other ethnic groups at the implementing schools? 3. What are the perceptions of teachers, lab attendants, and technology specialists regarding CL program implementation, impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? 4. What are the perceptions of parents/guardians of CL students regarding program impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? 5. What are the perceptions of school principals, whose schools no longer use CL, with regard to past use of the CL program and possible adoption of a different program? EVALUATION DESIGN AND MEASURES Participants The Little Rock School District identified 20 elementary schools, two middle schools, and one high school to participate in the spring 2005 evaluation. Collectively the schools had an enrollment of 9,318 students and employed 606 classroom teachers. The percentage of enrollment of African American students ranged from a low of 20% to a high of 100%. The overall percentage of the schools' African American population was 68.4% (see Appendix A). The majority of participating schools were either pre-kindergarten through fifth grade or kindergarten through fifth grade. Specific distribution of schools by grade level is shown in Table 1. Table 1. Schools Participating in the Compasslearning Evaluation by Grade Level Grade Levels PreK-5 K-5 6,7,8 9 thru 12 Number of Schools 15 5 2 9 The 19 schools that actively implemented the CL program during 2004-2005 all served prekindergarten or kindergarten through fifth grade students. Of those, 13 schools (72.2%) implemented CL to all students in grades K-5, two schools (11.1 %) provided CL to all students in grades 1 through 5, while the grade levels of students using CL varied at the 3 three remaining schools (see Appendix 8). Although, the amount of weekly CL computer lab time for students ranged from 30- to 60-minutes across the schools, the schedule for majority of the students (grades K-2 = 78.9%\ngrades 3-5 = 73.6%) consisted of less than 60 minutes per week (see Appendix 8). Student CL activities occurred either in computer labs that typically had a lab attendant and classroom teacher present or in the students' regular classrooms. The lab attendants, technology specialists, and/or teachers planned student CL activities that were primarily focused on identified areas of student deficiencies in language arts/reading and/or math. Design The evaluation, which utilized a mixed-method design, was conducted during the spring of 2005. Both quantitative and qualitative data were collected from the participating schools by trained external researchers (e.g., university faculty and staff). The researchers observed computer labs, administered surveys to teachers and parents, conducted student focus groups, and interviewed school principals, lab attendants, technology specialists, district personnel and CompassLearning personnel. A description of the evaluation instruments and a summary table of the participants and data sources, presented with associated research questions, are in Table 2. 10 Table 2. Summary of Instruments, Participants, and Data Sources by Evaluation Question Evaluation Question Pnmary Quesllon 1. What are the effects of participation in CompassLeaming (CL) on the achievement of African American and other students? Supplemental (Step 2) Questions 2. What are the quality, nature, and level of implementation of CL at the 19 elementary schools identified as implementing the program In 2004-05? 3. What is the level of participation in CL by African American students relative to other ethnic groups at the schools concerned? 4. What are the perceptions of teachers, lab attendants, and technology specialists regarding CL program implementation, impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? 5. What are the perceptions of parents/guardians of CL students regarding program impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? 6. What are the perceptions of school principals, whose schools no longer use CL, with regard to past use of the CL program and possible adoption of a different program? Participants The elementary school sample included a total of 7,853 LRPS students in first grade (n = 2,016), second grade (n = 1984), third grade (n = 1904) or fifth grade (n = 1,949) during the 2004-'05 school year. Kindergarten and fourth grade were excluded because these grades lacked corresponding 2003-04 data to be used as a \"pretest\" (statistical covanate). All 34 LRSD elementary schools were included in the analysis. All CL school teachers All technology specialists at schools implementing CL CL lab attendants at the 7 schools randomly selected for observations Two district personnel involved with CL Student Focus Groups at 4 randomly selected elementary schools National CL representative All Compass schools All CL school teachers All technology specialists at schools implementing CL CL lab attendants at the 7 schools randomly selected for observations Parents of CL students Principals at one elementary school, two middle schools, and one high school Data Sources ITBS as pretest for Grades K-5 Mansas Benchmarks as posttest for 3- 5) 2004-05 ITBS Reading and Math subtests (as posttest in grades 1-5) Teacher CompassLeaming Questionnaire administered dunng school faculty meetings  Technology specialist Phone Interview  District Personnel (involved with CL) Phone Interview Lab attendant Phone Interview Two-hour CL Laboratory Observations (7 randomly selected elementary schools) 20-min. Student Focus Groups (n = 5-7 students), one each at 4 schools randomly selected from the 7 observation schools National CL representative phone interview School records/archival data Two-hour CL Laboratory Observations (7 randomly selected elementary schools) Teacher Survey (faculty meeting) Technology specialist Phone Interview Lab attendant Phone Interview CL Parent Survey Distributed to one class at each grade level at 5 elementary schools Principal Phone Interview 11 Instrumentation Five measurement strategies were used to collect the evaluation data: direct classroom observations, surveys, interviews, focus groups, and assessment of student achievement. Details of the instrumentation and administration procedures are provided in the following sections. Copies of the instruments are in Appendix C. Classroom Observation Measure The Survey of Computer Use for CompassLearning (SCU-CL) was designed to document the processes and practices used to implement CompassLearning in school computer labs during twohour observation periods. The instrument was used to record contextual data (e.g., number of students using CL by ethnicity, the number of teachers, lab attendants, or technology specialists present, and the number of classes observed during a two-hour observation visit) and computer configuration data (e.g. , number, type, and working condition of the computers). Data were also recorded regarding student use of CL including: percent of students using CL\nsubject area of the activities\nteacher/student interactions during CL use\nlevel of African American and non African American student engagement/interest\nand level of academically-focused class time. The data were recorded every 15 minutes then summarized on a data summary form at the end of the 2-hour observation period. Nineteen individual classes were observed for a total of 14 hours in 7 randomly selected elementary school computer labs. Teacher and Parent Survey Teacher Survey. The Teacher CompassLearning Questionnaire (TCLQ) is a two-part instrument that was used to collect teacher knowledge and perceptions of CL. The survey began by asking teachers their gender, ethnicity, and if they knew about the CompassLearning (computer lab) program at the teacher's respective school. Teachers who were aware of the CL program were then asked to rate their level of agreement with 16 statements regarding the impact of CL on students, teacher readiness to integrate CL resources into their instructional practices, and overall support for the CL program. Items were rated with a five-point Likert-type scale that ranged from \"(1) -- Strongly Disagree\" to \"(5) -- Strongly Agree\". The next TCLQ section asked teachers to provide information regarding their experience with CL and how they used CL resources (e.g., selection of activities, use 12 of specific reports). The final items asked teachers to list the strongest and weakest aspects of CL and whether or not CL use should be continued at their school. Parent Survey. The LSRD CompassLearning Parent Survey was designed to ascertain parent awareness and perceptions regarding their child's use of the CL program. They were asked to complete one survey per household, but indicate the number and ethnicity of their school-aged child/children. If the parent or guardian were aware of the CL program, they were asked five general questions regarding student attitudes about CL and the value of CL. The final section of the survey consisted of three open-ended items to record parents' perceptions of the best and worst aspects of their child's/children's use of CL and what changes they recommended . Student Focus Groups The Student Focus Group Protocol focused on three aspects regarding student use of CL. The first aspect was the nature of CL activities (e.g., how long students had been using CL, if CL lab time was long enough). The second aspect was student perceptions of the usefulness of CL. This was documented by asking students if they thought that CL helped them to do better in school, if there were any disadvantages to using CL, and what parents and friends thought of CL. The third aspect focused on student enjoyment of using CL. At the conclusion of the focus groups, students were asked to contribute any additional comments. Interviews Interviews. The following five interview protocols were developed for the evaluation: Lab Attendant, Technology Specialist, District (CL) Personnel, Principal, and CL National Representative. The lab attendant, technology specialist, and district (CL) personnel interviews focused on the same general areas: CL responsibilities\nlevel, nature, and quality of CL implementation\nsupport for the CL program\nand , overall questions regarding the strongest and weakest aspects of CL. Participants were also asked if the program should be continued. The interview protocol for the National CL representative used a more open format, as the primary purpose was to determine the CL guidelines for effective implementation of the CL program. The principal interview was designed for principals that had previously used the CL program in their schools. The interview questions examined past use of CL, e.g., years used, overall impression 13 - of CL, how it was implemented, and why they discontinued its use. The final section included questions about current use of an ILS. PROCEDURES The nine data collection measures are summarized in Table 3 by type of measure, instrument, number completed and the data collection procedure. Table 3. Data Collection Summary Type of Measure Classroom Observations Surveys Student Focus Groups Interviews Instrument SCU-CL TCLQ LRSDCL Parent Survey Student Focus Group Protocol Lab attendant Interview Protocol Technology Specialist Interview Protocol District (CL) Personnel Interview Protocol Compass Leaming Representative Interview Protocol Pnncipal Interview Protocol Number Completed 7 356 451 4 groups\n23 5\"' grade students 6 3 2 4     Data Collection Procedure Prearranged two-hour sessions in which random classes were observed using CL at 7 randomly selected elementary schools. Note forms were completed every 15 minutes during the two-hour period. TCLQs were administered at a faculty meeting at each of 19 elementary schools. Compass Leaming Parent Surveys were distributed at 5 randomly selected elementary schools. One class from each grade at the school was selected and all parents of children in that class were asked to complete a survey. Surveys were returned to the school and sent to evaluators. Student Focus Groups were conducted by researchers at 4 randomly selected elementary schools. Each focus group interview was approximately 20-minutes in duration. Researchers individually interviewed lab attendants at 6 of the 7 randomly selected schools. Interviews lasted approximately 45 minutes to one hour. Only six interviews were conducted as one person was out on sick leave.  Researchers conducted 45- to 60-minutes phone interviews with all CL technology specialists  Researchers interviewed two district level personnel with responsibility for the Compass Leaming program. Interviews lasted approximately 45- to 60-m1nutes.  A researcher conducted a 45-minute phone interview with a national Compass Leaming representative that was familiar with the Little Rock program.  Researchers individually interviewed principals from 1 elementary school, 2 middle schools, and 1 high school that no longer used CL. Each interview lasted approximately 60 minutes. 14 RESULTS The results of the study are presented below by measurement strategy. In the Conclusion section, the findings are synthesized across instruments to address each research question. Classroom Observation Results The Survey of Computer Use for CompassLearning (SCU-CL) results reflect data collected during 14 hours of observations conducted at seven randomly selected elementary schools that were implementing CompassLearning (see Table 4). During these observations, 19 kindergarten through 51h grade classes, comprised of 277 African American students and 50 non-African American students engaged in CL activities in labs equipped with one up-to-date computer for each student. Student time-on-task for the CL activities ranged from 30- to 60-minutes. At least one lab attendant was present and in almost every observation a classroom teacher was also present during each session. All students in each class, both African American and non-African American, equally participated in CL activities during the observations. The majority (71.4%) of the CL activities were either for language arts or mathematics, while some (42.9%) were focused on reading. Activities for other subject areas were rarely observed. Over one-half (57.2%, frequently to extensively) of the observed CL lessons started with no instructions being given to the students. During the lessons, students asked questions related to the CL content in 43.1 % (frequently to extensively) of the visits. Student questions regarding the CL software, the computers, or other issues occurred less frequently during CL lab time. The lab attendants were observed actively moving among the students while they worked on CL activities during slightly over half of the visits (57.1 %, occasionally to extensively). Both African American and non-African American students exhibited a high level of attention and interest in the CL activities, and all observed classrooms had a high level of academically focused class time. 15 Table 4. Survey of Computer Use for Compasslearning (SCU-CL) Results n = 7 two-hour observations ( 19 classrooms) Number of students by ethnicity Elementary School All grades observed African Non-African Brady Chicot Geyer Springs McDemiott Rightsell Stephens Wakefield Total Kand 5 Kand 3 4 and 5 Kand 1 2and 3 K and2 3,4and5 American 29 49 42 44 33 29 51 277 (84.7%) Computer Configuration and Use How many computers were available for Compassleaming? Only one 2-4 5--10 11 or more During the observation, what percentage of the following students used Compassleaming? African American Caucasian CompassLearning Activities Subject Areas of Observed CL Activities Language Arts Mathematics Reading Science Social Studies Writing Cross-Cultural Types of student questions while using CL Content Area (e.g. how to solve a problem-the meaning of a word) Software use (e.g. how to log in or change sections) Computer use (e.g. how to use keyboard or mouse) Non-CL question (e .g. Do I have to sit next to .. . ? May I go to the restroom?) Types of Instruction given to students at the start of the lesson Content area review (e.g. reading, math) Software use (e.g. how to log in, find correct lesson) Computers use (e.g. locate software, use mouse) Classroom behavior rules No instruction given Teacher movement among students High level of teacher movement among students during CompassLeaming labs Student attention and academic focus High level of Afncan American student attention, interest, and engagement while using CL High Level of Non-Afncan American student attention, interest, and engagement while using CL High level of academically focused class time American 5 3 14 0 0 27 50 (15.3%) % Observed 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 Only a few (Less than 10%} 0.0 0.0 Not Observed 0.0 0.0 14.3 57.1 85.7 85.7 71.4 Not Observed 0.0 28.6 57.1 14.3 Not Observed 85.7 71.4 85.7 57.1 42.9 Not Observed 14.3 Not Observed 0.0 28.6 0.0 Number of teachers present Number of classes observed 2 3 2 3 2 3 4 19 Lab attendant 2 8 Most of the computers used for Compassleaming were Up to date Aging but adequate Outdated/limited capacity Some {About 10%} Most (51-90%) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Percentage of classes Rarely Occasionally F reg uently 0.0 28.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 28.6 42.9 0.0 0.0 28.6 0.0 0.0 14.3 0.0 0.0 14.3 0.0 0.0 28.6 0.0 0.0 Teachers 2 3 2 3 2 4 17 % Observed 100.0 0.0 0.0 Near1yaIVall (About91- 100%} 100.0 100.0 Extensively 71.4 71.4 42.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Rarely Occasionally Frequently Extensively 14.2 14.3 42.9 71.4 Rarely 0.0 14.3 0.0 28.6 0.0 Rarely 28.6 Rarely 0.0 0.0 0.0 42.7 57.1 0.0 14.3 Occasionally 0.0 14.3 14.3 14.3 0.0 28.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 Frequently 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 28.6 14.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 Extensively 14.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 28.6 Occasionally F reguently Extensively 28.6 14.3 14.3 Occasionally Frequently Extensively 0.0 0.0 0.0 42.9 0.0 0.0 57.1 71.4 100.0 16 Survey Results This section contains the results of the Teacher CompassLearning Questionnaire {TCLQ) and the CompassLearning Parent Survey (Parent Survey). Teacher CompassLearning Questionnaire (TCLQ) The Teacher CompassLearning Questionnaire {TCLQ) was completed by a total of 356 teachers working at schools implementing the CompassLearning program. The respondents were primarily Caucasian (63.2%), and secondarily African American (32.6%), with most respondents being female (88.2%). As shown in Table 5, The TCLQ begins with two questions about the visibility and perceived value of the CL program. A very high percentage of teachers (96.1 %) reported familiarity with CL and most (93.3%) supported the continued use of CL within their respective schools. The next 16 TCLQ items assessing teacher perceptions of CL were indicative of a relatively high level of teacher approval for the program . Many items were rated highly on the survey (as measured by a combination of the categories \"Strongly Agree\" and \"Agree\". At least 85% of the teachers agreed or strongly agreed that the school computers for CL were in good condition (90.5%), the administration supported teacher use of CL (88.8%), and the teachers were supportive of CL (88.5%). Additional positive responses included agreement that CL increased student learning (78.4%), increased the level of student attention, interest, and engagement (77.3%), and was valuable for improving the achievement of African American students (73.0%). Approximately 70% of the teachers agreed that they routinely aligned CL with their lessons (72.5%), reviewed CL content in class (71.0%), and customized CL activities to meet individual needs of students. The concluding section of survey items addressed the use of the CL reporting functions. Teachers reported frequent use of \"Class by Ethnicity'' (59.8%), \"Class by Gender\" (64.6%), and \"Other\" (78.6%) CL reports, while over one-half (53.7%) reported never using \"Whole Class\" and 45.2% reported never using \"Individual Student\" reports. 17 Table 5. Teacher Compass Learning Questionnaire (TCLQ) Results n = 356 Items Do you know about the CompassLeaming (computer lab} program at your school? Do you think your school should continue using CompassLeaming? %No 03.93 06.74 % Yes 96.07 93.26 Percent of Teacher Response Items Most of our school computers that are used for CompassLeaming are kept in good working condition. The administration fully supports teacher use of CompassLeaming resources. Teachers in this school are generally supportive of the CompassLeaming program. My computer skills are adequate to access CompassLeaming resources. I can readily obtain answers about CompassLeaming. The use of CompassLeaming has increased student learning and achievement. The use of Compass Leaming has increased the level of student attention, interest, and engagement in learning. Our school has a well-developed plan that guides the CompassLeaming program. Overall, this program seems valuable for improving the achievement of African American students. I routinely align CompassLeaming with my lessons and the district's standards based curriculum. I routinely provide academic review of content covered during the use of Compass Leaming. The use of CompassLeaming has improved the quality of student work. I routinely customize CompassLeaming activities to meet the individual needs of students. I have received enough training to address student learning needs through the use of CompassLeaming resources. Parents and community members support our school's use of CompassLeaming. I routinely modify my instructional practices on the basis of student performance in CompassLeaming. How frequently do you use the following Compassleaming reports? Whole Class Individual Student Class by Ethnicity Class by Gender Other Disagree \u0026amp; Strorgly Disagree 4.21 1.12 1.40 4.78. 4.21 2.25 4.49 4.78 1.97 4.78 7.30 3.93 7.87 14.33 2.81 12.92 Never 53.65 45.22 5.62 6.18 3.09 Neutral Strongly Agree \u0026amp; Agree 5.34 90.45 7.58 88.76 9.27 88.48 10.67 83.71 12.08 83.43 16.57 78.37 17.42 77.25 19.10 75.28 22.75 73.03 21 .35 72.47 20.22 71 .00 23.88 70.22 23.03 67.13 19.66 65.45 31 .74 64.61 30.90 54.78 Seldom Frequentiy 23.60 14.04 25.56 20.22 23.31 59.83 21 .35 64.64 5.06 78.65 18 The teachers also responded to open-ended questions about the use and effectiveness of the CL system. Following are highlights of the responses. Detailed results for the TCLQ open-ended items are found in Appendix D. Familiarity with CL. As seen in Table 5, almost all of the teachers completing the TCLQ were famil iar with CL. However, the open-ended comments revealed that only about one-third (37.2%) had used CL for more than 3 years. Perhaps the relative lack of experience with CL contributed to the low response rate to the item asking teachers to describe their understanding of the CompassLearning program. Less than one-fourth (84 of 356) of the teachers responded to this item. Within those responses, all the teachers revealed a general understanding of the overall purpose of the CL program. The most common responses were that CL reinforces skills addressed by the district framework (58.3%) and that CL was a program designed to enhance student learning (21 .4%). Teacher responses were somewhat evenly divided when asked how subject areas and performance levels of activities were selected. Approximately one-fourth of the respondents indicated that decisions were made on the basis of student abilities, skills, and/or grade level (25.1 %), while a similar number responded that testing results were used (23.2%). CL reports. Respondents clearly identified assessing student growth and academic progress (63.3%) as the primary reason for using CL reports. Only 56 out of 356 (15.7%) teachers indicated that they did not use CL reports. The most common reasons were: use of \"other\" assessment data/tools (33.9%)\nlack of time (26.7%), and lack of skill in using CL (23.2%). Representative teacher comments included:  I don't use them frequently because I don't think it's always a good assessment for all learners.  Arkansas Reading First data is my primary diagnostic tool.  I seldom use the reports. I monitor while they are working. I consider CompassLearning to be a good way to practice skills.  I have very little knowledge of Compass. Strongest and weakest aspects of CL. The strongest aspect of CL identified was reinforcement of skills and the curriculum (41.2%), followed by the ability to adjust the program according to the needs of the teachers and of the students (32.9%). Student engagement or interest in learning was mentioned by 15.8% of the respondents. CL weaknesses reported by the teachers were primarily related to software issues or difficulty that students had in using some of the program features (58.6%) 19 and that the schedule did not allow enough time for students to benefit from the program (21.7%). Seventy-five percent of the teachers wrote a response to the final question, which asked teachers why their school should continue using CL. The responses were fairly evenly distributed across three reasons: CL reinforces the curriculum (33.3%)\nCL enhances student learning and skills (26.2%)\nand use of CL increases student engagement and excitement in learning (20.9%). The following are sample teacher responses highlighting why their schools should keep CL:  The children love it. It is great practice for skills.  Compass is a great tool for addressing specific student needs.  Students enjoy working at their own pace and ability and it provides good reinforcement for what you are teaching in class.  It allows students to work toward mastery of certain academic skills presented in class on an individual basis.  It is a wonderful tool for records of student growth.  It has been a great plus to student learning. It allows teachers the freedom to set it to their teaching and student needs.  This program has been a bright innovative way of reinforcing methods of skills and the students work and learn on their own pace which shows results of what they are learning.  I think it is a very valuable tool to help strengthen our students' skills in a fun way they enjoy. Going to computer is a treat! LRSD Compasslearning Parent Survey (Parent Survey) Of approximately 625 Parent Surveys distributed to children in five randomly selected schools, 451 parents responded (72.2% response rate). Over 84% (84.3%) of the children represented by parents completing surveys were African American, followed by 8.0% who were Hispanic and 2.0% who were Caucasian. Parental awareness of the CL program was high (82.5%), and most parents indicated they learned about the CL program via their children (55.7%). When asked how excited their child or children get about using CL, 60.1 % responded \"a lot\", 21 .7% reported \"some\", while less than 3% (2.9%) indicated that their child or children did not get exited about using CL. Parent responses indicate general approval of the CL program by agreeing that time in the computer lab: was important in their child's education (84.5%)\nhad improved their child's interest in school (63.2%)\nand had improved their child's achievement (57.7%). The parents' responses are summarized in Table 6. 20 Table 6. LRSD Compasslearning Parent Survey Results n = 451 Items Do you know about the Computer Lab (Compassleaming) program at your child's/children's school? Indicate the ethnicity of your child/children Caucasian African American Hispanic Asian Multi-Ethnic How did you learn about the computer lab activities? School Teacher My Kids Other parents/friends How excited do your child/children get about using the computer lab? Aloi Some Not at all Not sure % Yes 82.48 % 02.00 84.26 07.98 00.00 01.33 % 11 .53 09.53 55.65 01 .55 % 60.09 21 .73 02.88 04.66 Percentage: Yes Somewhat No Not Sure Do you think time in the computer lab is an important part of your child's/children's education? 84.48 05.54 00.44 00.67 Do you think time in the computer lab has improved your child's/children's interest in school? 63.19 17.74 03.55 04.21 Do you think time in the computer lab has improved your child's/children's achievement in reading and math? 57.65 18.40 01.77 06.43 In order to gain a more complete understanding of parental perception of the CL program, parents were asked three additional questions about CL. These questions were designed to elicit open-ended responses and comments from the parents. Highlights of the parent responses are presented below and a full summary is located in Appendix E. Approximately two-thirds (273 of 451\n60.5%) of the parents wrote a response when asked to describe the best thing about their child or children using the \"computer lab program\". The most common responses were that students were learning how to use computers (43.9%) and were acquiring new learning skills or learning in a better way (38.0%). Less than 20% (17.9%) indicated that the best aspect was improvement of math and reading skills. When asked about negative or \"worst\" aspects of CL, there was a 34.1 % response rate (154 of 451) with 59% of the respondents indicating that there were no negative aspects. Thirty-five parents or guardians (22.7%) were concerned that their child or children might have access to inappropriate Internet-based materials 21 when using CL. A small percentage (7.7%) of parents indicated the worst aspect of CL was that it replaced traditional classroom/textbook learning with computer-based learning. Sample parent comments reflecting this concern included \"The act of just using the computer lab program may take away from the child's own thinking and reasoning capacity.\" And, \"It may get them too adapted until they wouldn't want to sit in a classroom.\" The last open-ended item on the Parent Survey asked parents what changes they would like to see in the computer lab program or CL. Of the 158 (35.0% of 451) parents who responded to the last question, 50.6% indicated that their child or children needed more computer time and 25.3% wanted more variety in the lessons, content areas, and types of activities. Nearly the same percentage (24.5%) of parents responded that no changes were needed. Student Focus Group Results A total of 23 5 th grade students from 4 randomly selected elementary schools participated in the 20-minute focus groups. The students' experience with CL ranged from less than one year up to six years, with 42.8% indicating they had used CL since pre-kindergarten or kindergarten. Full results of the Student Focus Group are in Appendix F. Nature of the CL activities. The students reported that they primarily completed CL activities in language arts (33.3%), mathematics (28.6%), and reading (19.0%), in both computer labs and their classrooms. Of the 23 students, 10 wanted to spend more time using CL, 6 replied that CL time was appropriate, and 2 students indicated they spent too much time in the CL lab. Technical concerns reported by the students were focused on hardware (computer freezing, slow startup) and software malfunctions. When asked how they would change the CL activities, the most common response was to make the activities more fun or game-like (42.8%), while 21.4% requested Internet access, and more math, science, and spelling activities. Usefulness of CL activities. When asked if CL helped them to \"do better in school\", 17 of the 23 students responded, \"Yes\". The most common reason cited for this response (83.3%) was that CL helped the students remember what they learned in class and provided practice in and out of the classroom. Students indicated that the disadvantages to using CL were that sometimes the activity problems were too hard (52.8%) or that some were too easy or boring (32.0%). The majority (71.4%) of the students responded that their parents were supportive of the CL program. The students were 22 less positive when asked what their friends said about using CL, with 50.0% saying their friends thought the program was dumb or boring. Responses were mixed when asking which types of students would benefit the most and least from using CL. Students indicated that CL would be most beneficial for students who were immature (27.2%), tried their best or liked CL (27.2%), were smart (18.2%), or disadvantaged (18.2%). They thought that CL would be least beneficial to students who didn't try (66 .7%) or were smart (22.2%). Enjoyment of CL. The majority (89.5%) of the students indicated that they really liked or loved CL, while only 2 students indicated that they liked it a \"little bit\" (10.5%). Students' favorite things about using CL were that it helped them to learn/understand class work (31 .2%), was exciting and fun , helped learn new and harder things, and helped with math and reading (18.7% each). The least favorite things were that students could not use calculators when completing CL math lessons (27.2%), the spelling, social studies, and math lessons (27.7%), and repeating lessons (22.2%). All (23) students responded that they would like to continue using CL. Interviews The interview results are presented in three sections. First are the interviews with those directly responsible for overseeing implementation of the CompassLearning program: lab attendants (n = 6), technology specialist (n = 3), and LRSD personnel (n = 2). This is followed by the CL national representative interview summary. The section ends with the interview results from four high school principals whose schools did not use CL in 2004-2005, but had previously used CL at their respective schools. Lab Attendant, Technology Specialist, and District (CL) Personnel Highlights from the Lab Attendant, Technology Specialist, and District (CL) Personnel interview results will be discussed by these major interview categories: CL responsibilities, implementation, overall strengths and weaknesses, and if the program should be continued. Detailed results of these three interviews are in Appendix G. CL Responsibilities. The interview responses revealed that CL responsibilities were distributed as would be expected with the lab attendants having the greatest level of interaction with the students during CL lab time. Both the lab attendants and technology specialists worked with teachers to align 23 CL activities with lessons and to produce CL reports. The technology specialists provided teacher training, while the district personnel were responsible for general oversight of the program and served as liaisons between all CL district personnel. CL implementation. When asked to evaluate the CL software and support from the vendor, responses from the three groups ranged from \"fine\" to \"great\" with regard to the software and from \"OK\" to \"excellent\" concerning vendor support. The groups did, however, display consensus that there was a high level of teacher support for the CL program and that the program had been implemented very well. The best aspects of CL implementation included integration of CL activities with LRSD curriculum, custom sequencing of the units, and the use of reports for tracking student progress. Suggestions for improving the implementation process were to create district guidelines, increase supervision, and examine other remediation options. When examining how the program was implemented, interview responses indicated that the primary users of the CL program were students in grades pre-kindergarten through 5 who used CL from 1 to 5 days per week. Respondents from the three groups indicated that the teachers were regularly provided CL reports on student progress and actively used the reports to plan student CL activities. School administrators' most frequent use of the CL data was for year-end reports. Equitable student access and appropriate implementation of CL were ensured by means of close monitoring by the lab attendants, technology specialists, and principals. Overall strengths, weaknesses, continuation. There was once again consensus among the respondents with regard to the strongest aspects of the CL program. The interviewees from each group cited program flexibility to meet individual student needs, alignment of CL with LSRD curriculum standards (except math), and student enjoyment/engagement as the strongest aspects of CL. Differences were noted, however, in responses about the weakness of the CL program. The lab attendants indicated that students needed more CL time and that some of the lessons required special equipment or software. The technology specialists responded that the CL math curriculum was not well aligned with LSRD curriculum, the program lacked curriculum mapping, and sometimes the oral commands were difficult for students to understand. From the district perspective, one respondent indicated the CL program lacked oversight, while the second one did not state a 24 weakness. There was unanimous agreement that the CL program should be continued due to its positive contribution to student learning. National CL Representative One of Compasslearning's national representatives whose responsibilities included managing Cl's research and evaluation program was interviewed. This person was also knowledgeable about the LRSD program. The purpose of the interview was to obtain the representative's perspective on how schools should implement CL to improve student academic achievement. Her responses are divided into guidelines for students, teachers, and administrators. Students. With regard to student use of CL, or time-on-task, the recommended guidelines are that students in grades 3 through 12 should spend from 60 to 90 minutes per week completing 4 to 5 new activities per content area. Student activities should be focused on the subject that needs the most improvement. For students in grades K through 2, the recommended time for computer activities is 60 minutes per week per content area. Teachers. The CL representative indicated that teachers should be actively involved in using the CL reports to evaluate the progress of individual students. She recommended that teachers review student reports eve,y two weeks in order to align classroom instruction to identified needs, plan off-line (non-CL) remediation and adjust CL activities to address areas of non-mastery. Administrators. The CL representative recommended that school principals review CL class-byclass reports on a monthly basis to identify any areas of need. When teachers and administrators implement these \"best practices\" strategies, they will be provided with formative evaluation data to help determine if: student learning is \"on-track\nif the curriculum needs to be altered\nand, whether or not students need more off-line activities\". However, the CL representative indicated that most schools do not achieve this level of implementation. School Principals The principals from four LRSD schools (1 elementary school, 2 middle schools, and 1 high school) who no longer use Compasslearning were interviewed to examine how CL was used in the past, why it was discontinued, and if the school had implemented a different integrated learning system (ILS). Collectively, the student population of the four schools was 90% African American. Key findings from the interviews are presented below and the full interview summary is in Appendix H. 25 Past use of CL. Three of the four principals indicated a positive overall impression of CL, while one reported that the teachers disliked it. All four principals reported that their school had implemented the CL program in computer labs. However, the amount of time students spent using the software and the student populations that used CL were different for each school. One principal indicated that all students used CL, one responded that only students in English classes used it, another reported that CL was used by magnet students, and the fourth indicated that CL was used by students who needed extra academic assistance. When asked how teachers were involved with CL, 3 principals indicated their teachers aligned CL lessons with classroom instruction, 2 said teachers helped monitor the labs, and 1 reported that the teachers did very little with CL. The principals reported the primary reasons for not continuing with CL were related to server or system problems. Other reasons were lack of enough Title 1 funds, teacher complaints that the program took too much time to align with lessons, and teacher complaints of too many technical problems. Current use of an /LS. Three principals indicated that their schools were currently using different integrated learning systems {ILSs). One middle school principal reported that his school was using two systems (Accelerated Reader, and Destination Math), while the other middle school principal had adopted River Deep. The ILS adopted by the high school was Plato. The principals reported positive impressions of the new programs, indicating that fewer problems were occurring and that teachers were more accepting of the new systems. The fourth principal reported that a technology integration approach was being implemented rather than using an ILS. The principal further explained that with this approach students use basic software applications like spreadsheets, presentation and word processing software to enhance classroom environments. Student Achievement Results Research Questions Analyses of student achievement on the Development Readiness Assessment (ORA), Iowa Tests of Basic Skills, (ITBS), and the Arkansas Benchmark tests were conducted to address the following research questions: 26 1. What are the effects of the Compass Learning program on student achievement in Reading and Mathematics? 2. Is the program effective in meeting the academic needs of African American students? 3. How does the achievement of African American students compare to that of other students in the same or similar schools? Sample The elementary school sample included a total of 7,853 LRPS students in first grade (n = 2,016), second grade (n = 1984 ), third grade (n = 1904) or fifth grade (n = 1,949) during the 2004-'05 school year. Kindergarten and fourth grade were excluded because these grades lacked corresponding 2003-04 data to be used as a \"pretest\" (statistical covariate) .. All 34 LRSD elementary schools were included in the analysis. Overall, 67% of the student sample was eligible for free or reduced-price lunch and 68% was African American. A majority (60%\nn = 4,728) attended one of the 21 schools that offered the Compass Learning program. School Matching Process Elementary schools. To facilitate analysis of program effects, elementary schools were matched via hierarchical cluster analysis into homogeneous sets on the basis of percentage eligible for free or reduced price lunch and percentage African American enrollment. Ward's minimum variance method was used as a clustering algorithm, and squared Euclidean distances were used as similarity measures. Three homogeneous School Sets were identified:  Set 1 (Low Poverty, Majority White) contained 4r schools with a mean percentage of students eligible for free lunch of 24.5% and mean African-American enrollment of 35.0%\n Set 2 (Medium Poverty, Integrated) contained 9 schools with a mean percentage of students eligible for free lunch of 55.5% and mean African-American enrollment of 56.4%\nand  Set 3 (High Poverty, Majority African American) contained 21 schools with a mean percentage of students eligible for free lunch of 84.9% and mean African-American enrollment of 83.3%. Middle schools. Two middle schools, Cloverdale and Henderson, implemented the Compass Learning program. Two comparison middle schools, Southwest and Mabelvale, were selected on the 27 basis of similarities in percentage of African American students and students eligible for free lunch. Percentages of African American students were 81.1 % at Cloverdale, 81.3% at Henderson, 81.4% at Mabelvale, and 93.1 % at Southwest. Percentages of students eligible for free or reduced-price lunch were 82.9% at Cloverdale, 69.6% at Henderson, 74.4% at Mabelvale, and 83.5% at Southwest. A total of 562 sixth graders and 531 seventh graders were included in the analyses. Measures The Developmental Reading Assessment (ORA) was administered in grades K-2 in 2003-04 and 2004-05, and the Iowa Test of Basic Skills (ITBS) was administered in grades K-5 in 2004-05. The ITBS provides normal curve equivalent (NCE) scores in Reading and Mathematics. The Arkansas Benchmark test was administered in grade 4 in 2003-04, and in grades 3-5 in 2004-05. However, scale scores from the 2004-05 Arkansas Benchmark test were not available as of December 2005. Construction of ORA NCE scores. ORA scores in 2004-05 were used as outcome variables for grades 1 and 2. The kindergarten and first-grade forms of the ORA administered provides six separate scale scores, in letter recognition, word recognition, capitalization, writing, dictation, and a composite reading score. The second-grade forms provide scores for word recognition, writing, dictation, and composite reading. The subscale scores were factor-analyzed using principal components analysis to generate regression-based factor scores for use in subsequent analyses. For 2004-05 first graders, a single factor accounted for 45.7% of the variance across 2004-05 ORA subtests. For 2004-05 second graders, a single factor accounted for 63.0% of the variance across the four 2004-05 ORA subtests. The regression-based factor scores were then converted to nonmal curve equivalent (NCE) scores with mean of 50 and standard deviation of 21.06 to aid in the interpretation of results. The norm group for these NCE scores was comprised of all Little Rock students for whom data were available in a given year. Analyses A 2 (Compass versus comparison) X 2 (African American versus non-African American) X 3 (Homogeneous School Set) analysis of covariance was performed at each grade level (1 and 2), with 2004-05 ORA and ITBS test scores as outcome variables and free or reduced price lunch status and 2003-04 ORA test scores as covariates. Follow-up analyses of covariance were performed within levels of the independent variables when significant interaction effects were observed. Effect size 28 estimates were determined by computing mean differences between groups for which significant differences were observed, then dividing by the total standard deviation. In cases where the outcome variable was an NCE score, a standard deviation of 21.06 was used in the effect size estimate computation, because the population standard deviation is known. Table 7 provides an overview of pretests, posttests, and pretest-posttest correlations for the analyses of covariance. As shown, the covariates used were 2003-04 ORA scores in grades 1-3, ITBS scores in grade 6, and Benchmark scores in grades 5 and 7. In addition, a descriptive profile of 2004-05 mean ITBS NCE scores in Reading and Mathematics across grade levels by race was generated to provide on overall basis for comparing African American achievement to that of other students. Table 7. Covariate-Outcome Correlation Coefficients by Grade Level: LRPS Elementary Schools Grade 2003-04 Pretests (Covariates) 2004-05 Posttests (Outcomes) Covariate-Outcome r 1 ORA Dictation ITBS Reading NCE 0.51 ORA Capitalization ITBS Mathematics NCE o.5i ORA Word Recognition DRANCE1 0.582 2nd ORA Composite Score ITBS Reading NCE 0.61 2 ORA Composite Score ITBS Mathematics NCE 0.502 ORA Word Recognition DRANCE1 0.712 3' ORA Total Score ITBS Reading NCE 0.592 ORA Total Score ITBS Mathematics NCE o.5i 5lh Benchmark Literacy SS ITBS Reading NCE 0.772 Benchmark Math SS ITBS Mathematics NCE 0.842 6th ITBS Reading NCE ITBS Reading NCE 0.792 ITBS Mathematics Concepts NCE ITBS Total Mathematics NCE 0.802 ITBS Reading NCE - 7th Benchmark Literacy 0.71 ' Benchmark Mathematics ITBS Mathematics NCE 0.782 'Score derived from factor analysis and normed on Little Rock School District students. 2Significant at p \u0026lt; .01. - 29 RESULTS First Grade !TBS Reading NCE. The model accounted for 32.4 % of the variance in 2004-05 ITBS Reading NCE scores. ANCOVA indicated significant main effects for 2003-04 ORA dictation (F, .1335 = 338.4, p \u0026lt; .001 ), free lunch status (F ,.1335 = 25.4, p \u0026lt; .001 ), race (F1.1335 = 12.92, p \u0026lt;.001 }, treatment (F 1_1335 = 5.827, p = 0.02), and School Set (F2_1335 = 3.00, p = .05). Variables that predicted a significant amount of variance in the outcome accounted for 19.5% of the variance in 2004-05 ITBS Reading scores. As shown in Figure 1, most of the explained variance (17%) was attributable to 2003-04 ORA dictation scores, with modest percentages attributable to free lunch status (1 .3%), race (0.6%), treatment (0.3%), or School Set (0 .3%). Post hoc comparisons showed that non-African American students had a significantly higher adjusted mean score (M' = 57.5) than African American students (M' = 52.4\nES = -0.25)\ncomparison students had a significantly higher adjusted mean score (M' = 56.6) than Compass students (M' = 53.4\nES = -0 .16)\nand students in majority White, low-poverty schools had a significantly higher adjusted mean score (M' = 57.4) than students in majority African American, highpoverty schools (M' = 52.8\nES = -0.23). 30 0.3% 0.6% 1 0.3% 1.3% 17.0%  Pretest  Free Lunch  Race  School Set  Treatment Figure 1. Percentage of Variance Explained in 2004-05 ITBS Outcomes by Significant Predictor: First Grade Table 8 shows mean ITBS Reading NCE scores by race, treatment, and School Set. Observed mean scores generally fell near or above the national average of 50.0, with the lowest average observed score of 46.5 observed for comparison group African American students in high-poverty, majority African American schools. This score is about one-sixth of a standard deviation below the national average. 31 Table 8. Observed and Covariate-adjusted 2004-05 ITBS Reading NCE Mean Scores by Race, Treatment, and Homogeneous School Set: First Grade Race Treatment School Set Mean Adjusted SD ES N Mean Non-AA Comparison Low Poverty, 68.52 60.45 15.8 21 Majority White Medium Poverty, 65.34 59.14 19.9 79 Integrated High Poverty, 52.98 56.85 18.9 56 Majority African American Compass Low Poverty, 66.59 57.75 18.2 -0.13 108 Learning Majority White Medium Poverty, 63.18 58.08 20.0 -0.05 114 Integrated High Poverty, 53.58 52.90 20.6 -0 .19 60 Majority African American African- Comparison Low Poverty, 61 .83 59.96 17.5 12 American Majority White - Medium Poverty, 53 .39 52.34 17.4 129 Integrated High Poverty, 46.53 50.96 19.8 273 Majority African American Compass Low Poverty, 54.37 51 .50 21 .5 -0.40 43 Learning Majority White Medium Poverty, 49.48 49.45 17.2 -0.14 156 Integrated High Poverty, 46.74 50.40 17.7 -0.03 298 Majority African American 32 ORA NCE. The model accounted for 24 .6% of the variance in 2005 ORA NCE scores. ANCOVA indicated a significant main effects for 2003-04 ORA Word Recognition {F1.2002 = 534.0, p \u0026lt; .001\n20.0% of variance accounted for) and treatment status (F1.2002 = 9.15, p \u0026lt;.01\n0.3% of variance accounted for), and a significant interaction effect between treatment status and School Set (F22002 = 3.33, p \u0026lt;.05\n0.2% of variance accounted for). Follow-up analyses revealed that Compass students in majority White, low-poverty scores had a significantly higher adjusted mean score (M' = 54.5\nES = +0.41) than comparison students in similar schools (M' = 45.9\nsee Figure 2). 30.00- 55.0D - 50.00 - 45.00- 40 .00 - J 5UI! 45.80 I Lov,.\nPove,t y, t ,laio1 ity V'vhite .. .. 50 .74 I t.ledium Pove,ty. t11tegI:ited School Set I High Pove11y, t ,1ajorit y .A. t, ican .American T1 eatrnent --Comparison - - - Compass Figure 2. Adjusted Mean DRA NCE by School Set and Treatment Status: 2004-05 First Grade 33 - Table 9 shows mean ORA NCE scores by race, treatment, and School Set. Mean observed DRA NCE scores ranged from a low of M = 43.64 for non-African American comparison students in high poverty, majority African American schools to a high of M = 57.69 for non-African American Compass students in low-poverty, majority White schools. Table 9. Observed and Covariate-adjusted 2004-05 ORA NCE Mean Scores by Race, Treatment, and Homogeneous School Set: First Grade Adjusted Race Treatment School Set Mean Mean SD ES N Comparison Low Poverty, 51.64 48.58 30.1 40 Non-AA Majority White Medium Poverty, 55.32 50.44 14.7 112 Integrated High Poverty, 43.64 46.57 28.9 103 Majority African American Compass Low Poverty, 59.33 53.20 11.6 0.22 154 Learning Majority White Medium Poverty, 54.92 50.70 18.9 0.01 163 Integrated High Poverty, 48.76 48.84 21.4 0.11 97 Majority African American African- Comparison Low Poverty, 44.22 43.13 38.1 21 American Majority White Medium Poverty, 49.28 48.35 22.3 171 Integrated High Poverty, 47.38 50.38 21.6 388 Majority African American Compass Low Poverty, 57.69 55.82 10.2 0.60 60 Learning Majority White Medium Poverty, 51 .74 50.78 16.7 0.12 196 Integrated High Poverty, 46.72 49.29 21.2 -0.05 511 Majority African American 34 /TBS Mathematics NCE. The model accounted for 38.8% of the variance in ITBS Mathematics NCE scores. Significant main effects were observed for 2003-04 ORA Capitalization (F, .1323 = 303.1, p \u0026lt;.001\n13.9% of variance accounted for), African American status (F, .1323=44.5, p \u0026lt; .001\n2% of variance accounted for), eligibility for free lunch (F, .1323=26.5, p \u0026lt; .001\n1.2% of variance accounted for), and School Set (F2_1323=18.9, p =.001\n0.6% of variance accounted for). Follow-up analyses showed that: (a) African American students had a significantly lower adjusted mean score (M' = 42.44\nES= -0.44) than White students (M' = 51.70), and (b) students attending high-poverty, majority African American schools had a significantly lower adjusted mean (M' =43.76) than students attending either medium poverty, integrated schools (M' = 47.12\nES= +0.16) or low-poverty, majority White schools (M'= 50.34\nES= +0.38). As shown in Table 10, African American students in mediumpoverty, integrated schools and in high-poverty, majority African American schools scored substantially below the national average of 50.0. 35 Table 10. Observed and Covariate-adjusted 2004-05 ITBS Mathematics NCE Mean Scores by Race, Treatment, and Homogeneous School Set: First Grade Race Treatment School Set Mean Adjusted SD ES N Mean Non-AA Comparison Low Poverty, 62.10 55.23 18.3 20 Majority White Medium Poverty, 58.75 52.26 21.0 76 Integrated High Poverty, 44.19 47.67 20.9 Majority African American 58 Compass Low Poverty, 65.66 56.62 16.5 0.07 108 Learning Majority White Medium Poverty, 57.78 51 .81 19.8 -0.02 114 Integrated High Poverty, 46.78 46.60 16.1 -0.05 58 Majority African American African- Comparison Low Poverty, 46.25 45.10 20.7 12 American Majority White Medium Poverty, 42.95 41 .30 15.5 122 - Integrated High Poverty, 37.18 40.02 19.7 268 Majority African American Compass Low Poverty, 47.37 44.40 16.7 -0 .03 43 Learning Majority White Medium Poverty, 41.68 43.10 18.5 0.09 161 Integrated High Poverty, 35.86 40.73 16.5 0.03 297 Majority African American 36 Second Grade /TBS Reading NCE. The model accounted for 47.2% of the variance in ITBS Reading NCE scores . Significant main effects were observed for 2003-04 ORA Composite scores (F1.1347 = 723.1, p \u0026lt;.001\n28.1 % of variance accounted for), African American status (F 1_1347 = 57.8, p \u0026lt;.001\n2.2% of variance accounted for), and free lunch status (F 1.1347 = 29.0, p \u0026lt;.001\n1.1 % of variance accounted for). A significant interaction was observed between treatment and School Set (F2,1347 = 9.95, p \u0026lt;.001 ). Follow-up tests showed that comparison students had significantly higher adjusted mean scores (M' =51 .88) than Compass students (M' =57.44\nES = -0.26) in medium-poverty, integrated schools, while Compass students had significantly higher adjusted mean scores (M'= 53.35\nES = +0.15) than comparison students (M' =50.17) in high-poverty, majority African American schools (see Figure 3). As shown in Table 11 all groups scored near or above the national average of 50.0 except African American comparison students in high poverty, majority African American schools. 37 - Table 11. Observed and Covariate-adjusted 2004-05 ITBS Reading NCE Mean Scores by Race, Treatment, and Homogeneous School Set: Second Grade Race Treatment School Set Mean Adjusted SD N Mean Non-AA Comparison Low Poverty, 66.07 59.95 22.4 29 Majority White Medium 68.52 64.40 20.8 86 Poverty, Integrated High Poverty, Majority African 48.00 53.35 20.4 54 American Compass Low Poverty, 70.45 61.48 20.0 O.Q7 Learning Majority White 88 Medium Poverty, 62.01 55.25 20.9 -0.43 106 Integrated High Poverty, Majority African 55.67 57.02 23.0 0.17 66 American African- Comparison Low Poverty, 52.35 48.05 16.6 23 American Majority White Medium Poverty, 51 .07 50.48 19.1 110 Integrated High Poverty, Majority African 43.05 46.99 18.8 264 American Compass Low Poverty, 57.47 54.31 19.8 0.30 60 Learning Majority White Medium Poverty, 48.82 48.50 20.5 -0 .09 169 Integrated High Poverty, Majority African 46.34 49.68 18.4 0.13 306 American 38 58 56 54 - 50 ~ ' Low Poverty. tAajority'1',hite \\ ' ' \\ Medium Poverty , Integrated School Set High Poverty . Majority t .trican .A.111erica11 Treatment - Comparison - -  Compass Figure 3. Mean Adjusted ITBS Reading NCE Scores by Treatment and School Set: 2004-05 Second Grade ORA NCE. The model accounted for 52.9% of the variance in ORA NCE scores. Significant main effects were observed for 2003-04 ORA Word Recognition scores (F1.1482 = 1424.6, p \u0026lt;.001\n44.9% of variance explained), free lunch status (F 1_1482 = 19.76, p \u0026lt;.001\n0.6% of variance explained), and School Set (F2_1482 = 6.1, p \u0026lt;.01\n0.4% of variance explained). Follow-up tests indicated that in low-poverty, majority White schools had significantly higher adjusted mean scores (M' = 54.1 O ) than students in either medium poverty, integrated schools (M' = 49.57\nES = -0 .22) or students in highpoverty, majority African American schools (M' = 50.81\nES= -0.16). Students in low-poverty, majority White schools scored substantially above the district average of 50.0, regardless of race or treatment (see Table 12). No treatment effects (Compass vs. comparison) were indicated. 39 - Table 12. Observed and Covariate-adjusted 2004-05 DRA NCE Mean Scores by Race, Treatment, and Homogeneous School Set: Second Grade Race Treatment School Set Mean Adjusted Mean SD ES N Non-AA Comparison Low Poverty, Majority White 57.64 52.05 20.4 30 Medium Poverty, Integrated 52.64 50.55 21.7 102 High Poverty, Majority African 47.45 51 .29 26.7 57 American Compass Low Poverty, Learning Majority White 64.65 57.69 8.9 0.27 96 Medium Poverty, Integrated 55.65 51.45 15.3 0.04 118 High Poverty, Majority African 49.25 50.98 24.5 -0.01 72 American African- Comparison Low Poverty, American Majority White 57.54 53.00 13.7 24 - Medium Poverty, Integrated 48.70 46.61 18.5 118 High Poverty, Majority African 45.73 50.80 23.9 292 American Compass Low Poverty, Learning Majority White 55.83 53.66 18.1 0.03 62 Medium Poverty, Integrated 51 .19 49.65 16.8 0.14 189 High Poverty, Majority African 48 .66 50.15 20.3 -0.03 336 American 40 /TBS Mathematics NCE. The model accounted for 42.3% of the variance in ITBS Mathematics NCE scores. Significant main effects were observed for 2003-04 ORA Composite score (F1,1354 = 358.54, p \u0026lt;.001 ), African American status (F1 ,1354 = 99.36, p \u0026lt;.001 ), and free lunch status (F1,1354 = 26.7, p \u0026lt;.001 ). Post hoc comparisons indicated that non-African American students had a significantly higher adjusted mean (M' = 53.60) than African American students (M' = 41. 78\nES = - 0.56). A significant interaction effect was observed between treatment and School Set (F2_1354 = 4.09, p =0.02). Follow-up tests, as graphically depicted in Figure 4, indicated that, in low-poverty majority White schools, Compass students had a significantly higher adjusted mean (M' = 54.80) than comparison students (M' = 49.23\nES = +0.26). The mean NCE scores for African American students in either treatment at medium-poverty, integrated or high poverty, majority African American schools were substantially below the national average (see Table 13). 41 - Table 13. Observed and Covariate-adjusted 2004-05 ITBS Mathematics NCE Mean Scores by Race, Treatment, and Homogeneous School Set: Second Grade Race Treatment School Set Mean Adjusted SD ES N Mean Non-AA Comparison Low Poverty, 60.97 55.82 22.0 29 Majority White Medium Poverty, 59.65 55.88 20.1 85 Integrated High Poverty, Majority African 42.44 46.60 20.1 54 American Compass Low Poverty, 69.31 61 .98 19.2 0.29 89 Learning Majority White Medium Poverty, 56.28 50.98 20.9 -0.23 106 Integrated High Poverty, Majority African 49.26 50.30 21 .6 0.18 66 American - African- Comparison Low Poverty, 45.83 42.64 17.9 American Majority White 23 Medium Poverty, 41 .86 41 .66 17.5 114 Integrated High Poverty, Majority African 34 .29 37.42 16.2 266 American Compass Low Poverty, 49.97 47.61 17.9 0.24 60 Learning Majority White Medium Poverty, 42.59 42.47 20.3 0.04 169 Integrated High Poverty, Majority African 36.25 38.90 14.7 0.07 307 American 42 56 - 50- 48- 44- J ~-1 sj . . . . .  I Low Pove1ty. I ,lcijo1 rt 1 \\,\\ hrte . . . . . . r:wT:l .. ... I l,ledium Pove1t y, lntegrnted School Set -1~.0 I i High Pove1ty, t,lcijo1 rty t-.11 ican .~meric:in Treatment - Comprnison   -  Compass Figure 4. Mean Adjusted ITBS Mathematics NCE Scores by Treatment and School Set: 2004- 05 Second Grade Third Grade /TBS Reading NCE. The ANCOVA model explained 48.0% of the variance in 2004-05 ITBS Reading NCE scores. Significant main effects were observed for 2003-04 ORA Composite scores (F1,1310 =600.8, p \u0026lt;.01\n15.1% of variance explained), African American status (F1,1310 = 71 .6, p \u0026lt; .01\n4.2% of variance explained), free lunch status (F 1,1310 = 28.11 , p \u0026lt; .01\n1.1 % of variance explained) and School Set (F2. 1310 = 21 .57\np \u0026lt;.001\n1.3% of variance explained). A significant interaction effect was observed between African American status and School Set (F2.1310 = 6.19, p \u0026lt; .01 ). As shown in Figure 5, the interaction was ordinal over levels of race. Mean adjusted scores for African American students were sign ificantly lower than 43 those for students of other races in low-poverty majority White schools (M' = 52.79 versus M' =63.86\nES= -0.52), in medium-poverty, integrated schools (M' = 49.99 versus M' = 60.39\nES= -0.49), or high-poverty, majority African American schools (M' = 46.93 versus M' = 53.48\nES= -0 .31\nsee Figure 5). The interaction was attributable to a successively widening achievement gap between African American and other students as the percentage of poor and African American students decreased. Most groups performed near or above the national average, except for African American students attending high-poverty majority African American schools, who scored substantially below the national average (see Table 14). 44 Table 14. Observed and Covariate-adjusted 2004-05 ITBS Reading NCE Mean Scores by Race, Treatment, and Homogeneous School Set: Third Grade Race Treatment School Set Mean Adjusted SD N Mean Non-AA Comparison Low Poverty, 72.47 65.84 18.4 34 Majority White Medium Poverty, 63.07 59.21 20.5 76 Integrated High Poverty, Majority African 50.78 50.52 18.8 45 American Compass Low Poverty, 72.84 64.18 17.6 -0.08 91 Learning Majority White Medium Poverty, 61.93 57.62 23.3 -0.08 123 Integrated High Poverty, Majority African 50.45 50.70 18.9 0.01 53 American African- Comparison Low Poverty, 49.52 52.66 17.0 23 - American Majority White Medium Poverty, 46.46 49.28 17.1 110 Integrated High Poverty, Majority African 43.46 46.18 17.5 264 American Compass Low Poverty, 51 .26 48.40 13.3 -0.20 47 Learning Majority White Medium Poverty, 46.86 47.72 17.8 -0.07 188 Integrated High Poverty, Majority African 43.05 45.67 16.3 -0 .02 270 American 45 - 55 \u0026amp;~...7 ~.). .. ... 50 45 Low Pc,verty. l,lctiorij y',',hite ... ., , JU.. P..J .. I ,ledium Poverty, lntegrmed School Set .. .. .. .. High Povert 1, l,k1iority Africm1 ,t!merican Pao:8 -Other .t-.fricrn1 ti.meric:m Figure 5. Mean Adjusted ITBS Reading NCE Scores by Race and School Set: 2004-05 Third Grade /TBS Mathematics NCE. The model explained 42.0% of the variance in 2004-05 ITBS Mathematics NCE scores. Significant main effects were observed for 2004 ORA Composite scores {F11304 =426.4, p \u0026lt;.01\n18.5% of variance explained), African American status (F1,1304 = 111 .3, p \u0026lt; .01\n4.8% of variance explained), free lunch status (F 1,1304 = 17 .3, p \u0026lt; .01\n0.7% of variance explained) and School Set (F2 1304 = 6.12\np \u0026lt;.01\n0.5% of variance explained). Significant interaction effects were observed between African American status and School Set (F2., 304 = 3.36, p \u0026lt; .05) and treatment and School Set (F2,1304 = 3.10, p \u0026lt; .05). Followup analyses of the treatment X School Set interaction showed that Compass students in low-poverty majority White schools had a significantly higher adjusted posttest mean (M' = 55.93\nES = +0.21) 46 than their counterparts attending similar schools (M'=51.59\nsee Figure 6). Treatment differences in other School Sets were nonsignificant. Follow-up analyses of the race X School Set interaction indicated that non-African American students in all school types performed significantly higher than African American students in all school types, but the gap was especially large in low-poverty majority White schools (see Figure 7). As Table 15 shows, non-African American students achieved at or above the national average score regardless of treatment or School Set, whereas African American students achieved substantially below the national average in every condition except Compass students in low-poverty majority White schools. 47 - Table 15. Observed and Covariate-adjusted 2004-05 ITBS Mathematics NCE Mean Scores by Race, Treatment, and Homogeneous School Set: Third Grade Race Treatment School Set Mean Adjusted Mean SD ES N Non-AA Comparison Low Poverty, Majority White 65.21 59.51 18.04 34 Medium Poverty, Integrated 62.11 58.77 19.18 75 High Poverty, Majority African 55.41 55.09 19.56 44 American Compass Low Poverty, Learning Majority White 72.96 65.43 17.32 0.28 91 Medium Poverty, Integrated 60.71 56.99 20.37 -0.08 123 High Poverty, Majority African 51 .57 51 .78 18.42 -0.16 53 American African- Comparison Low Poverty, American Majority White 40.87 43.67 16.81 23 - Medium Poverty, Integrated 45.18 47.69 18.06 110 High Poverty, Majority African 42.89 45.21 17.70 260 American Compass Low Poverty, Learning Majority White 48.91 46.42 15.75 0.13 47 Medium Poverty, Integrated 44.14 44.91 17.63 -0.13 188 High Poverty, Majority African 40.50 42.78 18.29 -0.12 270 American 48 \\ Tr,-:itrn..,nt -- l ump::iri::\n011 , - -  ('\" 1..lllj)CICS ' \\ ::\n4- \\ 48 - I L1J \\t\u0026lt;/ Puv~1tv 1 M::ii,\n,rity 'v'\\hit,.. '\\ \\ ' ' \\ J5U.OG I ' ... I 1,1..\n,Jium Puvee11y, lnteqr::it.\nd School Set I HiJfl P,Jv.,\n1ty. 1,h:iic,rity A fri,:::111 .ll.meri,,011 Figure 6. Mean Adjusted ITBS Mathematics NCE Scores by Treatment and School Set: 2004-05 Third Grade 49 60- 55- 50- 45- 62.47 57 .88 -~ Ji5.o5 l - - ........ I Low Poverty, Majority White I Medium Poverty, Integrated School Set 53.43 ........ ffe I High Poverty, Majority African American Race -Non-AA __ African American Figure 7. Mean Adjusted ITBS Mathematics NCE Scores by Race and School Set: 2004-05 Third Grade Fifth Grade /TBS Reading NCE. The AN COVA accounted for 62.1 % of the variance in ITBS Reading NCE scores. Significant main effects were observed for 2003-04 Benchmark Literacy scale scores (F, .1507 = 1320.1, p \u0026lt;.001\n46.7% of variance explained), African American status (F, .1507 = 62.2, p \u0026lt; .001\n4.0% of variance explained), free lunch status (F, .1507 = 17.2, p = .01\n1.1 % of variance explained) and School Set (F2.1507 = 3.3\np \u0026lt;.05\n0.4% of variance explained). A significant interaction effect was observed between African American status and School Set (F2.1507 = 4.08, p \u0026lt; .05). Follow-up analyses of the race X School Set interaction indicated that non-African American students in all school types performed significantly higher than African American students in all school types, but the gap was especially large in low-poverty majority White schools (see Figure 8). Students in most 50 treatment X School Set categories performed near or above the national average, with the exception of African American students attending high-poverty majority African American schools-these students scored nearly one-half of a standard deviation below the national average regardless of treatment condition (see Table 16). Table 16. Observed and Covariate-adjusted 2004-05 ITBS Reading NCE Mean Scores by Race, Treatment, and Homogeneous School Set: Fifth Grade Race Treatment School Set Mean Adjusted SD ES N Mean Non-AA Comparison Low Poverty, 76.70 56.72 23.29 33 Majority White Medium Poverty, 66.57 54.90 19.77 94 Integrated High Poverty, Majority African 47.33 48.55 20.00 60 American Compass Low Poverty, 68.89 56.82 18.33 0.00 91 Learning Majority White Medium Poverty, 64.60 53.71 20.29 -0.06 Integrated 124 High Poverty, Majority African 53.07 52.80 17.44 0.20 55 American African- Comparison Low Poverty, 46.38 43.79 19.70 26 American Majority White Medium Poverty, 45.48 46.11 18.49 109 Integrated High Poverty, Majority African 39.56 46.57 17.18 304 American Compass Low Poverty, 51 .27 49.81 19.54 0.29 77 Learning Majority White Medium Poverty, 46.22 45.80 16.19 -0.01 182 Integrated High Poverty, Majority African 40.45 46.48 16.70 0.00 366 American 51 47 ,,'.\nL1~1w P1Jv..-1ty. l:l\n:i jc,1ity V\\-hit.- J,.1.-.Jiurn h ,v.-11y . Hi,il1 P,.,v.-11y, Int.-, II ~ ... ,J l:laj,_,, ity P..tri,-011 ,1,_ m.-1i, :::111 School Set Afli'Oll /'.',.n,..,ri,\n:in Figure 8. Mean Adjusted ITBS Reading NCE Scores by Race and School Set: 2004-05 Fifth Grade /TBS Mathematics NCE. The ANCOVA accounted for 71 .9% of the variance in ITBS Reading NCE scores. Significant main effects were observed for 2003-04 Benchmark Mathematics scale scores (F 1 1504 = 2368.1, p \u0026lt;.001\n61.2% of variance explained), African American status (F1.1504 = 37 .9, p \u0026lt; .001\n2.5% of variance explained), free lunch status (F1,1504 = 4.4, p \u0026lt;.05\n0.3% of variance explained) and School Set (F2 1504 = 5.5\np \u0026lt;.01\n0. 7% of variance explained). African American students had a significantly lower adjusted mean score (M' = 46.30) than other students (M' = 51 .63). A significant interaction effect was observed between treatment status and School Set (F2.1504 = 5.48, p \u0026lt; .01 ). Post hoc comparisons revealed that the comparison group had a significantly higher adjusted mean (M'=51.90) than the Compass group (M'=48.81\nES =-0.15) in medium-poverty, integrated schools, while the Compass students had a significantly higher mean (48.67\nES= +0.10) 52 than comparison students (M' = 46.60) in high-poverty African American schools (see Figure 9). As shown in Table 17, African American students scored below the national average of 50.0 regardless of school type or treatment, while other students scored above the national average regardless of school type or treatment. Table 17. Observed and Covariate-adjusted 2004-05 ITBS Mathematics NCE Mean Scores by Race, Treatment, and Homogeneous School Set: Fifth Grade Race Treatment School Set Mean Adjusted SD ES N Mean Non-AA Comparison Low Poverty, 73.73 52.58 20.73 33 Majority White Medium Poverty, 66.69 55.45 21.38 94 Integrated High Poverty, Majority African 51 .03 48.47 20.32 60 American Compass Low Poverty, 69.75 51 .64 17.63 -0.04 91 Learning Majority White Medium Poverty, 63.48 51 .04 21.28 -0.21 124 Integrated High Poverty, Majority African 53.96 50.60 21.41 0.10 55 American African- Comparison Low Poverty, 47.35 44.87 21 .56 26 American Majority White Medium Poverty, 44.30 48.36 19.66 109 Integrated High Poverty, Majority African 38.24 44.74 17.81 301 American Compass Low Poverty, 47.22 46.54 19.46 0.08 77 Learning Majority White Medium Poverty, 43.92 46.58 16.60 -0 .08 182 Integrated High Poverty, Majority African 39.85 46.74 18.20 0.09 366 American 53 48 Lc, ,.iv p,_, ,,,..1ty, I 1l8i.\u0026gt;I tty 'v\"il1tt.- ----~148.811 ~ - - - - ,6---' 1,1.-,Jilllll Puv .. 1t y, lrrt.-,Jr:rt.-.J School Set Hi, 1h P,Jv.-rty. li18i.rtty 6 f1i, 811 .\u0026lt;l 111.-1 i1:~,n - ( ,_,1n1 ,::u i::::,.,n -   t vmpoc3 Figure 9. Mean Adjusted ITBS Mathematics NCE Scores by Treatment and School Set: 2004-05 Fifth Grade Sixth Grade /TBS Reading NCE. The model accounted for 63.5% of the variance in !TBS Reading NCE scores. Only two significant main effects were observed: 2003-04 !TBS Reading scores (F,.556 = 834.7, p \u0026lt;.001) and race (F,.556 = 4.58, p \u0026lt;.05). African American students had a statistically significantly lower adjusted mean score {M'= 38. 77) than other students (M'= 41.91 ), although the magnitude of the difference was small. All groups except non-African American comparison students scored substantially below the national average (see Table 18). 54 - Table 18. Observed and Covariate-adjusted 2004-05 ITBS Reading NCE Mean Scores by Race and Treatment: Sixth Grade Race Treatment Mean Adjusted Mean SD ES N Non-AA Comparison 54.06 42.32 24.04 33 Compass 40 .56 41 .50 19.78 -0.04 39 Learning African- Comparison 37.29 38.28 17.53 209 American Compass 38.76 39.27 18.15 0.05 281 Learning /TBS Mathematics NCE. The model accounted for 64.6% of the variance in ITBS Reading NCE scores. The only significant main effect was for 2003-04 ITBS Reading scores (F1,576 = 920.0, p \u0026lt;.001\n61.5% of variance accounted for). As shown in Table 19, African American students in both the comparison and the Compass groups scored nearly a standard deviation below the national average (national M = 50, SD= 21 .06). Table 19. Observed and Covariate-adjusted 2004-05 ITBS Mathematics NCE Mean Scores by Race and Treatment: Sixth Grade Race Treatment Mean Adjusted Mean SD ES Non-AA Comparison 51 .03 39.24 25.05 Compass 42.80 38.60 21 .21 -0.03 Learning N 35 40 African- Comparison 33.63 34.66 19.35 223 American Compass 36.33 37.57 16.56 0.14 284 Learning 55 Seventh Grade /TBS Reading NCE. The model explained 51.6% of the variance in ITBS Reading NCE scores. Significant main effects were observed for 2003-04 Benchmark Literacy scale scores (F, .528 = 458.1, p \u0026lt;.001\n46.5% of variance), race (F1.528 = 8.15, p \u0026lt;.01\n1.5% of variance), treatment (F1.528 = 7.01 , p \u0026lt;.01\n1.3% of variance), and free lunch status (F1.528 = 5.73, p \u0026lt;.05\n1.1 % of variance). Follow-up tests showed that African American students had significantly lower adjusted mean scores (M' = 38.65) than other students (M' = 43.51), and that Compass learning students had significantly lower adjusted mean scores (M' = 38.85\nES= -0.21) than comparison students (M' = 43.31 ). As shown in Table 20, African American students performed substantially below the national average (about onehalf standard deviation), while other students performed at or near the national average. Table 20. Observed and Covariate-adjusted 2004-05 ITBS Reading NCE Mean Scores by Race and Treatment: Seventh Grade Race Treatment Mean Adjusted Mean SD ES N Non-AA Comparison 50.85 46.63 19.31 26 Compass 46.70 40.40 18.79 -0.30 33 Learning African- Comparison 38.56 40.00 15.85 230 American Compass 37.36 37 .30 17.79 -0.13 245 Learning /TBS Mathematics NCE. The model explained 60. 7% of the variance in ITBS Mathematics scores. Only two significant main effects were observed: 2004 Benchmark Mathematics scale scores (F1,525 = 686.2, p \u0026lt;.001\n56.7% of variance) and race (F,.525 = 5.15, p \u0026lt;.05). African American students had a statistically significantly lower adjusted mean score (M'= 38.52) than other students (M' = 42.19), although the magnitude of the difference was small. As with Reading, African American students performed substantially below the national average (about one-half standard deviation), while other students performed at or near the national average (see Table 21 ). 56 - Table 21 . Observed and Covariate-adjusted 2004-05 ITBS Mathematics NCE Mean Scores by Race and Treatment: Seventh Grade Race Treatment Mean Adjusted Mean SD ES N Non-AA Comparison 53.12 44.22 17.21 25 Compass 49.45 40.15 16.62 -0.19 33 Learning African- Comparison 37.25 38.16 16.88 American 229 Compass 37 .57 38.88 17.94 0.03 244 Learning Descriptive Profile of ITBS Mean NCE scores Reading. Figure 10 shows mean ITBS Reading NCE scores for African American and other students across grades 1 to 9. As seen in the figure, African American students in first grade score near the national average, but their performance declines across successive grade levels until grade 8, where the mean NCE was nearly one-half of a standard deviation below the national average. For other students, mean NCE scores were between 60 and 65 at all grades levels, or approximately onehalf standard deviation above the national average. Thus, the achievement gap is substantially wider at higher grade levels. 57 - t35- -- 45 - .... 40- 35- I I I I 1 ,-., 3 4 -... I I 5 13 GRADE - - - 1 I ,' 8 I ~ Ra,:~ - J-Jon- /Jo.A __ .t .fricon ,t .mericon Figure 10. Mean 2004-05 ITBS Reading Score by Grade Level and Race. Note: The norm group average score is 50.0 Mathematics. As seen in Figure 11, the patterns of mean ITBS Mathematics scores for African American and other students are strikingly similar, with a distinct peak occurring in fourth grade for both groups. The achievement gap is relatively constant across grade levels, with some widening of the gap at upper grade levels. As with Reading, African American students generally performed about one-half standard deviation below the national average, while other students generally performed about one-half standard deviation above the national average. 58 - 70 GO 50 ,.. / I' 40 / --I 2 3 4 ' ' ' ,,,. .,, 5 ,3 GRADE ..... ..... .. 8 -- 9 R:.ice -Non-/\u0026gt; .. A. .t,.fricrn1 .A.merican Figure 11. Mean 2004-05 ITBS Mathematics Score Grade Level and Race. Note: The norm group average score is 50.0. 59 - CONCLUSIONS The conclusions of this present study are presented in relation to each of the major research questions in the following sections. Primary Evaluation Question What are the effects of participation in CL on the achievement of African American and other students? What are the effects of the Compass Learning program on student achievement in Reading and Mathematics? Is the program effective in meeting the academic needs of African American students? The only simple main effects of Compass Learning on students were statistically significant negative effects on first grade ITBS Reading (ES= -0.16) Where program effects were observed, they varied by school context: On first-grade ORA, Compass students had significantly higher adjusted mean scores than comparison students only in low-poverty majority White schools (ES = +0.26). On second-grade ITBS Reading, comparison students had higher mean scores than Compass students in medium-poverty integrated schools (ES = -0.26), while Compass students had higher mean scores in high-poverty majority African American schools (ES = +0.15). On second-grade ITBS Mathematics, Compass students had significantly higher adjusted mean scores than comparison students only in low-poverty majority White schools (ES = +0.38). On third-grade ITBS Mathematics, Compass students had significantly higher adjusted mean scores than comparison students only in low-poverty majority White schools (ES = +0.26). On fifth-grade ITBS Mathematics, comparison students had higher mean scores than Compass students in medium-poverty integrated schools (ES = -0.15), while Compass students had higher mean scores in high-poverty majority African American schools (ES = +0.10). Across all grades, subjects, and achievement measures, a total of 14 separate analyses (8 Reading\n6 Math) examining treatment x School Set effects were conducted. Of these, 4 (50%) in Reading and 3 (50%) in Math showed no significant treatment main effects or interactions. Where significant effects did occur in Reading, two were main effects, respectively, showing comparison group advantages over Compass in Grade 1-ITBS (ES= -.25) and Grade 7-ITBS (ES= -0.21). The 60 other two effects were interactions, one showing a Compass advantage within the low-poverty School Set (ES = +0.41) in Grade 1-DRA, and the other showing a comparison group advantage within the medium-poverty School Set (ES = -0 .26) in Grade 2-ITBS. Thus, taken as a whole, the evidence provided by this study suggests that usage of Compass Learning was not associated with noticeable achievement gains in Reading for the overall sample of students or for African American students in particular. Significant effects in Math were associated with three interactions, showing Compass advantages in low-poverty schools in Grade 2-ITBS (ES = +0.26) and Grade 3-ITBS (ES = +0.26), and in high-poverty schools in Grade 5-ITBS (ES= +0.10). Comparison schools showed an advantage in medium-poverty schools in Grade 5-ITBS (ES = -0.15). Overall, Compass learning effects were inconsistent but positive in direction in Mathematics. Benefits were more frequent in lowpoverty than high-poverty schools. A summary of aggregate effect sizes across grades, subjects, and tests is provided in Figures 11 and 12. Specifically, the box plots in Figure 11 show the interquartile ranges (middle 50% distribution) of the computed effect sizes for each School Setting. As can be seen, the ranges extend above ES = +0.20 only for the low-poverty setting. The median effect size, represented by the dark horizontal lines in Figure 11 and the bar graphs in Figure 12, indicate a weak positive effect of Compass in the low-poverty setting but essentially zero effects in the medium- and high-poverty settings. 61 0.60 - 0.40 - 0.20 - en w 0.00 - -0.20 - -0.40 - -- I Low Poverty, MaJority White T _L I Medium Poverty, Integrated School Setting T I I J_ I High Poverty, Majority African American Figure 12. Box Plot of Compass Learning Effect Size Estimates Across All Outcomes and Grade Levels by Setting: African American Students 62 0.15 0.11 0.10 -+--- 0. 05 +-----1 0.00 --1-------'-l ' ___ __,_ ____ ~---------~,---~, ----i -0.0.1 -0.05 -+---------------u_,,unt-4------------ -0.10 +----------------------- -0.15 Low Poverty, Majority White Medium Poverty, Integrated High Poverty, Majority AA Figure 13. Median Compass Learning Effect Size Estimates Across All Outcomes and Grade Levels by Setting: African American Students  How does the achievement of African American students compare to that of other students in the same or similar schools? In both Reading and Mathematics across grades 1-9, ~frican American students generally performed about one-half standard deviation below the national average, while other students generally performed about one-half standard deviation above the national average. The pattern of Mathematics achievement across grade levels is virtually identical between African American and other students (see Figure 11) African American achievement in Reading declines precipitously as grade levels increase, while the Reading achievement of other students remains relatively steady across grades (see Figure 10). 63 Supplemental (Step 2) Evaluation Questions What is the quality, nature, and level of implementation of CL at the 19 elementary schools identified as implementing the program in 2004-05? The observation data indicated that CL was implemented in well-equipped computer labs that provided one computer for each student. The CL labs were almost always supervised by both a lab attendant and a classroom teacher that were responsive to student questions and actively monitored classroom activities. The data also revealed that all students in each class, both African American and non-African American, equally participated and were highly engaged and attentive to the CL activities. The interview results indicated that most teachers routinely customized their classroom instruction based on CL performance. However, nearly one-half (45.2%) of the teachers responded that they never used CL reports on individual student performance, but rather frequently used class reports by ethnicity (59.8%) and by gender (64.6%). Overall, these results indicate that the quality and nature of CL implementation was generally effective with regard to how students use CL. However, the data also revealed that teachers more frequently based instructional decisions on class-level performance rather than Cl's recommended strategy of using student-level performance to achieve individualized instruction. With regard to the level of implementation, most students' scheduled time for CL activities fell below program recommendations of 60-minutes per content area per week. Thus, the quality, nature, and level of implementation was generally effective with regard to computer lab environments and student engagement during CL use, but was inconsistent with regard to the degree to which student CL activities were individualized and the amount of scheduled CL time. What is the level of participation in CL by African American students relative to other ethnic groups at the implementing schools? The Compasslearning program was implemented in 19 LRSD Title 1 schools comprised of student populations that were 67.9% African American during 2004-2005. Triangulation of data from multiple sources indicated that African American and non-African American students fully and equally participated in CL program activities at their schools. Specifically, the direct classroom observation data revealed that of 327 students in CL computer labs a// of the 277 African American and 50 nonAfrican American students were highly engaged in the use of CL in well-supported environments. 64 When lab attendants and technology specialists were asked which students used CL, the responses indicated a// students within the specified grade ranges regularly participated in CL classroom and lab activities. The district personnel involved with CL reported that CL is implemented in schools with the highest level of student need, or Title 1 Schools. What are the perceptions of teachers, lab attendants, and technology specialists regarding CL program implementation, impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? There was common agreement across the teachers, lab attendants, and technology specialists that the CL program was generally implemented well and that the teachers and administrators supported the use of CL in their schools. Teacher responses reflected their support for CL through their agreement that CL not only increased student learning but also increased the level of student attention, interest, and engagement and was valuable for improving the academic achievement of African American students. Additionally, nearly three-fourths of the teachers agreed that they routinely aligned CL with their lessons and reviewed CL content in class. There was general consensus among the respondents that the strongest aspect of CL was program flexibility to meet individual student needs. However, teachers also identified reinforcement of skills and the curriculum as the strongest aspect of CL, whereas, the lab attendants and technology specialists noted alignment of CL with LSRD curriculum standards and student enjoyment or engagement as additional areas of strength. When asked about the weakness of the CL program, respondents from the three groups were concerned about software issues due to difficulty students had in using some aspects of the CL program. The teachers and lab attendants thought students needed more computer time to benefit from the program. The technology specialists remarked that the CL program lacked sufficient curriculum mapping. There was unanimous agreement that the CL program should be continued due to its positive effect on student learning. What are the perceptions of parents/guardians of CL students regarding program impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? The Parent Survey results reflect the target population for this evaluation in that over 84% of the surveys represented African American children who use CL at school. Most parents responded that they were aware of CL and believed that the program was an important part of their child or children's education. However, there was less agreement that CL increased student interest in school or improved achievement in math and reading. Reasoning behind these responses was revealed in 65 remarks to open-ended questions, which suggested that parents' understanding of CL was somewhat misguided. Most parents seemed to believe that their children attended the computer lab to learn about computers, rather than to improve math and reading skills. For example, the most common reply regarding the \"best\" part of CL was improving computer skills and the \"worst\" aspect was possible access to inappropriate Internet-based materials - both of which were unrelated to use of CL. Responses from less than 20% of the parents reflected a greater understanding of the overall purpose of CL in that their reported \"best\" aspect of the program was improvement of reading and math skills and the worst aspect was replacement of traditional learning with computer-based learning. When parents were asked about what changes they would like to see in CUcomputer lab program, half wanted more computer time for their children. However, the data suggested that this extra time was requested to improve students' computer skills. The parents that suggested more variety in CL lessons seemed to have a better grasp of Cl's purpose. Overall, parents were supportive of their child or children using computers, but many were unaware of the overall instructional purpose the CL program. What are the perceptions of school principals, whose schools no longer use CL, with regard to past use of the CL program and possible adoption of a different program? Of the four LRSD principals who no longer used CL at their schools, three indicated that CL was generally effective and that teachers liked it, however, the program was discontinued due to technical problems. One of the principals, however, was less positive about CL as a result of teacher complaints about the program. Specifically, teachers indicated it took too much time to align CL activities with their classroom lesson plans, there were too many technical problems, and they did not like monitoring the CL computer lab. Three of the four principals adopted different integrated learning systems (ILSs}, while one chose to implement a non-lLS computer integration model. The principals that adopted the new programs indicated that fewer technical problems had occurred and teacher acceptance was greater. These results suggest that although CL use had been discontinued at the four schools, the principals had a generally positive regard for the use of technology to improve student learning in schools with a predominately African American population. 66 Appendix A Compasslearning Schools by Percentage of African American Students 67 Little Rock School District Compasslearning Schools by Percentage of African American Students School Name CL Schools in 2004-2005: Elementary Schools Bale Booker Brady Carver Chicot Fair Park Forest Park Franklin Fulbright Geyer Springs Gibbs Mabelvale McDermott Otter Creek Rightsell Rockefeller Stephens Wakefield Williams Past CL Participating Schools: Elementary School Mitchell Middle Schools Cloverdale Henderson High School Accelerated Learning Center (ALC) Percentage of African American Students 82% 53% 78% 52% 73% 75% 20% 96% 26% 88% 53% 80% 62% 60% 100% 67% 95% 78% 52% 96% 82% 82% 92% 68 Appendix B 2004-2005 Time Scheduled for Compasslearning by School and Grade 69 Little Rock School District 2004-2005 Time* Scheduled for Compasslearning by School and Grade Grade Level School K 2nd 3rd McDermott 60 60 60 60 Williams 60 60 60 60 Carver 60 60 60 60 Fair Park 60 60 60 60 Forest Park n/a 30 60 60 Chicot n/a n/a 45 45 Rightsell 45 45 45 45 Stephens 30 30 30 30 Booker 30 30 30 30 Brady 30 30 30 30 Bale n/a n/a n/a 30 Franklin 30 30 30 30 Fulbright 30 30 30 30 Geyer Springs n/a 30 30 30 Gibbs 30 30 30 30 Mabelvale 30 30 30 30 Otter Creek 30 30 30 30 Rockefeller n/a n/a n/a n/a Wakefield 30 30 30 30 Overall averages 39.6 38.4 40.6 40.0  Time in minutes .. \"nla\" indicates grade does not use CompassLeaming 4th 5th 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 45 45 45 45 60 60 60 60 45 45 30 n/a 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 43.4 44.1 School average 60 60 60 60 54 45 45 40 40 35 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 40.5 70 Appendix C Evaluation Instruments 71 Survey of Computer Use for Compasslearning School ____________ Observer Name __________ Observation Date Grade(s) Observed ______ Setting: __ Classroom __ Lab Time In __ Time Out Number of Students Using CompassLeaming: __ African American __ Non-African American Number of Teachers present: _ Classroom Teacher(s) _ lab attendant(s) _ technology specialist(s) Number of Classes observed during the two hours: ___ _ Computer Configuration and Use How many computers were available for Compasslearning? One 2-4 5-10 11 or more How frequently did malfunctions occur on computers used for Compasslearning? Never _Rarely _ Occasionally _ Frequently _ Extensively Compasslearning Activities In which subject areas did students complete CompassLearning work ( check all that were observed)? _ Language Arts Social Studies Mathematics _Writing _ Reading Cross-Curricular Science TALLY the types of questions students asked while using CompassLearning. _ Content area (e.g. how to solve a problem\nthe meaning of a word) _ Software use (e.g., how to log in\nhow to move to next section, how to take a test) _ Computer use (e.g., how to get the mouse or keyboard to work properly) _ Non-CompassLeaming questions. (e.g., Do I have to sit next to John? Can I go to the restroom?) What was the overall level of African American student attention, interest, and engagement while using CompassLearning? Low Moderate _High What was the level of academically focused class time? Low Moderate _High Observer Notes Most of the computers used for Compasslearning were _ Up-to-date _ Aging but adequate _ Outdated/limited capacity During the observation, computers were used for CompassLeaming by _ Only a few students (less than 10%) _ Some students (about 10-50%) _ Most (students about 51-90%) _ Nearly all or all students (91-100%) What types of instructions were given to students at the start of the lesson (check all that were observed)? _ Content area review (e.g. reading, math) _ Software use (e.g., how to log in, find correct lesson) _ Computer use (e.g., locate software, use mouse) Classroom behavior rules _ No instructions were given What was the predominate role of the teacher(s) during student use of CompassLeaming? _ Continuously moved among students to actively monitor student work and answer questions _ Occasionally moved among students to monitor student work and answer questions _ Rarely moved among students to monitor student work and answer questions _ Remained at one location (e.g., at desk) rather than moving among the students. What was the overall level of NON-African American student attention, interest, and engagement while using CompassLeaming? Low Moderate _High 72 Teacher Compasslearning Questionnaire (TCLQ) School ______ _ Your Gender__ Your Ethnicity _________ _ Do you know about the Compasslearning (computer lab) program at your school? Yes No If Yes, please answer the remaining questions. If No, please stop hear and return the survey when they are collected. TCLQ Items 2, ~ ~ Ii i 2, ~ I! l ij I~ z 1. Most of our school computers that are used for Compasslearning are kept in good working condition. 2. I can readily obtain answers to questions about Compasslearning. 3. The use of Compasslearning has increased the level of student attention, interest, and engagement in learning. 4. Parents and community members support our school's use of Compasslearning. 5. The use of Compasslearning has increased student learning and achievement. 6. I am able to align Compasslearning with my lessons and the district's standards-based curriculum. 7. Overall, this program seems valuable for improving the achievement of African American students. 8. I have received enough training to address student learning needs through the use Compasslearning resources. 9. My computer skills are adequate to access Compasslearning resources. 10. The administration fully supports teacher use of  Compasslearning resources. 11. I routinely customize Compasslearning activities to meet the individual needs of students. 12. Our school has a well-developed plan that guides the Compasslearning program. 13. I routinely provide academic review of content covered during student use of Compasslearning. 14. Teachers in this school are generally supportive of the Compasslearning program. 15. I routinely modify my instructional practices on the basis of student performance in Compasslearning. 16. The use of Compasslearning has improved the quality of student work. 73 Directions: Please use the space provided to write a brief response to the following questions. 1) How many years of experience do you have with Compasslearning? _____ Years 2) Circle the grade level(s) you currently teach that use Compasslearning K 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 3) How are the subject areas and performance levels of Compasslearning activities selected for each of your students? 4) How frequently do you use the following Compasslearning Reports?  Whole class - Never - Seldom _Frequently  Individual Student - Never - Seldom _Frequently  Class by Ethnicity - Never - Seldom _Frequently  Class by Gender - Never - Seldom _Frequently  Other - Never - Seldom _Frequently 5.a) If you use Compasslearning reports, what is your primary reason? 5.b) If you do NOT use Compasslearning reports, what is your primary reason? ______ _ 6) What are the strongest aspects of the Compasslearning Program? _________ _ 7) What are the weakest aspects of the Compasslearning Program? __________ _ 8) Do you think your school should continue using Compasslearning? _Yes No Why?--------------------------------- Page 2 TCLQ 74 Little Rock School District (LSRD) Compasslearning Parent Survey Dear Parent/Guardian We would like to know what you think about your child or children using the CompassLearning program (the program your child or children work on in the computer Jab). Please take a few minutes to complete the following survey. Only complete 1 (one) survey if you have more than one child in the school district Directions  Circle your response or fill- in the requested information in the space provided.  Do not put your name on the survey.  Share with us your honest opinions to help improve this program. Information about your Child/Children Circle the grade levels of your child/children K 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Circle the ethnicity of your child/children Caucasian African American Hispanic Asian Multi-Ethnic Computer Lab Program (Compasslearning) Do you know about the computer lab program at your child 's/children 's school? Yes No If Yes, please answer the remaining questions. If No, please have your child return the survey to his/her teacher. How did you learn about the computer lab activities? School Teacher My kids Other parents/friends Do you think your child/children get excited about using the computer lab? Yes Somewhat No Not sure Do you think computer lab time is an important part of your child 's/children 's education? Yes Somewhat No Not sure Do you think use of the Computer Lab has improved your child 's/children 's interest in school? .. ... .. ...... ..... ....... ..... .... ... Yes Somewhat achievement in reading and math? ... ...... Yes 1 Somewhat No No Not Sure Not Sure Your Comments Please respond in the space provided and use back of sheet if more space is needed. What is the Best thing about your child/children using the Computer Lab program? What is the Worst thing about your child/children using the Computer Lab program? What Changes would you like to see in the Computer Lab program? 75 Little Rock School District (LSRD) Compasslearning Student Focus Group Protocol Nature of the Activities 1. How long have you been using Compasslearning? a. What kinds of activities do you do when using Compasslearning? b. Have you been using it in your classroom or in a lab? 2. What do you think about the amount of time that you spend using Compasslearning? a. Is it enough - or too much? b. Why? 3. What kinds of computer problems have you experienced when using it? 4. What types of changes would you like to see in the Compasslearning program? Usefulness of CompassLearning 5. Do you think Compasslearning helps you to do better in sc\nThis project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resoources.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_640","title":"Program evaluation","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["2004-01/2005-12"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","School improvement programs","Educational law and legislation"],"dcterms_title":["Program evaluation"],"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/640"],"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":["documents (object genre)"],"dcterms_extent":["161 pages"],"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\nFriday Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark HERSCHEL H. FRIDAY (1932-1994) WILLIAM H. SUTTON. P.A. BYRON M. EISEMAN. JR. F.A. JOE D. BELL, F.A. JAMES A. 8UTTRY, F.A. FREDERICK S. URSERY. P.A. OSCAR E. DAVIS, JR. P.A. JAMES C. CLARK. JR. P.A. THOMAS P. LEGGETT. P.A. JOHN DEWEY WATSON. P.A. PAUL B. BENHAM HI. P.A. LARRY W. BURKS. P.A. A. WYCKLIFF NISBET. JR. F.A. JAMES EDWARD HARRIS. F.A. J. PHILLIP MALCOM. P.A. JAMES M. SIMPSON. P.A. JAMES M. SAXTON. P.A. J. SHEPHERD RUSSELL III. P.A. DONALD H. BACON. F.A. WILLIAM THOMAS BAXTER F.A. JOSEPH B. HURST, JR. F.A. ELIZABETH ROBBEN MURRAY. F.A. CHRISTOPHER HELLER P.A. LAURA HENSLEY SMITH. P.A. ROBERT S. SHAFER P.A. WILLIAM M. GRIFFIN III. F.A. MICHAEL S. MOORE. F.A. DIANE S. MACKEY. F.A. WALTER M. EBEL III. P.A. KEVIN A. CRASS, P.A. WILLIAM A. WADDELL, JR, P.A. SCOTT J. LANCASTER F.A. ROBERT B. BEACH. JR. F.A. J. LEE BROWN. F.A. JAMES C. BAKER JR. F.A, HARRY A. LIGHT. P.A. SCOTT H. TUCKER P.A. GUY ALTON WADE. F.A. PRICE C. GARDNER P.A. TONIA P. JONES. P.A. DAVID D. WILSON. F.A. JEFFREY IJ. MOORE. F.A. DAVID M. GRAF. P.A. CARLA GUNNELS SPAINHOUR P.A. JONANN ELIZABETH CONIGLIO. F.A. R CHRISTOPHER LAWSON, F.A. ATTORNEYS AT LAW A LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP www.fridayfirfn.com 2000 REGIONS CENTER 400 WEST CAPITOL LITTLE ROCK. ARKANSAS 722013493 TELEPHONE 501-376-2011 FAX 501-376-2147 3425 NORTH FUTRALL DRIVE. SUITE 103 FAYETTEVILLE. ARKANSAS 72703-4811 TELEPHONE 479-685-2011 FAX 479-605-2147 FRAN C. HICKMAN. F.A. BETTY J. DEMORY. F.A. LYNDA M. JOHNSON. P.A. JAMES W. SMITH. F.A. CLIFFORD W. PLUNKETT, P.A. DANIEL L HERRINGTON. P.A. MARVIN L. CHILDERS K. COLEMAN WESTBROOK. JR. P.A. ALLISON J. CORNWELL ELLEN M. OWENS. P.A. JASON B. HENDREN BRUCE B. TIDWELL JOSEPH F. MCKAY ALEXANDRA A. IFRAH JAY T. TAYLOR MARTIN A. KASTEN BRYAN W. DUKE JOSEPH G. NICHOLS ROBERT T. SMITH RYAN A. BOWMAN TIMOTHY C. E2:ELL T. MICHELLE ATOR KAREN S. HALBERT SARAH M. COTTON KRISTEN S. ROWLANDS ALAN G. BRYAN LINDSEY MITCHAM KHAYYAM M. EDDINGS JOHN F. PEISERICH AMANDA Caffs rose BRANDON J. HARRISON STEVEN L. BROOKS H. WAYNE YOUNG. JR JAMIE HUFFMAN JONES KIMBERLY DICKERSON OFCOUNSEL B.S. CLARK WILLIAM L. TERRY WILLIAM L. FATTON. JR. H.T. LARZELERE. P.A. JOHN C. ECHOLS. F.A. 208 NORTH FIFTH STREET BLYTHEVILLE. ARKANSAS 72315 TELEPHONE 870-762-2898 FAX 870-762-2918 CHRISTOPHER HELLER LITTLE ROCK TEL 501-370-1506 FAX 501-244-5344 halUrQfec.nac January 12, 2004 Office of Desegregation Monitoring Mr. John Walker JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Jan 13 2004 Received Re: Little Rock School District Dear John: Two recent evaluations which were done in compliance with Judge Wilsons Order are enclosed. They are: Little Rock School District Literacy Program Evaluation, November 2003 and An Evaluation of Mathematics and Science Programs in the Little Rock School District from 1998 to December 2003. Please call me if you have any questions or concerns about these evaluations. Yours very truly, CJH/bk ist6pher Heller cc w/enc.: Ms. Ann Marshal Desegregation Monitor One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Dr. Morris HolmesJOHN W. WALKER SHAWN CHILDS John w. Walker, P.A. Attorney At Law 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 Telephone (501) 374-3758 FAX (501) 374-4187 received MAR ^1? 2004 Via Facsimile \u0026amp; U.S. Mail OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING OF COUNSEL ROBERT McHENEY. P.A. DONNA J. McHENEY 8210 Hendesson Ro.ad Little Rock, Akkans.as 72210 Phone: (501) 372-3425  F. (501) 372-3428 EiVAIL: mcheiiryd@swbell.net  J March 8. 2004 Mr. Cliristopher Heller FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK 400 W. Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Dear Chris\nI have reviewed your evaluations and find that they are grossly inadequate and incomplete. In addition to that I am still awaiting the evaluations of the other remaining programs which were contemplated by our agreement. Because we have already invoked the process required by the court, I am putting ODM on notice of our position. Very truly yours, /\nI I : i/ L b' L  John W. Walker '-6- JWW\nlp cc: Ms. Ann Marshal Mr. Sam Jones Mr. Steve Jones Mr. MarK Burnette-fo fa.)C CP received MAR 1 200't OFFICEOF DESEGREGATION MONITORING John W. Walker, P.A. Attorney At Law 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 Telephone (501) 374-3758 FAX (501) 374-4187 9NW01IN0WN0llVD3aD3S30 d030HJ0 ^00? J I yvw JOHN W. WALKER SHAWN CHILDS a3A3O3a Via Facsimile - 371-0100 March 10, 2004 OF COUNSEL ROBERT McHenry, P.A. DONNAJ.McHENRY 8210 Henderson Road Little Rock, Arkansas 72210 Phone: (501) 372-3425  Fax (501) 372-3428 Email: mchenryd@swbell.net Ms. Ann S. Marshall, Monitor Office of Desegregation monitoring 124 West Capital, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Re: Little Rock School District Dear Ms. Marshall: Now that we have the 8*** Circuit Court of Appeals decision, it is very clear that the court is concerned, as we are, about improving the academic achievement of African American students. Our belief is that all of the components of the Plan were intended to work hand in glove to that end. When we last met with your office after having invoked the process set forth in the Plan regarding compliance issues, there were numerous areas of disagreement with respect to the Districts obligations. Those areas have not been resolved. Moreover, we did not reach agreements on whether all programs as set forth in the March 15, 2001 Compliance Report were to be evaluated or which ones indeed were to be evaluated. Little Rock took the position that it would only evaluate literacy and math. We resisted that position then and we do so now because such limitation does not address the very purposes of the evaluations in the first place. Dr. Bonnie Lesley and Chris Heller were the Districts representatives at the conference with you. Joy Springer, Bob Pressman and I (for a short while) represented Joshua. Since Dr. Lesley has left the District we have had no further contact with anyone from the District for the purpose of followup discussions regarding the subject. On or about January 15, 2004,1 received two lengthy reports from the District entitled: 1) Little Rock Literacy Program Evaluation\nand 2) An Evaluation of Mathematics \u0026amp; Science Programs in the Little Rock School District from 1998 to 2003. They were sent without explanation or an invitation for discussion. Mr. Heller was aware that we had invoked the process outlined in the Plan and that apparently your office was awaiting more responses from LRSD before having more followup meeting between Joshua and Little Rock. We have received the updates you have sent the parties as you have monitored LRSDs program evaluation. 1We have now completed our initial review and discussion regarding those evaluations and find not only do they fail to address all of the programs that we negotiated to be evaluated but, that inter alia, the evaluations are keyed to No Child Left Behind mandates or State accountability mandates. They appear to be less keyed to the explicit outcome objectives of the plan or to the evaluation processes the district adopted in its compliance plan and regulations. While Mr. Heller has contended that there are no outcome requirements of the plan, it was certainly a promised expectation that programs would be altered, modified, and improved upon their inadequacies and then nonworking programs which failed to remediate achievement disparity would be eliminated and replaced. The objective we expect is t hat achievement of black school children will be not less than 90% of the achievement of white school children. I believe that the program evaluations that have been presented miss their mark on many counts, some of which I now bring to your attention as the process facilitator with a notation that these comments are also being delivered to Mr. Heller for the Districts use. These evaluations address only literacy, math and science which certainly are not all the programs that are related to improving and remediating the academic achievement of African American students. I call your attention to the Courts Order of September 13, 2002, page 168. I am also informing Judge Wilson of our serious concerns regarding the deficiencies of the program evaluations. Our list is not comprehensive because we need to 1) thoroughly review the evaluations, 2) have discussions via the process and the study itself and 3) have more information regarding the Districts intentions. 1) Joshua remains concerned about the lack of achievement for African American students at virtually all grade levels. 2) The literacy report does not identify any significant relationship or correlation between the literacy programs implemented by LRSD and the achievement of African American students. 3) Neither the literacy report nor the math/science report addressed African American student achievement by grade level, achievement by school or specific remediation mastery by student, grade level or school. None of the curricular programs in the study had a significant impact on student achievement in 5* grade, for example. 4) The literacy report (page 45) makes the surprising notation that substantial differences exist in the overall achievement of African American students and other students in the Little Rock School District. This conclusion is, in large part, what this action is intended to correct. Joshua interprets that notation to mean that the programs that have been utilized have not successfully addressed Afiican American student achievement nor have they been modified or replaced by others which promise greater success. It surely cannot mean that the objective is impossible to attain. 25) The control groups utilized for the literacy report raise another concern. In this report, a significant number of the students, almost half of them, in the District appear to be eliminated from the study. 6) The literacy report contains formative information through a few teacher focus groups, however, this data is not inclusive of the total teacher population responsible for remediation of African American student achievement. Therefore, Joshua must conclude that such information is skewed at best. 7) Joshua recalls the representations of Dr. Bonnie Lesley during her court testimony that the achievement gap in grades K-2 had been eliminated according to her DRA assessments during the 2001-2002 school year. The 2003 literacy evaluation submitted by the District now contradicts her findings in that approximately half of the Afncan American students during 2002-2003 in 4* grade were performing Below Basic. Those second grade students would appear to be the 4* graders now performing below basic. Surely there are sufficient data to prepare an evaluation of literacy in these grades (K-2) and for the District to be able to track their individual performances through Dr. Lesleys data. I read that the Courts Order, Page 170, paragraph A, contemplates the use of this data, i.e., LRSD now has over three years of testing data. JJ 8) Joshua remains concerned regarding the Districts ability to accurately record, collect, retain and retrieve student achievement data. 9) There is no discussion regarding the participation of Afncan American students in Pre-AP and AP courses which were allegedly instituted to address Afncan American achievement. Nor is there any evaluation of the Districts tutoring programs or other programs aimed at improving Afiican American performance. 10) The report indicates that African American students had substantially lower absolute performance than did other students. The academic gains on literary tests were lower for African American students than for other students. The evaluations do not compare the achievement of Benchmark exams of T* or 8* grade students for 2001 or 2002 scoring Below Basic in successive years. Moreover, the SAT 9 test results for higher grade students reflect a need for more information. 11) The District was inconsistent in providing the necessary support for teachers to attend necessary literacy training (Reading Recovery, Effective Literary and ELLA). 12) The evaluation reports discussed professional development in literacy and mathematics while ignoring the three major professional development commitments in the March 15, 2001 compliance report. 3The foregoing list is merely suggestive\nit is not exhaustive. Because of your designated role, I am requesting that Judge Wilson involve your office in preparing a comprehensive monitoring report of the Districts compliance with its student achievement commitments by use of the evaluation process. That I believe was a role envisioned for ODM by both the Court Of Appeals and by the District Court as well. I will be filing the necessary papers to that end, but in the meantime would you kindly advise me as to the status of our having already invoked the process set forth by the plan. Sincerely, iy John W. Walker ' .\u0026gt;4^^ I 1 / c \\ JWW:js cc: Honorable Judge William R. Wilson Mr. Chris Heller Mr. Robert Pressman All Other Counsel 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS RICHARD SHEPPARD ARNOLD UNITED STATES COURTHOUSE OUU W. CAPI lUL, ROOM 423 i-iTTLc nOCK, Bill WILSON JUDGE Ov4-5i|UU Pscsimiiv (ovi) 604-5 i45 March 10, 2004 Tho Wz^nz^rahlQ Oav/ ( (UI LJ U ICppQI l/UI LI (UUOC 500 West Capiioi, rsucrn i45 Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Judge Ray ECEIVE, MAR 1 0 2004 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITOR?!: Enclosed iS s copy of Mr, Walker's March 10, 2004 fax iexter to Ms. Marshall. by copy of this letter I remind Mr. Walker and other counsel of record to copy you with correspondence and other matters. ^//// / i/^ /I/1 b't / /A' I Wn\u0026lt; R. Wilson, Jr. Tiginal.' Athor r'O Mr. JaiTiSS W. lerk \u0026amp; 1----------- COURT eastern DISTRICT ARKANSAS IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS LITTLE ROCK DIVISION MAR 1 1 2004 JAMES W McCORMACK, CLERK ____________ LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT DEP. CLERK PLAINTIFF V. No. 4:82CV00866 WRW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. I, ET AL. RECEIVED DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. MAR 1' 2004 INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. OFFICEOF DESEGREGATION MONITORING INTERVENORS GREG BOLLEN, JAMES BOLDEN, MARTHA WHATLEY AND SUE ANN WHISKER INTERVENORS 1. ORDER I have received a copy of Mr. Walkers March 10, 2004 letter to Ms. Ann S. Marshall. A copy of the letter is attached to this Order. The letter appears to be an anticipatory objection to a report that has not been filed\nand a request for facilitation by Ms. Marshall as the Director of the ODM. 2. When the LRSD report is filed, in the next few days, if Joshua perceives deficiencies in it, I would anticipate that, at that time, appropriate objections would be made, which might or might not include the points mentioned in the March 10 letter. J. I note parenthetically that the meeting in Ms. Marshalls office, referenced in the first paragraph of the March 10 letter, does not give a date of the meeting, and does not mention what compliance issues were discussed, nor does it identify the numerous areas of disagreement. Any objections filed after the LRSD report is in existence should be shot through with specificity and precision. 'I8- 4. Any suggestion of facilitating at this point, if there is such a suggestion to be read into the letter, is late  far too late. I am going to take the LRSD report, the objections, if any, by Joshua, and decide the issues presented on April 27, or soon thereafter. 5. Consistent with the specific directions given to the ODM, 1 would expect that office to file a report on the progress under  2.7.1. soon, so that the parties will have ample time to study it, and determine whether they want to rely on it at the April 26 - 27 hearing, or want to object to it or parts of it. 6. As I think can be discerned from the above, I expect reports and objections from the parties and the ODM to be timely filed, so that we can wrap the matter up during the April hearing. To this end, I invite your keen attention to my letter dated March 9, 2004. I point out that this letter contains directives, not goals or suggestions. rfH- IT IS SO ORDERED this / /^day of March, 2004. ITED STATES DISTRICT JUDG| UNITED Wm. R. Wilson, Jr.John W. Walker, P.A. Attorney At Law 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 Telephone (501) 374-3758 FAX (501) 374-4187 JOHN W. WALKER SHAWN CHILDS Via Facsimile - 371-0100 March 10, 2004 OF COUNSEL ROBERT McHenry, pa. DONNA J. McHENRY 8210 Henderson Road Little Rock, Arkansas 72210 Phone: (501) 372-3425  Fax (501) 372-3428 Email: mchenryd^wbelLnet Ms. Ann S. Marshall, Monitor Office of Desegregation monitoring 124 West Capital, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 ^4/? / Re: Little Rock School District nsa\n's Dear Ms. Marshall: Now that we have the 8* Circuit Court of Appeals decision, it is very clear that the court is concerned, as we are, about improving the academic achievement of African American students. Our belief is that all of the components of the Plan were intended to work hand in glove to that end. When we last met -with your office after having invoked the process set forth in the Plan regarding compliance issues, there were numerous areas of disagreement with respect to the Districts obligations. Those areas have not been resolved. Moreover, we did not reach agreements on whether all programs as set forth in the March 15, 2001 Compliance Report were to be evaluated or which ones indeed were to be evaluated. Little Rock took the position that it would only evaluate literacy and math. We resisted that position then and we do so now because such limitation does not address the very purposes of the evaluations in the first place. Dr. Bonnie Lesley and Chris Heller were the Districts representatives at the conference with you. Joy Springer, Bob Pressman and I (for a short while) represented Joshua. Since Dr. Lesley has left the District we have had no further contact with anyone from the District for the purpose of followup discussions regarding the subject. On or about January 15, 2004,1 received two lengthy reports from the District entitled\n1) Little Rock Literacy Program Evaluation\nand 2) An Evaluation of Mathematics \u0026amp; Science Programs in the Little Rock School District from 1998 to 2003. They were sent without explanation or an invitation for discussion. Mr. Heller was aware that we had invoked the process outlined in the Plan and that apparently your office was awaiting more responses from LRSD before having more followup meeting between Joshua and Little Rock. We have received the updates you have sent the parties as you have monitored LRSDs program evaluation. 1 We have now completed our initial review and discussion regarding those evaluations and find not only do they fail to address all of the programs that we negotiated to be evaluated but, that inter aha, the evaluations are keyed to No Child Left Behind mandates or State accountabihty mandates. They appear to be less keyed to the exphcit outcome objectives of the plan or to the evaluation processes the district adopted in its comphance plan and regulations. While Mr. Heller has contended that there are no outcome requirements of the plan, it was certainly a promised expectation that programs would be altered, modified, and improved upon their inadequacies and then nonworking programs which failed to remediate achievement disparity would be eliminated and replaced. The objective we expect is t hat achievement of black school children will be not less than 90% of the achievement of white school children. I believe that the program evaluations that have been presented miss their mark on many counts, some of which I now bring to your attention as the process facilitator with a notation that these comments are also being delivered to Mr. Heller for the Districts use. These evaluations address only literacy, math and science which certainly are not all the programs that are related to improving and remediating the academic achievement of African American students. I call your attention to the Courts Order of September 13, 2002, page 168. I am also informing Judge Wilson of our serious concerns regarding the deficiencies of the program evaluations. Our list is not comprehensive because we need to 1) thoroughly review the evaluations, 2) have discussions via the process and the study itself and 3) have more information regarding the Districts intentions. 1) Joshua remains concerned about the lack of achievement for Afiican American students at virtually all grade levels. 2) The literacy report does not identify any significant relationship or correlation between the literacy programs implemented by LRSD and the achievement of African American students. 3) Neither the literacy report nor the math/science report addressed African American student achievement by grade level, achievement by school or specific remediation mastery by student, grade level or school. None of the curricular programs in the study had a significant impact on student achievement in 5* grade, for example. 4) The literacy report (page 45) makes the surprising notation that substantial difierences exist in the overall achievement of African American students and other students in the Little Rock School District. This conclusion is, in large part, what this action is intended to correct. Joshua interprets that notation to mean that the programs that have been utilized have not successfully addressed Afiican American student achievement nor have they been modified or replaced by others which promise greater success. It surely cannot mean that the objective is impossible to attain. 25) The control groups utilized for the literacy report raise another concern. In this report, a significant number of the students, almost half of them, in the District appear to be eliminated fi-om the study. 6) The literacy report contains formative information through a few teacher focus groups, however, this data is not inclusive of the total teacher population responsible for remediation of African American student achievement. Therefore, Joshua must conclude that such information is skewed at best. 7) Joshua recalls the representations of Dr. Bonnie Lesley during her court testimony that the achievement gap in grades K-2 had been eliminated according to her DRA assessments during the 2001-2002 school year. The 2003 literacy evaluation submitted by the District now contradicts her findings in that approximately half of the Afiican American students during 2002-2003 in 4* grade were performing Below Basic. Those second grade students would appear to be the 4* graders now performing below basic. Surely there are sufficient data to prepare an evaluation of literacy in these grades (K-2) and for the District to be able to track their individual performances through Dr. Lesleys data. I read that the Courts Order, Page 170, paragraph A, contemplates the use of this data, i.e., LRSD now has over three years of testing data. 57 8) Joshua remains concerned regarding the Districts ability to accurately record, collect, retain and retrieve student achievement data. 9) There is no discussion regarding the participation of African American students in Pre-AP and AP courses which were allegedly instituted to address Afiican American achievement. Nor is there any evaluation of the Districts tutoring programs or other programs aimed at improving Afiican American performance. 10) The report indicates that African American students had substantially lower absolute performance than did other students. The academic gains on literary tests were lower for AlBrican American students than for other students. The evaluations do not compare the achievement of Benchmark exams of 4* or S'** grade students for 2001 or 2002 scoring Below Basic in successive years. Moreover, the SAT 9 test results for higher grade students reflect a need for more information. 11) The District was inconsistent in providing the necessary support for teachers to attend necessary literacy training (Reading Recovery, Effective Literary and ELLA). 12) The evaluation reports discussed professional development in literacy and mathematics while ignoring the three major professional development commitments in the March 15, 2001 compliance report. 3The foregoing list is merely suggestive\nit is not exhaustive. Because of your designated role, I am requesting that Judge Wilson involve your office in preparing a comprehensive monitoring report of the Districts compliance with its student achievement commitments by use of the evaluation process. That I believe was a role envisioned for ODM by both the Court Of Appeals and by the District Court as well. I will be filing the necessary papers to that end, but in the meantime would you kindly advise me as to the status of our having already invoked the process set forth by the plan. Sincerely, John W. Walker JWW\njs cc\nHonorable Judge William R. Wilson Mr. Chris Heller Mr. Robert Pressman All Other Counsel 4 CHECK LIST FOR ENGLISH CLASSROOMS r Observed in class Top Ten Things That Should Be Seen Comments 1. Teacher engaged with students. 2. Students' creations on walls. 3. Students often seated in groups or pods._________________ 4. Students who can discuss their work.. 5. Students interacting with peers. 6. Classroom libraries and sustained reading time._________ 7. Students able to relate benchmarks, standards, assessments.__________ 8. Use of rubrics and performance-based assessments. 9. Benchmarks clearly displayed in room. 10.Teacher reading and writing with students. Observed in class Top Ten Things That Should Not _________________Be Seen____________ 1. Teacher sitting behind desk. 2. drab, boring, or \"old\" classroom. 3. Students in rows all the time. 4. Rote skill, drill or busy work. 5. Worksheets and packaged materials. 6. Prolonged silent periods of time. 7. One objective on board. 8. All multiple choice or \"canned\" tests. 9. Students who do not know how they are doing or waiting for overdue papers. 10. Paper grading in class by teacher while students are working. Comments Date Signature\ns c o 1 CQ cS  CQ o o o co \"S g 6 o O d Constructive and Effective Evaluation Granimar/Mechanics Taught in Context at Editing Stage Collaboration-------------------------------- Process Writing ------------------------- Scoring Guides\nRubrics --------------- Phase Questions\nWriting Writing before/after reading Teacher Modeling  Reading  Writing Silent Reading\nDiscussions Independent Reading Active Reading I (P \u0026gt; O (U -H Minilessons ______ Skills Taught in Context of Meaningful Literature  Grammar i Spelling/ Vocabulary Mugshots Dates IPrograms on Page 148, -intertm Compliance Report 2001-02 Evaluation Outcome of evaluation Date Completed Author Date of Board Approval Date 2002-03 evaluation completed 2003-04 1* semester evaluation completed PreK-3 Literacy National Science Foundation Project Middle Schools Extended Year Schools Summer School HIPPY Charter School Campus Leadership Teams English as a Second Language Lyceum Scholars Program SEDL Program-Southwest Middle School Onward to Excellence (Watson Elementary) Collaborative Action Team (CAT) Vital LinkPrograms on Page 148, -tntertm Compliance Report 2001-02 Evaluation Outcome of evaluation Date Completed Author Date of Board Approval Date 2002-03 evaluation completed 2003-04 1 st semester evaluation completed PreK-3 Literacy National Science Foundation Project Middle Schools Extended Year Schools Summer School HIPPY Charter School Campus Leadership Teams English as a Second Language Lyceum Scholars Program SEDL Program-Southwest Middle School Onward to Excellence (Watson Elementary) Collaborative Action Team (CAT) Vital LinkPrograms listed in Interim Compliance Report to improve student performance Evaluation Date Completed Author Date of Board Approval Outcome of evaluation Title I Programs PLATO Labs Accelerated Learning Center Alternative Learning Center Summer School Tutoring Programs 21 Century Community Learning Centers Project ACT Tutoring Career Orientation Block Scheduling High School Advisory Program Personalized Education Plan K-12 Science Professional Development for Science Teachers Citizenship and Character EducationPrograms listed in the final Compliance Report to improve student performance Evaluation Date Completed Author Date of Board Approval Outcome of evaluation Achievement Level Tests Criterion-Referenced Tests-Literacy, Grades 3-5 Criterion-Referenced Tests-Literacy, Grades 6-12 Criterion-Referenced Test (End if Unit/Modual Exams) Mathematics and Science State Benchmark Exams, Grades 4, 6, and 8 Stanford Achievement Test, g Edition Professional Development Instructional Standards Language Arts Mathematics Science Social Studies Staffing Curriculum Guides Teachers of Tomorrow AP World History Pilot Progrm in Grade 8 American History Citizenship Assessment Professional Development Social Studies ResourcesFine Arts Summer School Tutoring Programs Extended Year Education Pathwise Badgett Charter School Safe Schools/Healthy Students Grant Project 21 Century Community Learning Carters Grand Project Carnegie Planning Grant for High School Reform Proposal for Magnet School Grant for Cloverdale Middle School, Mabelvale Middle School, Fair High School, and McClellan High School Charter School Planning Grant to Expand the Accelerated Learning CenterRECEIVED First Quarterly Progress Update December 1, 2004 NOV 3 2004 OFFICEOF DESEGREGATION MONITORING LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, PLAINTIFF V. PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO.l ETAL., DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ETAL., INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ETAL., INTERVENORS Outline Purpose This update is of actions taken with respect to the new Compliance Remedy: A. LRSD must promptly hire a highly trained team of professionals to reinvigorate PRE. 9? B. The first task PRE must perform is to devise a comprehensive program assessment process. ... the comprehensive program assessment process must be deeply embedded as a permanent part of LRSDs curriculum and instruction C. program. 99 During each of the next two academic school years (2004-05 and 2005-06), LRSD must hire one or more outside consultants to prepare four (4) formal step 2 evaluations. 99 A. Hire a highly trained team of professionals LRSD has hired three new professionals with knowledge and experience in assessment evaluation, and statistical analysis: As of October 1, 2004, the Planning, Research, \u0026amp; Evaluation team consists of: Karen DeJamette, PhD, Director (cite date of hire and bio) Maurecia Malcolm, Statistician (cite date of hire and bio) James C. Wohlleb, Statistician (cite date of hire and bio) Continued employment of Ed Williams, PhD, Statistician (cite bio) Yvette Dillingham, Testing Coordinator (cite bio) Irma Shelton and Malinda administrative assistants (cite years of experience)B. Devise and imbed a comprehensive program assessment process. In late September the reinvigorated PRE began devising the comprehensive program assessment process that will be deeply imbedded in LRSDs educational operations. Dr. Dejamette and staff continued cooperation with Dr. Steve Ross to review the draft Policy IL-R2 and to redefine the policy to include a comprehensive program assessment process that fits the needs of the Little Rock School District: Discussion of Drs. Brooks and Dejamette and Mr. Heller: Telephone conference between Drs. Dejamette \u0026amp; Ross: October 5 conference of Drs. Brooks, DeJamette, \u0026amp; Ross in Memphis: October 7 introductions to Mr. Gene Jones \u0026amp; general discussion. October 26 telephone conference of Drs. DeJamette \u0026amp; Ross \u0026amp; Mr. Wohlleb: Agreement by Dr. Ross: C. Hire outside consultant(s) to prepare four formal step 2 evaluations. LRSD has begun negotiations to hire Drs. Ross \u0026amp; Catterall to perform the following tasks... Drs. Ross and Catterall were contacted late September for preliminary conversations regarding the 4 step 2 evaluations for 2004-2005 [List dates and times of conversations with superintendent, school board, ODM, intervenors] Process of selecting programs for evaluation, including PRE staff efforts to initially review all programs currently operating and then to discuss possibilities with Ross and Catterall to determine selection of 4 programs to formally evaluate Design of Evaluation studies (mini-proposals?) Schedule of evaluations and reportsAppendices Resumes of staff Memo from Ross related to IL-R2 Schedule of tasks \u0026amp; assignmentsLittle Rock School District Planning, Research, \u0026amp; Evaluation Department Evaluation Designs for Programs Greater Second Baptist Church 5615 Geyer Springs Road February 16, 2005 Agenda 7:45 a.m. Dr. Karen DeJarnette \u0026amp; PRE team welcome Drs. Steve Ross, Anna Grehan. Dan Strahl. \u0026amp; Aaron McDonald from U/Memphis \u0026amp; Drs. Gail Weems \u0026amp; Linda Dorn from UALR 8:30 a m. Drs. Lloyd Sain, Roy Brooks \u0026amp; Sadie Mitchell address principals 8:50 a m. Presentation of evaluation designs to principals by Dr. Steve Ross 9:30 Dr. Ross \u0026amp; team meet with directors of programs: 9:3010:15 Reading Recovery\nDr. Linda Dorn from UALR, Pat Busbea, \u0026amp; Krista Underwood 10:1511 Smart/Thrive: Vanessa Cleaver \u0026amp; Marcelline Carr 12:00 Center) Lunch Compass Learning: Lucy Neal \u0026amp; Travis Taylor (Tech 2 p.m. Wrap-up of PRE \u0026amp; Dr. Ross teams8: 00 - 8:25 LEADERSHIP TEAM MEETING Greater Second Baptist Church Wednesday, February 16, 2005 8\n30 A.M. - 3\n00 P.M. Continental Breakfast 8:30 Call to Order Dr. Lloyd Sain 8:30 - 8:50 Organizational Chart Dr. Roy G. Brooks Dr. Sadie Mitchell 8:50-9:20 Evaluation Designs for Programs Dr. Steve Ross 9:20 -10:30 A.M. Constructivist Teaching in the Literacy Classrooms Dr. Olivine Roberts Dennis Glasgow Marie McNeal Suzi Davis Krista Underwood Elementary Principals - Downstairs Secondary Principals - Classroom #8 - Upstairs 10:30 -10:45 Break 10:45 -12:05 Part I: Constructivist Teaching Continued 12:05 -12:40 Lunch (On-site) 12:45 - 2:30 Part II: Constructivist Teaching 2:30 - 2:45 Break Return to Fellowship Hall for a General Meeting 2:45 - 3:05 Maculaitis Assessments Dr. Karen Broadnax 3:05-3:15 Wrap-up/Evaluation Drs. Sain and Mitchell Evaluation of heading Eecovey in the Uttle V^ock School System x=: Conducted by R\u0026amp;' j FEB i . CREP \u0026gt; Center for Research in Educational PolicyPrimaiy YLvaluation Question... a Has the Reading Recovery program been effective in improving and remediating the academic achievements of African-American students? JJSupplemental Pivaluation Questions...  What are the quality and level of implementation of Reading Recovery at the participating schools?  What is the level of participation in reading Recovery by African-American students?  What is the progress demonstrated by African-American and other students in Reading Recovery in improving achievement?  What are the perceptions of the Reading Recovery teachers and principals?  What are the perceptions of regular first-grade teachers and other teachers regarding Reading Recovery?  What are the perceptions of parents of Reading Recovery students?Evaluation Procedures,..       DRA or Dibels 2004-05 Reading and Math Subtests Reading Recovery Teacher Phone Interviews Reading Recovery School Teachers Survey Reading Recovery Principal Interview with Randomly Selected Principals. Reading Recovery Achievement Profiles Tutoring Observations School Records/Archival Data (e.g. Participation) Reading Recovery Parent Survey    The Tutoring Observations will consist of Reading Recovery experts observing tutoring sessions.ILvaluation Timeline... February March-April May-June  Begin observations  Interview Reading Recovery Teachers  Survey Reading Recovery teachers and parents  Complete Reading Recovery teacher interviews  Profile Reading Recovery achievement  Analyze records/archival data analyses July-September October November  Analyze achievement data, survey and interviews  PRE reviews draft reports  PRE submits report to Little Rock School District for approval  Draft reports for reviewSchoolparticipation guidelines...    Promote the importance of the research among faculty and students Administer surveys at faculty meetings Facilitate researcher visits to schools It is important to remember that this study does not evaiuate individuai teachers or schools.Evaluation of the Smart! Thrive Programs in the Tittle Tock School District Conducted by CREP received FEB 1 . 2005 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION uOHlTOWNG \u0026gt; Center for Research in Educational PolicyPrimary Evaluation Question... (( Have the Smart/Thrive programs been effective in improving and remediating the academic achievement of African/American students? JJSupplementary Questions...  What is the level of participation in Smart and Thrive by African-American students?  What instructional strategies are used during the tutoring sessions?  What are the perceptions of Smart/Thrive tutors regarding the program?  What are the perceptions of Algebra I teachers regarding the Smart/Thrive program?  What are the perceptions of participating students regarding the Smart/Thrive program?  What are the perceptions of parents/guardians of Smart/Thrive students regarding the program?Iivaluation Procedures...  Achievement Analysis  Quasi Experimental  School Records/Archival Data (e.g. Participation)  Observations of Tutoring Sessions  Smart/Thrive Tutor Questionnaire  Algebra I Teacher Questionnaire  Smart/Thrive Student Questionnaire  Smart/Thrive Parent Questionnaire Observation of tutoring sessions wiii consist of visits to the Saturday Aigebra ci asses.ILvaluation Timeline... February March-April May-June  Observe Thrive Sessions  Administer Teacher, Tutor and Parent Questionnaire  Complete Focus Groups and Observations  Begin Focus Groups  Analyze records/archival data July-September October November  Analyze achievement data, survey and interviews  PRE reviews draft report  PRE submits report to Little Rock School District for approval  Draft reports for reviewSchool Participation Guidelines...  Promote the importance of the research among faculty and students  Facilitate researcher visits to schools It Is important to remember that this study does not evaiuate individual teachers or schools.Evaluation of Compass Eearning in the Uttle Eock School System Conducted by RECEJVED FEB 1 '1 2005 OFHCEOF DESEGREGATION I.iONlTORlNG CREP Center for Research in Educational Policy \u0026gt;Primary Evaluation Question... \"Has the Compass Learning program been effective in improving and remeditating the academic achievement of African-American students?\" Supplemental Questions...  What are the quality, nature, and level of implementation of Compass Learning at the participating schools?  What is the level of participation by African-American students?  What are the perceptions of teachers and technology specialists?  What are the perceptions of parents?Evaluation Procedures... 1^      Student Level Achievement Analysis  Quasi Experimental Compass Learning Teacher Survey Technology Specialist Phone Interview District Compass Learning Program Coordinator Phone Interview 10 Two Hour Compass Learning Laboratory Observations 5-Twenty Minute Student Focus Groups Compass Learning Parent Survey School Records and Archival Data (e.g.. Participation)    Observations will be conducted by trained observers using CREP observation instruments validated through extensive research.Evaluation Timeline... February March-April May-June  Begin observations  Survey teachers \u0026amp; Parents  Analyze records/data analysis  Phone interviews of tech specialists  Complete observations, interviews and student focus groups. July-Sep tember October November  Analyze achievement data, survey and interviews  PRE reviews draft reports  PRE submits report to LRSD for approval  Draft report for reviewSchool participation guideline...    Promote the importance of the research among faculty and students Administer surveys at faculty meetings Facilitate researcher visits to schools 'J- It is important to remember that this study does not evaluate individual teachers or schools.Sent from to p2/ll F, IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS RESPONSE TO COURTS OCTOBER 31, 2005 ORDER - LRSDS WITNESS SUMMARIES In response to the Courts Order of October 31, 2005, LRSD submits the following summaries of the expected testimony of its witnesses. LRSD estimates that the direct examination of each witnes.s will take thirty minutes. LRSD does not expect to call Dr. Brooks a,s a witness, a.s the PRE witnesses who report to Dr. Brooks can provide the same information he would provide. 1. Gene Jones Office of Desegregation Monitoring 1 Union National Plaza 124 W. Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock. AR 72201 Mr. Jones is expected to testify that he had primary responsibility within the Office of Desegregation Monitoring to monitor LRSDs implementation of the Courts June 30, 2004 Compliance Remedy\nthat LRSDs Department of Planning, Research and Evaluation (PRE) was cooperative and helpful\nthat he had access to all relevant documents and notice of all relevant meetings with the possible exception of a recent visit by Dr, Catterall which took place on October 17,2005\nthat LRSD hired qualified experts to perform the required S tep 2 program evaluations\nthatSent 03/11/2005 at 11:57:15 from to p3/ll PRE worked diligently to support those experts in their work\nthat LRSD also hired experts to perform additional program evaluations not required by the Courts compliance remedy\nthat he provided regular reports to the Court concerning the status of LRSDs compliance\nthat PRE, as far as he knows, provided Joshua access to relevant documents and notice of relevant meetings concerning the Step 2 evaluations with the possible exception of a recent visit by Dr, Catterall which took place on October 17,2005\nthat LRSD changed the subject of one proposed Step 2 evaluation at the request of the Joshua intervenors\nthat the Step 2 evaluations which were due on October 1, 2005 require data from the Arkansas benchmark exams for their completion\nthat such data was not available in a form useful to LRSDs experts before October 1\nthat the reporting of Arkansas benchmark results is entirely within the control of the Arkansas Department of Education\nthat there is nothing LRSD could have done to hasten the reporting of benchmark exam results\nthat in late 2004 and early 2005 LRSD considered seeking and extension of the October 1, 2005 deadline for four Step 2 evaluations\nand that by March, 2005 LRSD had decided to wait to see if the State supplied the test scores from the Spring 2005 testing in time for the District to meet the deadline\nthat LRSD notified him of that decision and that he notified the Court. 2. Dr. Karen DeJarnette Little Rock School District Planning, Research and Evaluation 3ff'' \u0026amp; Pulaski Streets Little Rock, AR 72201 Dr. Karen DeJarnette is expected to testily that she i.s director of PRE and has been since September 17,2004\nthat implementing the compliance remedy has been PREs top priority during the time she has been its director\nthat she and her staff at PRE have worked diligently to implement the compliance remedy\nthat LRSD hired Dr. James S. Catterall. a qualified expert, to evaluate its 2Sent 03/11/2005 at 11:57:43 from to P4/11 Year-Round Education (YRE) prognim\nthat LRSD hired Dr. Steve Ross, a qualified expert, to pertorm the Step 2 evaluations ot SMART/THRTVE, Compass Learning, and Reading Recovery\nthat Drs. Catterall and Ross were provided copies of the compliance remedy and that they each signed a Memorandum of Understanding on February 1, 2005 agreeing to conduct the Step 2 evaluations in accordance with the compliance remedy\nthat they were actively involved in the design and planning of Step 2 evaluations beginning in 2004\nthat PRE worked cooperatively with ODM and Joshua, providing them access to documents and notice of meetings so that they would be constantly aware of LRSDs progress in meeting the requirements of the compliance remedy\nthat. beginning in December 2004 through March 2005, LRSD considered the question of whether to seek an extension of the October 1, 2005 deadline for submission of the Step 2 evaluations so that PRE and the LRSD Board of Directors would have more time to review the evaluations prior to their submission to the Court\nthat those discussions were predicated on the belief that benchmark exam results would be available in July 2005\nthat during February or March, 2005, LRSD raised the question of additional time with the Joshua Intervenors and was told that Joshua would oppose any such request\nthat LRSD decided in March 2005 not to make a request for an extension of time and notified ODM of that decision\nthat the LRSD Superintendent and Board of Directors expected PRE to meet the requirements of the Compliance Remedy\nthat the Step 2 evaluations which were due on October 1, 2005 required data from the Spring 2005 administration of the Arkansas benchmark examinations\nthat in order to be useful to Drs. Catterall and Ross, that data must be in digital form\nthat the benchmark examination results were not available in digital form before October 1, 2005 although PRE had a good faith belief that they would be available in July 2005\nthat the reporting of Arkansas benchmark examination results is entirely within the control of the Arkansas 3Sent 03/11/2005 at 11:58:14 from to p5/ll Department of Education\nthat there was nothing LRSD could have done to hasten the reporting of the necessary benchmark examination results\nand that no one in PRE or anywhere within LRSD did anything for the purpose of avoiding or delaying compliance with the Compliance Remedy\nthat the requested extension of time was made in good faith based on a belief that it is necessary to secure high quality evaluations in accordance with the Compliance Remedy\nand that the delay will not reduce the usefulness of the evaluations to LRSD - they will be used to make any indicated program changes for the 2006-07 school year, just as they would have been used had they been received on October 1, 2005, 3. Dr. James S. Catterall Professor University of California P. O. Box 951521 Lo.s Angeles, CA 90005 Dr. Catterall is expected to testify in accordance with his Affidavit which was previously filed in this case. Dr. Catterall will be available by telephone on November 7, 2005 at 310-455- 2720. 4. Dr. Steven M. Ross Fadree Professor and Director Center for Research in Educational Policy 325 Browning Hall Memphis, TN 38152-3340 Dr. Ross is expected to testify that he was hired to perform three Step 2 evaluations for the 2004-05 school year in accordance with the Courts June 30,2004 Compliance Remedy\nthat he has been hired to conduct three Step 2 evaluations for the 2005-06 school year in accordance with the 4Sent 03/11/2005 at 11:58:36 - from to p6/ll Courts June 30. 2004 Compliance Remedy\nthat PRE has been cooperative and responsive in supporting his work and providing him any requested assistance\nthat 2004-05 final benchmark examination results (not raw data) in a usable digital format are necessary for him to complete the Step 2 evaluations which were due on October 1, 2005\nthat such information is not yet available\nand that LRSD has done nothing to hinder or delay his efforts to perform Step 2 evaluations in accordance with the requirements of the June 30,2004 Order. He will further testify that all of the field work necessary to accomplish the evaluations was completed in a timely manner and that he wax waiting for the benchmark examinations so that the work of integrating these tests scores could complete the evaluations\nthat it was only the receipt of the exam results which prevented him from completing his assignment. 5. Jim Wohlleb Little Rock School District Planning, Research and Evaluation JO\"* \u0026amp; Pulaski Streets Little Rock, AR 72201 Jim Wohlleb is expected to testify that he began work for LRSD on October 1, 2004 as a statistical research specialist within the PRE Department. Beyond that, his testimony is expected to be substantially the same as that of Dr. Karen DeJamette. 6. Dr. Gayle Potter Associate Director Academic Standards and Assessment Arkansas Department of Education #4 State Capitol Mall, Room 106A Little Rock, AR 72201 5Sent 03/11/2005 at 11:58:59 - from to p7/ll Dr. Gayle Potter is expected to testify that she is Associate Director for Academic Standards and Assessment at the Arkansas Department of Education (ADE)\nthat she is the person within ADE primarily responsible for testing in general and the Arkansas benchmark examinations in particular\nthat the benchmark examination results for the 2004-05 school year were originally expected to be released in July 2005\nthat on June 23, 2005 ADE issued an informational memo to Arkansas Superintendents notifying them that committee.s were working to reset the cut score.s for each performance level of the Benchmark Exams and consequently the examination results would be issued in two phases\nthat Phase I would consist of cds containing raw score reports which would be shipped to districts no later than July 1, 2005\nthat assumptions about whether a student is proficient cannot be made based on raw scores\nand that Phase 11 Reports placing students into new performance levels will be issued in the fall of 2005\"\nthat the digital benchmark data necessary for statistical analysis will be released in mid-November\nthat release of the benchmark examination results is entirely within the control of the Arkansas Department of Education and its contractors\nthat LRSD has done nothing to delay the release of the results\nand that there is nothing LRSD could have done to hasten the release of the digital data required by its experts to complete their Step 2 evaluations. 7. Christopher Heller FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK 400 West Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3493 (501)376-2011 Christopher Heller wilt testify that he filed a Motion to Extend Time on September 29,2005 based on a good faith belief, after reasonable inquiiy, that the matters presented in that Motion were 6Sent 03/11/2005 at 11:59:25 - from to P8/11 true\nthat he filed a response to the Courts September 30,2005 Order on October 4,2005 based on a good faith belief, after reasonable inquiry, that the matters presented in that response were true\nthat, having now had the opportunity to review hundreds of emails and other documents, he believes that the conversation with counsel for Joshua described at page 2 of \"LRSDs Response to Order probably occuned in February or March rather than June or July, The principal reason for not tiling LRSDs Motion to Extend Time sooner than September 29, 2005 was counsels intense involvement on behalf of LRSD in Lake View v. Huckabee-, that matter was scheduled as follows\nMay 5,2005 Arkansas Supreme Court issues Per Curiam Order scheduling oral argument on May 19, 2005\nMay 19, 2005 Oral Argument\nJune 9, 2005 Mandate recalled and Masters reappointed\nJuly 8, 2005 Disclosure of witnesses and exhibits\nJune 28, 2005 Case conference with Masters\nJuly 19, 2005 Multiple daily depositions begin and continued for several weeks\nJuly 26,2005 Date of hearing as originally scheduled is rescheduled to begin on August 29, 2005 because parties cannot complete preparations\nAugust 29 through September 9, 2005 Hearings\nSeptember 20, 2005 Post Hearing Briefs due. Counsel and PRE had anticipated that electronic data from the State of Arkansas would be available 7Sent 03/11/2005 at 11:59:47 from to p9/ll in July and that the October 1,2005 deadline could, therefore, be met. Counsel did receive an e-mail from Dr. DeJamette on June 30, 2005 setting forth that the state benchmark scores could not be available in July. Counsel did not respond or react to that e-mail in a timely fashion because of his involvement in the Lake View case. Counsel did not recognize until September 2005 that the critical information would not be available, and it was then that the Motion to Extend Time was filed. Counsel will testify that it was an inadvertent but important omission on his part for which he accepts responsibility. Respectfully Submitted. Philip E. Kaplan (68026) Kaplan. Brewer, Maxey \u0026amp; Haralson P.A. 415 Main Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 372-0400 Pkaplan @kbmlaw.net /sZ Philip E. Kaplan 8Sent 03/11/2005 at 12:00:02 from to plO/11 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that on November 3, 2005,1 have electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system, which shall send notification of such filing to the following\nClark-hagemeier@ag.state.ar.us sionesft'mwsgw.com siQiies@ili.cotn iohawalkeranv@aol.com and mailed by U.S. regular mail to the following addresses: Gene Jones Office of Desegregation Monitor 1 Union National Plaza 124 W. Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Clayton Blackstock Mr. Mark Burnett 1010 W. Third Sheet Little Rock, AR 72201 Judge J. Thomas Ray U. S. District Courthouse 600 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 149 Little Rock, AR 72201 /s/ Philip E. Kaplan 9VQ/XX/Z.UVO dL ii:uo:oa rom to p2/5 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3964-1 Filed 11/02/2005 Pagel of4 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. CASE NO. 4\n82CV00866 WRW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. LET AL. DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. INTERVENORS THE JOSHUA INTERVENORS REPLY TO THE DIRECTIVE OF THE COURT DATED OCTOBER 31.20GS The Court seeks as explanation for LRSDs failure to promptly inform the Court that it needed an extension of time in which to meet the October 1,2005 requirements of e Courts June 30, 2004 Order. The burden is on the District to explain why delay was not promptly sought The active parties have submitted extensive lists of witnesses through whom the Courts limited concern would be addressed on November?, 2005. Joshua acknowledges its initial witness list to have had a broader agenda than the issue to be addressed at the hearing. Accordingly Joshua reduces its witness list to the persons called by the defendants and to the following other persons with a summary of their anticipated testimony if they are not called by the LRSD\n1) Dr. Roy Brooks: his involvement in the process was minimal, not an agenda item for him or the Board and he did not meet Dr. Steve Ross before the show cause order. Further, that Mr. Heller did impress upon him the significance or importance of the 1X X um CU po/ O Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3964-1 Filed 11/02/2005 Page 2 of 4 2) 3) 4) time requirements of the Order although they met frequently between July 1,2004 and October 6,2005 on other matters. 20 minutes Dr. Hugh Hattabaugh\nhis involvement in the process was also minimal, not an agenda item for him or the Board and he, too, did not meet Dr. Steve Ross before the show cause order. Further, that Mr. Heller did not impress upon him the significance or importance of the time requirements of the Order although they met frequently between July 1,2004 and October 6,2005 on other matters. 15 minutes Dr. Olivine Roberts: (a) the interaction between herself, Dr. DeJamette, the Joshua Intervenors, the State Department of Education, the PRE staff, the expert witnesses. Drs. Brooks and Hattabaugh and Mr. Chris Heller\n(b) her minimal involvement in the process\nand, (c) her failure to ever meet and discuss any evaluation issue including the need for additional time for compliance with Joshua, the ODM or the State Department of Education. 45 minutes Joy Springer\n(a) will address Mr. Hellers contentions in his reply dated October 4, 2005. She will establish that Mr. Heller infonned Joshua in February 2005 that the Benchmark results would not likely be prepared prior to September 2005\n(b) that when Mr. Heller appeared before the Eighth Circuit on April 12,2005, he presented Dr. DeJamette and Dr. Brooks as he indicated that the district was complying with this Court's Order while appealing\n(c) Joshuas efforts to be involvedin the process\n(d) that LRSD and Mr. Heller knew long before September 29, 2005 that LRSD would not likely be able to meet the deadline\nand (f) LRSD did nothing to advance receipt of the data from the processing sources. 30 minutes 2a c XI um ro Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3964-1 Filed 11/02/2005 Page 3 of 4 5) 6) Mr. Dennis Glasgow: he will address his efforts to prevent Dr. Steve Ross further participation in the evaluation process, and his efforts to delay compliance activities. 30 minutes Mr. Gene Jones: will address the knowledge of ODM regarding the process, the advice given by ODM regarding extending the Court ordered time, and the response of the LRSD to that advice. 30 minutes Respectfully submitted, /s/John W. Walker______________ John W. Walker, AR Bar No. 64046 JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 (501) 374-3758 (501) 374-4187 (Facsimile) Robert Pressman, Mass Bar No. 405900 22 Locust Avenue Lexington, MA 02421 (781)862-1955 3UJtill b X/ X.UVU a. L irom to pb/b Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3964-1 Filed 11/02/2005 Page 4 of 4 XX\nlu:uo CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 1 hereby certify that on this 2' day of November, 2005,1 electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk of Court using the CM/ECF System, which shall send electronic notifications to all counsel associated with this case and by other means to counsel listed below. Clayton R. Blackstock Mitchell, Blackstock, Barnes, Wagoner, Ivers \u0026amp; Sneddon, PLLC 1010 West Third Street Post Office Box 1510 Little Rock, AR 72203-1510 Norman J. Chachkin NA.ACP Legal Defense \u0026amp; Educational fund, Inc. 99 Hudson Street Suite 1600 New York, NY 10013 Timothy Gerard Gauger Arkansas Attorney Generals Office Catlett-Prien Tower Building 323 Center Street Suite 200 Little Rock, AR 72201-2610 James M. Llewellyn, Jr. Thompson \u0026amp; Llewellyn, P.A. 412 South Eighteenth Street Post Office Box 818 Fort Smith, AR 72902-0818 /s/John W, Walker 4John W. Walker, P.A. Attorney At Law 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 Telephone (501) 374-3758 FAX (501) 374-4187 JOHN W. WALKER SHAWN CHILDS received MAR 2005 ' OF COUNSEL ROBERT McHENRY, P.A. DONNA J. McHENRY 8210 Henderson Road Little Rock, Arkansas 72210 Phone: (501) 372-3425  Fax (501) 372-3428 Email: mchenryd@swbell.net OFFICEOF DESEGREGATION InONlTORlNG Via Facsimile March 8, 2005 Ms. Margie Powell Office of Desegregation Monitoring 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 mar o 2C05 RECEiVi 0 Re: LRSD Program Evaluations DESEGREGADON I'.iONlTORING Dear Margie: When we met in my office in November, 2004,1 was left with the understanding that you would prepare notes of our meeting. If I am mistaken, please accept my apologies. Sincerely, W. Walker JWW:jsrm I JOHN W, walker SHAWN CHILDS JOHN W. Walker, PA. Attorney Ar Law 1723 Broadway Little Bock, Arkansas 72206 Telephone (501) 374-376S Fas (501) 374-4187 I I Via Facsimile -447-7609 March 17,2005 OP COUNSEL ROBERT MsKENSy, P.A DONNAJ. McHENKY 8210 HfiNDSRSON ROAD Little mnwn 70010 PbonT\n(501) 372-3425  Fax (501) 372-3428 Email\natcheniydgswbeiiMt Karen DeJamette, PhD. Director PRE Little Rock School District 3001 Pulaski Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Dr. DeJamette: RECEIVED MAR 1 8 2005 S: OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING jESEGhui\n. I am advised by Ms. Springer that you promised to share with us, as you did with all other participants, by email copies of all documents, i.e. data collection instruments, discussed during the meetings on February 16,2005 prior to final print. To date, we have not received any of the final drafts for comments. You will recall that there were discussions regarding the survey forms for parents and teachers and other data collection documents where feedback was given. None of the final documents have been shared with us. I note that you have reported to the Court That counsel for Joshua Intervenors provided feedback and assisted with the final design of data collection instruments.' Would you also provide all documents including agendas, notes and any documents disseminated during the parent and teacher meetings held on or about February 24,2005. Finally, this is to request that you provide to this office any and all documents that you have shared and intend to share in the future with the Office of Desegregation Monitoring. Your cooperation is appreciated. I lincerely, 1 .'Walker I 'b JWWijs cc: Mr. Gene Jones, ODMptg^ Mzz Individual Approach to a World of Knowledge April 21,2005 Mr. Gene Jones \u0026amp; Ms. Marjorie Powell Associate Monitors Office of Desegregation Monitoring US District Court 1 Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 received APR 2 1 2005 OFFICE OF DBSESRE6M10H MOHnOWHO Dear Mr. Jones \u0026amp; Ms. Powell: On Friday, May 6, at 2 PM we are convening the four teams participating in the Step-2 Evaluations of Little Rock School District programs. This session will occur in room 19 of the Instructional Resource Center at 3001 South Pulaski Street. We expect about an hour and a half duration. In addition to notifying you of this event, we invite you in case you would like to learn our progress evaluating Compass Learning, Reading Recovery, Smart/Thrive, and Year- Round Education. Please do not hesitate to contact us with any questions. Sincerely yours, Karen DeJamette, mette, Ph.D. Director, PRE xc: John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206-1220 Mr. Chris Heller Friday Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 2000 Regions Center 400 Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 810 W Markham  Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  www.lrsd.kl2.ar.us 501-324-2000  fax: 501-324-2032MAY. 2.2005 2:i3Pn JOHN W WALKER P A NO.459 P.2 JOHN W. walker SHAWN CHILDS JOHN w. Walker, p.a, ATTORNEY AT Law 1723 BaoALiWAy IJTTLS Sees, 72206 Tblrphone CROI) 374.375fi FAX (501) 374-4187 Via Facsimile Mw2,2005 OFCOIJNSEL ROBERT McHENRY PA DONNA J. McHENRY 82X0 RoaD LrmE Rock. Askans-as 72210 Phone\n(SOl) 372-3425  Fax (501) 372-3428 Eil-z.: mdiemyd^wtejlirt K^en DeJamette, Ph.D. Director, PSE Little Reek Sehuul District ^iO West Markham Little Rode, AR 72201 Dear Dr. DeJamette: I am in recent of your letter April 21,2005. This is to fiir\u0026amp;er advise that we have not received the requested iafonnation per our letter to you dated March 17,2005. Sincerely, W. Walker J^W\njs ce\nOffice of Desegregation Monitoring Mr. Gene Jones 124 West Capitxri Avenue, Suite 1S95 Little Rode. AR 72201 Catterall 5/11/2005 Draft Questions for Parent Interviews Target parents. Identify parents of an YRE student or students where at least one of these students spent two or more years in a traditional calendar year school. The main goal is to interview parents who have seen the same student (or students) in both the traditional and YRE school setting. Randomly select 20 of these parents from each of five YRE schools. Conduct a phone interview with each parent. A. Explain the purpose of the inten'iew. We are interested in how Year Round Education sckaobng in Lillie Rock is working, especially when it comes to student leaning. Since you have experience in both YRE and traditional calendar schools, wed like to asK you a few questions  X number questions to he exact. Your name will be confidential. It will not appear in any of our reports and only your school name will remain with our notes from this interview. B. Confirm that a child in this family attended both YRE and traditional calendar schools. 1. What was the reason your students change from traditional calendar to YRE education? a. The school changed to YRE./_/ b. My child transferred to a YRE school/_/ c. Multiple children  both reasons apply. Capture the essence of responses, but always check\na,, b., or c. You may spark talk of rationales for changing schools here  e.g 1 wanted my student to learn more, wanted access to inter-sessions, didnt like previous school, etc. If parent claims to be dissatisfied with prior school, hear parent out here and bring this oack up when asking about differences between YRE and traditional calendar schools faelow. Record worthwhile quotes.2. What are the main differences you see between YRE and traditional calendar year schools? Capture essence of responses. Record worthwhile quotes. Retrospectively group into categories in for reporting. 3. Lets focus particularly on how different schools help kids learn If applicable, solicit elaborations of any school effectiveness differences reported in Question 2. (Remember to focus on comparisons between YRE and traditional calendar year schools.) Or if learning did not come up in response to Question 2, ask parent: Whar do you see as (he main differences in student learning in YRE vs. traditional calendar year schools? Capture essence of responses. Record worthwhile quotes. 4. (If learning-related differences seem not well addressed in responses to Question 2, push harder on ieaming differences through the following question. If learning- differences were well-covered, skip to question 5.) Are there things about the YRE calendar that help kids learn better? (Draw out parent on perceptions of learning differences, YRE to traditional calendar.) You will probably get these sorts of responses, so check-off if you hear any of these\na. Kids are in school more. b. Shorter breaks/vacations. i- Kids forget less academic content iii. Shorter gaps in teaching. iv. Kids remember better how to behave in school. c. Inter-sessions help kids leam more. d. Teachers seem to like YRE better, and are happier in their jobs. e. Others (specify each). Also\nCapture essence of responses. Record worthwhile quotes. Retrospectively group into categories in for reporting.5. In comparing YRE to traditional calendar schools, do you think that children feel differently about school or about themselves in one type versus another? Yes, a lot. Yes, a little. No. Check one that best describes main response. If No, interview is done. If Yes, probe for what kinds of differences and why they might exist. Pay attention to claims that specific aspects of being an YRE school affect how kids feel about school. their motivation for school. their outlook. And other effects mentioned. Capture essence of responses. Record worthwhile quotes. 6. Does your child/children talk about the fact that the they are in an YRE school? If yes, what kinds of things do they say? Capture essence of responses. Record worthwhile quotes.A.n Individual Approach to a World of Knowledge May 26, 2005 Mr. Chris Heller Friday Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 2000 Regions Center 400 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, AR 72201-3522 RECEIVED MAY 2 7 2005 OFFICEOF DESEGREGATION MONITORING Dear Chris: This accompanies three copies of the third quarterly update, in compliance with the June 30, 2004 memorandum opinion of the U.S. District Court, due June 1,2005. Tucked inside the front of each is a copy of Dr. DeJamettes letter to Mr. Walker today indicating our interest in evaluating the 2U Century Learning Communities as the Joshua intervenors recommended in his letter of May 24 (previously copied to you). Please let us know if you would like more information. Thank you for your advice in preparing this update. Sincerely yours, James C. Wohlleb, Statistician Planning, Research, \u0026amp; Evaluation (PRE) Enc. xc: John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206-1220 Mr. Gene Jones \u0026amp; Ms. Marjorie Powell Office of Desegregation Monitoring 1 Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 810 W. Markham - Lithe Rock. Arkansas 72201  wwrw.irsd.K12.ar.us .501-32200C r\n50- 24-20t Little Rock School District (LRSD) QUARTERLY UPDATE to the Office of Desegregation Monitoring (ODM) and Joshua June 1, 2005 received may 2 7 2005 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, PLAINTIFF V. PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO.l ETAL., DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ETAL., INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ETAL., INTERVENORS Planning, Research, and Evaluation (PRE) Instructional Resource Center (IRC) Little Rock School District 3001 South Pulaski Little Rock, AR 72206An Individual Approach to a World of Knowledge May 27, 2005 John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206-1220 Dear Mr. Walker: We received your letter of May 24 as a facsimile on the same day acknowledging your receipt of lists of programs from us. Primarily from them, we selected the four programs which Drs. Catterall and Ross are evaluating this year. Your recommendation, in your May 24 letter, to evaluate the 2E Century Community Learning Centers interests us. After discussing it with Dr. Ross and others, we propose to evaluate it rather than PLATO Learning during the coming school year. Because our quarterly update for June 1 has already been printed (which we are delivering to you with this letter), the next update can report this change for next years evaluations. We understand that 2E Century Community Learning Centers will end within a year or so at several of the sites you named. Limiting our evaluation to a few sites where the programs support is secure for at least a couple more years makes sense to us. We will keep you informed of our progress and invite your further ideas. Please do not hesitate to contact us with any further comments or questions. Sincerely yours, Karen DeJarneoe, Ph.D. Director, PRE xc: Mr. Gene Jones \u0026amp; Ms. Marjorie Powell, ODM Mr. Chris Heller, Friday Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 810 W. Markham  Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  vrv.rv.irsd,kl2.ar.up 501-324-200C'  fax\n501 -32^-2032C'- An Individual Approach to a World o/Knoivledge May 27, 2005 Mr. Robert Pressman 22 Locust Avenue Lexington, MA 02421 Dear Mr. Pressman\nMr. Walker requested that we furnish you the accompanying quarterly update of June 1 and future updates. You might also like a copy of my recent reply to Mr. Walker regarding evaluation of the 2D' Century Learning Communities. If you did not see the article, you might want to find the article about the program by Sue Shellenbarger in The Wall Street Journal of May 26, 2005. We will keep you informed of our progress and invite your further ideas. Please do not hesitate to contact us with any further comments or questions. Sincerely yours, Director, PRE xc: Mr. John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Mr. Chris Heller Friday Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 2000 Regions Center 400 Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Gene Jones \u0026amp; Ms. Marjorie Powell Office of Desegregation Monitoring 124 West Capitol Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 g 810 W MarKham  Littie Rock. ^irKansas 72201 * www.ifsd.ki2.ar.us -2000 ra::\n501RECEIVED JUN -6 2005 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION OFHCEOF DESEGREGATION MONITORING LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. LET AL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS LRSDS NOTICE OF FILING QUARTERLY UPDATE Little Rock School District (LRSD) for its Notice of Filing Quarterly Update dated June 1, 2005 states: 1. The attached document is the third quarterly written update by the Little Rock School District and its Planning, Research, and Evaluation Department. It has been provided to the Joshua Intervenors and the Office of Desegregation Monitoring in accordance with the District Courts 2004 Compliance Remedy (Memorandum Opinion of June 30, 2004). 2. LRSD is filing this Quarterly Update so that the Court may be aware of the compliance work done by LRSD to comply with the Courts Memorandum Opinion of June 30, 2004. WHEREFORE, the LRSD submits its Quarterly Update as required by the Court.Respectfully Submitted, LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark Christopher Heller (#81083) 2000 Regions Center 400 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 (501)376-2011 BY\nChristopher Heller CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing has been served on the following people by depositing a copy of same in the United States mail on the 1 day of June, 2005: Mr. John W. Walker JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Desegregation Monitor 1 Union National Plaza 124 W. Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Sam Jones Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 2200 Nations Bank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Tim Gauger Mr. Mark A. Hagemeier Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Buildin\"o Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON \u0026amp; JONES, P.A. 425 W. Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201-3472 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Clayton Blackstock Mr. Mark Burnett 1010 W. Third Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Judge J. Thomas Ray U. S. District Courthouse 600 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 149 Little Rock, AR 72201 Christopher 2 I 'si! DATE: June 23, 2005 TO: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK, AR 72201 Board of Directors FROM: SUBJECT: Roy G. Brooks, Ed.D. Superintendent of Schools 2005-2006 Evaluation Agenda BACKGROUND: LRSD policy requires an annual Evaluation Agenda proposed to the Board of Directors outlining Li xwUz UUllvy I  **- ---- --- -------------- - I I J X. external evaluation activities with projected costs. During 2004-2005 PRE has engaged tvvo outside consultants to evaiuate four District programs. The 2005-2006 Evaluation Agenda consists of five external evaluations:  4 Step-2 program evaluations mandated by Judge Wilson in 2004, and  1 non-mandated evaluation recommended by the PRE department RATIONALE: LRSD is complying with U. S. District Courts 2004 Compliance Remedy (Memorandum Opinion of June 30, 2004, pp. 61-67) to devise a comprehensive program assessment process which must be deeply embedded as a permanent part of LRSDs curriculum and instruction program. In December 2004, the Board of Directors approved this process. It provides for a range of educational program evaluations with respect to their scientific rigor and complexity, and it  ___ .\u0026gt; I __I__ .x: requires participation by LRSD stakeholders in the design and execution of evaluations. In the same Opinion, the Court ordered, During each of the next two academic school years (2004-05 and 2005-06), LRSD must hire one or more outside consultants to prepare four (4) formal step 2 evaluations.\" By step 2\" the court meant for evaluations to delve into underlying .... ri. ___ -ruz, rir^or r,,that thp Cmift rfirected ths District to examine is reasons for outcomes. The primary outcome that the Court directed the examine the academic achievement of African-American students. The Opinion also instructs the PRE with the outside consultants and encourages it to evaluate additional Department to cooperate District programs. Court-Mandated Evaluations for 2005-2006: For siep 2 evaluations in 2005-2006, Dr. Ross has identified four 2.7 programs, named on the following page.1. Arkansas A+ Schools Network, at Woodruff Elementary School, incorporates the arts in teaching language and mathematics. Projected Cost: $30,000 2. Knowledgepoints is a Supplemental Educational Service (SES) selected at Bale, Brady, Chicot, Wakefield, and Watson Elementary Schools and offered there as an after-school program. Projected Cost: $30,000 3. 21' Century Learning Centers offer a broad array of out-of-school support services, programs, and activities designed to help students meet academic standards and to increase student achievement. Projected Cost: $30,000 4. Pre-kindergarten (PreK) literacy development will be evaluated in the 31 schools with classes for 4-year-old children. These young students participate in developmentally appropriate and fun lessons and activities intended to nurture essential language skills. Projected Cost: $50,000 Dr. Catterall will evaluate Arkansas A+, while Dr. Ross will evaluate KnowledgePoints, 21 Century Learning Centers, and PreK literacy. st Data for schools where these programs operated this year (2004-2005) are in the tables below. Additional schools may participate next year, particularly schools chosen per the school choice option of No Child Left Behind regulations. Schools in these tables which are on the Arkansas School Improvement List are so noted by an asterisk (*). Proposed Programs Evaluations 2005-2006 2004-2005 School Data Schools Number of Teachers Number of Students Percent of Students African- American Percent of Students Eligible for Free/Reduced Lunch Woodruff* A+ I 235 I 91 86 Bale* Brady* Chicot* Wakefield* Watson* Mabelvale Middle* McClellan* Henderson* Hall* 27 28 44 29 34 Knowledgepoints 319 318 536 451 456 82 78 73 78 96 21*' Century Community Learning Centers 57 75 60 105 634 925 630 1464 81 92 82 75 86 80 86 92 93 75 56 70 52 77^ I These schools are designated for School Improvement.LRSD Schools Offering PreK Classes for Four-Year-Old Students No. of No. of Max. Enroll- No. of Per cent School Bale* Baseline* Brady* Carver Chicot* Cloverdale* Dodd Fair Park* Forest Park Franklin* Fulbright Geyer Springs Jefferson M. L. King* Mabelvale McDermott Meadowcliff Otter Creek Pulaski Heights Rightsell Rockefeller* Romine Stephens* Terry Wakefield* Washington* Watson* Western Hills Wilson* Woodruff* Teachers Aides Students 2 2 2 1 4 2 2 2 2 3 2 2 2 4 2 2 2 2 1 1 2 2 4 2 2 4 2 1 1 2 1 1 1 0 2 1 . 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 0 0 0 40 40 40 20 80 40 40 40 40 60 40 40 40 60 40 40 40 40 20 40 40 40 80 40 40 80 40 20 20 40 ment 38 39 37 20 59 40 36 37 40 55 40 36 40 80 38 40 40 39 20 38 39 39 78 35 39 75 36 37 18 36 AAf 32 32 27 NAt 46 32 22 28 2 52 8 35 5 46 31 27 35 22 6 38 24 31 72 18 29 67 34 20 16 32 AA 84.2 82.1 73.0 NA 78.0 80.0 61.1 75.7 5.0 94.5 20.0 97.2 12.5 57.5 81.6 67.5 87.5 56.4 30.0 100.0 61.5 79.5 92.3 51.4 74.4 89.3 94.4 54.1 88.9 88.9 t AA is African American. NA is not available. * These schools are designated for School Improvement.  In the 2005-2006 school year, Fair Park Elementary converts to a preK center with eight or more classes\nwhile the other elementary schools keep their current preK capacity.Non-mandated Evaluations: In addition to four court-mandated studies, PRE recommends a fifth external evaluation that will focus on Magnet Schools and Schools with Specialty Magnet Programs. Projected Cost: $60,000 The proposed Magnet School evaluation includes the study and evaluation of 18 magnet schools and specialty magnet programs within the Little Rock School District - six Stipulated Magnet Schools, four Magnet Schools Assistance Program (MSAP) Schools and eight Specialty Magnet Programs. Stipulated Magnet Schools and Themes - 2004-2005 Schools in this table which are designated for School Improvement are so noted by an asterisk (*). School Magnet School Theme Percent of Students African-American Percent of Eligible Students Free/Reduced 1 Lunch Elementary Schools Booker Carver Gibbs Williams Middle Schools Mann * High Schools Parkview Arts Magnet Basic Skills/Math-Science International Studies/ Foreign Languages Traditional Magnet Arts and Science Arts and Science 53 52 53 52 52 51 63 53 44 34 37 22 Magnet Schools Assistance Program Schools and Themes - 2004-2005^ Schools in this table which are designated for School Improvement are so noted by an asterisk (*). School Middle Schools Cloverdale * Mabelvale * Magnet School Theme Percent of Students African-American Percent of Eligible Students Free/Reduced Lunch^ Engineering, Multimedia \u0026amp; Economics Medical Studies, Environmental Science and 82 86 81 75  Per cent of students who are eligible for the federal free or reduced-price meals program is a crude indicator of family economic circumstances. 2004-2005 was the fourth and last year of MSAP funding for these four schools Per cent of students who are eligible for the federal free or reduced-price meals program is a crude 3 indicator of family economic circumstances.information Technology High Schools J.A. Fair* McClellan * Science and technology Systems Engineering, Multimedia and Business Finance 85 92 Special Magnet Program* Themes - 2004-2005 54 56 Schools in this table which are designated for School Improvement are so noted by an asterisk (*). School Elementary Schools King Rockefeller Romine Washington * Middle Schools Dunbar * Henderson * High Schools Central Hall* 4 5 Magnet School Theme Percent of Students African-American Percent of Eligible Students Free/Reduced Lunch International, High Intensity Learning Early Childhood Computer Science and Basic Skills (Interdistrict) Basic Skills Math-Science Magnet (Interdistrict) Gifted and Talented, International Studies Health Science International Studies University Studies 60 67 76 76 61 82 51 75 55 66 76 80 57 70 28 52 These Specialty Programs are special programs which these schools offer. Per cent of students who are eligible for the federal free or reduced-price meals program is a crude indicator of family economic circumstances.All five external evaluations will seek to answer the following Primary Evaluation Question: Have the Programs been effective in improving students academic achievement? How effective have they been among African-American students? To ensure that a full range of quantitative and qualitative data is collected, the evaluators will use a variety of data collection tools and activities. They are:  classroom observations and protocols  surveys of parents, teachers, and students  interviews of students, administrators, parents, teachers  focus groups  student work portfolios  district data, e.g., demographic data, standardized test scores  site- and district-generated program documents The evaluators will be required to adhere to Professional Standards for Program Evaluation and to provide a complete list of standards used. FUNDING: Total projected costs for five studies: $200,000 RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Board will approve the 2005-2006 Evaluation Agenda. i ! IJuly 22, 2005 RECEIVED JUL 2 9 2005 OFFICEOF DESEGREGATION MONITORING John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206-1220 Dear Mr. Walker: Thank you for your request for ACTAAP \u0026amp; ITBS disaggregated test results by school, race and gender from last school year. We have received such data related to the ITBS, however, ACTAAP data received by LRSD consists only of raw scores for individual students and is not yet normalized by the Department of Education. Our PRE Department will prepare a set of ITBS data for you in the format you requested and furnish it to you within two weeks. Please let us know whether this satisfies your request. Si^erely yours. Director, PRE Department xc: Mr. Gene Jones, Associate Monitor Office of Desegregation Monitoring US District Court 1 Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Chris Heller Friday Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 2000 Regions Center 400 Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 10/03/2005 08:51 5016045149 WILSON PAGE 02/02 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT eastern district of ARKANSAS RICHARD SHEPPARD ARNOLD UNITED STATES COURTHOUSE 800 W. CAPITOL, ROOM 423 LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201-3326 (501)604-5140 Facaimila (501) 604-5149 October 3,2005 FAX LETTER Mr. John W. Walker John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72024 Mr. Robert Peter Pressman Attorney at Law 22 Locust Avenue Lexington, MA 02421 Re: LRSD v. PCSSD. et al, 4:82-cv-866-wrw Dear Counsel: I realize that this is short notice, but if possible, I would like to get the Joshua Intervenors response to LRSDs Motion for Extension of Time by 5 p.m. tomorrow, Tuesday, October 4,2005. If tomorrow afternoon is not enough timely, please file your response as soon as practicable  at the latest, by the deadline set by the rules. Cordially, Original to the Clerk of the Court cc: Other Counsel of Recordreceived IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION OCT 3 2005 I,.- OFFICE Of desegregation MONITORJNG LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1,ET AL DEFENDANTS MOTION TO EXTEND TIME For its Motion, Plaintiff Little Rock School District (LRSD) states\n1. In accordance with the June 30, 2004 Compliance Remedy in this case, LRSD has engaged experts to prepare four Step 2 program evaluations for the 2004-05 school year. The progress of those evaluations has been reported to the Court and the parties in quarterly updates filed by LRSD, the most recent of which was filed on August 31, 2005. The evaluations are due to the Court on October 1, 2005. 2. The four Step 2 program evaluations cannot be completed without the results of the benchmark examinations administered by the State of Arkansas for the 2004-05 school year. The benchmark examination results are not yet available and will not be available until October 1 or later. Dr. Steve Ross and Dr. James Catterall, the experts hired by LRSD to conduct the four Step 2 program evaluations, estimate that if they receive the benchmark exam results in early October that they would be able to deliver completed program evaluations by early January 2006. Letters from Dr. Ross and Dr. Catterall explaining the need for more time are attached to this Motion. 3. The requested extension of time is necessary to ensure the delivery of useful programevaluations which will fulfill the purposes of the compliance remedy. The requested extension of time will not delay any decisions about whether to continue, expand, modify or discontinue programs. Those decisions will be made in the Spring and will be effective for the 2006-07 school year. 4. LRSD has attempted to contact the Joshua Intervenors to secure their agreement to the requested extension of time, but has not yet received a response. WHEREFORE, for the reasons set forth above and in the attached letters from Dr. Ross and Dr. Catterall, Plaintiff Little Rock School District requests an extension of the time within which it must file four Step 2 program evaluations for the 2004-05 school year to and including Monday, January 16, 2006. Respectfully submitted. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK 2000 Regions Bank Bldg. 400 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, AR 72201 501/376-2011 Zs/ Christopher Heller 2CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that on September 29,2005,1 have electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk of the Court using the CMZECF system, which shall send notification of such filing to the following: mark.hagemeier@aK.state.ar.us siones@mwsgw-com siones@ili.com iohnwalkerattv@aol.com and I hereby certify that on September 29,2005,1 mailed the document and a copy of the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) by United States Postal Service to the following non CMZECF participants: Judge J. Thomas Ray U. S. District Courthouse 600 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 149 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Gene Jones Office of Desegregation Monitoring 1 Union National Plaza 124 W. Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Clayton Blackstock Mr. Mark Burnett 1010 W. Third Street Little Rock, AR 72201 ZsZ Christopher Heller 3UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, LOS ANGELES BERKELEY* DAVIS  IRVINE  LOSANCELES  RIVERSIDE  SAN DIEGO  SAN FRANCISCO SANTA BARBARA  SANTA CRUZ UCLA Graduate School of Education \u0026amp; Information Studies P.O. Box 951521 Los Angeles. CA 90095-1521 September 26,2005 Karen DeJarnette, Ph.D. Director, PRE Department Little Rock School District 3001 S. Pulaski Little Rock, AR 77206-2873 Dear Karen: According to Dr. Julian, Assistant Commissioner for the state Department of Education, her agency will receive results of the Benchmark test scores \"around the first of October\", and your experience with release of digitally formatted data indicates that you may not receive data to pass on to me and my research staff until several weeks after the state receives it. At any rate, we do not have data in hand necessary to complete our report on Year-Round Education, certainly not by the present due date of October 1, 2005. Assuming you can deliver correctly formatted data by early November, I can furnish a draft in early December and the final report by early January 2006. This schedule should permit analyzing the data, composing a complete draft, and producing the final report. Anything you can do to confirm the date of data delivery will help our team plan the balance of the work. Sincerely, (e-mailed September 26, 2005 - Signed original sent express) jsc James S. Catterall, Ph.D. Professor Voice: (310) 825-5572 Fax: (310)206-6293 E-mail: jamesc@gseis.ucla.edu THE UNIVERSITY OF MEMPHIS Center for Research in Educational Policy A Tennessee Center of Excellence 325 Browning Hall Memphis, TN 38152-3340 Office: 901.678.2310 Toll Free: 866.670.6147 Fax: 901.678.4257 September 23,2005 www.memphis.edu/crep Dr. Karen DeJamette Director, PRE Department Little Rock School District 3001 S. Pulaski Little Rock, AR 77206-2873 Dear Dr. Dejamette: I have been informed that the State of Arkansas will receive student-level Benchmark test scores at the beginning of October this year and release them to the school districts some time after that. I further understand that the digital version, which we need for computer analysis, will be available after the State sends printed versions to the districts. Thus, the data may not be available to my research staff until perhaps late fall. Whatever the actual delivery date, it typically takes us about six to eight weeks to run, verify, and interpret the analyses and then produce the draft report. I am asking you to take this time requirement into account in projecting when our final report could be ready following the release to us of Benchmark data. Given the dates above, we believe a reasonable date for delivery of the final report is early January 2006. Sincerely, Steven M. Ross, Ph.D. Fadree Professor and Director Center for Research in Educational Policy A Tennessee Board of Regents Institution An Equal Opportunity  Affirmative Action UniversityRECEIVED OCT 3 2005 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. No. 4:82CV00866-WRW/JTR PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al.. DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, et al. INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, et al. INTERVENORS ORDER Pending is Little Rock School Districts Motion to Extend Time (Doc. No. 3938), the first paragraph of which, reads as follows: In accordance with the June30, 2004 Compliance Remedy in this case, LRSD has engaged experts to prepare four Step 2 program evaluations for the 2004-05 school year. The progress of those evaluations has been reported to the Court and the parties in quarterly updates filed by LRSD, the most recent of which was filed on August 31, 2005. The evaluations are due to the Court on October 1, 2005. For emphasis I note that the above quoted paragraph correctly reflects that the June 30, 2004 order directed (not suggested) that the subject evaluations were to be filed on October 1, 2005 (actually, the Order directed that the evaluations were to be filed no later than October 1, 2005, but this is a small point). Late yesterday (at 4:34 p.m., to be specific), September 29, 2005, with one working day left before the October 1 deadline, LRSD filed this Motion to Extend Time. It appears from the other matters set forth in the motion, that LRSD cannot meet the October 1 deadline because of uncompleted tasks. 1Before writing anything else I feel compelled to quote my complete order of July 26, 2004: Regardless of an appeal, LRSD is required to continue full speed ahead, on all points, with respect to the compliance remedy set forth in the Memorandum Opinion of June 30,2004 (Doc. No. 3875). As was noted in the June 30 Memo, LRSD is required to do only what it volunteered to do. I assume that I am stating the obvious, but, as folks are wont to say nowadays, I wanted to make sure that we are all on the same page. LRSDs Motion to Extend Time also contains this paragraph: LRSD has attempted to contact the Joshua Intervenors to secure their agreement to the requested extension of time, but has not yet received a response. Since the current motion by LRSD presents a weighty matter (at least my view), it seems that it would be important to have a response from Joshuas lawyers before the deadline passes. Is it possible that both lawyers of record for Joshua are traveling out of the country sans omnipresent cell phones? If what I have said above has not made it clear, I will now state it plainly - I am not happy with the Johnny-come-lately motion. These things, among others, are on my mind: 1. How long has LRSD known that they were not going to comply with the Courts direct, specific order? 2. Why was the motion not filed until the 11th hour? 3. Does this last minute filing demonstrate that LRSD is treating the Courts directives with studied neglect? 'Doc. No. 3890 (emphasis in original). 24. 5. Is LRSD playing for time in the hope that the Circuit Court of Appeals will reverse, thereby relieving LRSD of what it was plainly obliged to do, regardless of the appeal? Why should a last minute motion like this be granted? LRSD is directed to file a plenary response to each of the above questions by 5 p.m. next Tuesday, October 4, 2005. I note that sixty-nine page Order entered on June 30, 2004 was so long and detailed because LRSD pled that it did not understand exactly what its obligations were under earlier orders. It seems that this detailed order of June 30, 2004 did head off pleas of misunderstanding. but not a last minute motion to avoid its plain obligations, at least until a much later date. A hearing on LRSDs Motion to Extend Time will be set forthwith. The exact nature of that hearing will be determined after I receive LRSDs document in response to this Order (due next Tuesday, October 4, 2005, by 5 p.m.). IT IS SO ORDERED this 30th day of September, 2005. Zs/ Wm. R.Wilson,Jr._____________ UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 3Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3943 C,' Filed 10/04/2005 Paget of4 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT RECEIVED PLAINTIFF V. LR-C-82-866 OCT 5 2005 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL OFRCEOF DESEGREGATION MONITORING DEFENDANTS LRSDS RESPONSE TO ORDER For its response to the Courts September 30, 2005 Order directing the Little Rock School District (LRSD) to file a plenary response to each of five questions, LRSD states: Question No. 1: How long has LRSD known that they were not going to comply with the Courts direct, specific order? Response: LRSD, Joshua and ODM have known for months that benchmark examination results had not yet been reported. LRSD has known since September 19, 2005 that the Arkansas Department of Education would receive the results of the benchmark examinations from its contractor around the first of October. LRSD has now received hard copies of the reports, but the electronic data necessary for the evaluations is not likely to be available for two or three weeks. Question No. 2: Why was the motion not filed until the 11* hour? Response: The Motion was not filed earlier for at least three reasons, all of which were influenced by the fact that both Joshua and ODM were aware that benchmark examination results had not yet been reported and that the experts could not complete the Step 2 evaluations without them. First, LRSD did not know until September 19 when the 2004-05 benchmark scores would be released, and consequently would have had to request an indefinite extension of time. Second,Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3943 Filed 10/04/2005 Page 2 of 4 LRSD discussed the situation with Joshua in June or July and was told by Joshuas counsel that Joshua not only would oppose any motion to extend time but would also seek to litigate other issues upon LRSDs filing of such amotion. LRSD decided that there was no point in provoking additional litigation during the pendency of its appeal. Finally, the need for the extension of time was dictated by matters beyond LRSDs control. The timing of the motion would not alter the facts that the experts need the benchmark results and that LRSD could do nothing to hasten the delivery of those results. Question No. 3: Does this last minute filing demonstrate that LRSD is treating the Courts directives with studied neglect? Response: No. Question No. 4: Is LRSD playing for time in the hope that the Circuit Court of Appeals will reverse, thereby relieving LRSD of what it was plainly obliged to do, regardless of the appeal? Response: No. LRSD believes in the merits of its appeal or it would not have filed it, but LRSD is not playing for time. The requested extension of time is not based on anything LRSD did or failed to do or anything that LRSD has any control over. LRSD hired outside experts to complete four Step 2 program evaluations in accordance with the Courts Order. Those evaluations cannot be completed in any useful form without the benchmark examination results from the 2004-05 school year. Those results are only now becoming available. LRSD has no authority over the grading or reporting of benchmark examination scores. Those things are entirely within the control of the Arkansas Department of Education. 2Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3943 Filed 10/04/2005 Page 3 of 4 Finally, whether or not the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals relieves LRSD of its future obligations under the compliance order, LRSD has contracted for four Step 2 evaluations which have been substantially completed. LRSD intends to receive completed evaluations in accordance with its contracts with Drs. Ross and Catterall and to use the evaluations to help judge the effectiveness of the academic programs which are the subjects of the evaluations. Question No. 5: Why should a last minute motion like this be granted? Response: The motion should be granted for the reasons set forth in response to question four above, and for the reasons set forth in the motion, including the letters from Dr. Ross and Dr. Catterall. If the motion is denied, LRSD would be compelled to file the evaluations immediately. even though they would contain no analysis of the benchmark results and consequently would not be of much use in evaluating the effectiveness of academic programs. Drs. Ross and Catterall would be extremely reluctant to have their work publicized before they had the chance to complete the evaluations by incorporating and analyzing the results of the benchmark exams. Respectfully submitted. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK 2000 Regions Bank Bldg. 400 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, AR 72201 501/376-2011 /s/ Christopher Heller 3Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3943 Filed 10/04/2005 Page 4 of 4 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that on October 4, 2005,1 have electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/EC. system, which will send notification of such filing to the following: mark.hagemeier@ag.state.ar.us siones@mwsgw.com siones@ili.com iohnwalkerattv@aol.com and mailed by U.S. regular mail to the following addresses: Gene Jones Office of Desegregation Monitoring 1 Union National Plaza 124 W. Capitols, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Clayton Black stock Mr. Mark Burnett 1010 W. Third Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Judge J. Thomas Ray U. S. District Courthouse 600 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 149 Little Rock, AR 72201 Zs/ Christopher Heller 4Case 4\n82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3945 Filed 10/05/2005 Page 1 of 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS RICHARD SHEPPARD ARNOLD UNITED STATES COURTHOUSE 600 W. CAPITOL, ROOM 423 LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201-3325 (501)604-5140 Facsimile (501) 604-5149 RECEIVED October 5, 2005 OCT 6 2005 Mr. Christopher J. Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark, LLP - Little Rock Regions Center 400 West Capitol Avenue Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING Re: LRSD v. PCSSD, et al, Motion for Extension of Time Dear Counsel\nA hearing will be held on your Motion to Extend Time (which was filed Thursday, September 29, 2005) on Monday, November 7,2005, commencing at 8:30 a.m. It is very likely that other questions will be addressed at this hearing. An order setting forth the exact nature of the hearing will be entered forthwith. It is likely that I will want to hear testimony from the persons mentioned in your last two filings\nso please arrange to have them available, as well as other witnesses you may want to call. Cordially, /s/ Wm. R.Wilson.Jr. Original to the Clerk of the Court cc: the Honorable J. Thomas Ray, other lawyers of record, ODM.RECEIVED OCT 11 20115 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION OmCEOF DESEGREGATION MONITORING LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. No. 4:82CV00866-WRW/JTR PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al.. DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, et al. INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, et al. INTERVENORS ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE In the June 30, 2004 Order, I held that the LRSD had again failed to comply the desegregation obligations in  2.7.1 of the January 16, 1998 Revised Desegregation and Education Plan.' This Order, in part, reads: The four step 2 program evaluations for the 2004-05 school year must be filed with the Court no later than October 1, 2004.^ At the risk of being redundant, I entered a July 26, 2004 Order which read: Regardless of an appeal, LRSD is required to continue full speed ahead, on all points, with respect to the compliance remedy set forth in the Memorandum Opinion of June 30,2004 (Doc. No. 3875). As was noted in the June 30 Memo, LRSD is required to do only what it volunteered to do.^ Late on September 29, 2005, with one working day left before the October 1 deadline. LRSD filed a Motion to Extend Time to submit the four step 2 evaluations for the 2004-05 'A September 13, 2002 Order held that LRSD had substantially complied with all of its desegregation obligations except those contained in  2.7.1. ^Doc. No. 3875. Doc. No. 3890 (emphasis in original). 1school year. Because of uncompleted tasks, LRSD requested an extension until January 2006 to submit the evaluations. To date, the motion has not been granted and no evaluations have been fded. Accordingly, LRSD and its counsel are directed to appear at 8:30 a.m. on Monday, November 7, 2005 and show cause, if any there be, why they should not be held in contempt of court (civil) for violating the June 30, 2004 Order ~ specifically, the directive to file the four step 2 program evaluations for the 2004-05 school year no later than October 1, 2004. With respect to LRSDs Motion to Extend Time, filed on September 29, 2005, and with respect to LRSDs Response to Order filed on October 4, 2005, LRSD and its counsel are directed to also show cause, if any there be, why they should not be sanctioned, under Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, for the representations and omissions contained in these two documents. Among others, I would like for the following to appear, some of them to give testimony: A representative from the ODM\nDr. Karen DeJamette\nDr. James S. Catterall\nDr. Steven M. Ross\nDr. Jim Wohleb\nEach member of the Little Rock School District School Board\nDr. Roy G. Brooks, Superintendent of the Little Rock School District\nThe persons at the Arkansas Department of Education who oversee benchmark examinations\nSuch other person as any party may want to call as a witness. By 5 p.m., Wednesday, October 12, 2005, the LRSD is directed to file a list of the witnesses who it will call at the hearing (these persons will be expected to appear unless excused 2by the Court). Within ten (10) days after the LRSD provides its witness list, Joshua must file its witness list (these persons will be expected to appear unless excused by the Court). IT IS SO ORDERED this 6th day of October, 2005. /s/ Wm. R.Wilson.Jr._____________ UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 31010 West Third Street Post Office Box 1510 Little Rock, AR 72203-1510 Norman J. Chachkin NAACP Legal Defense \u0026amp; Educational Fund, Inc. 99 Hudson Street Suite 1600 New York, NY 10013 Timothy Gerard Gauger Arkansas Attorney General's Office Catlett-Prien Tower Building 323 Center Street Suite 200 Little Rock, AR 72201-2610 James M. Llewellyn , Jr Thompson \u0026amp; Llewellyn, P.A. 412 South Eighteenth Street Post Office Box 818 Fort Smith, AR 72902-0818 Office of Desegregation Monitor One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 William P. Thompson Thompson \u0026amp; Llewellyn, P.A. 412 South Eighteenth Street Post Office Box 818 Fort Smith, AR 72902-0818Case: 4:82cv866 Office of Desegregation Monitor 124 West Capitol Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201MIME-Version:1.0 From:ecf_support@ared.uscourts.gov To:ared_ecf@ared.uscourts.gov Message-Id:\u0026lt;494232@ared.uscourts.gov\u0026gt; Bcc: Subject:Activity in Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Little Rock School, et al v. Pulaski Cty School, et al \"Order to Show Cause\" Content-Type: text/plain***NOTE TO PUBLIC ACCESS USERS*** You may view the filed documents once without charge. To avoid later charges, download a copy of each document during this first viewing.\u0026lt;!- rcsid='\\$Header: /ecf/district/html/TextHead,V 3.1 2003-04-25 07:56:43-04 loy Exp \\$' U.S. District Court Eastern District of Arkansas Notice of Electronic Filing The following transaction was entered on 10/6/2005 at 4:23 PM CDT and filed on 10/6/2005 #ident 'rcsid=\\$Header: /ecf/district/server/TextBody,v 3.1 2003-04-25 07:52:35-04 loy Exp \\$' Case Name: Little Rock School, et al v. Pulaski Cty School, et al Case Number: 4:82-cv-866 http://ecf.ared.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl726052 WARNING: CASE CLOSED on 01/26/1998 Document Number: 3948 Copy the URL address from the line below into the location bar of your Web browser to view the document: http://ecf.ared.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_case_doc?394 8, 2 6052,,MAGIC, Docket Text: ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE Show Cause Hearing set for 11/7/2005 08:30 AM in Little Rock Courtroom #431 before Judge William R. Wilson Jr. LRSDs Witness List Due by 5 P.M. 10/12/05\nJoshua witness list due 10 days after. Signed by Judge William R. Wilson Jr. on 10/6/05. (dac ) The following document(s) are associated with this transaction: Document description: Main Document Original filename: n/a Electronic document Stamp: [STAMP dcecfStamp_ID=1095794525 [Date=10/6/2005] [FileNumber=494231-0] [4646454cc4bl35abdb59d2a8725c86222adf016dafacc9cl63al7c4660244fe41e95a3f7826fca4 10e22clf65bbdab9c82f54fe63aa303249d72d80de59f8d3a]] \u0026lt;! rcsid='\\$Header: /ecfZdistrict/server/TextAtyList,v 3.2 2003-06-02 17:37:56-04 bibeau Exp \\$' \u0026gt; 4:82-cv-866 Notice will be electronically mailed to: Mark Terry Burnette mburnette@inbbwi.com. John Clayburn Fendley , Jr fendleyl@alltel.net, Mark Arnold Hagemeier mark.hagemeier@ag.state.ar.us, Christopher J. Heller heller@fec.net, brendak@fee.net\ntmiller@fec.net M. Samuel Jones , III sjones@mwsgw.com, aoverton@mwsgw.com Stephen W. Jones sjones@jlj.com. kate.jonesS jlj.com Sharon Carden Streett scstreett@comcast.net, scstreett@yahoo.com John W. Walker johnwalkeratty@aol.com, lorap72297@aol.com\njspringer@gabrielmail.com 4:82-cv-866 Notice will be delivered by other means to: Clayton R. Blackstock Mitchell, Blackstock, Barnes, Wagoner, Ivers S Sneddon, PLLCCase 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3950 Filed 10/12/2005 Pagel of3 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS LRSDS WITNESS LIST For its witness list for the hearing scheduled for November 7,2005, the Little Rock School District provides the following: 1. Gene Jones Office of Desegregation Monitoring 1 Union National Plaza 124 W. Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 RECEIVED OCT 1 3 2005 2. Dr. Karen DeJamette Little Rock School District Planning, Research and Evaluation 30 \u0026amp; Pulaski Streets Little Rock, AR 72201 OFFICEOF DESEGREGATION MONITORING 3. Dr. James S. Catterall Professor University of California P. O. Box 951521 Los Angeles, CA 90005 4. Dr. Steven M. Ross Fadree Professor and Director Center for Research in Educational Policy 325 Browning Hall Memphis, TN 38152-3340Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3950 Filed 10/12/2005 Page 2 of 3 5. Jim Wohlleb Planning, Research and Evaluation 30 \u0026amp; Pulaski Streets Little Rock, AR 72201 6. Dr. Roy Brooks Superintendent Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 7. Dr. Gayle Potter Associate Director Academic Standards and Assessment Arkansas Department of Education #4 State Capitol Mall, Room 106A Little Rock, AR 72201 8. All witnesses listed by other parties and witnesses who may be necessary to provide rebuttal testimony Respectfully Submitted, LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark Christopher Heller (#81083) 2000 Regions Center 400 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 (501)376-2011 /s/ Christopher Heller 2Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3950 Filed 10/12/2005 Page 3 of 3 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that on October 12, 2005,1 have electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system, which shall send notification of such filing to the following: mark.hagemeier@ag.state.ar.us siones@mwsgw.com siones@ili.com iohnwalkerattv@aol.com and mailed by U.S. regular mail to the following addresses: Gene Jones Office of Desegregation Monitor 1 Union National Plaza 124 W. Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Clayton Blackstock Mr. Mark Burnett 1010 W. Third Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Judge J. Thomas Ray U. S. District Courthouse 600 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 149 Little Rock, AR 72201 /s/ Christopher Heller 3RECEIVED OCT 2 4 2005 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION OFHCEOF DESEGREGATION MONITORING LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. No. 4:82CV00866-WRW/JTR PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al.. DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, et al. INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, et al. INTERVENORS ORDER i Pending is LRSDs Motion to Excuse Dr. James Caterall (Doc. No. 3951) from the November 7,2005 Hearing. For good cause shown, the motion is GRANTED. However, Dr. Caterall must provide Mr. Heller with a phone number where he can be reached, if necessary, the day of the hearing. IT IS SO ORDERED this 20th day of October, 2005. /s/ Wm. R.Wilson,Jr. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE fl- 1Case: 4:82cv866 Office of Desegregation Monitor 124 West Capitol Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201MIME-Version:1.0 From:ecf_supportgared.uscourts.gov To:ared_ecf@ared.uscourts.gov Message-Id:\u0026lt;504296@ared.uscourts.gov\u0026gt; Bcc: Subject:Activity in Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Little Rock School, et al v. Pulaski Cty School, et al \"Order on Motion for Order\" Content-Type: text/plain***NOTE TO PUBLIC ACCESS USERS*** You may view the filed documents once without charge. To avoid later charges, download a copy of each document during this first viewing.U.S. District Court Eastern District of Arkansas Notice of Electronic Filing The following transaction was entered on 10/20/2005 at 4:01 PM CDT and filed on 10/20/2005 Case Name: Little Rock School, et al v. Pulaski Cty School, et al Case Number: 4:82-cv-866 http://ecf.ared.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl726052 WARNING: CASE CLOSED on 01/26/1998 Document Number: 3953 Copy the URL address from the line below into the location bar of your Web browser to view the document: http://ecf.ared.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_case_doc?3953,26052,,MAGIC,,,2005214 Docket Text: ORDER granting [3951] Motion for Order to excuse Dr James Caterall from 11/7/05 hearing. Signed by Judge William R. Wilson Jr. on 10/20/05. (dac, ) The following document(s) are associated with this transaction: Document description: Main Document Original filename: n/a Electronic document Stamp: [STAMP dcecfStamp_ID=1095794525 [Date=10/20/2005] [FileNumber=504295-0] [4b2f98b5ddl9c8ac9280f4eaf8bb25dc3f01ed0ec0146298ffebef5b9ee992dl8df64af85b5cc32 dce34e54ebb7f6e2f592c6d7bf2628da7d0c5605el7f75c42] ] 4:82-cv-866 Notice will be electronically mailed to: Mark Terry Burnette mburnette@mbbwi.com. John Clayburn Fendley , Jr fendleyl@alltel.net, Mark Arnold Hagemeier mark.hagemeier@arkansasag.gov, beleda.bledsoe@arkansasag.gov Christopher J. Heller heller@fec.net, brendak@fec.net\nttniller@fec.net M. Samuel Jones , III sjones@mwsgw.com, aoverton@mwsgw.com Stephen W. Jones sjones@jlj.com, kate.jones@jlj.com Sharon Carden Streett scstreett@comcast.net, scstreett@yahoo.com John W. Walker johnwalkeratty@aol.com, lorap72297@aol.com\njspringerggabrielmail.com 4:82-cv-866 Notice will be delivered by other means to: Clayton R. Blackstock Mitchell, Blackstock, Barnes, Wagoner, Ivers \u0026amp; Sneddon, PLLC 1010 West Third Street Post Office Box 1510 Little Rock, AR 72203-1510 Norman J. Chachkin NAACP Legal Defense S Educational Fund, Inc. 99 Hudson StreetSuite 1600 New York, NY 10013 Timothy Gerard Gauger Arkansas Attorney General's Office Catlett-Prien Tower Building 323 Center Street Suite 200 Little Rock, AR 72201-2610 James M. Llewellyn , Jr Thompson \u0026amp; Llewellyn, P.A. 412 South Eighteenth Street Post Office Box 818 Fort Smith, AR 72902-0818 Office of Desegregation Monitor One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 William P. Thompson Thompson \u0026amp; Llewellyn, P.A. 412 South Eighteenth Street Post Office Box 818 Fort Smith, AR 72902-0818\nThis project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resoources.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_309","title":"Compliance court filings","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["2002-08/2002-09"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--21st Century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Pulaski County Special School District","Educational law and legislation","Education--Evaluation","School administrators"],"dcterms_title":["Compliance court filings"],"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/309"],"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":["filing"],"dcterms_extent":["406 pages"],"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\nreceived u.. SEP 1 3 2002 DESEGREGATION MONITORING IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRIC/it\n^ 'LEfik  EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS LITTLE ROCK DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF AO 72A V. No. 4:82CV00866 WRW/JTR PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. I, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. MEMORANDUM OPINION I I DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS AO72A I. n. m. IV. INDEX Introduction Page .. 1 The Long History Of Desegregation Litigation In Pulaski County A. B. C. D. E. F. G. H. 1. J. K. 1956 Through 1973 ......................................................... 1973 Through 1982 ..................................................... Interdistrict Litigation And Interdistrict Relief........... The 1990 Settlement Agreement And Settlement Plans 11 11 13 16 20 LRSDs Implementation Of Its Desegregation Obligations Between 1991 And 1995 ......................................................................................................................... Joshuas Request For An Interim Award Of Attorneys Fees For Performing Monitoring Activities After The 1990 Settlement............................................ LRSDs First Attempt To End Federal Court Jurisdiction ............................. The Perplexing Final Resolution Of Joshuas Request For Still More Attorneys Fees From LRSD............................................................................... Final Approval Of Revised Desegregation And Education Plan.................... LRSDs Implementation Of Its Obligations Under The Revised Plan 24 33 36 38 45 46 LRSD Seeks Unitary Status Based Upon Its Substantial Compliance With The Revised Plan 50 Relevant Provisions Of Revised Plan A. B C. D. E. F. G. H. I. LRSDs Obligation Of Good Faith ......................... LRSDs Obligations Regarding Student Discipline 52 55 55 LRSDs Obligations To Improve And Remediate The Academic Achievement Of African-American Students ............................................................. LRSDs Obligations Regarding Extracurricular Activities, Advanced Placement Courses, And Guidance Counselors............................................... LRSDs Obligations To Develop Remedies, Where Appropriate, For Racial Disparities In Programs And Activities............................................................. Procedure For Raising Compliance Issues................................................. Duration Of Revised Plan ..................................... Procedure For Seeking Unitary Status............................................................... Effect Of LRSDs Failure To Meet Specific Goals In The Revised Plan Controlling Principles Of Law A. B. C. D. E. The Evolving Concept of Unitary Status............................ Applicable Standard For Determining If LRSD Is Unitary Burden Of Proof...................................................................... Meaning Of Substantial Compliance............................... 56 56 57 57 59 59 60 60 60 69 72 75 The Metaphysics Of Using The Achievement Gap As A Factor In Deciding Unitary Status....................................................................................................... 77 -i-AO72A V. VI. vn. vni. Findings Of Fact A. B. C. D. E. F. G. Good Faith...................................................... Student Discipline ........................................ Extracurricular Activities............................. Advanced Placement Courses........... Promote Participation and Remove Barriers Identify and Encourage ............................... Assist.............................................................. Guidance And Counseling............................ Academic Achievement ................................ Program Assessment/Program Evaluation ., Conclusions Of Law A. B. C. D. E. F. G. H. Unitary Status................ Burden Of Proof........... Substantial Compliance Good Faith.................... Student Discipline .... Academic Achievement Partial Unitary Status .. Time To Fly.................. Compliance Remedy Conclusion -ii- 85 86 95 114 123 123 132 135 136 138 150 160 160 160 160 161 161 163 165 168 170 173IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS LITTLE ROCK DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF AO72A V. No. 4:82CV00866 WRW/JTR PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1,ETAL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. MEMORANDUM OPINION' I. Introduction^ DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS On December 12, 1990, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals approved the Pulaski County School Desegregation Case Settlement Agreement, as revised September 28, 1989\nseparate Settlement Plans for the Little Rock School District (LRSD), the North Little Rock School District (NLRSD), and the Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD), dated 'It was my good fortune to have The Honorable Joe Thomas Ray, U. S. Magistrate Judge, assigned to this case with me. I would be sorely remiss if I did not acknowledge, here and now, the prodigious effort and talent he has brought to this project. As authors are wont to say, any errors, however, are mine alone. ^As a Bryan Gamer disciple (beginners class), I generally favor putting all substantive legal analysis in the text and citing the supporting cases in footnotes. However, so many issues in this case beg for digressions that I have been unable to resist the temptation to include substantive legal analysis in some of the footnotes.January 31,1989\nand a separate Interdistrict Settlement Plan? LRSD v. PCSSD, 921F.2dl371 (S* Cir. 1990). At that time, both the district court and the Eighth Circuit believed that this historic settlement created the benchmark for the future path of this case, Appeal ofLRSD, 949 F.2d 253,255 (8* Cir. 1991), and a sure guide for ending this dispute and getting the parties out of court. LRSD V. PCSSD, Supp. 1491,1494 (E.D. Ark. 1991), order vacated, 949 F.2d 253 (Sth Cir. 1991). In the years following the Eighth Circuits approval of the parties final settlement of this case, all three Pulaski County school districts implemented their respective Settlement Plans under the supervision of the district court and the Office of Desegregation Monitoring (ODM).' Subsequently, the district court and Eighth Circuit established guidelines for allowing the parties ^Each of the Settlement Plans for the individual school districts contained their respective desegregation obligations. In addition, the Interdistrict Settlement Plan contained the interdistrict desegregation obligations for all three school districts. These Settlement Plans had been agreed to by the parties and approved by the Court, making them consent decrees. In their pleadings, the parties sometimes refer to these Settlement Plans as desegregation plans. The three individual Settlement Plans for LRSD, NLRSD, and PCSSD, and the Interdistrict Settlement Plan were submitted to the district court for approval during early 1989. However, because they were not approved by the Eighth Circuit until December 12,1990, LRSD V. PCSSD, 921 F.2d 1371 (8* Cir. 1990), the parties and the district court generally have referred to these settlement documents as the 1990 Settlement Agreement, the 1990 Settlement Plans, and the 1990 Interdistrict Settlement Plan. In contrast, the Eighth Circuit has usually referred to these settlement documents as the 1989 settlement agreement and 1989 settlement plan or plans. Appeal of LRSD, 949 F.2d253,254 (8* Cir. 1991) (We recognized, however, that the approved plans, which we shall call the 1989 plan or plans, would need some modification because of the passage of time). Regardless of the terminology used, the parties, the district court, and the Eighth Circuit are all referring to the same settlement documents. In the interest of consistency, I will refer to those documents in this opinion as the 1990 Settlement Agreement, the 1990 Settlement Plan or Plans, and the 1990 Interdistrict Settlement Plan. 'The Eighth Circuit directed the district court to create and staff the ODM with the personnel it shall deem appropriate to help ensure compliance with all aspects of the 1990 Settlement Agreement and the four separate Settlement Plans. LRSD, 921 F.2d at 1388. -2- AO72A to make agreed changes to the details of the Settlement Plans, as long as they did not affect the major substantive commitments to desegregation embodied in those Plans. Appeal of LRSD, 949 F.2d at 256\nsee also LRSD, 769 F. Supp. 1491\nLRSD v. PCSSD, F. Supp, 1483 (E.D. Ark. 1991), order vacated, 949 F.2d 253 (8* Cir. 1991). Between 1991 and 1996, LRSD worked toward implementing its desegregation obligations under the settlement documents. On May 1,1992, the district court entered an Order (docket no. 1587) approving certain changes to LRSDs 1990 Settlement Plan and the Interdistrict Settlement Plan. A copy of LRSDs modified settlement plan and interdistrict plan, referred to as LRSDs May 1992 Desegregation Plan and the May 1992 Interdistrict Desegregation Plan  were attached to the courts May 1,1992 Order. By 1996, it had become apparent to the parties and the district court that some of the desegregation obligations imposed on LRSD by the settlement documents might never be successfully implemented, regardless of LRSDs best efforts. Accordingly, on September 25, 1996, Judge Wright entered a Memorandum Opinion (docket no. 2821) in which she invite[d] the parties to modify the parts of the [settlement] plan that are ineffective or unworkable, As a result, in late 1996 and 1997, LRSD and the Joshua Intervenors (Joshua) entered into Oil January 3,1984, minor petitioners, comprising a group of African-American public school children enrolled in the three Pulaski County school districts, filed a Petition to Intervene (docket no. 452). The Petitioners sought intervenor status for themselves and the other Black public school children of Pulaski County through their parents and next of friends .... Mrs. Lorene Joshua was the lead named parent and next of friend for her three minor school children. On May 24, 1984, the Eighth Circuit entered an Order (docket no. 565) that, in effect, granted the Petition to Intervene. Thereafter, the district court and the parties began referring to these intervenors simply as Joshua. Because the intervenors represent the group of all African- American school children in the Pulaski County public schools, I will sometimes use the plural pronoun they to refer to Joshua. On occasion, the Eighth Circuit has elected to consider -3- AO72A (RavA/A?) protracted negotiations to modify various aspects ofLRSDs Settlement Plan. These negotiations bore fruit in the January 16, 1998 Revised Desegregation and Education Plan (the Revised Plan), which LRSD and Joshua jointly submitted to the district court for approval on January 21, 1998 (docket nos. 3107 and 3136).* On April 10, 1998, the district court entered an Order (docket no. 3144) approving the Revised Plan, which it viewed as an entirely new consent decree or settlement agreement between LRSD and Joshua.* Unlike LRSDs 1990 Settlement Plan, as modified by the May 1992 Desegregation Plan, the Revised Plan included a section establishing a specific procedure Joshua to be only the first named intervenor, Mrs. Lorene Joshua, and properly used the singular pronoun she to refer to Joshua. LRSD v. PCSSD, 56 F.3d 904, 914 (8* Cir. 1995). Either pronoun usage is correct, as long as the reader understands how the Court is defining Joshua. ^According to the explicit language of the Revised Plan, it shall supersede and extinguish all prior agreements and orders in this case and all consolidated cases related to the desegregation of the LRSD with the following exceptions: a. The Pulaski County School Desegregation Case Settlement Agreement as revised on September 28,1989 (Settlement Agreement)\nb. c. The Magnet School Stipulation dated February 27, 1987\nOrder dated September 3, 1986, pertaining to the Magnet Review Committee\nd. The M-to-M Stipulation dated August 26, 1986\nand, Orders of the district court and court of appeals interpreting and enforcing sections a. through d. above to the extent not inconsistent with this Revised Plan. During the hearings on unitary status, the Revised Plan was introduced into evidence as ex 871. in its April 10 Order, the district court concluded, in the alternative, that, even if the Revised Plan was considered to be a modification ofLRSDs May 1992 Desegregation Plan, rather than an entirely new consent decree, it still should be approved under the test for seeking modification of a consent decree established by the Court in Rufo v. Inmates of Suffolk County Jail, 502 U.S. 367, 393 (1992). See also LRSD v. PCSSD, 56 F.3d at 914\nLRSD, 921 F.2d at 1387. AO72Aand time schedule under which LRSD might achieve unitary status: SECTION 11: Unitary Status. At the conclusion of the 2000-01 school year, the district court shall enter an order releasing LRSD from court supervision and finding LRSD unitary with regard to all aspects of school operations provided that LRSD has substantially complied with its obligations set forth in this Revised Plan. In anticipation of release, LRSD shall issue a report on March 15, 2001 indicating the state of LRSDs compliance with the Revised Plan. Any party challenging LRSDs compliance bears the burden of proof. If no party challenges LRSDs compliance, the above-described order shall be entered without further proceedings. (Emphasis added.) Because none of the parties appealed the district courts April 10 Order approving the Revised Plan, it became a final consent decree, which now governs LRSDs desegregation obligations and establishes the path that LRSD must follow to achieve unitary status and release from federal court supervision. On March 15,2001, LRSD filed a Request for Scheduling Order and Compliance Report In most school desegregation cases, a federal courts jurisdiction depends on the existence of constitutional violations by the school district. Once the school district complies with all of its obligations under the Constitution, it achieves unitary status, and the federal courts jurisdiction ends. Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Bd. ofEduc., 402 U.S. 1, 15-16 (1971). In Green v. County School Bd. of New Kent County, 391 U.S. 430, 435-38 (1968), the Court identified the following areas of a school districts operations that must be carefully examined in determining whether it has successfully converted \"to a unitary system in which racial discrimination [has been] eliminated root and branch: (1) student assignment\n(2) faculty and staff assignment\n(3) transportation\n(4) extracurricular activities\nand (5) facilities. These so-called Green factors establish the floor for a school districts compliance with its constitutional obligations under the Fourteenth Amendment. Thus, in all school desegregation cases, a school districts compliance with the Green factors is a condition precedent to unitary status. Importantly, the Revised Plan required LRSD to comply with not only the Green factors, but also a host of other desegregation obligations that went well beyond the constitutional floor established by the Court in Green. Thus, in this case, the question of unitary status turns on whether LRSD has substantially complied with its desegregation obligations under the Revised Plan. -5- I AO72A(docket no. 3410),' pursuant to Section 11 of the Revised Plan, seeking an order finding LRSD unitary with regard to all aspects of school operations. On June 25, 2001, Joshua filed an Opposition to LRSDs Compliance Report (docket no. 3447), which vigorously challenged LRSDs contention that it was entitled to a declaration of unitary status and argued that LRSD was not in substantial compliance with certain of its desegregation obligations under the Revised Plan. On July 5 and 6, August 1 and 2, and November 19 and 20, 2001, my colleague and predecessor in this case. United States ChiefDistrict Judge Susan Webber Wright, conducted five and one-half days of evidentiary hearings to develop the facts surrounding what Joshua believed were their three strongest grounds'' for challenging LRSDs request for unitary status: first, that LRSD had not acted in good faith in implementing its desegregation obligations ( 2.1 of the Revised Plan)\nsecond, that LRSD was not in substantial compliance with its obligations regarding student discipline ( 2.5 through 2.5.4 of the Revised Plan)\nand third, that LRSD was not in substantial compliance with its obligations to implement programs, policies, and procedures designed to improve the academic achievement of African-American students ( 2.7,2.7.1, and 5.1-5.8 of the Revised Plan). In a scheduling conference on December 11,2001, Judge Wright designated the week of = January 28,2002, to hear no more than five additional days of testimony regarding the last three 'During the hearings on unitary status, the Final March 15,2001 Compliance Report was introduced into evidence as CX 870. \"In a telephone conference with counsel on June 29, 2001, Judge Wright made it clear that counsel for Joshua should present his strongest arguments and evidence first, followed by subsidiary arguments and evidence (docket no. 3461 at 54-55). -6- A0 72A ! areas of the Revised Plan in which Joshua claimed LRSD had failed to substantially comply with its obligations: advanced placement courses ( 2.6 and 2.6.2 of the Revised Plan)\nextracurricular activities ( 2.6 and 2.6.3 of the Revised Plan)\nand guidance counseling (2.6.1 of the Revised Plan) (docket no. 3597 at 31-37).Judge Wright made it clear that, after she had heard the testimony concerning these last three areas of LRSDs alleged noncompliance, she would decide the question of unitary status. Id. at 36-37. On January 3,2002, after presiding over this case with great perseverance and distinction for eleven years, Judge Wright determined that it was the appropriate time to reassign this case to another judge with minimal disruption to the parties and to allow a smooth transition (docket no. 3569). That same day, the case was assigned to me by random selection (docket no. 3570). On March 15,2002, one year to the day after submitting its Request for Scheduling Order and Compliance Report, LRSD filed a Motion for an Immediate Declaration of Unitary Status Judge Wright also ruled that Joshua could present non-cumulative evidence regarding: (a) LRSDs lack of good faith in implementing its obligations regarding advanced placement courses, extracurricular activities, and guidance counseling\nand (b) the ways in which LRSDs failure to substantially comply with its obligations regarding advanced placement courses and guidance counseling adversely impacted the academic achievement of Afncan-American students. InITgSDv. 148 F.3d 956,967(8'Cir. 1998), the Court recognized the expertise Judge Wright had gained during her many years of service in this case: In reaching this conclusion, we are mindful that Judge Wright has been responsible for administering and interpreting the settlement agreement for some time now, ever since 1990, when she took over this case. Our review of the District Courts interpretation of the settlement agreement is, as a formal matter, de novo. But we still think it appropriate to pay some heed to the reasoned determinations of the experienced District Judge, who faces decisions in this case every month, if not every week. Of course, the five days of evidentiary hearings that Judge Wright had scheduled for the week of January 28,2002, were cancelled. -7- t 1 AO72A(docket no. 3580) and Supporting Memorandum Brief (docket no. 3581). On May 9, 2002,1 entered a fourteen-page Order (docket no. 3598) explaining to the parties my understanding of the current status of the case. Because the passing of the baton is a key factor in any relay race, the May 9 Order noted: Judge Wright, my immediate predecessor in this case, has done an outstanding job of narrowing the issues and establishing a schedule that should allow me to conduct no more than five additional days of evidentiary hearings on the four remaining issues and then be in a position to decide the LRSDs Motion for an Immediate Declaration ofUnitary Status. For that reason, the Court intends to pick up where Judge Wright left off, without disturbing the schedule that was established and agreed to by the parties and the Court during the December 11, 2001 hearing. May 9, 2002 Order at 12 (docket no. 3598) (footnote omitted). In a telephone conference with counsel on May 14, 2002,1 rescheduled for July 22-26, 2002, the last five days of evidentiary hearings on the question of whether LRSD had substantially complied with its obligations under the Revised Plan. In an Order (docket no. 3600) entered the next day, I set forth the schedule adopted during the May 14 telephone conference. On May 30,2002, Joshua filed their Response in Opposition to LRSDs Motion for an Immediate Declaration ofUnitary Status (docket no. 3604). On June 7,2002, LRSD filed a Reply Brief in Support of Motion for an Immediate Declaration ofUnitary Status (docket no. 3607). Dunng the week of July 22,1 completed the evidentiary hearings to develop the facts relevant to the determination of whether LRSD is entitled to a declaration of unitary status. Thus, the record is now complete, and the issue of unitary status is ready for decision. During the last eight months, I have spent many an hour trying to educate myself on the significant rulings and agreements that have shaped the current contours of this twenty-year-old -8- I A0 72A case.5 I have also read a ground-slide load of cases to gain an understanding of the evolution of school desegregation litigation during the last five decades and to grasp the issues a court must resolve in deciding whether a school district has achieved unitary status. 1 have learned that desegregation cases are invariably complex, involve difiicult-to-understand jargon, and frequently generate book-length appellate decisions, with seemingly obligatory concurring and dissenting opinions. Of course, 1 have found none of these discoveries to be surprising. After all, the issue of desegregation goes to both the heart of the Fourteenth Amendments promise of equal protection and the dark soul of what was, in many parts of the country in the 195O's, a de jure segregated public school system that only grudgingly gave ground to integration-after most school districts had exhausted all available means of delay. In 1954, the Supreme Court rendered its landmark decision in Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483,495 (1954) (^Brown r}, holding that in the field of public education the doctrine of separate but equal has no place and that segregation of public education is a denial of equal protection of the laws.' Three years later, Little Rock suddenly found itself at 1 the epicenter of this countrys first major school desegregation effort. In early August of 1957, LRSD school officials (including the school board) were prepared to implement a plan to admit a small number of Afiican-American students to Central High School. Arkansass Governor, Orval Faubus, ostensibly supported that plan, which, if This action was filed on November 30,1982, as the last in a long line of desegregation cases, dating back to 1956. See infra, note 18. The pleadings in this case alone now occupy hundreds of feet of file space in the Clerks office. 'The next year, the Court explicitly directed the lower federal courts to accomplish desegregation with all deliberate speed. Brown v. Board of Education, 349 U S 294 301 (1955) i^Brown IT}. -9- AO72A /OcM Q/OO\\implemented with the support of the State, may well have led to the peaceful integration of Central. As it turned out, however, just as school started, Faubus called out the Arkansas National Guard to prevent the Little Rock Nine from entering Central.'^ Faubus, who was known as somewhat of a moderate up to that time, shamelessly farmed the flames of racism under the rubric of states rights, interposition, and the like. Thus, Little Rock became the first great legal battleground in the long struggle to desegregate this countrys public school system, a distinction that has left lasting wounds in this community. One can only wonder how the history of school desegregation might have been different if the first southern governor to squarely face the dictates of Brown I had done his plain, sworn constitutional duty. In view of the historical importance of this case, I believe I should review the long and winding path trod by LRSD in carrying out its constitutional duty, under Brown I and its progeny. to rid the Little Rock school system, to the extent practicable, of the vestiges of de jure segregation. Without at least some understanding of that history, it is impossible to appreciate the deep passions this case still stirs in the litigants, lawyers, and judges who have been involved in almost five decades of continuous, unremitting school desegregation litigation in Pulaski County. '^Faubus, of course, cited public safety concerns as his reason for mobilizing the National Guard. He claimed secret intelligence reports indicated that dangerous outside agitators were at work in Little Rock, but these reports were never substantiated. In fact, the evidence now available suggests that the white mob which confronted the Little Rock Nine was mobilized by Faubus own demagoguery, rather than by unidentified outside agitators. And, of course, other demagogues of a like mind were quick to pitch in. R. Reed, Faubus: The Life And Times Of An American Prodigal (1997). '^In 1956, the plaintiffs in Aaron v. Cooper, 143 F. Supp. 855 (E.D. Ark. 1956), filed suit against LRSD to force it to desegregate pursuant to the Courts holding in Brown L In 1964, the plaintiffs filed Clark v. Board ofEduc. of LRSD as a continuation of the desegregation action -10- AO72AII. The Long History Of Desegregation Litigation In Pulaski County A. 1956 Through 1973 hiLRSD V. PCSSD. 584 F. Supp. 328,331-32 (E.D. Ark. 1984), the late and distinguished United States District Judge Henry Woods, the first judge to preside over this case, chronicled in great detail the history of desegregation in Pulaski County. In his scholarly decision. Judge Woods described: the operation of LRSD in 1930, when it was a de jure segregated school district operating under the separate but equal doctrine\n the Courts decision in Brown I, which overturned Plessy v. Ferguson', the court-ordered implementation of a plan to admit a small number of African-American students to Little Rock Central High School in September of1957 Governor Faubus use of Arkansas National Guard troops at Central to place it off limits to Afiican-American students and the subsequent removal of those troops after the issuance of an injunction by United States District Judge Ronald Davies in Aaron v. Cooper, 156 F. Supp. 220 t commenced against LRSD in Aaron v. Cooper. See Judge William Overtons July 9, 1982 Memorandum and Order in Clark, a copy of which, marked Exhibit 1, is attached to LRSDs Memorandum Brief in Support of Motion for an Immediate Declaration ofUnitary Status (docket no. 3581). On November 30,1982, LRSD initiated this action against the PCSSD, NLRSD, and the Arkansas Board of Education seeking the consolidation of all three school districts in Pulaski County as the appropriate interdistrict desegregation remedy. Thus, LRSD has been involved continually in federal desegregation litigation for forty-six years. Plessy V. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537 (1896), overruled by Brown I, 347 U.S. 483 (1954). ^^See Aaron v. Cooper, 143 F. Supp. 855 (E.D. Ark. 1956). As discussed supra at note 18, Aaron was filed in 1956 to force LRSD to desegregate pursuant to the Courts holding in Brown. United States District Judge John E. Miller entered a decree on August 27, 1956, approving LRSDs plan of gradual school integration beginning with senior high school classes in the fall term of 1957. The Eighth Circuit subsequently affirmed that decision. Aaron v. Cooper, 243 F.2d 361 (8* Cir. 1957). -11- AO72A(E.D. Ark. 1957)\n^' the nine courageous African-American students entering Central on September 23, 1957, in the face of a large, threatening mob of whites\nand, finally. President Eisenhower dispatching troops to Central to ensure the safety of the African-American students and to enforce Judge Davies desegregation order.^ Judge Woods also traced desegregation plans advanced by LRSD in the decade of 1960 in a good faith effort to provide a solution to continuous litigation and the failure of those plans in the hysterical political atmosphere of that period. LRSD, 584 F. Supp. at 334. In 1966, the Eighth Circuit approved LRSDs freedom of choice desegregation plan, which remained in effect through the 1968-69 school year. Clark v. Board of Education of LRSD, 369 F.2d 661 (8* Cir. 1966). Significantly, in its decision, the Court noted LRSDs good faith commitment to desegregation: Many of the problems encountered are not of the Boards making or choosing and, we believe, the Board has evidenced a genuine desire to follow the commands of the Brown case to ultimately place into effect a non-racially operated school system. 2'ln 1957, the Eighth Circuit assigned Judge Davies, of Fargo, North Dakota, to preside over Aaron. On September 21, 1957, Judge Davies issued an injunction ordering Governor Faubus, the Adjutant General of the State of Arkansas, and Lieutenant Colonel Marion E. Johnson of the Arkansas National Guard, and their officers, agents, and employees to cease and desist obstructing or preventing, by means of the Arkansas National Guard, or otherwise, Negro students, eligible under said plan of school integration to attend the Little Rock Central High School, from attending said school.... Aaron v. Cooper, 156 F. Supp. at 222. See also Cooper V. Aaron, 358 U.S. 1, 9-10 (1958). Scenes of angry mobs of white protesters confronting the nine African-American students as they entered Central and, later, troops of the 101  Airborne Division rolling across the Broadway Bridge to restore order in Little Rock are still deeply etched in the minds of many Arkansans. -12- AO72AId. at 666? 23 In Green v. County School Board of New Kent County, 391 U.S. 430,439-40 (1968), the Court held that school districts such as LRSD, which were the product of de jure segregation. could not satisfy their constitutional obligations under freedom of choice plans. Therefore, LRSD formulated a new desegregation plan for the 1969-70 school year that was based on geographic attendance zones. However, because segregated housing patterns created a number of racially identifiable schools under the plan, the Eighth Circuit found it to be unconstitutional. Clark V. Board of Education ofLRSD, 426 F.2d 1035, 1043 (8* Cir. 1970). In the 1971-72 school year, LRSD began crosstown busing to achieve racial balance in grades 6 through 12. Clark v. Board of Directors ofLRSD, 328 F. Supp. 1205,1209,1214 (E.D. Ark. 1971, rev W in part, 449 F.2d 493 (S* Cir. 1971). The following school year, crosstown busing was used to achieve racial balance in grades 4 and 5. Clark v. Board of Education of LRSD, 465 F.2d 1044, 1046 (8* Cir. 1972). Finally, during the 1972-73 school year, all LRSD schools and all LRSD grade levels were racially balanced. I B. Events Leading To Initiation Of This Action On July 9,1982, United States District Judge William R. Overton entered a Memorandum and Order in Clark which contained many of the findings that underpinned LRSDs subsequent ^^Likewise, in Cooper, 358 U.S. at 9, the Supreme Court acknowledged that LRSD was prepared to implement the plan, approved by Judge Miller in Aaron, 156 F. Supp. 220, to gradually integrate senior high school classes in the fall term of 1957. However, LRSD was prevented from following that plan by the flagrantly unlawful actions of Governor Faubus, which the Supreme Court noted had not been requested by the school authorities, and [were] entirely unheralded. Cooper, 358 U.S. at 9. -13- AO72Adecision to file this action?\"* In many respects, Judge Overtons decision was a ringing endorsement of LRSD for successfully implementing its school desegregation plan over the last nine years. For example, Judge Overton explicitly found: (1) no evidence of vestiges of discrimination in the district policies or practices\n(2) the district has done an admirable job in the task of desegregation\nand (3) the Little Rock School District has operated in compliance with court decrees for nine years as a completely unitary desegregated school system and isolated complaints ofdiscrimination without persuasive specific evidence to the contrary do not detract from that record^ July 9, 1982 Memorandum and Order at 16 (docket no. 3581) (emphasis added).^^ Although Judge Overton found that LRSD was operating as a completely unitary desegregated school system, he made a number of findings that raised serious questions about the future prospects for LRSD remaining an integrated school district. For example. Judge Overton found that: (1) in the years after the desegregation of LRSD elementary schools in 1973- 74, there has been a steady trend of increasing black enrollment and decreasing white enrollment 1 ^As indicated previously, a copy of Judge Overtons July 9, 1982 Memorandum and Order is attached as Exhibit 1 to LRSDs Memorandum Brief in Support of Motion for an Immediate Declaration of Unitary Status (docket no. 3581). ^Eleven years later. Judge Wright, in describing the operation of LRSD in the years before it filed this action, observed that many believed desegregation litigation in the LRSD [had] been brought to a successful conclusion and the Little Rock school system seemed to have entered a period of relative tranquility and complete self-management. See Judge Wrights Statement to LRSD Board of Directors and Counsel on March 19,1993, attached as Exhibit 1 to Joshuas August 1,1996 Memorandum in Opposition to LRSDs Motion to End Federal Court Jurisdiction (docket no. 2730). I I -14- AO72Ain the elementary schools ... and [to a lesser extent] in the upper grades\n^ (2) despite LRSDs efforts to modify student assignment plans to correct the growing disparity in the black-white student ratio in elementary schools, [a]ll of the persuasive evidence indicates the school district will have enrollment which is essentially all black, particularly in the elementary grades, within the next few years\nand (3) by the fall of 1981, LRSD faced a host of problems surrounding the school attendance plan, including a significant disparity in the black-white ratio at the various elementary schools, complaints of black parents that their children were being bused across the city to attend all black classes, and the defeat of the last two millage increase proposals... by the electorate ... [creating] severe financial problems and an eroding financial base. July 9, 1982 Memorandum and Order at 1-6, attached as Exhibit 1 to LRSDs Memorandum Brief in Support of Motion for an Immediate Declaration ofUnitary Status (docket no. 3581). In an effort to retain and supplement the shrinking pool of white students. Judge Overton approved the Partial K-6 Plan,^ which created twelve K-6 neighborhood schools and retained fourteen paired schools with grades K-3 at one site and grades 4-6 at another. Eight of the twelve neighborhood schools were racially balanced, and four were virtually all black. Under the plan. ^*In the fall of 1971, 42% of the students in LRSD were black. In each year from 1971 through 1981, the number of black students increased, while the number of white students decreased. In the fall of 1981,76% of elementary students and 55% of high school students were black. See LRSD, 584 F. Supp. at 335. In the December 16, 1981 Report prepared by the Desegregation Assistance Team from Stephen F. Austin University, the authors concluded that, if existing trends continued, 90% of the students entering the first grade in LRSD in the fall of 1989 would be black. See Stephen F. Austin Report at 19, attached as Exhibit 2 to LRSDs Memorandum Brief in Support of Motion for an Immediate Declaration ofUnitary Status (docket no. 3581). I ^This was a shorthand reference for LRSDs desegregation plan for children attending kindergarten through the sixth grade. -15- AO72A a/oo\\Booker Junior High School became an intermediate school\na magnet school was to be created west of University Avenue\nand a committee was appointed to ensure that the four virtually all black schools would be treated equally. See July 9, 1982 Memorandum and Order at 6-11 Finally, Judge Overton noted that LRSD had taken a number of steps to address the problems that confronted it. First, LRSD had commissioned a study and report by a Desegregation Assistance Team at Stephen F. Austin University on its desegregation efforts and the challenges it faced in the future.^ Second, LRSD had begun investigating the possibility of seeking an interdistrict remedy through legal proceedings against the adjacent County School District and [had] hired a law firm to pursue that remedy. See July 9, 1982 Memorandum and Order at 6. C. Interdistrict Litigation And Interdistrict Relief On November 30,1982, LRSD filed this actiona new case^against PCSSD, NLRSD, the State of Arkansas, and the Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) seeking consolidation of the three Pulaski County School Districts as the most appropriate and effective desegregation remedy for all three school districts. In its Complaint (docket no. 10), LRSD alleged that PCSSD ^Judge Overtons July 9 decision approved LRSDs Partial K-6 plan as a stop gap student assignment plan for elementary grades. The Eighth Circuit later affirmed that decision in Clark V. Board of Educ. of LRSD, 705 F.2d 265 (8 Cir. 1983). As indicated, supra at note 26, this report, entitled Building on a Generation of Accomplishment Maintaining and Strengthening Desegregation in Little Rock (hereinafter referred to as the Austin Report), is attached as Exhibit 2 to LRSDs Memorandum Brief in Support of Motion for an Immediate Declaration ofUnitary Status (docket no. 3581). Because this action involved claims for relief and remedies that were different from those involved in Clark, it was considered to be a new case and was randomly assigned to the Honorable Henry Woods. -16- AO72A ta^, a\npo\\ Iand NLRSD engaged in a series of intradistrict constitutional violations with interdistrict effects and that the State of Arkansas and Arkansas Department of Education (hereinafter referred to collectively as the State/ADE), through funding and other state action, operated, maintained and/or condoned a racially segregated structure of public education under color of state law. After conducting a trial on the merits of the claims asserted in LRSDs Complaint, Judge Woods entered a Memorandum Opinion setting forth detailed findings of fact and conclusions of law to support his determination that each of the three Defendants had violated the Constitution by creating racial isolation between and among the districts that had caused six specific interdistrict effects. LRSD, 584 F. Supp. at 349-51 ?' Judge Woods noted that, at a later date, he would conduct a hearing to take evidence regarding the precise nature of the remedy that should be fashioned to cure the interdistrict effects of substantial interdistrict segregation. Id. at 352-53. During the subsequent remedial hearings, PCSSD advanced a plan that retained the three autonomous school districts and relied on the development of specialty or magnet schools to attract students from one district to another. LRSD v. PCSSD, 597 F. Supp. 1220,1222-23 (E.D. Ark. 1984). NLRSD advanced a plan that retained the three autonomous school districts, transferred certain geographic areas from PCSSD to LRSD and from LRSD to PCSSD, and depended heavily on the use of majority to minority transfers (M to M transfers) to achieve racial balance. Id. at 1223. Although not advancing a specific plan, Joshua used testimony from Judge Woods made 105 specific findings of fact and drew 14 conclusions of law to support his determination of the issue of liability. On appeal, the Eighth Circuit affirmed all of those findings of fact and conclusions of law. LRSD v. PCSSD, 778 F.2d 404, 429-34 (8* Cir. 1985). -17- AO72A (Rev.8/821 two expert witnesses to suggest three options\n(1) altering boundary lines in accordance with the NLRSD plan\n(2) altering boundary lines to transfer other geographic areas among all three districts\nor (3) transferring certain geographic areas to LRSD and having all of the remaining area of PCSSD consolidated with NLRSD. Id. at 1223-24. LRSD advanced a plan that involved the county-wide consolidation of all three school districts. Id. at 1224-25. After considering all of the evidence, Judge Woods concluded that a countywide interdistrict remedy must be utilized to correct the countywide interdistrict violation found to exist and that this is the only manner of placing the victims of this discrimination in the position they would have occupied absent the discrimination. Id. at 1225.^^ Judge Woods also concluded that the State/ADE: (a) failed to discharge its affirmative duty to encourage desegregation, which had an interdistrict effect on LRSD, PCSSD, and NLRSD\nand (b) had remedial responsibilities with respect to this case. Judge Woods noted that the precise nature of [the State/ADEs] financial and oversight responsibilities must await further refinement of the consolidation plan and development of a budget for such consolidated district. Id. at 1228. PCSSD, NLRSD, and the State/ADE appealed Judge Woods decisions in LRSD, 584 F. Supp. 328, and LRSD, 597 F. Supp. 1220. The Eighth Circuit, sitting en banc, affirmed Judge Woods  finding on liability for interdistrict constitutional violations by PCSSD, NLRSD, and the State/ADE, but reversed his remedy of consolidation^ on the ground that, while the interdistrict violations of the Constitution called for an interdistrict remedy, consolidation of the three school ^Thus, the cat had been belledfor the time being. The cat was not long belled. -18- AO72A (Rev.8/82) districts was not required. LRSD v. PCSSD, 778 F.2d 404, 429-34 (8\" Cir. 1985). Rather than remanding the case to the district court for further findings and a detailed remedial decree, the Court spelled out its own interdistrict remedy?^ Id. at 434-36. Although this interdistrict remedy allowed LRSD, NLRSD, and PCSSD to remain autonomous, it called for. among other things: changing boundaries between PCSSD and LRSD\nrevising attendance zones so that each school would reasonably reflect the racial composition of its district within a permitted variance of plus or minus 25% of the minority race\nencouraging intradistrict and interdistrict M to M transfers\nand creating a limited number of magnet or specialty schools. Id. at 435-36. The principles of the interdistrict remedy outlined in the majority opinion later became the basis for the desegregation plans that were implemented in each of the three Pulaski County school districts. LRSD proceeded to develop a controlled choice desegregation plan, which was approved by Judge Woods on February Tl, 1987 (docket no. 739). Under this plan, LRSD was divided into two attendance zones of approximately equal racial balance. Students were assigned to schools so that each grade at each school reflected the racial balance within that attendance Judge Woods later wrote an article in the Arkansas Law Review critiquing the Eighth Circuits decision. Judge Henry Woods and Beth Deere, Reflections on the Little Rock School Case, 44 Ark. L. Rev. 971 (1991). ln a separate opinion. Judge Richard S. Arnold made the following observation about the remedy fashioned by the majority: The District Court (though we are today disagreeing with some of its conclusions) is presided over by a scholarly and distinguished judge. That court, not this one, is in the best position to write a decree. Instead, a decree today springs full-grown from the brow of this Court, a decree that will, I dare say, startle all the parties to this case, including even those (if there are any) who like what they see. LRSD, 778 F.2d at 437 (Arnold, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part). -19- AO72AAO72A zone. After a student was assigned to a school, the students parents could request reassignment to another school within their attendance zone. That request would be granted so long as each school would remain within a range of plus or minus 12.5% of the black student population at the school. The plan also provided for eight magnet schools (four elementary, two junior high, and two high schools), with seats reserved for students of each of the three Pulaski Coxmty school districts. The target racial composition of the magnet schools was 50%-50%. Finally, the plan established a Magnet Review Committee, with representatives of each of the three districts, along with a non-voting member representing Joshua and the Knight Intervenors.^^ The controlled choice plan was implemented beginning with the 1987-88 school year (docket no. 670). While the controlled choice plan was intended to create racial balance, it resulted in many central and east Little Rock schools having fewer than fifty white students. For that reason and others. Judge Woods later found the plan to be ill-conceived. LRSD v. PCSSD, 716 F. Supp. 1162, 1188 (E.D. Ark. 1989), revd., 921 F.2d 1371 (1990). LRSD submitted a new desegregation plan for the 1988-89 school year, which all parties agreed would be a stabilizing year to allow LRSD to carefully plan for the 1989-90 school year and beyond. Id. With that understanding. Judge Woods approved LRSDs proposed desegregation plan for the 1988-89 school year. Id. D. The 1990 Settlement Agreement And Settlement Plans After long and difficult negotiations that began in 1988, LRSD, PCSSD, NLRSD, Joshua, and the State/ADE agreed to a global settlement of all aspects of this case. In the spring of 1989, ^'The Knight Intervenors are members of the LRSD Classroom Teachers Association. -20-the parties submitted the following final settlement documents^ to Judge Woods: (a) The Pulaski County School Desegregation Case Settlement Agreement/ which, among other things, fixed the State/ADEs total financial liability to the three school districts to be an amount not to exceed $129,750,000/ and (b) separate comprehensive Settlement Plans for LRSD, NLRSD, and PCSSD and a comprehensive Interdistrict Settlement Plan. Judge Woods rejected each of the four separate Settlement Plans'*' and the 1990 Settlement Agreement,**^ as submitted\n^^See footnote 3, supra, for an explanation of the terminology I will use in referring to these settlement documents. A copy of the 1990 Settlement Agreement is attached to LRSDs and Joshuas Joint Motion seeking approval of that agreement (docket no. 1174). The 1990 Settlement Agreement contained detailed provisions governing the State/ADEs role in funding and implementing the separate LRSD, NLRSD, PCSSD, and Interdistrict Settlement Plans. Among other things, the State agreed to pay the three school districts a total of not more than $129,750,000. All of the parties agreed to release all claims against each other and to dismiss this case, with prejudice, as to each party. As indicated previously, these four Settlement Plans contained the detailed desegregation obligations that LRSD, PCSSD, and NLRSD contractually agreed to implement under the district courts supervision. See footnote 3, supra. 41 Judge Woods refused to approve the Settlement Plans because he believed they were facially imconstitutional and outside the mandate of the Eighth Circuit: In LRSDs proposed plan almost one-fourth of the elementary schools are contemplated to be all black. The entire mandatory busing burden at the elementary level for desegregation purposes falls on black children. ... All of the historically black schools lie east of University Avenue, and all are proposed to be all-black incentive schools. Double funding is promised for the all-black schools. Yet it is impossible to determine from the submissions how the funds will be spent. LRSD, 716 F. Supp. at 1169. Judge Woods refused to approve the 1990 Settlement Agreement because it was contingent upon legislative approval and a legislative appropriation to fund it. I cannot in good conscience accept this bill as having passed. LRSD, 716 F. Supp. at 1164. -21- AO72Aordered the parties to implement a more comprehensive plan known as the Tri-District Plan\nappointed Eugene Reville to the position of Metropolitan Supervisor\nand conferred upon Mr. Reville a wide array of powers over all three school districts that, in many respects, closely resembled consolidationthe remedy the Eighth Circuit had previously rejected. LRSD, 716 F. Supp. at 1164-69. Shortly after Judge Woods entered his decision, the Arkansas Legislature passed a bill funding the over $100,000,000 that the State/ADE was obligated to pay to the three school districts under the 1990 Settlement Agreement. Based on this new development, the parties resubmitted the Settlement Agreement to Judge Woods for approval. On December 11, 1989, Judge Woods entered an Order which added certain new conditions to the Settlement Agreement\napproved it, as modified\nand directed the parties to carry out its terms. LRSD v. PCSSD, 726 F. Supp. 1544, 1549-51 (E.D. Ark. 1989). Judge Woods December 11 Order also specifically disapproved that portion of the Settlement Agreement which called for LRSD to pay $2,000,000 ofthe $3,150,000 in attorneys fees that the parties had agreed to pay to Joshuas counsel. Id. at 1554-56.\" Each ofthe school districts and Joshua appealed the district courts decisions to the Eighth Circuit, which reversed and remanded the case with instructions to approve the 1990 Settlement Agreement and the four Settlement Plans, as submitted by the parties. LRSD, 921 F.2d 1371. In reaching that decision, the Court made a number of important rulings that have had a profound \"Under the terms of the 1990 Settlement Agreement, Joshuas counsel was to be paid attorneys fees of $3,150,000, which the parties agreed should be allocated as follows: LRSD: $2,000,000\nthe State/ADE: $750,000\nPCSSD: $300,000\nand NLRSD: $100,000. LRSD, 921 F.2d at 1390. -22- AO72A (Rev.a/82) influence on future developments in the case. First, the Court noted that the appeal arose from settlements agreed to by all the parties (a most important fact) and that [t]he law strongly favors settlements which should be hospitably received: This may be especially true in the present contexta protracted, highly divisive, even bitter litigation, any lasting solution to which necessarily depends on the good faith and cooperation of all the parties, especially the defendants. Id. at 1383. As further support for that conclusion, the Court made the following observation: This is, after all, no ordinary litigation. The NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, its lawyers and its predecessors, have vigorously prosecuted this case and its ancestors for more than 30 years. Absent an extremely good reason-and we have been given nonewe are reluctant to disregard their judgment as to what is best for their own clients. Id. at 1386. Second, the Court explicitly recognized the important role of future monitoring in the case and the need for it to continue for a long time\"'. In the present case, for example, any remedy will necessarily require some judicial supervisionmonitoring, at leastfor a long time. Id. at 1383 (emphasis added). The Court also emphasized the importance of the district court ensuring that the settlement plans [are] scrupulously adhered to, that monitoring is done effectively, and that appropriate action is taken if the parties do not live up to their commitments. Id. at 1386. Third, the Court recognized that a necessary condition of our holding that the plans are not facially unconstitutional is that the parties compliance with them will be carefully monitored. Id. at 1388. Therefore, the Court directed the creation of the ODM to be headed by a Monitor appointed by the District Court, with such additional personnel as the District Court shall deem appropriate. Id. -23- A0 72A IFinally, the Court reversed Judge Woods decision on attorneys fees and awarded counsel for Joshua $3,150,000, the full amount of attorneys fees provided for under the Settlement Agreement. These attorneys fees were allocated and payable among the parties as follows: LRSD ($2,000,000)\n*' State/ADE ($750,000)\nPCSSD ($300,000)\nand NLRSD ($100,000). Id. at 1390. In an Order entered July 6, 1990, Judge Woods concluded that, because he was unable to successfully implement a plan to bring equity to the children of this county under the restrictions imposed by the Court of Appeals, the time had come for another judge to assume the burden of this litigation since it is my unalterable decision to recuse. LRSD v. PCSSD, 740 F. Supp. 632,636 (E.D. Ark. 1990). Later that day, the case was reassigned, by random selection. to the Honorable Susan Webber Wright (docket no. 1373). E. LRSDs Implementation Of Its Desegregation Obligations Between 1991 And 1995 Section IV of the Settlement Agreement explicitly provided that the State/ADE conditions this settlement upon its dismissal from this Litigation with prejudice in accordance with the terms of Attachment A. Attachment A was a Release of All Claims Against the State, pursuant to which all parties to this litigation released all claims they might have against the State/ADE relating to racial discrimination or segregation in public education in the three school districts in Pulaski County, Arkansas or to the violation of constitutional or other rights of school children based on race or color in the three school districts in Pulaski County, Arkansas. Attachments B, C, and D were identical releases that ran in favor of LRSD, PCSSD, and **The State/ADE agreed to advance LRSDs share of these attorneys fees, which were to be deducted from payments the State/ADE owed LRSD under Section VI of the Settlement Agreement. LRSD, 921 F.2d at 1390. -24- AO72ANLRSD. Finally, Attachments A, B, C, and D each contained the same language providing that this action (LR-C-82-866) is to be dismissed with prejudice as to the State/ADE, LRSD, PCSSD, and NLRSD. Thus, the Settlement Agreement expressly provided for the dismissal of this case, with prejudice, except that the Court may retain jurisdiction to address issues regarding implementation of the Plans.\" Attachments A, B, C, and D to the Settlement Agreement (docket no. 1174) (emphasis added). On the date the Eighth Circuit entered its decision approving the 1990 Settlement Agreement and Settlement Plans, only the State/ADE had moved to be dismissed, with prejudice. as a party to this action.'*^ Thus, one of Judge Wrights first rulings in this case was a January 18, 1991 Order that: (1) dismissed the State/ADE as a party to this action pursuant to the terms of the parties settlement agreement\nand (2) converted the Office of Metropolitan Supervisor to the ODM, which she vested with the authority to monitor the school districts compliance with the settlement plans and settlement agreement, including any future modification of, or addition to, such plans and agreements (docket no. 1418). Ann Marshall, Arma Hart, Polly Ramer, and Linda Bryant, all of whom previously worked for Mr. Reville in the Office of Metropolitan Supervisor, were allowed to continue in their present positions subject to the later approval of In its December 12, 1990 decision approving the 1990 Settlement Agreement and four separate Settlement Plans, the Eighth Circuit directed the district court to enter a fresh order dismissing the State as a party pursuant to the terms of the parties settlement agreement. LRSD, 921 F.2d at 1394. Under the explicit language of the Settlement Agreement, LRSD, PCSSD, and NLRSD were each entitled to the entry of a similar order dismissing them, with prejudice, as parties to this action. For reasons that are not apparent from a review of the record, LRSD waited until November 30, 1995, to move for an order dismissing this case with prejudice (docket no. 2573). See discussion infra at pp. 31 -32. On January 26, 1998, Judge Wright entered an Order (docket no. 3109) pursuant to which LRSD was dismissed, with prejudice, as a party to this action and the case was administratively terminated (docket no. 3110). -25- AO72A (Rev.8/82)the court-appointed monitor. In a Memorandum Opinion entered February 28,1991 (docket no. 1442), the district court made it clear that, even though the State had now been dismissed as a party, it remained obligated to comply with its settlement obligations, which when understood in conjunction with the language in both the Eighth Circuits order of December 12, 1990, and this Courts order of January 18, 1991, also obligate the State to continue funding the ODM by making the annual contribution of $200,000 required in Judge Woods June 27, 1989 Order.'* Likewise, LRSD, NLRSD, and PCSSD were required to continue their annual funding of the ODM on a per pupil pro-rated basis. On April 5,1991, Judge Wright entered a Memorandum and Order (docket no. 1459) that appointed Ms. Ann Marshall Desegregation Monitor, at an annual salary of $98,000.' '*ln an Order entered August 18,1993 (docket no. 1947), Judge Wright emphasized that, while the State/ADE was no longer a formal party in this action, it is the law of the case that the Court retains jurisdiction to ensure that the parties, including the State, comply with the terms of the settlement agreement as well as the settlement plans. In an Order entered December 10, 1993 (docket no. 2045), Judge Wright held that the State agreed not only to the obligations contained in the 1990 Settlement Agreement, but also to the obligations contained in the May 31, 1989 letter from its counsel, H. William Allen, which is referred to in Section III ofthe 1990 Settlement Agreement as the Arkansas Department of Education monitoring plan. In then- pleadings, the parties often refer to this latter document as the Allen letter. 'The first budget Judge Woods approved for the Office of Metropolitan Supervisor was for fiscal year July 1, 1989, to June 30, 1990. That budget totaled $353,710.24 and included Mr. Revilles salary of $98,500, plus the salary and overhead for four other employees (docket no. 1246). Over the next ten years, the budget for the ODM more than doubled to reach $784,188 for fiscal year 2000-01. The staffing ofthe ODM also more than doubled to reach ten employees. As indicated previously, under the 1990 Settlement Agreement, the State/ADE was required to pay $200,000, annually, as its share of the cost ofthe ODM. The balance ofthe ODM budget was paid by LRSD, PCSSD, and NLRSD on a pro-rata basis that was calculated based upon the percentage of students in Pulaski County who attended each ofthe three school districts. For example, the ODMs 2000-01 fiscal year budget of $784,188 was allocated among the parties as follows\n-26- AO72ADuring the first few months of 1991, LRSD, PCSSD, NLRSD, and Joshua entered into negotiations that resulted in numerous modifications to the 1990 Settlement Plans. It was the parties position that they were authorized to make those changes based upon language in the Eighth Circuits December 12,1990 decision providing that the parties were free, by agreement. to modify the settlement plans . . . subject, of course, to the approval of the District Court. LRSD,92\\F.2dat 1393 n. 15. Subsequently, the parties submitted the modified Settlement Plans to the district court for approval. On June 21, 1991, Judge Wright entered a Memorandum and Order rejecting all of the $784,188 - 200.000 (State/ADE payment) $584,188 AO72A zPou ain'\u0026gt;\\ LRSDs share PCSSDs share NLRSDs share (47.64% of total Pulaski County enrollment) (35.36% of total Pulaski County enrollment) (17.00% of total Pulaski County enrollment) $278,307.16 206,568.88 99.311.96 $584,188.00 On September 28,2001, Judge Wright entered an Order (docket no. 3522) approving the ODMs budget for the current fiscal year, which is $707,071, This budget included a 5% pay raise for all employees, which totaled $21,042. Ms. Marshalls salary increased from $111,131 to $116,688 (docket no. 3509). Since the creation of the ODM, the district court has approved the following budgets: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 1989-90 $353,710.24 (docket no. 1246) 1990-91 $293,833.74 (docket nos. 1391 \u0026amp; 1405) 1991-92 $591,557.52 (docket no. 1497) 1992-93 $578,060.81 (docket nos. 1822 \u0026amp; 1836) 1993-94 $646,617.00 (docket nos. 2055 \u0026amp; 2155) 1994-95 $661,768.00 (docket nos. 2359 \u0026amp; 2380) 1995-96 $631,273.00 (docket nos. 2567 \u0026amp; 2599) 1996-97 $730,756.00 (docket nos. 2852 \u0026amp; 3001) 1997-98 $730,716.00 (docket nos. 3158 \u0026amp; 3167) 1998-99 $751,639.00 (docket nos. 3158 \u0026amp; 3167) 1999-00 $764,872.00 (docket nos. 3361 \u0026amp; 3364) 2000-01 $784,188.00 (docket nos. 3361 \u0026amp;3364) 2001-02 $707,071.00 (docket nos. 3509 \u0026amp; 3522) Thus, in the twelve years since its creation, the ODM has requested that LRSD, PCSSD, NLRSD, and the State/ADE pay for budgets totaling $7,932,228.57. As the largest of the three school districts, LRSD has been required to pay approximately 35% of the total cost of the ODM. -27-legion of proposed modifications to the Settlement Plans on the ground that they fell outside the narrow realm of modifications and adjustments deemed permissible by the Eighth Circuit [in its December 12, 1990 decision]. LRSD, 769 F. Supp. at 1483, 1489.' On July 15, 1991, the district court entered a lengthy Memorandum and Order denying the parties motion to reconsider its rejection of their proposed modifications to the 1990 Settlement Plans. LRSD, 769 F. Supp. 1491. In doing so. Judge Wright made it clear that: (a) she disagreed with the parties position that the Settlement Plans are fluid, open to continual and considerable revision as long as the parties agree and the changes are not facially unconstitutional\nand (b) she viewed the Eighth Circuits approval of the Settlement Plans as being akin to establishing a benchmark... a sure guide for ending this dispute and getting the parties out of court. Id. at 1494. LRSD, NLRSD, PCSSD, and Joshua appealed on the ground that the district courts decisions confined them within limits that are too narrow, and that all of their proposed changes, being constitutional, workable, and fair, should have been approved. 'Among the changes the parties sought to make in the four 1990 settlement plans were the following: (1) deleting from PCSSDs settlement plan major portions of the section on special education, especially concerning handicapped children\n(2) eliminating provisions in PCSSDs settlement plan addressing issues related to black students being disciplined disproportionately\n(3) removing several programs from PCSSDs settlement plan aimed at improving student achievement\n(4) deleting from PCSSDs settlement plan the parties agreement to abide by fourteen guiding principles which apply to the process of permanent plan development\n(5) eliminating from LRSDs settlement plan science and social studies as core areas emphasized in remediation programs at the secondary level\n(6) changing LRSDs settlement plan to limit the four-year-old program originally scheduled for all schools by 1993-94 to only eleven schools, with a promise that a long-range implementation plan will be developed for additional four-year-old classes\n(7) changing LRSDs settlement plan to delay the development of parent home study guides and computer managed instructional technology for tracking student progress\n(8) changing LRSDs settlement plan by eliminating staff positions for program specialist and specialist for alternative classrooms\nand (9) changing the interdistrict plan to reduce from six to four the number of interdistrict schools planned for the future. LRSD, 769 F. Supp. at 1484-87. I -28- AO72AAppeal of LRSD, 949 F.2d at 255. In affirming in part and reversing in part, the Eighth Circuit noted that [t]here is much in the District Courts opinions with which we agree, including the observation that the 1989 settlement should indeed be a benchmark for the future path of this case. Id. However, the Court went on to hold that the district court was too strict with itself in not allowing the parties to modify details of those settlement plans that did not affect the three school districts major substantive commitments to desegregation: The desegregation obligations undertaken in the 1989 plan are solenrn and binding commitments. The essence and core of that plan should not be disturbed. ... If a question is truly one only of detail, not affecting the major substantive commitments to desegregation, the District Court has the authority to consider it. Id. at 256. Finally, to provide guidance to the district court, the Eighth Circuit set forth seven elements that form the essence and core of the Settlement Plans and from which there can be no retreaf'\". It maybe helpful for us to state those elements of the 1989 plan that we consider crucial, and with respect to which no retreat should be approved. They are as follows: (1) double funding for students attending the incentive (virtually all-black) schools\n(2) operation of the agreed number of magnet schools according to the agreed timetable\n(3) operation of the agreed number of interdistrict schools according to the agreed timetable\n(4) intradistrict desegregation of PCSSD according to the agreed timetable\n(5) the agreed effort to eliminate achievement disparity between the races\n(6) the agreed elements of early-childhood education, at least in the incentive schools\nand (7) appropriate involvement of parents. As indicated supra at footnote 3, the district court and the parties generally have referred to the 1989 settlement documents as the 1990 Settlement Agreement and the 1990 Settlement Plans because the Eighth Circuit did not approve those settlement documents until December 12, 1990. Regardless of the year used to reference these documents, the Eighth Circuit and the district court are referring to the same Settlement Agreement and Settlement Plans. -29- AO72A (Rev.8/82)Id. (emphasis added). On May 1, 1992, Judge Wright entered an Order approving most of the proposed modifications to LRSDs 1990 Settlement Plan and the Interdistrict Settlement Plan, which the parties referred to as LRSDs May 1992 Desegregation Plan and the May 1992 Interdistrict Desegregation Plan. Judge Wright attached copies of both of these Plans to her May 1, 1992 Order (docket no. 1587). LRSDs implementation of its obligations under the 1992 Plans did not always go smoothly. For example, on March 19, 1993, Judge Wright delivered a strong statement to LRSDs School Board and attorneys explaining the importance of LRSD fully and completely implementing its desegregation obligations under the Settlement Plans\nSince the time of victory by the Little Rock School District in this case, when the Court of Appeals granted almost every facet of relief requested by Little Rock, the Little Rock School District has shown a tendency to drag its feet and act as if it had lost, rather than won, the litigation which it instituted. The Little Rock School District and the other school districts are in court because the Little Rock School District won its case and won the relief it requested. Y et the major complainer, the chief whiner, the number one barrier to a legitimate declaration of a unitary desegregated school system is the victorious complaining party, the Little Rock School District. The biblical reference, in a different context, is to the effect that if you ask, you will receive. Well, you asked, you got it, and it is the basic job of this Court to see that you receive it in full measure. * * * I have never seen, heard or read of a case in which the victors conducted themselves like the vanquished  until now. If we have to have two full hearings a month, in which Board members are required to be present, then we will do so. We will do everything that is required to see that you take the medicine to achieve the cure that you asked the Federal Courts to give you. Judge Wrights Statement to LRSD Board members and Counsel at 2-3 and 6, attached as -30- AO72A! Exhibit 1 to docket no. 2730.^ Between 1991 and 1996, almost all of the district courts Orders involving LRSD related to the following issues\nthe approval of LRSDs annual budgets (docket nos. 1759,1897, 1958, 2216, 2280, 2319, and 2709)\nLRSDs closing of certain elementary schools (docket nos. 1926 and 2351)\nand LRSDs designation and construction of the interdistrict and magnet schools called for under the Settlement Plans (docket nos. 1550, 1832, 1848, 1895, 2225, and 2329). During this period of time, the Eighth Circuit also entered several important decisions that: (1) extended school district millages under the 1990 Settlement Agreement, LRSD v. PCSSD, 971 F.2d 160 (8 Cir. 1992)\n(2) upheld the new zoning plan for electing school board members for LRSD and PCSSD, LRSD v. PCSSD, 56 F.3d 904 (8'\" Cir. 1995)\nand (3) clarified language in the 1990 Settlement Agreement regarding the States funding obligations to LRSD, PCSSD, and NLRSD, LRSD v. PCSSD, 83 F.3d 1013 (8' Cir. 1996). On November 30,1995, LRSD filed a Motion for Order of Dismissal (docket no. 2573), requesting the district court to dismiss this case, with prejudice, pursuant to Attachment B to the 1990 Settlement Agreement.^' Attachment B stated, in pertinent part: It is further understood and agreed that the litigation now pending in United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas, Western Division, entitled Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School In People Who Care v. Rockford Board of Education, 246 F.3d 1073, 1078 (7'*' Cir. 2001), Judge Posner observed that state and local officials are under no duty to love the chains that federal judges, however justifiably, fasten upon them. In this case, it is more than a little ironic that LRSD has forged each link in the chains that have bound it for the last thirteen years. As indicated previously. Attachment B is a fully executed Release pursuant to which all parties agreed to release any and all claims they had against LRSD arising from or relating to this litigation. -31- AO72A fRftvDistrict No. 1, et al., No. LR-C-82-866 and cases consolidated therein and their predecessors (including, but not limited to. Cooper v. Aaron, Norwood v. Tucker, and Clark v. Board of Education of Little Rock School District (the Litigation) is to be dismissed with prejudice as to the LRSD and the former and current members of its board named in the Litigation. This dismissal is final for all purposes except that the Court may retain jurisdiction to address issues regarding the implementation of the Plans. Attachment B to the 1990 Settlement Agreement (docket no. 1174). In seeking that relief, LRSD acknowledged that the dismissal would not affect the district courts jurisdiction to address issues regarding the implementation of its desegregation obligations or to conduct proceedings to enforce the terms of the Settlement Agreement or the terms of the Settlement Plans. On March 11,1996, the district court entered a Memorandum and Order (docket no. 2640) denying LRSDs Motion for Order of Dismissal on the ground that: The LRSD has frequently exhibited indifference or outright recalcitrance towards its commitments and has been slow to implement many aspects of its agreements (although some improvements have been made). Therefore, the Court finds that an order of dismissal should be deferred in order to ensure compliance with the plans and the agreement. Even had the LRSD acted in good faith throughout the years, the logistics and complexity of this case are such that this Courts monitoring function would be impaired by entering an order of dismissal at this time. i LRSD appealed that decision to the Eighth Circuit. On December 15, 1997, the Court reversed and remanded the case to the district court with instructions to enter an order dismissing the case with prejudice, as provided for under the terms of the 1990 Settlement Agreement. LRSD v. PCSSD, 131 F.3d 1255 (8'* Cir. 1997). In reaching this decision, the Court stated the following: Although we can well understand the frustration the district court has experienced over the years in carrying out our instructions, we conclude that the Districts motion should have been granted. As we held in our 1992 decision, the terms of the settlement agreement became the law of the case. See Little Rock -32- AO72A (Rgv.8/82)School District, 971 F.2d at 165. As the agreement specifically provides, the district court is permitted (and indeed must, in order to comply with our instructions), to retain jurisdiction to address issues regarding the implementation of the desegregation plans. Moreover, the desegregation plaintiffs may bring proceedings to enforce the terms of the settlement agreement and the terms of the desegregation plans. In short, the entry of such an order would do nothing to relieve the three districts of their continuing obligation to honor their commitments as set forth in the settlement agreement and the plans. Id. at 1257-58 (footnote omitted). On January 26,1998, the district court entered an Order (docket no. 3109) that dismissed th is case and cases consolidated herein, including, but not limited to. Cooper v. Aaron, Norwood V. Tucker, and Clark v. Board of Education ofLRSD,'' with prejudice, as to LRSD and its current and former board members named in this litigation. The district court also entered a Memo to the File (docket no. 3110) stating that, because the Plaintiff in this case was dismissed with prejudice, the Clerk is instructed to administratively terminate this case, but to keep the case files open and in their current location in the Clerks office so that the Court can continue to perform its ongoing duties regarding the supervision and implementation of the desegregation plans. F. Joshuas Request For An Interim Award Of Attorneys Fees For Performing Monitoring Activities After The 1990 Settlement On November 22,1995, counsel for Joshua moved for an interim award of attorneys fees and costs in the amount of $805,611.81 for monitoring work performed after the Eighth Circuit approved the settlement of this case on December 12, 1990 (docket no. 2565). Counsel for Joshua later reduced the amount of this request to $795,301.81 (docket no. 2791) and argued that it should be apportioned among the three Pulaski County school districts as follows\nLRSD: 75% to 80%\nNLRSD: 5% to 10%\nand PCSSD\n15% to 20%with the final percentages totaling -33- AO72A /Dm.100% (docket no. 2792). LRSD filed a Response and Supporting Memorandum of Law (docket nos. 2636 and 2637) challenging Joshuas right to be awarded any attorneys fees or costs for post-settlement monitoring activities. LRSD argued that, as a part of the consideration for LRSD paying Joshuas counsel $2,000,000 in attorneys fees in connection with the 1990 settlement, Joshuas counsel had specifically agreed, on the record, that they would not seek future fees from LRSD for monitoring activities during the life of the settlement plans. In support of its position, LRSD relied upon the following colloquy between counsel and the Eighth Circuit appellate panel during oral argument in LRSD, 921 F.2d 1371: NORMAN CHACHKIN, ATTORNEY FOR JOSHUA INTERVENORS: I just want to make one other observation and Mr. Heller can confirm this. Although it is not written into the settlement agreement we are happy to confirm it here and to be bound by it. The agreement between Little Rock and Joshua was that the fee payment from the Little Rock School District would also cover out of the court monitoring activities by the attorneys for Joshua during the life of the settlement plans so long as it wasnt necessary to go back to court. If the settlement plans go forward as Mr. Walker suggested, the parties are committed to a monitoring system and committed to working together to ease any implementation problems and avoid any difficulties. Thats going to take attorney time. We have committed to Little Rock that we will not seek any fees from them for those activities unless it is necessary to go back to courtfor enforcement purposes and in that instance we ll simply be free to make an application if we think we 're entitled to it. i j i JUDGE RICHARD S. ARNOLD: Alright, thank you. Now, Mr. Heller, you are recognized. -34- AO72A (Rev.8/82)CHRIS HELLER, ATTORNEY FOR LRSD: * * * Id like to confirm what Mr. Chachkin said about the agreement. Because of the responsibilities assigned to the Joshua Intervenors in our settlement plans, there is significant work for them to do over the next six or seven years, and our agreement on the fees did contemplate that there would [be] no further payment for that work. (Emphasis added.) In a Memorandum Opinion and Order (docket no. 2821) filed on September 23, 1996, Judge Wright concluded that LRSD and Joshua contractually agreed that the $2,000,000 in attorneys fees paid by LRSD in connection with the 1990 settlement also covered all monitoring activities performed by Joshuas counsel during the life of the Settlement Plans. Therefore, Judge Wright ruled that Joshuas counsel was not entitled to recover any attorneys fees from LRSD for performing monitoring activities. On October 3,1996, Joshuas counsel filed a Motion for Reconsideration of Fee Petition (docket no. 2833) and supporting Memorandum of Law (docket no. 2834), in which he urged the district court to award attorneys fees under the bad faith exception to the general rule that. absent a statute or enforceable contract, litigants must pay their own attorneys fees. On March 24, 1997, Judge Wright entered an Order (docket no. 2959) denying Joshuas Motion for Reconsideration. On April 22, 1997, counsel for Joshua filed a Notice of Appeal (docket no. 2966) of the district courts March 24,1997 Order denying his request for interim attorneys fees. I will return to discuss the final resolution of this issue later in this decision. -35- AO72AG. LRSDs First Attempt To End Federal Court Jurisdiction On May 17, 1996, LRSD filed a Motion to End Federal Court Jurisdiction (docket no. 2665) and supporting Brief (docket no. 2666). In these pleadings, LRSD argued that: (1) it was only required to implement its desegregation obligations under its Settlement Plan and the Interdistrict Settlement Plan for six years\n(2) it had implemented the Settlement Plan, beginning with the 1990-91 school year, and Ihe six year term of the Plans will expire at the end of the 1995-96 school year\nand (3) LRSD has implemented in good faith many desegregation plans for more than three decades. LRSD was a substantially unitary school district in 1982, but it nevertheless filed this interdistrict litigation in a good faith effort to maintain a biracial public school system in Little Rock. A recent and exhaustive audit of LRSDs desegregation obligations shows that LRSD is in substantial compliance with the Plans. Docket no. 2665. On August 1, 1996, Joshua filed a Memorandum Opposing LRSDs Motion to End Federal Court Jurisdiction (docket no. 2730) in which they challenged LRSDs contention that the 1990 Settlement Plans called for a six-year implementation period. In support of their position, Joshua pointed out that no provision in any of the settlement documents limited LRSDs implementation of its desegregation obligations to six years. Joshua also argued that LRSD had failed to discharge its burden of establishing the requisite implementation of the court-approved settlement. On September 23, 1996, Judge Wright entered a Memorandum and Order (docket no. 2821) denying LRSDs Motion to End Federal Court Jurisdiction on the grounds that: (1) the 1990 Settlement Agreement and Settlement Plans do not contain any provision that allowed LRSD to terminate its duty to comply with the settlement plans after ... six years\n and (2) -36- AO72ALRSD failed to provide sufficient evidence that it had substantially complied with its obligations under the Settlement Plans. The district court went on to urge LRSD and Joshua to modify the parts of the plan that are ineffective or unworkable so that LRSD could better position itself to argue that it is entitled to unitary status and relief from court supervision: Instead of presenting substantial evidence of its compliance with its goals as set forth in the plan, the LRSD submits arguments that it has achieved unitary status because data from the LRSD compares favorably with data from districts which have been declared unitary. The Court would be inclined to agree with the LRSD with respect to many of these arguments if the LRSD were not contractually bound by the plan which it voluntarily adopted. The Court has encouraged the parties to consider modifying those parts of the plan that are ineffective or unworkable. The Court has provided the parties with the testimony of experts to assist in the modification process. Instead, the LRSD has used the testimony of these experts to ask the Court to end Court jurisdiction without first proceeding with plan modifications. The Court cannot so easily relieve the district of its contractual obligations. Once again the Court invites the parties to follow procedures to modify the parts of the plan that are ineffective or unworkable. Docket no. 2821 at 12 (emphasis in original). On December 6, 1996, LRSD filed a Motion for Approval of Plan Development Period I (docket no. 2878) that requested Judge Wright: (1) to allow a six to nine month period for LRSD to concentrate its efforts to develop plan modifications to improve education and desegregation within the district\n(2) to allow LRSD to use the ODM as a consultant to participate in the development of plan modifications in areas such as budget development, staff development. student assignments, and resolution of discipline issues\nand (3) to withhold any further monitoring of the LRSD desegregation plan during this six to nine month period. In support of its Motion, LRSD noted that the Knight Intervenors, PCSSD, and NLRSD supported its request. -37- AO72A (Rev.8/82) iOn December 18, 1996, Joshua filed a Response (docket no. 2891) that did not oppose LRSDs request for an interval of time to develop a new desegregation plan, but expressed reservations about ODM, as an arm of the court, participating in the negotiations between the parties. Joshua also urged Judge Wright to appoint additional monitors to work on a matter of particular concern to themthe alleged ill-treatment of class members. On December 27, 1996, Judge Wright entered an Order (docket no. 2901) granting LRSDs Motion. In this Order, Judge Wright held that: (1) LRSD will benefit from a temporary hiatus from monitoring and from the expertise of the ODM, in order to develop proposed modifications to the LRSD desegregation plan\nand (2) ODM can advise LRSD and other parties during the negotiations for plan modifications and ODM can participate in negotiations as a facilitator, but ODM cannot be a negotiator for any party. Judge Wright also denied Joshuas request to hire additional monitors to handle complaints about mistreatment of class members. December 27,1996 Order at 3 (docket no. 2901). H. The Perplexing Final Resolution Of Joshuas Request For Still More Attorneys Fees From LRSD On September 26,1997, LRSD filed a Motion for Approval of Revised Desegregation and Education Plan (docket no. 3049) and a supporting Memorandum Brief (docket no. 3050). After Joshua objected to a number of provisions in the proposed revised plan, LRSD and Joshua engaged in extensive negotiations to develop a revised plan which both parties could support. As part of these negotiations, LRSD and Joshua took up the still unresolved issue of Joshuas request for $795,301 in attorneys fees for performing post-settlement monitoring i -38- AO72A (Rev.8/82)activities, which was pending on appeal to the Eighth Circuit?^ On January 21,1998, LRSD and Joshua filed a Joint Motion for Approval of LRSDs Revised Desegregation and Education Plan (docket no. 3107) in which they admitted that ongoing negotiations were taking place on the attorneys fees issue: Joshua has agreed that they will request that the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit hold their two pending appeals in abeyance, and LRSD and Joshua have further agreed that they will attempt to resolve Joshuas past, present, and future claims for attorneys fees and costs by mediation. January 21, 1998 Joint Motion at 2 (docket no, 3107). See also Renewed Joint Motion for Approval of LRSDs Revised Desegregation and Education Plan filed on March 23, 1998 (docket no. 3136). On February 27, 1998, the Eighth Circuit entered a Mandate (docket no. 3125) which granted the stipulation of the parties for dismissal of the appeal of Judge Wrights March 24, 1997 Order denying Joshuas request for interim attorneys fees. The entry of this voluntary Judgment dismissing Joshuas appeal of the attorneys fees issue strongly suggests that, sometime prior to February 27, 1998, LRSD and Joshua arrived at a settlement of that issue. In a letter agreement dated June 10,1998,^ LRSD and Joshua formally documented their ^^As indicated previously, on April 22, 1997, Joshua appealed Judge Wrights Order denying their requested interim attorneys fees (docket no. 2966). At the time the parties entered into these negotiations, that appeal was still pending before the Eighth Circuit. The first time this letter agreement became part of the record in this case was on March 15, 2002, when LRSD attached it as Exhibit 7 to its Memorandum Brief in Support of Motion for an Immediate Declaration ofUnitary Status (docket no. 3581). Thus, before her decision to step down in this case. Judge Wright was never made aware of the facts surrounding the agreement that LRSD would pay Joshuas counsel $700,000 in attorneys fees for past monitoring work, plus $48,333.33 per year for three years of future monitoring work. Furthermore, absent LRSDs decision to make the June 10,1998 letter part of the record, I would have very likely missed the troubling implications associated with the confluence of agreements on both the Revised Plan and the issue of Joshuas past and future attorneys fees. Therefore, my -39- AO72A O/OO\\ settlement of all past and future claims for attorneys fees and costs as follows: LRSD will make the following payments [to counsel for Joshua] for past fees and costs: $100,000.00 on or before June 30,1998\n$100,000.00 on or before August 31,1998\nand $500,000.00 on or before October 31,1998. 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 payments described in this letter will constitute full and complete payment in satisfaction of all past or future claims for attorneys fees and costs except as specifically set forth in the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. June 10,1998 letter agreement, attached as Exhibit 7 to LRSDs Memorandum Brief in Support of Motion for an Inunediate Declaration ofUnitary Status (docket no. 3581) (emphasis added).^ Although not directly relevant to the issue of unitary status, I can think of no good explanation for LRSDs decision to voluntarily pay Joshuas counsel an additional $700,000 in attorneys fees for performing monitoring work for which Judge Wright had ruled he was not entitled to be paid anything from LRSD. On top of this, one of Joshuas own attorneys. Mr. Chachkin, previously had admitted during oral argument before the Eighth Circuit that the attorneys fees paid under the 1990 Settlement Agreement included future attorneys time raising this issue now, based upon facts that were not known to Judge Wright while she presided over this case, should in no way be construed as a criticism of Judge Wright for not raising this issue earlier. As I have emphasized, it was LRSDs decision to file its counsels June 10, 1998 letter as an exhibit to its March 15, 2002 Memorandum Brief in Support of Motion for an Immediate Declaration ofUnitary Status that alerted me to this issue. ^As indicated previously, Joshuas counsel argued to Judge Wright that LRSD should be allocated 75% to 80% of his $795,301 in attorneys fees associated with performing past monitoring activities (docket no. 2792). If those attorneys fees had been allocated on that basis, LRSD would have been responsible for paying Joshuas counsel between $596,475 and $636,240. I am at a loss to understand why LRSD would agree, in the June 10, 1998 letter, to voluntarily pay Joshuas counsel $700,000, almost $ 100,000 more than the median amount Joshuas counsel originally sought to recover from LRSD for his post-settlement monitoring work. -40- AO72Aexpended in connection with monitoring activities.^ It appears to me that Judge Wrights well- reasoned Memorandum Opinion (docket no. 2821) denying Joshuas Request for an Interim Award of Attorneys Fees and her subsequent Order (docket no. 2959) denying Joshuas Motion for Reconsideration placed LRSD in an excellent position to prevail on Joshuas appeal of the district courts rulings to the Eighth Circuit. Holding what seemed to be the winning hand on appeal, I find it passing strange that LRSD would voluntarily agree to pay Joshuas counsel an additional $700,000 for post-settlement monitoring work when, as stated above, one of Joshuas other attorneys admitted this work was already included in the $2,000,000 LRSD paid to Joshuas counsel under the 1990 Settlement Agreement. I find it somewhat discomforting that LRSD and Joshua had a meeting of the minds on an essentially new desegregation settlement plan at the same time their attorneys were discussing the settlement of Joshuas counsels request for a large interim award of attorneys fees. i 1 i i t However, I know of no facts establishing that the simultaneous negotiation of those two unrelated issues did not take place at arms length or involved a quid pro quo. From the inception of this case, Joshuas counsel has fought hard for his clients and has a well-documented record of zealously protecting their interests. I also recognize that Joshuas counsel has manned the barricades of civil rights litigation in Arkansas for over four decades and that he has a reputation for never yielding on matters of principle. Accordingly, while I do not conclude that anything improper occurred in the simultaneous negotiation of these two unrelated issues, I do have a real concern about the publics perception of the timing of these eventswhich I fear has raised troubling questions and lingering doubts. See supra, pp. 34-35. -41- AO72A (Rev.8/82)I also find it unsettling that, going forward, LRSD agreed to pay Joshuas counsel up to $48,333.33 per year for three years beginning July 1, 1998, for fees and costs incurred for implementing and monitoring the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. June 10, 1998 letter agreement, attached as Exhibit 7 to docket no. 3581. At a minimum, all of the terms and conditions of such an unusual arrangement should have been spelled out in writing, with a clear statement regarding the duties, if any, that Joshuas counsel owed to LRSD, the party paying his fees for monitoring the implementation of the Revised Plan, and whether, under this arrangement. LRSD and Joshuas counsel entered into an attorney-client relationship. In any case, at least one thing is clear from the June 10,1998 letter agreement: In exchange for being paid $4,027.78 per month by LRSD, Joshuas counsel specifically agreed to undertake the obligation of monitoring all aspects of LRSDs implementation of the Revised Plan. Subsequently, Joshuas counsel submitted to LRSD periodic Statements for Legal Services Rendered for attorneys fees incurred in connection with his work implementing and monitoring the Revised Plan.^ See Exhibit 8 to docket no. 3581. According to Joshuas counsels periodic statements for legal services, LRSD paid him a total of $124,861.15, which was billed in the following installments: July, 1998, through October, 1998: $16,111.12\nNovember, 1998, through October, 1999: $48,333.33\nNovember, 1999: $4,027.78\nDecember, 1999: $4,027.78\nJanuary, 2000, through May, 2000: $20,138.90\nJune, 2000: $4,027.78\nJuly, 2000: $4,027.78\nAugust, 2000, through September, 2000: $8,055.56\nOctober, 2000: $4,027.78\n5*As discussed infra at pp. 57-59, at no point between the district courts approval of the Revised Plan on April 10,1998, and the filingofLRSDsCompliance Report on March 15,2001, did Joshuas counsel ever raise any of the compliance issues that are now before me, pursuant to  8.2 through 8.2.5 of the Revised Plan. -42- AO72A (Rev.8/82)November, 2000: $4,027.78\nDecember, 2000: $4,027.78\nand January, 2001: $4,027.78. See Exhibit 8 to docket no. 3581.^ Thus, for each month between July, 1998, and January, 2001, LRSD paid Joshuas counsel $4,027.78 for attorneys fees incurred monitoring LRSDs implementation of the Revised Plan. For good reason, there is a widespread public perception that this case has become a decades-old cottage industryand a large one at thatfor lawyers. Over ten years ago, in Judge Woods decision to step down from this case, he decried the many appeals perfected in this case, some of which have accomplished nothing but enrichment of the participating attorneys, and called the lawyer fees paid by the three districts grossly exorbitant. LRSD, 740 F. Supp. at 635. Since that time, things appear to have changed little, with all three school districts paying substantial annual attorneys fees to their own lawyers and substantial annual payments to the ODM, whose requested annual budget for the last several years has been in the range of $700,000. At the same time, the threat of paying large future attorneys fees to Joshuas counsel hangs like the sword of Damocles above the heads of all the parties.^ 'The record fails to contain an explanation of why Joshuas counsel did not submit Statements for Legal Services Rendered for the months of February through June, 2001. 5As everyone knows, Arkansas is one of the poorest states in the country and has always had difficulty finding funds for public education. Although LRSD is better off than many school districts in the State, it is by no means affluent. Like other school districts, it struggles each year to make ends meet. For example, during the last few years, the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette has reported on the need for the repair or renovation of the basic infrastructure in many LRSD schools and on school teachers who have been forced to purchase pencils and other basic school supplies for their students. By my calculations, since 1990, counsel for Joshua has been paid $3,974,861 ($3,150,000 + $700,000 + $124,861). Over that same period of time, 1 would guess LRSD, PCSSD, and NLRSD have paid their own attorneys a total of at least $4,000,000. If my estimate is correct, that means, since 1990, the attorneys for all parties in this case have been paid at least $8,000,000. As indicated, supra at footnote 47, the ODM has submitted budgets totaling $7,932,228.57. -43- I AO72A ZOa*/ OZOO^All members of the professional group, who have directly benefitted from the perpetuation of this case, are placed on notice that 1 intend to monitor closely the costs associated with this action. Being bom and raised in Scott County, one of the poorest counties in Arkansas, I understand the meaning ofbeing careful with a dollar, and I expect the professional group to keep that important point fixed in their minds from here on out. Thus, since 1990, the professional group in this case probably has been paid close to $16,000,000. Counsel for LRSD, Joshua, and the staff of the ODM know that LRSD grapples annually with funding and budget issues. They also know that the approximately $ 16,000,000 paid to them since 1990 has come from funds earmarked for the school children of this district. In making this observation, I in no way mean to imply that lawyers and monitors have not been necessary to ensure that LRSD, NLRSD, and PCSSD properly implemented and scrupulously adhered to their desegregation obligations under the Settlement Plans. My only point is that I would have hoped this professional group would have kept uppermost in their minds that every penny paid to them for their work in this case is one less penny available to help in the education of a child. Thus, I would have also hoped that the professional group would have been as frugal and judicious as possible in the expenditure of their time or budgeted funds. One of the ways the attorneys could have kept this covenant with the districts school children would have been to discount their normal hourly billing rates. In the case of the ODM, it might have foregone raises and minimized staff and office space requirements in the interest of bringing this case to a close as economically as possible. My review of the pleadings since 1990 has dashed all such utopian hopes. For example. Judge Woods cited the grossly exorbitant lawyer fees paid by the three school districts as the principal reason for [their] poor financial situation and noted that LRSDs attorneys had billed 31 days in a 30-day month. LRSD, 740 F. Supp. at 635. Similarly, Judge Wright noted in her September 23,1996 Memorandum Opinion denying Joshuas motion for interim attorneys fees that their counsel was attempting to bill his time at the rate of $250 per hour, which she found was not reasonable. September 23, 1996 Memorandum Opinion at footnote 6 (docket no. 2821). Likewise, the staff and budget for the ODM has more than doubled since 1989, even though the more streamlined obligations of the Revised Plan approved in early 1998 would seem to have required less monitoring ofLRSDs implementation of those obligations. Similarly, for the last few years, it appears NLRSD has been unitary and has required very little in the way of monitoring by the ODM. Thus, I would have expected annual reductions in the staff and budget for the ODM, beginning in 1998, and continuing through the current fiscal year. That has not happened. -44- AO72A (Rev.8/82)AO72A I. Final Approval Of Revised Desegregation And Education Plan On April 10,1998, Judge Wright entered a Memorandum Opinion and Order (docket no. 3144) approving the Revised Plan. Importantly, Judge Wright held that the Revised Plan constituted a new consent decree or settlement agreement between LRSD and Joshua: The LRSD and Joshua have agreed that, if approved, the proposed Plan: shall supersede and extinguish all prior agreements and orders in the Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District, U.S.D.C. No. LR-C-82- 866, and all consolidated cases related to the desegregation of the Little Rock School District (LRSD) with the following exceptions: a. b. c. d. e. The Pulaski County School Desegregation Case Settlement Agreement as revised on September 28, 1989 (Settlement Agreement)\nThe Magnet School Stipulation dated February 27, 1987\nOrder dated September 3, 1986, pertaining to the Magnet Review Committee\nThe M-to-M Stipulation dated August 26, 1986\nand. Orders of the district court and court of appeals interpreting and enforcing sections a. through d. above to the extent not inconsistent with this Revised Plan. Based upon this provision, this Court considers the LRSD Proposed Revised Plan an entirely new consent decree or settlement agreement between the LRSD and Joshua. April 10, 1998 Memorandum Opinion and Order at 3 (docket no. 3144) (emphasis added). Alternatively, Judge Wright concluded that, even if the Court considered the Revised Plan as a modification to the 1990 Settlement Plan, she would still approve the Revised Plan because As indicated supra at p. 27, LRSD and Joshua agreed to certain changes in LRSDs 1990 Settlement Plan and the Interdistrict Settlement Plan. In a forty-four page Order entered on May 1, 1992 (docket no. 1587), Judge Wright approved most of those proposed modifications which were incorporated in the LRSD May 1992 Desegregation Plan and the May 1992 Interdistrict Desegregation Plan. Judge Wrights April 10, 1998 Memorandum Opinion fails to mention those Plans, which were the operative consent decrees LRSD was operating under at the time she entered her decision. -45-the parties had satisfied the standard for modifying a consent decree established by the Court in Rufo V. Inmates of Suffolk County Jail, 502 U.S. 367,393 (1992), and LRSD, 56 F.3d at 914. In reaching this conclusion. Judge Wright noted that LRSD had implemented certain aspects of the 1990 Settlement Plan so successfully that the district court had withdrawn supervision over those areas. However, the court also recognized that some goals in the 1990 Settlement Plan [were] out of date for the current situation that exists in the LRSD and other specific, rigid goals in the 1990 Plan ... may never be met, regardless of the amount of effort and good faith put forth by the LRSD. April 10, 1998 Memorandum Opinion and Order at 6 (docket no. 3144) (footnotes omitted). One such group of potentially unreachable goals cited by Judge Wright were the goals in the 1990 Plan regarding achievement disparities [which] may never be met regardless of the effort put forth by LRSD. Id. See Testimony of Dr. Herbert J. Walberg at 17-25 (docket no. 2692)\nTestimony of Dr. David J. Armor at 18-39 (docket no. 2693)\nand Testimony of Dr. Gary Orfield at 25-31 (docket no. 2768). J. LRSDs Implementation Of Its Obligations Under The Revised Plan Between April 10, 1998, and March 15, 2001, the date LRSD filed its Request for Scheduling Order and Compliance Report seeking unitary status, LRSD and Joshua filed no substantive pleadings addressing any problems arising from LRSDs implementation of its obligations under the Revised Plan. In fact, only three documents dealing with LRSDs In an Order entered on March 27,1996 (docket no. 2648), Judge Wright released LRSD from Court supervision and monitoring in the areas of Multicultural Curriculum (LRSD May 1992 Desegregation Plan, docket no. 1587 at 63-80), Vocational Education (LRSD May 1992 Desegregation Plan, docket no. 1587 at 98-105), and Computerized Transportation System (LRSD May 1992 Desegregation Plan, docket no. 1587 at 227-28). See also February 9,1996, Stipulation for Order (docket no. 2626). -46- A0 72A (Ravimplementation of the Revised Plan were filed during that period of time. First, on August 11,1999, the ODM filed a lengthy Report (docket no. 3289) on LRSDs preparations for implementation of the Revised Plan. This Report reviewed the status of LRSDs implementation of a// aspects of the Revised Plan, including the following areas that have special relevance to Joshuas opposition to LRSDs pending request for unitary status\nExtracurricular Enrichment Activities (pp. 12-16)\nLearning Environment (pp. 20-22)\nMathematics (pp. 27-31)\nProgram Assessment (pp. 42-43)\nReading and Language Arts (pp. 44-48)\nRemediation (pp. 49- 52)\nand Student Discipline (pp. 67-71). The ODMs Summary and Conclusions that followed each section of the Report indicated that, overall, LRSD was doing a satisfactory job of implementing the Revised Plan. Second, on April 18,2000, LRSD filed a 129-page Interim Compliance Report (docket no. 3356 dated March 15, 2000). Although LRSD was not obliged to file this Report, it voluntarily did so for two stated reasons: (1) to help the District assess its progress toward full i compliance and to reassure the court, the parties, and the community of the Districts good faith efforts to be in total compliance with the Revised Plan\nand (2) [t]he District hopes to receive comments and suggestions from interested persons as to the Districts compliance with the Revised Plan and the format and content of this status report. Interim Compliance Report at 1 (docket no. 3356). The Interim Compliance Report set forth in detail all of the programs. policies, and procedures that LRSD was implementing in accordance with its obligations under the Revised Plan. The ODM did not file any comments or objections to anything contained in LRSDs Interim Compliance Report. Likewise, nothing contained in that Report caused Joshuas counsel. -47- AO72A who was being paid $4,027.78 per month by LRSD to monitor its implementation of the Revised Plan, to raise any compliance issues. Finally, no interested party raised any questions concerning whether, based on the programs, policies, and procedures described in the Interim Compliance Report, LRSD was in substantial compliance with its obligations under the Revised Plan. This silence, it seems to me, speaks rather eloquently. Third, on Jrme 14,2000, the ODM filed a 127-page Report of Disciplinary Sanctions in the LRSD (docket no. 3366).^' The introduction to this Report contained a broad disclaimer of what was not being evaluated: This document neither evaluates the districts discipline policies and procedures nor determines how the policies are followed at various schools. Moreover, the report does not measure the effectiveness of any program, training or practices the district may have instituted to address the need for all students to be disciplined fairly and equitably, regardless of their race or sex. While the disciplinary procedures are represented by the data are legitimate and important areas of inquiry, we have not examined them here. We do provide some additional information to explain the districts general approach to discipline and to set the context for our findings, but our report focuses on the LRSDs own records and what they reflect. Report of Disciplinary Sanctions at 1 (docket no. 3366). Furthermore, because LRSD maintained disciplinary records on only suspensions and expulsions, the Report was limited to an examination of LRSDs raw data, broken down by race and sex, for students who were *'The ODM prepared this Report as part of its ongoing monitoring of the way all three Pulaski Coimty school districts imposed disciplinary sanctions on students. In previous years, the ODM had prepared similar Reports on NLRSD and PCSSD. Thus, the ODMs June 14 Report was not triggered by or related to anything in LRSDs March 15, 2000 Interim Compliance Report. I By failing to evaluate and examine the many important areas covered by this disclaimer, the ODM substantially reduced the usefulness of its Report and made it virtually impossible to draw any conclusions from the Report that were not based on pure speculation. -48- i A0 72A fRot/suspended or expelled from each elementary school, junior high school, and high school during six school years, 1993-94 through 1998-99. While the data compiled in the Report revealed that a disproportionate number of African- American male students were suspended or expelled at many schools, the lack of specific facts surrounding each suspension and expulsion (e.g., a description of the conduct giving rise to the disciplinary sanction, race of teacher or administrator issuing disciplinary sanction. socioeconomic background of student, etc.) made it impossible to determine, without speculation. the reason for this disparity.^ Additionally, because LRSD administrators assigned many of the suspended or expelled students to alternative education programs^ but failed to maintain records documenting which suspended and expelled students were sent to those programs, it was impossible to determine from the Report how many days of school each of the suspended and expelled students actually missed. Finally, because the Report did not include any data for the 1999-00 school year, it was impossible to determine if converting LRSDs junior high schools to middle schools improved behavior problems and reduced the number of suspensions and expulsions. However, the Report made it clear that this change could affect future data: Beginning with the 1999-2000 school year, the district made a fundamental commitment to improving students performance, both academically and The preface to the Report made it clear that the disproportionate number of Afiican- American students suspended or expelled from school is a nationwide phenomenon. The Report also pointed out that the way students behaved in school was affected by a host of factors that were beyond the influence of school personnel, such as home environment, family values, and the level of socialization prior to starting school...Report at 6. Finally, the Report observed that: Another aspect of discipline that requires note is the tremendous increase in the number of single-parent households in our society. . . . This deficiency is particularly significant for adolescent males who live with only their mothers. Report at 7. See Report at 10-12. -49- AO72A (Rev.aZ82) behaviorally, by converting to a middle school system (grades 6-8). Studies have shown that the grade 6-8 configuration is developmentally appropriate. The teaming practiced in middle schools is to provide a nurturing environment in which students can learn and also find help with the physical and emotional changes they are experiencing. Because the discipline data for 1999-2000 were not available at the time we prepared this report, we could not assess whether discipline and sanctions have changed in ways that might be attributable to the middle school approach. Report at 126. In the Reports Conclusions, the ODM made two primary criticisms of LRSDs disciplinary practices\n(1) it had not maintained and compiled comprehensive data on all the discipline sanctions [which] may leave some problems uncovered, as well as thwart assessment of the extent to which the district is preventing racial discrimination in disciplinary actions i overall\nand (2) [w]hile the report data do not reflect overall serious behavior problems in LRSD, African-Amencan males are being disciplined in disproportionately high numbers. Report at 125. The ODM also offered seven ideas... as suggestions for improving disciplinary procedures for all students in LRSD, while also reducing the over-representation ofblack students in disciplinary actions. Report at 127. K. LRSD Seeks Unitary Status Based Upon Its Substantial Compliance With The Revised Plan On March 15,2001, LRSD filed a Request for Scheduling Order and Compliance Report (docket no. 3410) and requested the court to declare it unitary with respect to all aspects of school operations. On June 25, 2001, Joshua filed their Opposition to LRSDs Compliance Report (docket no. 3447) in which they argued LRSD was not entitled to unitary status under the Revised Plan. On March 15, 2002, LRSD filed the pending Motion for an Immediate Declaration of -50- AO72A (Rev.a/82)Unitary Status (docket no. 3580) and Supporting Memorandum Brief (docket no. 3581). On May 30, 2002, Joshua filed their Response in Opposition to LRSDs Motion for Immediate Declaration ofUnitary Status (docket no. 3604). On June 7,2002, LRSD filed its Reply Brief (docket no. 3607). As indicated previously, under  11 of the Revised Plan, LRSD was entitled to the entry of an order declaring it unitary if no party challenged its substantial compliance with the Revised Plan. Because Joshua chose to challenge LRSDs substantial compliance,  11 of the Revised Plan imposed on them the burden of proof on that issue. Joshuas counsel has acknowledged that the Revised Plan imposed on his clients the burden of proving that, as of March 15,2001LRSD was not in substantial compliance with its obligations under the Revised Plan. See Transcript of Proceedings on June 29,2001, at 26 (docket no. 3461), and Transcript of Proceedings on July 9, 2001, at 26 (docket no. 3464). In its October 3,2001 Order (docket no. 3515), the district court required LRSD to elect between two options: Option 1: (A) (B) Option 2: Present evidence concerning the LRSDs activities with respect to the Revised Plan beyond the date of March 15,2001\nand Produce the e-mails requested by Joshua beyond that date. (A) (B) Present evidence concerning the LRSDs activities with respect to the Revised Plan up to the date of March 15,2001, and not beyond\nand Correspondingly, the LRSD would have no obligation to produce the e-mails requested by Joshua beyond that date. LRSD filed a Response to the October 3,2001 Order (docket no. 3517) objecting to being forced to select from the two options offered by the Court. Subsequently, LRSD advised Judge Wright that, without waiving its objections, it selected Option 2. Therefore, any evidence of LRSDs compliance activities that took place after March 15,2001, cannot be considered in deciding the question of unitary status. -51- AO72A (Rev.a/82)III. Relevant Provisions Of Revised Plan In Joshuas Opposition to LRSDs Compliance Report (docket no. 3447), they include a Seriatim Response to Districts March 15, 2001 Compliance Report in which they list compliance problems or concerns with the following sections of the Revised Plan: 2.1 (LRSDs obligation of good faith)\n 2.1.1, 2.2, 2.2.1, 2.2.2, 2.2.3, 2.2.4, 2.2.5, and 2.2.7 (LRSDs obligations regarding faculty and staff)\n 2.3 (LRSDs obligations regarding student assignment)\n 2.4 (LRSDs obligations regarding special education and related programs)\n 2.5,2.5.1,2.5.2, 2.5.3, and 2.5.4 (LRSDs obligations regarding student discipline)\n 2.6,2.6.1,2.6.2, and 2.11.1 (LRSDs obligations regarding extracurricular activities, advanced placement courses, and guidance counseling)\n 2.7 and  5 (LRSDs obligations regarding improving African-American academic achievement)\n 2.8 (parental involvement)\nand  3.6 (school construction and closing). Importantly, Joshuas Opposition to LRSDs Compliance Report was careful to note that their concerns regarding LRSDs compliance with faculty and staff, student assignment, special education and related programs, parental involvement, and school construction and closing were based primarily on information and belief or involved generalized suspicions regarding LRSDs future actions. After filing that Opposition, Joshua conducted considerable discovery to develop the facts to support their challenges to LRSDs request for unitary status. As indicated previously, before beginning the evidentiary hearings on Joshuas Opposition to LRSDs request for unitary status. Judge Wright instructed Joshuas counsel to present his argument beginning with his strongest first and proceeding to his weakest (docket no. 3461 at 54- 55). During a hearing on July 9,2001, which took place after the completion of the first two days -52- AO72A (Rev.8/821 of testimony on July 5 and 6,2001, Joshuas counsel stated that LRSDs three most serious areas of noncompliance under the Revised Plan were its failure to meet its obligations regarding: (1) good faith\n(2) improvement of academic achievement for African-American students\n and (3) improvement of the racial disparity in student discipline (docket no. 3464 at 26-29). During the evidentiary hearings on August 1 and 2,2001, Joshua completed calling all of their witnesses on the issues of LRSDs alleged substantial noncompliance with those three areas of the Revised Plan. At the beginning of the fifth day of evidentiary hearings on November 19, 2001, Judge Wright noted, on the record, that counsel for Joshua had rested his case on the first three areas of LRSDs alleged noncompliance (docket no. 3558 at 14-15). After Judge Wright denied LRSDs Motion for Directed Verdict, it presented its case on November 19 and 20 (docket nos. 3558 and 3559). On December 11,2001, Judge Wright conducted a hearing to schedule the remaining days of evidentiary hearings on Joshuas Opposition to LRSDs request for unitary status (docket no. 3560). During this hearing. Judge Wright agreed to allow Joshua and LRSD no more than five days to present additional testimony on what Joshuas counsel identified as the last three areas of LRSDs alleged noncompliance with the Revised Plan: (1) advanced placement courses\n(2) extracurricular activities\nand (3) guidance counseling. Judge Wright also agreed to allow Joshua to present non-cumulative testimony regarding: LRSD  s alleged failure to comply with its overall obligation of good faith regarding its implementation of programs, policies, and procedures Part of Joshuas argument that LRSD had failed to substantially comply with its obligation to improve the academic achievement of Afiican-American students included the contention that LRSD had failed to make the annual assessments of the academic programs implemented to improve the achievement of Afiican-American students as required by  2.7.1 of the Revised Plan. -53- AO72A (Rev.a/82) regarding advancedplacement courses, extracurricular activities, and guidance counseling\", and how LRSDs programs, policies, and procedures governing advanced placement courses, extracurricular activities, and guidance counseling had adversely affected the academic achievement of African-American students. I conducted the final three days of evidentiary hearings on those issues, beginning on July 22, 2002. At no point during those hearings, or during the six previous days of evidentiary hearings, did Joshua present any evidence or arguments to support the contentions in their Opposition to LRSDs Compliance Report (docket no. 3447) that LRSD was not in substantial compliance with its obligations regarding faculty and staff ( 2.1.1,2.2-2.2.5, and 2.2.7)\nstudent assignment ( 2.3)\nspecial education and related programs ( 2.4)\nparental involvement ( 2.8)\nand school construction and closing ( 3.6). Joshuas failure to present any evidence to support their contention regarding LRSDs alleged failure to substantially comply with those sections of the Revised Plan requires a finding that they have abandoned those arguments. In any case. Joshua clearly failed to maintain their burden of proving that LRSD failed to substantially comply with any of those particular sections of the Revised Plan. Thus, the determination of LRSDs request for unitary status turns on whether Joshua has maintained their burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that LRSD has failed to substantially comply with the following obligations imposed on it under the Revised Plan: (1) good faith as set forth in  2.1\n(2) student discipline as set forth in  2.5 through 2.5.4 and 2.12.2\n(3) academic achievement of Afiican-American students as set forth in  2.7,2.7.1,5.1 through 5.8, and 2.12.2\n(4) extracurricular activities as set forth in  2.6,2.6.3, and 2.12.2\n(5) advanced placement courses as set forth in  2.6,2.6.2, and 2.12.2\nand (6) guidance counseling -54- AO72A (Rev.8/82) as set forth in  2.11,1. The provisions of the Revised Plan containing LRSDs obligations in these six disputed areas, along with other provisions of the Revised Plan that are relevant to the resolution of the issue of unitary status, are summarized below. A. LRSDs Obligation Of Good Faith The first obligation imposed on LRSD was to act in good faith. Because of the importance of this obligation to the question of unitary status,  2.1 of the Revised Plan ought. in fairness, to be quoted in its entirety: LRSD shall in good faith exercise its best efforts to comply with the Constitution, to remedy the effects of past discrimination by LRSD against Afiican-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. B. LRSDs Obligations Regarding Student Discipline Sections 2.5 through 2.5.4 set forth LRSDs obligations regarding student discipline. Section 2.5 obligated LRSD to implement programs, policies, and/or procedures designed to ensure that there is no racial discrimination with regard to discipline. Section 2.5.1 required LRSD to strictly adhere to the policies set forth in the Student Rights and Responsibilities Handbook to ensure that all students are disciplined in a fair and equitable manner, and  2.5.2 required LRSD to purge students discipline records after the fifth and eighth grades of all offenses, except weapons offenses, arson and robbery. Section 2.5.3 established the position of ombudsman, who was responsible for acting as an advocate on behalf of students involved in the discipline process, investigating parent and student complaints of race-based mistreatment and attempting to achieve equitable solutions. Finally,  2.5.4 obligated LRSD to work with students and their parents to develop behavior modification plans for students who exhibit -55- AO72A (Rev.8/82)frequent misbehavior. C. LRSDs Obligations To Improve And Remediate The Academic Achievement Of African-American Students Section 2.7 contained LRSDs core obligation regarding the academic achievement of African-American students: LRSD shall implement programs, policies and/or procedures designed to improve and remediate the academic achievement of African-American students, including but not limited to Section 5 of this Revised Plan. Very significantly, nowhere in this section or any other section of the Revised Plan does LRSD assume any obligation to narrow or close the academic achievement gap between white students and Afiican-American students. In order to determine the effectiveness of LRSDs academic programs designed to improve Afiican-American achievement, Section 2.7.1 obligated LRSD to assess the academic \u0026gt;5 programs implemented pursuant to Section 2.7 after each year.' If the results of those assessments [reveal] that a program has not and likely will not improve African-American achievement, LRSD shall take appropriate action in the form of either modifying how the program is implemented or replacing the program. D. LRSDs Obligations Regarding Extracurricular Activities, Advanced Placement Courses, And Guidance Counselors Section 2.6 required LRSD to implement programs, policies and/or procedures designed to promote participation and to ensure that there are no barriers to participation by qualified African-Americans in extracurricular activities, advanced placement courses, honors and enriched courses and the gifted and talented program. Section 2.6.1 and 2.11.1 required LRSD to implement training programs to assist teachers and counselors in identifying and encouraging -56- AO72A (Rev.8/82)African-American students to participate in honors and enriched courses and advanced placement courses and required guidance counselors to work with students in an effort to provide more equity in academic honors, awards, and scholarships\nSection 2,6.2 obligated LRSD to implement programs to assist African-American students in being successful in honors and enriched courses and advanced placement courses. E. LRSDs Obligations To Develop Remedies, Where Appropriate, For Racial Disparities In Programs And Activities Section 2.12.2 provided that LRSD shall implement policies and procedures for investigating the causes of racial disparities in programs and activities and developing remedies where appropriate. Joshua made no mention of LRSDs alleged failure to substantially comply with Section 2.12.2 in their June 25,2001 Opposition to LRSDs Compliance Report (docket no. 3447). However, nearly a year later, in their May 30,2002 Opposition to LRSDs Motion for an Immediate Declaration of Unitary Status (docket no. 3604), Joshua argued for the first time that thi\nThis project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resoources.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_289","title":"Compliance court orders","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["2002-01/2002-07"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--21st Century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Pulaski County Special School District","Educational law and legislation","Education--Evaluation","School administrators"],"dcterms_title":["Compliance court orders"],"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/289"],"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":["documents (object genre)"],"dcterms_extent":["324 pages"],"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\nRECEIVED JUL - 8 2002 OFFICE OF IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT ARKANSAS DESEGREGATION MONITORING EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS LITTLE ROCK DIVISION JUL 0 1 2002 JAMES 0y:^ LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. No. 4:82CV00866 WRW/JTR PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1,ETAL. DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. INTERVENORS ORDER Pending is Plaintiffs Motion for a Protective Order and for Emergency Hearing. For the time being. Plaintiffs request for a protective Order against Joshua, or anyone acting on their behalf, is GRANTED. The deadline for exchanging exhibits and witnesses was set on May 15,2002, for June 21, 2002. At the request of lawyers for LRSD and Joshua, the deadline was orally extended until 5:00 p.m. on Monday, June 24, 2002. It appears, from the documents attached to Plaintiffs Motion, that Joshuas FOI request was submitted on June 26, two days after the deadline for exchanging exhibits and the names of witnesses. Even assuming the FOI can be used in addition to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure by a party to litigation, it appears quite certain that this request was not timely. It is my impression, from a quick review of the law, that the great weight of authority precludes a party from using the FOI as a supplement to the discovery rules of the Federal Rules AO 72A (Rev.8/82)of Civil Procedure\nbut, be that as it may, this particular request appears to be manifestly out of time. I note in passing that many, if not most, of the documents requested in the FOI request are not pertinent to the three remaining issues in this case. Accordingly, the LRSD is relieved of any duty to respond to the FOI request by Joshua. If Joshua wants a hearing on this issue, it should file a response to Plaintiffs Motion forthwith. and request a hearingif such a request is made, a hearing will be set as soon as practicable. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED this J day of July, 2002. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE THIS DOCUMENT ENTERED ON DOCKET SHEET IN COMPLIANCE WITHERULE 58 AND/OR 79\u0026gt;) FRCP BY. -2- AO72A (Rev.8/82)AO 72A (Rev.8/82) oJIaOilNaW N01iV33H03S3a 30301330 zooz 8 - inr cisAiaoau EASTeflN district nsac IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS LITTLE ROCK DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. No. 4:82CV00866 WRW/JTR PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1,ETAL. RECEIVED MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. JUL 0 2 2002 JAMES w Ml By:. PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS IX JUL -8 2002 INTERVENORS OmCEOF DESEGREGATION MONITORING INTERVENORS ORDER On July 1, 2002, I entered an Order (docket no. 3611) granting LRSDs request for a protective order to the extent that LRSD was relieved of its duty to respond to Joshuas FOI requests, which appeared to be untimely under the May 15, 2002 Scheduling Order (docket no. 3600). However, I permitted Joshuas counsel the opportunity to file a written response to LRSDs Motion for Protective Order and for Emergency Hearing and to request a hearing if he deemed it necessary. This morning, I received Joshuas counsels July 1, 2002 letter, a copy of which is attached to this Order. In that letter, Joshuas counsel requests me to rescind my July 1 Order, allow him an opportunity to file a written response to LRSDs Motion, and then allow either party to request a hearing. This Order responds to the various points raised by Joshuas counsel in his July 1 letter. First, my July 1 Order admittedly was entered in haste because LRSDs motion papers declared an emergency and made it clear that July 1, 2002, was the deadline for it to produce 6 1 2documents pursuant to Joshuas FOI requests. Furthermore, in LRSDs Brief in Support of Motion for Protective Order and Emergency Hearing, its counsel pointed out that Ark. Code Arm.  25-19-104 provides a potential criminal penalty (of thirty days in jail) which could flow from the LRSDs failure to respond within three days [to Joshuas FOI requests]. This time of year, jails in Arkansas are particularly uncomfortable. Therefore, I hastened to enter my Order before 5:00 p.m. on July 1, lest I place someone in jeopardy of being hauled off in chains. I want to assure counsel for Joshua that, in entering that Order, I was not vexed with counsel-somewhat or otherwise. I appreciate counsel for Joshua clarifying that the FOI requests were filed in connection with his ongoing monitoring of LRSD under the 1998 Revised Desegregation and Education Plan (the Revised Plan). This important point apparently was not communicated to LRSD, which understandably construed the FOI requests as seeking documents that Joshua intended to use in connection with the upcoming evidentiary hearing which commences on July 22, 2002. In LRSD V. PCSSD, 921 F.2d 1371,1386 (8* Cir. 1990), Judge Arnold made it clear that, in approving the 1989 global settlement of this case, the Court placed a great deal of weight on the fact that the parties have all agreed to continued monitoring, which the Court found to be essential. Likewise, Exhibit B to the Revised Plan makes it clear that Joshuas counsel will continue his monitoring of the LRSDs implementation of its desegregation obligations. By clarifying that Joshua is seeking the documents described in its FOI requests in connection with Its continuing monitoring duties, and not for use in the July 22 hearing, I believe counsel should be able to work out a satisfactory schedule for the production of the requested documents. As an aside, I believe that counsel for both sides have more than enough to do in preparing for the -2- AO72A (Rev.8/82)upcoming five days of evidentiary hearings beginning on July 22, and should not to have to concern themselves with the collection and production of a large volume of documents related to Joshuas ongoing monitoring function. It appears to me the production of those documents can and should be delayed until after the completion of the evidentiary hearings that begin in less than three weeks. In conclusion, my July 1 Order will remain in effect until after the evidentiary hearing unless counsel for Joshua can convince me that there is a need for the production of the documents described in the FOI requests before the July 22 hearing. Counsel for Joshua is allowed until and including July 8, 2002, to file a response to LRSDs Motion for Protective Order and for Emergency Hearing. LRSD can submit a short reply by 5:00 p.m. on Thursday, July 11, 2002. Thereafter, if either party requests a hearing on that Motion, the Court will likely conduct one. IT IS SO ORDER^ DATED this day of July, 2002. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE THIS DOCUMENT ENTERED ON docket sheet in compliance 58 and/or 79(a CP -3- AO72A (Rev.8/82)JUL. 1.2002 5:55PM JOHN M WALKER P A NO.521 P.2/3 JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. .'Attorney At Law 1723 Broadway LriTLB Rock, Arkansas 72206 Telephone (501) 374-3758 FAX (501) 374-4187 JOHN W. WAT.KP.ft SHAWN CHILDS Via Facsimile - 604-5149 July 1, 2002 OF COUNSEL ROBERT McHENKY, DONNAJ.McHENRY 8210 HxndbebonRoad Lmu Eock, Abkansas 72210 PHONE\n(501) 372-3426  Fax (501) 372-3428 Email mehonrydSawbalLnat Honorable Judge William R, Wilson United States District Judge 600 West Capitol, Suite 423 Little Rock, AR 72201 Re: Case Ne. 4\n82CV0S66WRW/JTR LRSD V. PCSSD Dear Judge Wilson\nI received your order dated July 1, 2002 after 5:30 p.m. when I returned to the office from trial before the Honorable George Howard, Jr., USA v. Dennis Williams and Joe Bryant. I am a surprised that the Court ruled on the matter before I had an opportunity to reply to it. I note, however, that the Court provides that opportunity to reply post hoc by the filing of a motion and requesting a hearing. The apparent premise of the Order is that the requested FOIA documents are intended for use at the trial on July 22, 2002. Moreover, the Court seems somewhat vexed with-ceunsel. I believe the Court would not be ygjtfid were I to have had a reasonable time in which to respond and to make the following explanation. Joshua has been monitoring the Districts record of compliance since the entry of the original Decree. In that role, we constantly receive concerns fiom class members about race related matters in each of the three Districts. We first seek to get the Districts information by letter. When that fails, we make a request under FOIA. The District usually responds to our letter requests unless a hearing like the one set for July 22 is approaching. Our monitoring was contemplated by the 8* Circuit and the Settlement A^eements herein. The Court has not been involved with respect to our monitoring unless the District claimed some prejudice in its trial preparation. Between 1998 and June 2001, there was not a single hearing before the Court on any matter involving LRSD that was initiated by Joshua, Furthermore, the Office of Desegregation Monitoring and Joshua have obtained information from the District in the same maimer for years. The Court has reacted in haste to a matter which is not, and will not be before it. The reaction is seen in the Courts conclusion that the requested information appears quite certain toJUL. 1.2002 5:55PM JOHN UI WALKER P A NO.521 P.3/3 be not timely. The Court seems persuaded that we did not meet the deadline for exchanging exhibits and names of witnesses. We each did so. Mr. Hellers office delivered his exhibits to us at the close of business on June 24,2002 and we returned our witness list and exhibits to Mr. Heller by his own courier. We agree with the Courts comments that the requests are not pertinent to the three remaining issues in this case as the case relates to the Districts compliance as of March 15,2001. That does not mean, however, that Joshuas monitoring ended upon the filing of the report by the District on March 15, 2001. For the foregoing reasons, I request the Court to simply rescind its Order, afford us a reasonable reply time and then allow either party an opportunity to request a hearing thereon. In that way, the burden of proof would be upon the moving party on the issue rather than having Joshua in the position of being the moving party. For the information of the Court and the other parties, a criminal jury trial in which I am counsel before Judge Howard is expected to last at least through July 8, 2002. Thank you for your attention to this matter. JWW\njs cc: All Counsel of Record Cleric of the Court Si irely, ihn W. Walker Deceived JUL -8 2002 OFFICE OF ESEGREGATION MONITORING IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS LITTLE ROCK DIVISION :^NSAS JUL - 5 2002 JAMES W, Mc( By.----------J .RMACK, IRK EAST^R^N LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. No. 4:82CV00866 WRW/JTR PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1,ETAL. DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. INTERVENORS ORDER On July 3, 2002, LRSD filed a Motion in Limine and Supporting Memorandum Brief arguing that\n(1) because Joshuas witness list fails to comply with the Courts May 15, 2002 Order, Joshua should be required, on or before 5:30 p.m. on July 10,2002, to identify the date and time each of their witnesses will be called, to identify the issues on which each witness is expected to testify and to provide a detailed statement of the witnesses expected testimony on each issue\n(2) certain Joshua exhibits should be excluded because they have not been provided to LRSD as required by the Courts May 15 Order\n(3) Joshua should not be allowed to call Sadie Mitchell and Junious Babb, because, in earlier evidentiary hearings, Joshuas counsel has called and examined both of them on student achievement, guidance counseling, and advanced placement courses\n(4) various Joshua exhibits should be excluded because, on their face, they do not directly relate to the three remaining issues of advanced placement courses, guidance counseling, and extracurricular activities\n(5) any testimony from Jim Mosby and Jody Carter related to their recent removal as principals of Southwest Middle School and McClellan High AO 72A (Rev.8/82) 61 61 School should be excluded under Fed. R. Evid. 401,402, and 403\n(6) Joshuas failure to identify any witnesses or exhibits for use in their thirty minutes of true rebuttal prevents them from presenting any rebuttal testimony at 8:30 a.m. on July 22,2002\nand (7) Joshua Exhibits 767- 776 and 791 should be excluded under Fed. R. Evid. 801-804, 401-403, and 901. The schedule for LRSD and Joshua submitting their exhibits and witness lists to the Court on July 9 and the commencement of evidentiary hearings on July 22 necessitates an expedited response from Joshua to LRSDs Motion in Limine. Therefore, Joshua must file their response to LRSDs Motion in Limine no later than 2:00 p.m. on Monday, July 8, 2002, and serve other counsel by fax at or before that time. Thereafter, the Court will promptly decide the merits of LRSDs Motion in Limine. Since time is of the essence, this Order will be faxed to counsel of record as soon as it is entered. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED this day of July, 2002. IITED STATES DISTRICT JUDG' UNITED DGE THIS DOCUMENT ENTERED ON DOCKET SHEET IN COMPLIANCE BY. WITH RULE 58 AND/OR79(a) FRCP OU 11 OTx -2- AO72A (Rev.8/82)RECEIVED IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION JUL \"8 2002 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1,ETAL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS MEMORANDUM BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION IN LIMINE RELEVANCE GENERALLY The LRSD moves to exclude all evidence and testimony of noncompliance with the Revised Plan that was not brought to the attention of the entire LRSD Board of Directors pursuant to Fed. R. Evid. 401, 402 and 403. The ultimate issue before this Court is whether noncompliance with the Revised Plan casts doubt on the Board's intent to comply with the Constitution in the future absent court supervision. See Cody v. Hillard, 139 F.3d 1197, 1199 (8* Cir. 1998). Noncompliance that the Board knew nothing about has no bearing on this issue and is irrelevant. See Fed. R. Evid. 401. Section 1983 Liability Standard The issue before this Court is analogous to the issue of whether a governmental entity may be held liable under 42 U.S.C.  1983 for the unconstitutional conduct of its employees. Respondeat superior is not a permissible theory for holding a governmental entity liable for the unconstitutional acts of its employees. Monell v. Department of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658, 690, 98 S.Ct. 2018, 56 L.Ed.2d 611 (1978). Instead, a governmental entity is liable under 1983 when \"a policy, statement, ordinance, regulation or decision officially adopted and promulgated by that body's officers\" can be causally related to the allegedly unconstitutional conduct of itsemployees. Id. Liability may also be based on \"constitutional deprivations visited pursuant to governmental custom even though such a custom has not received formal approval through the body's official decision-making channels.\" Id. at 690- 91, 98 S.Ct. 2018. See Ryan v. Board of Police Commissioners of the City of St. Louis. 96 F.3d 1076, 1084 (8th Cir.1996). In Ware v. Jackson County. 150 F.3d 873 (8th Cir.1998), the Eighth Circuit explained that: Official policy involves 'a deliberate choice to follow a course of action * * * made from among various alternatives' by an official who [is determined by state law to have] the final authority to establish governmental policy.\" Jane Doe A. 901 F.2d at 645. Alternatively, \"custom or usage\" is demonstrated by: (1) The existence of a continuing, widespread, persistent pattern of unconstitutional misconduct by the governmental entity's employees\n(2) Deliberate indifference to or tacit authorization of such conduct by the governmental entity's policymaking officials after notice to the officials of that misconduct\nand (3) Th[e] plaintiff['s] injur[y] by acts pursuant to the governmental entity's custom, i.e., [proof] that the custom was the moving force behind the constitutional violation. Ware, 150 F.3d at 880 (citations omitted) (emphasis supplied). \"[I]naction or laxness can constitute government custom if it is permanent and well settled.\" Tilson v. Forrest City Police Dept.. 28 F.3d 802, 807 (8th Cir.1994) (citation omitted). \"Such a government custom of laxness or inaction must be the moving force behind the constitutional violation.\" Id. \"To establish a city's liability based on its failure to prevent misconduct by employees, the plaintiff must show that city officials had knowledge of prior incidents of police misconduct and deliberately failed to take remedial action. Fowler. 98 F.3d 1069, 1075 (Sth Cir.1996) (emphasis supplied). Andrews v. In the context of the present case, the Board is the \"final authority\" in making District policy. During the term of the Revised Plan, the Board adopted and/or re-adopted clear, unambiguous policies indicating its intent to comply with the Revised Plan, federal civil rights statutes and the Constitution. See CX 719. Thus, to cast doubt on the Board's intent to comply with the Constitution in the future, Joshua must establish a \"custom or practice\" of failing to remedy noncompliance with the Revised Plan. This requires that Joshua show \"that [the Board] had knowledge of prior incidents of [noncompliance] and deliberately failed to take remedial 2action.\" Andrews, 98 F.3d at 1075. Accordingly, incidents of noncompliance of which the Board did not have knowledge are irrelevant. See Fed. R. Evid. 401. Joshua may argue that the District failed to adequately train or supervise its employees who were violating the Revised Plan. It is true that a governmental body may also be held accountable under certain circumstances based on a failure to adequately train and supervise employees. City of Canton v. Harris, 489 U.S. 378, 109 S.Ct. 1197, 103 L.Ed.2d 412 (1989). In Andrews, the Eighth Circuit summarized these circumstances related to a city police force. The court stated: A city also may be liable for deficient policies regarding hiring and training police officers where (1) the city's hiring and training practices are inadequate\n(2) the city was deliberately indifferent to the rights of others in adopting them, such that the failure to train reflects a deliberate or conscious choice by a municipality\nand (3) an alleged deficiency in the city's hiring or training procedures actually caused the plaintiffs injury. It is necessary to show \"that in light of the duties assigned to specific officers or employees the need for more or different training is so obvious, and the inadequacy so likely to result in the violation of constitutional rights, the policymakers of the city can reasonably be said to have been deliberately indifferent to the need.\" In other words, the plaintiff must demonstrate that the city \"had notice that its procedures were inadequate and likely to result in a violation of constitutional rights. Andrews, 98 F.3d at 1076 (citations omitted) (emphasis supplied). In the context of the present case, Joshua must establish that the Board \"had notice that its procedures were inadequate and likely to result in a violation of [the Revised Plan.].\" Id. It is simple common sense that the Board cannot be on \"notice that its procedures were inadequate\" if the Board was unaware of the noncompliance resulting from the alleged procedural inadequacy. Therefore, Joshua must at a minimum show that the Board had knowledge of noncompliance with the Revised Plan in order to cast doubt on the Board's intent to comply with the Constitution in the future absent court supervision. The Revised Plan Requiring Joshua to show, at a minimum, that the Board had knowledge of noncompliance about which they complain is consistent with the Revised Plan. As a part of the 3Revised Plan, Joshua and the LRSD agreed to a process for raising and resolving compliance issues. Revised Plan  8 outlined a three step process for resolving compliance issues. First, the issue would be brought to the attention of the District. If the parties were unable to reach an agreement, the issue would be submitted to ODM for facilitation. Finally, the issue would be presented to the Court for resolution. During the term of the Revised Plan, all compliance issues raised by Joshua were resolved without the need for facilitation by ODM or resolution by the Court. See Final Report, p. 166. Consistent with Revised Plan  8, the Board expected Joshua to bring to its attention any substantial compliance issues. To facilitate Joshua's monitoring of the District's compliance, the Board agreed in advance to pay Joshua to monitor the LRSD's compliance with the Revised Plan, and Joshua billed the LRSD for monitoring the LRSD's Compliance. See Exhibits 7 and 8 to Plaintiffs Memorandum Brief in Support of Motion for an Immediate Declaration of Unitary Status. Therefore, Joshua cannot be heard to complain that requiring it to show that the Board had knowledge of noncompliance is inconsistent with the Revised Plan. Conclusion The parties knew there would be compliance issues, and for that reason, agreed to Revised Plan  8. Thus, real question before this Court is not whether there was noncompliance, but how the Board responded to noncompliance. The Board had no opportunity to respond to noncompliance of which it was unaware. Thus, noncompliance that was not brought to the Board's attention is irrelevant and should be excluded pursuant to Fed. R. Evid. 401, 402 and 403. 4t Respectfully Submitted, LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Christopher Heller (#81083) John C. Fendley, Jr. (#92182) FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK Regions Center, Suite 2000 400 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 / (501 S5011 Christopher Hell 81063) CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing has been served on the following people by mail on July 2, 2002: Mr. John W. Walker JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 (via hand-delivery) Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell Law Firm 11800 Pleasant Ridge Road, Suite 146 Post Office Box 17388 Little Rock, Arkansas 72222-7388 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Sam Jones Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 2200 NationsBank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Ann Marshall Desegregation Monitor 1 Union National Plaza 124 W. Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON \u0026amp; JONES, P.A. 425 W. Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201-3472 Mr. Dennis R. Hansen Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, AR 72201 Christopher Hellei 5RECEIVED -/o 4^y JUL 1 0 2002 OmCEOF DESEGREGATION MONITORING IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT d^URT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION  By. He 08 2082 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT ^OTF V. NO. 4:82CV00866 WRW/JTR PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. LET AL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS JOSHUA INTERVENORS RESPONSE TO THE LRSD I. Joshua Intervenors Witness List The Joshua Intervenors maintain that their witness list generally parallels the list submitted by the LRSD, by identifying the topics of witness testimony. For example, the LRSD can maintain that the summary of the testimony of Dr. Leslie (for 6 hours) provide [s] a detailed statement of the witnesses expected testimony on each issue only on a tongue in cheek basis. The Joshua Intervenors face two problems in preparing a witness list, which the LRSD does not face. The LRSD has ready access to all of its witnesses, who are its employees. In contrast, none of Intervenors witnesses are employees.' Moreover, at least 11 of Intervenors witnesses are subject to the direction of the LRSD. These are witnesses number 1-3, 5, 7, 14-15, 18-19, 23, and 26 on the Intervenors list. Nevertheless, the Joshua Intervenors will submit a supplemental witness list by 5:00 p.m. on Doctors Roberts and Ross are experts designated by Intervenors. -1-July 10, 2002. 2. Asserted Failure to Provide Exhibits The LRSD complains about the failure to provide exhibits identified by the numbers 793, 794, 799, 800 and 801. Each exhibit is an LRSD document(s). Some are voluminous. By this objection, the LRSD is simply seeking to frustrate the Joshua Intervenors effort to present the position of the class in a reasonable manner. Exhibit 801, LRSD Quarterly Status Reports, was the subject of testimony during the earlier hearings. These reports contain information regarding enrollment in advanced courses, as well as the extent to which students succeed. 3. Testimony by Sadie Mitchell and Junious Babbs These associate superintendents served on the LRSD compliance committee during the implementation of the revised plan and have had responsibility for the areas of guidance counseling and extracurricular activities. LRSD plans to offer lengthy testimony by Ms. Mitchell (two hours). The Joshua Intervenors, in contrast, propose to question each administrator for approximately 10 minutes. In this light, it is appropriate to allow Joshua Intervenors to proceed with the testimony. with the LRSD having the right to object to a question as repetitive. 4. Various Exhibits Assertedly Not Relevant to Issues to be Heard The exhibits deal with the following issues: advance placement: 754, 801-802 guidance and counseling: 780, 786-789 extracurricular activities: 746 (lumped statistics), 771, 773, 775 rebuttal: 743, 747, 749, 750, 755, 757, 758, 759, 760, 762, 763, 764, 779, 785 will not be offered: 752, 756, 761, 777, 778, 779, 782, 783, 784 -2-5. Testimony from Jim Mosby and Jody Carter The Joshua Intervenors do not plan to question Messrs. Mosby and Carter regarding their recent removal as principals. 55 6. Rebuttal The Joshua Intervenors will present rebuttal testimony by ODM Monitors Ann Marshall and Gene Jones. They will address the LRSDs testimony at the earlier hearing, which asserted compliance with Section 2.7.1 of the revised plan. 7. Joshua Exhibits 767-776. 791 These letters written by Ms. Springer are offered to show notice to the district of various problems. Counsel for Joshua Intervenors intends to explore at the hearing what if any investigation and other responsive actions were undertaken by the LRSD, after receipt of the letters. The LRSD pledged to implement programs, policies and procedures to insure non-discriminatory access to extracurricular activities. Its administrators responses to the letters is therefore relevant. The Joshua Intervenors should have the opportunity to seek the authentication of pages 2 and 3 of Exhibit 791, dealing with guidance, by the testimony of Junious Babbs and Sadie Mitchell. 8. Relevance Generally The LRSDs efforts to exclude all evidence and testimony of noncompliance with the Revised Plan that was not brought to the attention of the entire LRSD Board of Directors . . . [Motion in Limine at 3] and to rely on Section 1983 entity liability standards [Memorandum Brief in Support of Plaintiff s Motion in Limine] is flawed. These gambits ignore the law of the case, and, more particularly, multiple promises, throughout the plan, to implement various activities without regard to whether or not non-compliance was called to the attention of the Board. See, e.g.. Revised -J-Plan Sections 2.5, 2.7, 2.7.1, 2.12.1, 6, and 11. As emphasized in Joshua Intervenors response of May 30, 2002, the Court of Appeals has held and reiterated that the terms of settlement agreements in this case provide the standards for measuring the performance of the school districts, here the LRSD. [Memorandum at 47] The Revised Plan does not identify Section 1983 entity liability principles as the standard for evaluating compliance with its terms. Rather, it calls, inter alia, for adoption of various programs, policies, and procedures, their implementation, and monitoring to identify problems and provide a basis for remedial actions. School Board members are not LRSD employees, their commitment is for less than full-time. Manifestly, the plan envisions implementation activities by administrators and other elements of the work force, without qualification in terms of notice to the school board. Joshua Intervenors proof will be consistent with this framework. There will likely be questioning on the adoption of programs, policies, and procedures (largely the domain of the school board). There will be questioning of implementation, or the lack thereof (largely the domain of fulltime employees). The effort to exclude evidence, wholesale, is without merit. Respectfully submitted. / Robert Pressman, Mass Bar No. 405900 22 Locust Avenue Lexington, MA 02421 (781) 862-1955 4, // Lu John Walker, AR Bar No64046 JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 (501) 374-3758 (501) 374-4187 (Fax) -4-CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing has-been serit\\by fax and U.S. Mail, postage prepaid to the following counsel of record, on this T\" day of ,2002: Mr. Clay Fendley FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK 400 W. Capitol, Suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Dennis !en Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Ms. Ann Brown Marshall ODM One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Mr. Sam Jones WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026amp; JENNINGS 2200 Worthen Bank Building 200 West Capitol Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON \u0026amp; JONES, P.A. 425 W. Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3472 Mr. Richard Roachell ROACHELL LAW FIRM 11800 Pleasant Ridge Road, Suite 146 Post Office Box 17388 Little Rock, Arkansas 72222-7388 1 Jo^ W. Walker -5-RECEIVED IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION JUL ~8 2002 OmCEOF DESEGREGATION MONITORING LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V, LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS PLAINTIFF'S MOTION IN LIMINE Plaintiff Little Rock School District (\"LRSD\") for its Motion in Limine states: 1. May 15 Order: Joshua's Witness List. On May 15, 2002, the Court ordered the parties on or before June 21, 2002 to \"identify the name of each of their witnesses, the date and time each witness will be called, and the anticipated time it will take for direct examination of each witness. A detailed statement must be included of each witnesses anticipated testimony on each issue the witness will address.\" Order filed May 15, 2002, p. 2 (emphasis in original). Joshua's witness list is attached hereto as Exhibit 1. As can be seen, Joshua failed to comply with the Court's order in every respect. Upon information and belief, Joshua has not even contacted many of the individuals identified to discuss their appearing at the hearing and testifying, and Joshua has no intention of calling all of the witnesses identified. The LRSD moves in limine that Joshua be ordered on or before 5:00 p.m. on July 10, 2002 to identify the date and time on which each witness will be called, to identify the issue(s) on which each witness is expected to testify and to provide a detailed statement of the witnesses' expected testimony on each issue. The LRSD further requests that Joshua be precluded from calling any witness for which it fails to provide this information on or before 5:00 p.m. on July 10, 2002. Finally, the LRSD asks that Joshua be instructed to only identify witnesses that it has interviewed and confirmed their availability for the hearing.2. May 15 Order: Joshua's Exhibits. On May 15, 2002, the Court also ordered the parties to exchange pre-marked exhibits on or before June 21, 2002. The Court further stated that \"[a]ny exhibit not pre-marked and exchanged on or before June 21, 2002 will not be received into evidence during the July 22 hearing, absent highly imusual circumstances. A copy of Joshua's Exhibit list and the exhibits provided to the LRSD are attached hereto as Exhibit 2. Joshua failed to provide the LRSD with copies of Exhibits 793, 794, 799, 800 and 801 stating (t [rjequest is hereby made for those exhibits ..This request by Joshua is untimely. See Order filed July 1, 2002, p. 1. To the extent Joshua may be in possession of these documents, the LRSD moves in limine to exclude Joshua Exhibits 793, 794, 799, 800 and 801. 3. May 15 Order: Exhibit 803. The LRSD also moves to exclude any additional documents which Joshua may intend to introduce as Exhibit 803. Joshua identified as Exhibit 803, \"The exhibits filed by the Little Rock School District for this hearing.\" This fails to comply with the Court's May 15, 2002 order, as the LRSD understood it. 4. May 9 Order: Good Faith. The Court stated in its order of May 9, 2002 that Joshua would be permitted to present additional evidence on the issue of the LRSD's good faith tr but only to the extent that: (a) it relates directly to the issues of advanced placement courses. guidance counseling, extracurricular activities and student achievement\nand (b) it does not duplicate testimony already presented by Joshua on the issue of good faith.\" Order filed May 9, 2002, p. 14 (emphasis in original). Consistent with the Court's Order, the LRSD moves in limine as follows: a. Sadie Mitchell. Joshua called Mitchell to testify on August 1 and 2, 2001. S^ Tr. August 1, 2001, pp. 564-570 and August 2, 2001, pp. 848-896. Joshua specifically questioned Mitchell about student achievement (see. e,., Tr. August 1, 2001, p. 575) and advance placement courses (see, e^, Tr. August 1, 2001, p. 600), Additional testimony from Mitchell on these issues would be duplicative. Accordingly, the LRSD moves to prohibit Joshua from questioning Mitchell about student achievement and advanced placement courses. 2b. Junious Babbs. Joshua called Babbs to testify on July 5 and 6, 2001. See Tr. July 5, 2001 (all) and July 6, 2001, pp. 283-340. Joshua specifically questioned Babbs about advanced placement courses (s^, e^g., Tr. July 5, 2001, p. 219), guidance counseling (see, e^, Tr. July 5, 2001, p. 228), extracurricular activities (see, e.g.. Tr. July 5, 2001, p. 218) and student achievement (see, e^, Tr. July 5, 2001, p. 231). Accordingly, the LRSD moves to prohibit Joshua calling Babbs as a witness. c. Exhibits. The LRSD moves to exclude the following exhibits not directly related to the issues of advanced placement courses, guidance counseling, extracurricular activities and student achievement\n743, 746, 747, 749, 750, 752, 754, 755, 756, 757, 758, 759, 760, 761, 762, 763,764,771, 773,775, 777, 778, 779, 780, 782, 783, 784, 785, 786, 787, 788,789 801 and 802. 5. Relevance Generally. The LRSD moves to exclude all evidence and testimony of noncompliance with the Revised Plan that was not brought to the attention of the entire LRSD Board of Directors pursuant to Fed. R. Evid. 401, 402 and 403. The LRSDs memorandum brief in support of this Motion is hereby incorporated by reference. The LRSD also incorporates by reference its Memorandum Brief in Support of Motion for an Immediate Declaration of Unitary Status and its Reply Brief in Support of Motion for an Immediate Declaration of Unitary Status. 6. Jim Mosby and Jodie Carter. The LRSD also moves to exclude evidence and testimony related to the removal of Jim Mosby and Jodie Carter as the principals of Southwest Middle School and McClellan High School, respectively, pursuant to Fed. R. Evid. 401,402 and 403. Both men are represented by counsel for Joshua, and filed Complaints against the LRSD on July 7, 2002 related to their removal which are now pending before this Court. The July 22 hearing on whether the LRSD should be declared unitary is not the appropriate forum to decide the merit of their Complaints, and this Court has a long-standing practice of not hearing individual claims as a part of this case. See, e.g.. Docket No. 1874, Order filed June 30, 1993. 37. Rebuttal Evidence. This Court's order of May 15, 2002 granted Joshua 30 minutes to present rebuttal evidence pertaining to the three issues tried virtually to conclusion during previous hearings before Judge Wright. Joshua failed to identify any witnesses or exhibits for this purpose. Moreover, none of the witnesses or exhibits would reasonably be construed as \"true\" rebuttal, as defined by Judge Wright. Judge Wright defined rebuttal evidence as evidence necessary to respond to evidence presented by the other side which could not have been anticipated. Tr. Nov. 20, 2001, 399. The LRSD submitted no evidence which could not have been anticipated by Joshua because it had all been previously outlined in the LRSD's Interim Report and/or Final Report. Therefore, the LRSD moves in limine that Joshua be prohibited from presenting any rebuttal evidence on July 22, 2002, at 8:30 a.m. 8. Letters from Joy Springer. Joy Springer is counsel for Joshua's paralegal, and she has not been identified as a witness. However, Joshua has identified as Exhibits 767- 776 a series of letters from her to District personnel related to individual student/parent complaints. The LRSD moves to exclude these letters for several reasons. First, the letters are hearsay reporting hearsay, and they fail to fall within any exception to the hearsay rule. See Fed. R. Evid. 801, 802 803 and 804. Second, the letters are irrelevant in that there is no evidence that these complaints were brought to the attention of the Board. See Fed. R. Evid. 401 and 402 and paragraph 5, supra. Third, any relevance is outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice where no evidence will be presented that would allow this Court to assess the merit of the complaints made in the letters. See Fed. R. Evid. 403. 9. Joshua Exhibit 791. Joshua Exhibit 791 appears to be notes from a meeting with Ms. Jo Evelyn Elston, the LRSD's Director of Pupil Services. The LRSD assumes that the notes were prepared by Springer or another Joshua monitor. However, neither Springer nor any other Joshua monitor has been identified as a witness in this case. The LRSD moves to exclude Joshua Exhibit 791 for the same reasons set forth in paragraph 8 above. Joshua Exhibit 791 should also be excluded for an additional reason: the document, standing alone, cannot be 4authenticated, and Joshua has not identified any witness who will be able to authenticate the document. See Fed. R. Evid. 901. WHEREFORE, the LRSD prays that its Motion in Limine be granted\nthat it be awarded the relief sought herein\nand that it be awarded all other just and proper relief to which it may be entitled. Respectfully Submitted, LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Christopher Heller (#81083) John C. Fendley, Jr. (#92182) FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK Regions Center, Suite 2000 400 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 (501) 376^Crn BY: 'hristopher Heller (#( '83) CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing has been served on the following people by U.S. mail on July 3, 2002: Mr. John W. Walker JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 (VIA FAX and MAIL) Mr. Sam Jones Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell Law Firm 11800 Pleasant Ridge Road, Suite 146 Post Office Box 17388 Little Rock, Arkansas 72222-7388 Little Rock, AR 72201 Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 2200 NationsBank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Ann Brown Desegregation Monitor 1 Union National Plaza 124 W. Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON \u0026amp; JONES, P.A. 425 W. Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201-3472 Mr. Dennis R. Hansen Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, AR 72201 Christopher Heller F:\\HOME\\FENDLEY\\LRSD 2001\\dra-mot.limine-7.(l9-02 wpd 5 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. CASE NO. 4:82CV00866 WRW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. DEFENDANT MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. INTERVENORS KATHERINE W KNIGHT, ET AL. INTERVENORS JOSHUA INTERVENORS WITNESS LIST REGARDING JULY 22-26. 2002 HEARINGS The Joshua Intervenors plan to call the following persons during the July 22-26, 2002 hearings: 1. Ms. Sadie Mitchell - Associate Superintendent for School Services Will disQuss guidance counseling and her oversight or lack of it within the schools. She will be called on July 23, 2002, and her testimony will be expected to take approximately ten minutes. 2. Mr. Junious Babbs - Associate Superintendent for Administrative Services Will address extracurricular activities and his oversight of those activities as Associate Superintendent for Administrative Services. His testimony will be approximately ten minutes and will occur on July 23, 2002. 3. Dr. Marian Lacey - Asst. Superintendent of Secondary Schools EXHIBIT 1 Will discuss her oversight of the secondary schools with respect to guidance counseling i S I 1advanced placement courses, and extracurricular activities. Her direct testimony will take approximately fifteen minutes. 4. Mr. Jodie Carter - Principal McClellan High School Will discuss special problems with advanced placement courses, guidance counseling, extracurricular activities and the Districts good faith. His testimony will take approximately two hours and will be presented on July 22, 2002. He will also discuss the support and involvement of school board members or the lack of. 5. Ms. Dorothy McDonald - Teacher Will discuss the Districts counseling program and problems which affect Afiican American students which have not been effectively addressed by the District. Her testimony will take approximately fifteen minutes. 6. Dr. Michael Faucette - Teacher Central High School Will discuss in detail the problems with the administration of advanced placement courses, the racial effect of the placements, the manner in which the placements are made, how the placements tend to favor one group of children over another, the problems with scheduling and how those scheduling decisions interact with other decisions of placement and counseling, participation in extracurricular activities, the favor given to white students at Central High School\nthe disparate effect of advanced placement courses with respect to teaching, awards, and other opportunities, and he will discuss the Districts good faith compliance. He testimony will presented on July 22\"* and is expected to take approximately four hours on direct examination. 1. Ms. Pat Watson - Counselor at Hall High School 2Will address the Districts counseling program and how they are implemented. Her testimony will take approximately 15 minutes. 8. Mr. Kenneth Moore, Assistant Principal at Hall High School Will discuss extracurricular activities and good faith compliance. His testimony will take approximately ten minutes and will be presented July 23, 2002. 9. Ms. Pam Mercer - Parent of Former Student of Central High School Will discuss her efforts as a parent with respect to securing fair and equitable treatment for her children, Crystal and Justin, while they were at Central and how she was rebuffed along the way. She will also discuss the atmosphere at Central High School as it relates to privilege being extended to white children from middle class families. It will also cover counseling and extracurricular activities. Ms. Mercers testimony will take approximately twenty minutes on direct examination. 10. Mr. Justin Mercer - Former Student at Central High School Will address the problems he experienced of a racial nature while at Central High School and his efforts to obtain assistance and help from teachers, counselors and administrators. His testimony will take approximately ten minutes. 11. Crystal Mercer - Former Student at Central High School Will address the Districts counseling services from a African American students perspective. Her testimony will take approximately ten minutes. 12. Ms. Paulette Blevins - Former teacher at Central High School Will discuss how the grading system was manipulated so as to change grades and otherwise provide favor to white children at Central High School. Her testimony will take 3approximately fifteen minutes on direct examination. 13. Mr. Jimmy Mosby - Principal of Southwest Middle School Will discuss the efforts of the District to comply with the Plan with respect to good faith, guidance counseling and extracurricular activities while at Southwest Middle School and Hall High School. His testimony will take approximately twenty minutes on direct examination. 14. Ms. Sharon Brooks - Principal of Stephens Elementary School Will testify regarding good faith compliance and how she avoids it. The specific matter she will address will be unreported punishment without the involvement of a guidance counselor regarding the taking away of educational privileges for black boys for a period of two months while she was principal of Rightsell Elementary School. Her ' testimony will take ten minutes. 15. Ms. Susie Davis - LRSD Coordinator of English Will discuss the efforts of the Instruction Department to communicate Instruction Department standards to principals and teachers with respect English and Reading and other subjects which she supervises in her capacity as special assistant to Dr. Bonnie Lesley. Although this is not her title, she was regarded as the agent for Dr. Lesley within the schools. She will also discuss the extent of her and Dr. Lesleys association with respect to principals and counselors. Her testimony will take approximately ten minutes. 16. Ray Gillespie - Former Athletic Director Will discuss his role with respect to extracurricular activities and monitoring activities to ensure the absence of racial discrimination. His testimony will take approximately fifteen 4minutes. 17. Cassandra Norman - Principal at J. A. Fair High School Will discuss the Districts good faith compliance and her schools disparate treatment of black and white students. She will also discuss the support and involvement of school board members or the lack of. 18. Judith Pickering - Teacher - J.A. Fair High Schools Will discuss the racial atmosphere, advanced placement courses and extracurricular activities at J. A. Fair. Her testimony should take approximately fifteen minutes. 19. Foster Allen - Teacher at Central High Will discuss advance placement practices at Central High School and his relationship to those practices. His testimony will take five minutes. 20. Romona Horton and Bennie Horton - Parents of Former Central High Student Will discuss problems with AP placement of their child at Central High School. Their testimony will take five minutes a piece. 21. Alisha Allmon - Teacher Will discuss advanced placement practices at Central High School and his relationship to those practices. Her testimony will take five minutes. 22. Chris Payne- Former Student at J. A. High School Will discuss his efforts to participate in Quiz Bowl at J. A. Fair. His testimony will take ten minutes. 23. Ms. Sue Strickland, Dr. Katherine Mitchell, Dr. Michael Daugherty, Mr. Tony Rose Mr. Larry Berkley, Ms. Judy Magness and Mr. H. Baker Kurrus 5Will each give testimony regarding good faith compliance and their involvement in and knowledge of the development and implementation of guidance and counseling programs, advanced placement courses, regular courses, class sizes of regular courses, pupil teacher ratios between regular, advanced placement, honors and gifted and talented courses. Their testimony together is expected to take one hour on direct examination. 24. Jeanette Carter and Dr. Vertie Carter Will discuss problems which they experience with respect to the AP teachers and administrators and counselors regarding placement, retention and fair treatment in the AP program. Their testimony will take fifteen minutes. 25. Ms. Ethel Dunbar - Principal Franklin Elementary School Will discuss elementary good faith compliance, gifted and talented courses, guidance counseling and the assistance received with respect to these issues from the Division of Instruction. Her testimony will take approximately thirty minutes. 25. Mazie Phillips - Counselor at Fair High School Will address the Districts counseling program and how they are implemented. Her testimony will take approximately 15 minutes. 26. Leon Adams - Director of Federal programs Will discuss efforts to use Title I funds to promote the educational interests of all children rather than the children who were the intended beneficiaries of those funds\nthe correlation between counseling services, advanced placement courses and good faith compliance. His testimony will take approximately twenty minutes. 627. D.J. Thames and Avis Thames - Student and Parent - Fair High School Will discuss the Districts good faith compliance with respect to extracurricular activities. This testimony will take approximately ten minutes on direct examination. 28. Ann Marshall, Gene Jones, and Margie Powell - ODM Monitors Will discuss good faith compliance. Their testimony will take approximately thirty minutes. 29. Ray Simon Will discuss the Districts decision and the reason for it to retreat from the remediation requirement for loan forgiveness. His testimony will address the roles of Drs. Ross and Gamine with respect to discontinuing emphasis upon remediation of Black students relative achievement levels. It will take approximately twenty minutes. The exhibit which he will address is an agreement between the State of Arkansas and the Little Rock School District the description of about which I am not certain. 30. Dr. Terrence Roberts Will address the issue of good faith compliance, guidance counseling and relationship between regular and advanced courses. His testimony will take approximately twenty minutes and will be presented on July 23, 2002. 31. Dr. Stephen Ross Will testify about the Districts good faith compliance and advanced placement and honors courses. He will address the need for criteria for placement as will Dr. Roberts (see above). His testimony will take approximately thirty minutes. 7Respectfully submitted, John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 501-374-3758 501-374-4187 (fax) John W. Walker - Bar No. 64046 I CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby state that a copy of the foregoing witness list has been hand delivered to Counsel for the Little Rock School District on this 24* day of June, 2002. 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. CASE NO. 4\n82CV00866 WRW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. INTERVENORS KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL. INTERVENORS JOSHUA INTERVENORS EXHIBIT LIST REGARDING JULY 22-26. 2002 HEARINGS The Joshua Intervenors plan to use the following documents during the July 22-26, 2002 hearings: 743. E-mail dated July 2, 2001 from Virginia Johnson to Bonnie Lesley (page 182) 744. E-mail dated October 19, 2000 from Gary Smith to Bonnie Lesley (page 290) 745. E-mail dated June 29, 2001 from Sueellen Mann to Gail Hester and subsequent dated July 2, 2001 (page 167) 746. E-mail dated January 18, 2001 from Junious Babbs to Kathy Lease (page 12) 747. E-mail dated July 2, 2001 from Mona Briggs to Bonnie Lesley (page 191) 748. E-mail dated November 16, 2000 from Les Camine to Bonnie Lesley 749. E-mail dated November 21, 2000 from Ken Savage to Kathy Lease (page 38) 750. E-mail dated March 7, 2001 from Kathy Lease to T Rose and subsequent dated March 7, 2001 at 12:44 p.m. (page 7) 751. E-mail dated July 15, 2001 from Bonnie Lesley to Lionel Ward and subsequent 1 1 exhibit I I A.dated July 16, 2001 (page 88) 752. E-mail dated July 14, 2001, July 15, 2001 and July 16, 2001 from Bonnie Lesley to Ken James (page 96) 753. E-mail dated July 15, 2001 from Bonnie Lesley to Chris Heller (page 102) 754. E-mail dated April 18, 2001 from Bonnie Lesley to Kathy Lease and subsequent response (pages 708 and 709) 755. E-mails dated October 25, 2000 from Bonnie to Irma Truett and Kathy Lease re: Benchmark scores (pages 16 and 17) 756. E-mail dated June 28, 2001 8:00 p.m. from Mona Briggs to Bonnie Lesley (page 192 757. E-mail dated June 28, 2001 9:08 am. from Bonnie Lesley to members of her staff (Page 192 and 193) 758. E-mails dated September 29, 2000 between Bonnie Lesley and Kathy Lease re: Priorities 2000-01 (Page 51) 759. E-mail dated October 3, 2000 between Les Camine. Bonnie Lesley and Kathy Lease Re\nALT Check-in (Page 50) 760. E-mail dated June 20, 2001 from Bonnie Lesley to Beverly Griffin re: semester test Exemption (Page 351) 761. E-mail dated June 25, 2001 from Bonnie Lesley to Clay Fendley (page 297) 762. F-mails dated June 29, 2001 between Sadie Mitchell, Deanna Eggeston and Bonnie Lesley (pages 218-219) 763. E-mails dated February 12 and 13, 2001 Lesley, Ruffins, Lease and Camine (page 19) 764. Email dated February 13, 2001 from Kathy Lease to Les Camine (Pages 17 and 18) 765. Memo dated November 17, 2000 from Dr. Faucette to Mrs. Hargis re: exclusion of Regular English students fro Jennie Calder lecture 766. Email dated September 27, 2000 from Sadie Mitchell to Junious Babbs (Page 1) 27 767. Letter dated December 16, 1998 to Les Gamine from Joy Springer 768. Letter dated February 18, 1999 to Sadie Mitchell from Joy Springer 769. Letter dated March 17, 1999 to Rudolph Howard from Joy Springer 770. Letter dated October 14, 1999 to James Washington from Joy Springer 771. Letter dated February 28, 2000 to James Washington from Joy Springer 772. Letter dated February 28, 2000 to James Washington from Joy Springer re: Scouts 773. Letter dated August 28, 2000 to Ray Gillespie from Joy Springer 774. Letter dated September 12, 2000 to Les Gamine from Joy Springer 775. Letter dated October 10, 2000 to Les Gamine from Joy Springer 776. Letter dated September 13, 2000 to James Washington from Joy Springer 777. E-mail dated June 6, 2000 to Les Gamine from Don Stewart (Pages 100-0 1) 778. E-mail dated April 19, 2001 from Deanna Eggeston to Don Stewart (Page 37) 779. E-mail dated April 25, 2001 from Kathy Lease to Mark Millhollen 780. E-mail dated May 25, 2001 from Bonnie Lesley to Debbie Berry (Page 358) 781. E-mail dated June 7, 2000 from Glay Fendley to Bonnie Lesley 782. E-mail dated June 7, 2000 from Bonnie Lesley to Mary Paal (Page 136) 783. E-mail dated April 17-18, 2001 to Don Stewart from Bonnie Lesley 784. E-mail dated July 12, 2001 to Bonnie Lesley from Don Stewart (240) 785. E-mail dated February 28, 2001 to Bonnie Lesley from Don Stewart 786. Memo dated February 24, 1999 to Gayle Bradford from James Washington 787. Memo dated March 11, 1999 to Les Gamine from James Washington 788. Letter dated April 12, 1999 to Gayle Bradford from James Washington 3789. Letter dated March 22, 1999 to Gayle Bradford from James Washington 790. Letter dated April 26, 1999 to John Walker from Les Gamine 791. Memo dated May 3, 1999 regarding visit to Pupil Services \u0026amp; Administration buildings 792. Email dated 9/30/300 from Marian Lacey to Sadie Mitchell w/attachments 793. High School Master Schedule Audit, Little Rock School District 2001-2002 794. School Yearbooks for Central, Hall, McClellan, Fair, Hall and Parkview for school years 1998-99 through 2001-2002 795. Letter dated February 28, 2002 from Dr. Michael Faucette to Jane Welch regarding enrollment in Creative Writing course 796. Little Rock Central - Requests for Course - Creative Writing 797. Essay by Justin Mercer entitled: Black at Central: My 45 Years of Struggle 798. Memo dated August 4, 1999 from Bonnie Lesley to Ann Marshall 799. Academic awards reports for the period 1998 through 2002. 800. Rank Lists for Hall, Parkview, Central, McClellan and Fair for graduating senior classed for the period 1998 through 2002 801. LRSD Quarterly Status Reports - School Services - 1999 through 2002 802. Deposition of School Board Members - a. Sue Strickland b. Tony Rose c. Judy Magness d. Larry Berkley e. Katherine Mitchell 803. The exhibits filed by the Little Rock School District for this hearing Joshua notes that some of the foregoing exhibits are in the exclusive possession of the Plaintiff. Request is hereby made for those exhibits which include numbers 793, 794, 799, 800. 801. 4By: Respectfully submitted, JohnW. Walker,?. A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 501-374-3758 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I do hereby state that a copy of the foregoing exhibit list and exhibits have been hand carried to counsel for the Little Rock School District and the Office of Desegregation Monitoring on this day of June, 2002. 5 LESLEY, BONNIE From: Sent: To: Subject: LESLEY, BONNIE Monday, July 02, 2001 2:24 PM 'heller^fec.nef Latest Fax 743' 1 had Anita fax over to you the latest-a bunch of stuff on our literacy plan. 1. He already has a copy of the PreK-3 Literacy Plan. Other information is in the Interim and Final Compliance Reports. 2. He also has the test results for SAT9, Grade 4 Benchmark, and DRA-so those are the results. 3. I don't know what he means by monitoring reports. 4. The assessment program is outlined in several pages in the Compliance Report. 5. I can copy those policies and regs for him. Want me to go ahead and send? Dr. Bonnie A. Lesley, Associate Superintendent for Instruction Little Rock School District 3001 S. Pulaski Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 501/324-2131 501/324-0567 (fax) LESLEY, BONNIE From: Sent: To: Subject: LESLEY, BONNIE Monday, July 02, 2001 1:44 PM JOHNSON, VIRGINIA RE: Needed Information-Important! Do you have dates for those three times? From: Sent: To: Subject: iriginal Message JOHNSON, VIRGINIA Monday, July 02, 2001 1:15 PM LESLEY, BONNIE RE: Needed Information-Important! Three times I sat in on sessions with Steve Ross along with other PRE staff. At no time did we review any NSF documents. The sessions focused on document review of the ESL and Pre-K Literacy reports. I have never \"consulted\" with him. I have never consulted with Dr. Roberts either. Original Message----- From: Sent: To: LESLEY, BONNIE Monday, July 02, 2001 12:07 PM ADAMS, LEON\nARNOLD, LAURA BETH\nAUSTIN, LINDA\nBRANDON, BARBARA\nBRIGGS, MONA R.\nBROADNAX, KAREN\nBUSBEA, PAT\nCARR, MARCELLINE\nCARSON, RENE\nCLEAVER, VANESSA\nCLIFFORD, ELIZABETH\nCRAWFORD, PAMELA: DAVIS, SUZI\nDEBBIE MILAM\nDILLINGHAM, YVETTE: DONALDSON, MABLE: FINNEY. ANTONETTE\nFLETCHER. DANNY\nFREEMAN. ANN\nGILLIAM. ANITA\nGLASGOW, DENNIS\nHARDING, CASSANDRA: HUFFMAN, KRIS\nJACKSON, MARION\nJOHNSON, VIRGINIA\nJONES, DOCIA\nJONES, STEPHANIE\nKIILSGAARD, SHARON\nKILLINGSWORTH, PATRICIA\nKOVACH, RENEE\nLAJUANA RAINEY: LOYA, STELLA,: MARION BALDWIN: MARTIN, PAULETTE: McCOY, EDDIE\nMcNEAL, MARIE\nMILAM, JUDY\nNEAL, LUCY\nPAAL, MARY M.\nPAUL, ANNITA\nPERRITT, YORIKO U.\nPRICE, PATRICIA: RYNDERS, PAULA: SMITH, GARY\nSMITH, PAULA\nTEETER, JUDY\nWALLS, COLLEEN\nWARD, LIONEL\nWILLIAMS, BARBARA\nWILLIAMS, ED\nWILSON, LEVANNA\nWOODS, MARION Subject: Needed Information-Important! 182snimitci@lrsdadm.lrsd.kl2.ar.us Original Message----- From: Sent To: Cc: Subject: CARNINE, LESLIE V. Thursday, October 19, 2000 1:59 PM MITCHELL, SADIE NEAL, LUCY\nLESLEY, BONNIE\nLEASE, KATHY R.\nSMITH, GARY RE: Will we have the software available by 2nd Semester? What system(s) are being looked at? Original Message From: Sent To: Subject: MITCHELL, SADIE Thursday, October 19. 2000 10:33 AM CARNINE, LESLIE V. FW: Sadie Mitchell smmitch@lrsdadm.lrsd.kl2.ar.us Original Message From: Sent To: Cc: Subject 7^^ SMITH, GARY Thursday, October 19, 2000 10\n25 AM LESLEY. BONNIE WARD. LIONEL\nGADBERRY. BRADY L.\nNEAL. LUCY\nMITCHELL. SADIE\nCAWTHON. FRANCES H.\nLACEY. MARIAN G.\nADAMS. LEON\nAUSTIN. LINDA\nBRADFORD. GAYLE: BRIGGS. MONA\nBROADNAX. KAREN\nCLEAVER. VANESSA: COLFORD. SUSAN\nDAVIS. SUZI\nDONALDSON. MABLE\nEddie McCov\nELSTON, JO\nFULLERTON, JAMES\nGLASGOW, DENNIS: HAWKS, EVERETT\nKEOWN, ADA\nMARION BALDWIN\nNORMAN, CASSANDRA R.\nPRICE, PATRICIA\nTATUM, KATHY: WYATT-ROSS, JANICE Dr. Lesley, The consensus recommendation of the SAIP committee is for a SAIP be created for students at all grade levels who are not proficient based state mandated benchmark tests and/or District mandated Achievement Level Tests (ALT) - Our specific recommendations to implement this are\nobtain/create the software necessary to identify students not proficient on state benchmarks/district assessment that will also generate/print the adopted SAIP form with student information and test scores printed on the SAIP form  obtain/create the software that will generate/print specific strategies (along with and printed checklists for those who wish not to use computer) developed by a committee made up of teachers and curriculum specialists as a resource available for teachers to use (especially secondary teachers) - this can be attached to the SAIP form as needed develop an \"instructional\" sheet for the SAIP form that will explain in more detail the information to documented and procedures to follow  provide training on the use of SAIP form directly to teachers (the exact training may have to be determined at a future date based on the development of software noted above) - delivery of training would need to be coordinated with staff development for most effective and comprehensive presentation to all teachers to ail of you in Cyber Land - is there anything else I forgot? - thanks Gary 290LESLEY, BONNIE From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: BABBS, JUNIOUS Monday, July 02, 2001 8:08 AM ELSTON, JO NEWBURN, LINDA\nLESLEY, BONNIE RE\nCounseling Program Kit 745- Message Flag: Due By\nFlag Status\nFollow up Monday, July 09, 2001 5:00 PM Flagged It is positive to see that things are moving forward on this \"01 - 02 priority. Prior to coming to closure, I ask that your look to set up a time to fill me in on the \"buy in\" of players called upon (committee members) to develop districtwide literature to be distributed. The connection to Curriculum and Instruction is a biggee that should be run through Dr. Lesley. I will look to give you a call a bit later regarding B/W high school scholarship information and the 3 - 4 year comparisons. To date, this information has not been provided. Junious C. Babbs, Jr jcDabbs@stuasn.lrsd.kl2.ar,us Little Rock Schoo! District -----Original Message From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: VANN, SUELLEN Friday, June 29, 2001 11:08 AM HESTER, GAIL ELSTON, JO\nBABBS, JUNIOUS Counseling Program Kit Jo Evelyn Elston is in my office, and we're working on a counseling program kit with insert sheets. Mr. Babbs will pay for this out of his budget. I'm going to talk with Kristy Black about the design of the kit and sheets, but I figured we'd better give you the info for the quote since it looks like a pretty good-sized job. The kit will be one-pocket on right side with a business card slot\nthe kit will print front and back with one pocket. There won't be a separate \"wing\" like the recruitment kit had. Quantity: 25,000 Jo Evelyn likes the paper we used for the recruitment kit and insert sheets, so we could just go with those. The insert sheets: 1. JOBBS sheet - print front only\nquantity 30,000 2. Early college planning sheet - print front only\nquantity 20,000 3. PCEP sheet - print front only\nquantity 20,000 4. What Does Counselor Do? sheet - print front only\nquantity 30,000 5. Counseling program sheet - print front and back\nquantity 30,000 6. Couseling fact sheet - print front only\nquantity 30,000 The kit and insert sheets would print 4-color. Have I forgotten anything? No bleeds. THANKS! (Mr. Babbs, you might want to set up a lemonade stand on Sherman to pay for this!!!!!) Suelle.n S. Vann,- APR Director of Communications Little Rock School District (501)324-2020 167LESLEY, BONNIE 7^6 From: Sent\nTo: Subject: LEASE, KATHY R. Thursday, January 18, 2001 6:06 PM BABBS, JUNIOUS RE\nSection 2 Thanks for the input! We have been with the program evaluation consultant all cay, so I just finished editing the report to send to Bonnie. I will incorporate your changes and suggestions, and send it to her again. Do you want the Power Point as an Appendix or the outline for it incorporated into the body of the report? I'm so sorry I am just getting around to my email, but I'll take the heat for sending another correction. Not enough hours in the day!! Kathy PS--Thanks for the encouragement! Original Message From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: BABBS, JUNIOUS Thursday, January 18, 2001 10:53 AM LEASE, KATHY R. GADBERRY, BRADY L. FW/: Section 2 Good information. Working with timelines and specific report information submissions for this division, I have not been able to dissect in great detail but my original thinking touches upon 2 - 3 items that may warrant some review. You will note that Brady is also being forwarded who can provide his thinking as well. Future compliance sessions will toss this about for further revision. 1. Inclusion of the power point presentation. 2. When touching upon Dr. Ross - It may be advantageous to refer to \"looks to build or acknowledges\" specific district efforts as opposed to \"praising\". 3. It would be appropriate to list current data that is available. Be reminded that when writing materials for our report submission, we will include \"districtwide\" numbers We may not be thprp yet but this will help to serve as an indicator of established basSTihe Fnformation from which we will jump off of. Keep your chin up. . ---------------------------  Junious C. Babbs, Jr jcbabbs@stuasn.lrsd.kl2.ar.us Little Rock School District Original Message----- From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: LEASE, KATHY R. Wednesday, January 17, 2001 6:14 PM LESLEY, BONNIE BABBS. JUNIOUS\nDILLINGHAM, YVETTE\nHUFFMAN, MAC\nJOHNSON, VIRGINIA\nMcCOY, EDDIE\nSUMMERVILLE, ROSALYN P.\nTRUETT, IRMA\nWILLIAMS, ED Section 2  File\nDeseg Report (2.7.1).doc  Bonnie, Here is the first draft of Section 2.7.1. Please let me know what additions or revisions you want made. Thanks, Kathy PS-PRE folks-Look to see what I left out, what typos 1 have, and what needs to be edited. Thanks 12747 Chris, I am in LR this week-end and you can reach me at 868-4289, I can come to your office to help, or I can work from my office. Call if you need me. Are we having fun yet? Dr, Bonnie A. Lesley, Associate Superintendent for Instruction Little Rock School District 3001 S. Pulaski Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 501/324-2131 501/324-0567 (fax) LESLEY, BONNIE From: Sent: To: Subject: LESLEY, BONNIE Monday, July 02, 2001 8:16 AM BRIGGS, MONA R, RE\nThank you, my friend, I \"vegged\" all week-end, seriously \"vegged,\" I know this will be a HARD week. Yes, I hear Kathy is on his witness list. It'll be interesting. -----Original Message----- From: Sent: To\nSubject: BRIGGS, MONA R. Monday, July 02, 2001 6:53 AM LESLEY, BONNIE RE: I have been thinking a lot about you. You can't let this bring on a stroke or something. You don't need this kind of pressure all by your self!! It is not worth it-no job is worth it. And you can't take on the woes of a district that has been screwing up for a decade or more. I hope Kathy does get called to testify. She needs to have to answer to John Walker and if it bodes ill for the district so be it! She and Camine just waltzes out of here and leaves everyone else holding the rope. You make time for sleep and food!! Mona R, Briggs Middle Level Specialist Little Rock School District 501-324-2412 \" Seek First to Understand\nthen to be understood\" (Covey) Original Message From: Sent: To: LESLEY. BONNIE Friday, June 29, 2001 7:55 AM BRICSS, MONA R, 191STEWART, DONALD M. From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: CARNINE, LESLIE V. Thursday, November 16, 2000 12:23 PM LESLEY, BONNIE BABBS, JUNIOUS\nMitchell, Sadie\nGADBERRY, BRADY L.\nSTEWART, DONALD M. Upper Division Classes and African Americans 74^ Were you able to pull together the numbers-last year and this year's enrollment? John Walker also has called and is questioning his non involvement in the policy development(IKF). I told him I thought the evidence was so strong for Black kids and that I would send him the information. When was the first time he would have received the policy for comment? He is raising much the same issue-impact on black kids as Katherine...IKF\\ \\ Cc: Subject LESLEY. BONNIE: CARNINE. LESLIE V. RE: Chart Revisions Ken, _ Thanks so much for this explanation of what happened, i he important thing about making a mistake is finding a way not to make it again. I think you have done this, and we will all profit from it. I know you feel really badly about this, but the most important thing is to correct the process. We all make mistakes. We are committed to quality in PRE and that includes continuous improvement and continuous learning. This experience has provided us with both. What a bonus!! Thanks for helping with the corrections. I will take care of getting them to the appropriate Cabinet people and getting them redistributed to the Board. -----Original Message----- From: Sent: To: Subject: Dr Lease, SAVAGE. KEN Tuesday. November 21, 2000 10:31 AM LEASE. KATHY R. Chart Revisions I have reviewed the charts that I created from the benchmark data. When I created the charts originally I had encountered a problem similar to the one described by Dr. Lesley, but I specifically remember correcting the error prior to sending the charts to you. Needless to say, I was more than a little alanned that the charts you received contained errors because the charts I have appear to coincide with the data I have. I went on further to investigate by looking at the email I sent you. And there, big as day, the error had reappeared. So the charts I had sent you were incorrect because they were never updated in the manner that I expected. Here is what I believe happened based on what I remember and what I learned this morning:  I created the charts in an Excel document that contained the data.  1 copied the charts only out into another document, creating what is called a linked object.  I printed and reviewed the charts and this is when I found the error.  I corrected the error and reopened the \"linked charts. They appear to have accepted the corrections.  I emailed the file with the linked charts to you rather than the file containing the charts and data. Heres where the problem arose and information that I have just become aware of this morning.  First, when using linked objects, each time you open the file you are given a choice to update the information. Unfortunately, 1 only sent you the charts and not the data that drives them. So regardless, you could not have updated the charts.  Second, and more importantly, even though a chart has been updated previously, it will always revert back to the original chart that was corrected no matter how many times the data has been updated.  Third, if the file with the original data is already open, when the linked item is opened it automatically updates without intervention. I believe that the second option above is what occurred. The charts were created, an error was encountered and corrected, the link was updated but the chart reverted back to its original when the file was closed. What 1 propose to do to prevent this kind of fiasco in the future is: 1. Only send charts embedded in files which contain the data--no linking. 2. Only create the linked charts after ALL data has been proofed and corrected. The erroneous data was only last year's data for black students in the comparison between this year and last'year for both Math and Literacy. I am printing and will send ten revised copies of the charts. Ken. 38 LESLEY, BONNIE From: Sent: To: Subject: LEASE, KATHY R. Wednesday, March 07, 2001 12:44 PM BABBS, JUNIOUS- RE: Research Committee Meeting 7JO Bonnie said that the evaluations weren't part of the court submission. Is that still correct? If so, then it looks like we should slow down a bit and do it rignt. are you in agreement? - '  KL -----------------------------  -------------- Original Message From: Sent: To: Subject: BASES, JUNIOUS Wednesday, March 07, 2001 12:36 PM LEASE, KATHY R. RE\nResearch Committee Meeting Orioinai thinking was to get another date scheduled prior to the March 15th court submission but with information you have noted, consideration of a later date is necessary. I don't see major conflict. Junious C Babbs, Jr )Cbabbs@stuasn.lrsd.kl2.ar.us Little Rock School District -Original Message----- From\nSent: To: Subject: Importance: High LEASE, KATHY R. Wednesday. March 07, 2001 12:27 PM 'trrose@ualr.edu'\nBABBS, JUNIOUS Research Committee Meeting We have had another committee member who will not be able to come to the meeting on the 13th. We now have agenda meeting at 5:00, and Steve can only be with us by phone. What do you all think about postponing the meeting until after spring break? That would give John plenty of time to make revisions, and we can schedule a meeting when Steve can be w'ith us. I hope to have the template/program evaluation guidelines completed by then as well. Let me know what you think! Kathy Kathy Lease, Ed.D. Assistant Superintendent Planning, Research, and Evaluation 3001 S. Pulaski Little Rock, AR 72206 501-324-2122 (VM) 501-324-2126 (Fax) krlease@irc.lrsd.kl2.ar.us 7LESLEY, BONNIE From: Sent: To: Subject\nLESLEY, BONNIE Monday, July 16, 2001 z\n24 PM MITCHELL, SADIE RE\nDocuments yes, thanks. I need asap. -----Original Message----- From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: MITCHELL, SADIE Monday, July 16, 2001 5:51 PM LESLEY, BONNIE WASHINGTON, CHARLOTTE Documents We got the list of documents on file done but I forgot to remind Charlotte to send it to you. She is gone for the day and it is on her computer. You will have it first thing in the morning. Sadie Sadie Mitchell smmitch@lrsdadm.lrsd.kl2.ar.us LESLEY, BONNIE From: Sent: To: Subject: LESLEY, BONNIE Monday, July 16, 2001 7:24 PM WARD, LIONEL RE\nSAIP He requested info from me. I told him I had given him all I had but that you are the administrator on this issue. I was following up to see if he had contacted you. -----Original Message----- From: Sent To: Subject: WARD, LIONEL Monday, July 16, 2001 4:29 PM LESLEY, BONNIE RE: SAIP Are you trying to tell me something? I have not received any such request from Mr. Walker. If he talks with me, I will talk to you about a proper response first. One basic problem with implementation is in the thought some might harbor which explains why their efforts started late in the game. I am sure some folks faced more struggles than others. Clearly, schools must satisfy the requirements v/ith wise, careful and timely deliberations this year. Original Message From: Sent: To: LESLEY, BONNIE Sunday, July 15, 2001 3:49 PM WARD, LIONEL Subject: SAIP Lionel, has Mr. Walker requested anything from you about the implementation of SAIPs? If so, what did you send to him? Thanks. Dr. Bonnie A. Lesley, Associate Superintendent for Instruction Little Rock School District 88501/324-0567 (fax) LESLEY, BONNIE From: Sent: To: Subject: LESLEY, BONNIE. Monday, July 16, 2001 8\n16 AM JAMES, KENNETH RE: Work in Progress Absolutely! Original Message From: Sent To\nSubject: JAMES, KENNETH Monday, July 16, 2001 7:54 AM LESLEY, BONNIE RE\nWork in Progress Bonnie: I agree. The work and time that you have invested in this will indeed pay off. as the testimony unfolds. It will be interesting to see how the judge handles all of this information and to observe her thought process. Ken Original Message From: Sent: To: LESLEY, BONNIE Sunday, July IS, 2001 9:42 PM JAMES, KENNETH Subject: RE\nWork in Progress When I left today, I left a lot still un-done, but I left feeling more and more certain that we have strong evidence that we did the plan. This is going to be helpful to me in remembering all the effortseven if Chris decides not to use some of it as evidence. I think it will particularly be strong when we combine what Sadie has with ours in this Division. -----Original Message----- From\nSent\nTo: LESLEY, BONNIE JAMES, KENNETH Sunday, July 15, 2001 9:34 PM Subject: RE: Work in Progress Bonnie\nI have reviewed both documents and they are excellent at showing what has been accomplished in the areas of evaluation and assessment Great job! We will touch base tomorrow. Ken Original Message----- From: Sent: To: Subject: LESLEY, BONNIE Saturday, July 14, 2001 6:24 PM 'helle.r@fec.net\nJAMES, KENNETH\nMITCHELL, SADIE Work in Progress I've worked today on getting the ideas laid out about assessment/program evaluation. That includes collecting and organizing stacks of paper that document our work and processes. In addition, please see the attached documents to determine if this is where we want to go. I welcome your feedback.  File: 1 Program cvaluation.doc   File: 1 Assessment Grid.doc  96Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 501/324-2131 501/324-0567 (fax) LESLEY, BONNIE From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject\nLESLEY, BONNIE Sunday, July 15, 2001 3:41 PM 'heller@fec.net' JAMES, KENNETH SAIPs Mr. Walker requested on June 20 the follow: \"Please advise whether you have information regarding the District's implementation of STudent Academic Improvement Plan (SAIP) as required by the State. If so, please share with this this office.\" 1 replied: \"You will find that information in the March 2001 Compliance Report in Section 2.7. I do not have any information beyond what you will rind there since the implementation is done at the school level. Leonel Ward is in charge of implementation.\" When I searched everything for the documents I needed from you, I found several memos in Learning Links that I had forgotten about-about the philosophy in implementing SAIP, sample SAIPs done by Price, Glasgow, and Davis, the memo establishing the committee to develop the program, the memo to the board, etc. Should I forward those to Mr, Walker as well?. Dr, Bonnie A. Lesley, Associate Superintendent for Instruction Little Rock School District 3001 S. Pulaski Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 501/324-2131 501/324-0567 (fax) LESLEY, BONNIE From\nSent\nTo: Subject: LESLEY, BONNIE Saturday, July 14, 2001 6:24 PM 'heller@fec.net'\nJAMES, KENNETH\nMITCHELL, SADIE Work in Progress I've worked today on getting the ideas laid out about assessment/program evaluation. That includes collecting and organizing stacks of paper that document our work and processes. In addition, please see the attached documents to determine if this is where we want to go. I welcome your feedback. s 1 Program Evaluation.Qoc 1 Assessment Grid.doc Dr. Bonnie A. Lesley, Associate Supe.hntendent for Instruction Little Rock School District 3001 S. Pulaski Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 501/324-2131 501/324-0567 (fax) 102LESLEY, BONNIE From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Don Crary [dcrary@newfuturesforyouth.org] Wednesday, April 18, 2001 1:33 PM LESLEY, BONNIE mopierce@newfuturesforyouth.org Re: Computer with Access Great. We can pay for it. I'm sure it will be cheaper if it is purchased through the district contract. The district can invoice us and we will reimburse them for the cost. Don -----Original Message From: LESLEY, BONNIE \u0026lt;BALESLE@IRC.LRSD.K12.AR.US\u0026gt; \u0026gt; To: 'dcrary@newfuturesforyouth.org' \u0026lt;dcrary@newfuturesforyouth.org Cc: BRIGGS, MONA R. \u0026lt;MRBRIGG@ANNEX.LRSD.K12.AR.US\u0026gt;\nPAAL, MARY M. \u0026lt;MrVIPAAL@ANNEX.LRSD.K12.AR.US\u0026gt; Date: 04/18/2001 12:50 PM Subject: Computer with Access \u0026gt;l talked with Mona about your need for a dedicated computer somewhere in the \u0026gt;district so that your evaluator can come work on direct access to the data \u0026gt;base. She is arranging for an additional computer drop in the office that \u0026gt;Mary Paal will have at Garland. Can you all purchase the computer out of \u0026gt;your budget? \u0026gt; \u0026gt;Dr. Bonnie A. Lesley, Associate Superintendent for Instruction \u0026gt;Little Rock School District \u0026gt;3001 S. Pulaski \u0026gt;Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 \u0026gt;501/324-2131 \u0026gt;501/324-0567 (fax) LESLEY, BONNIE From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: LEASE, KATHY R. Wednesday, April 18, 2001 12:32 PM LESLEY, BONNIE MITCHELL, SADIE\nCAWTHON, FRANCES H.\nLACEY, MARIAN G. RE: ALT Results Bonnie, did you meet with yesterday? Do I need to contact them? I explained to all of them when we What group of principals ot tnem wnen did the testing calendar that we could get results back to everyone before school was out, if they followed the schedule. If there are some that we need to follow up with, please let me know who they are. We are returning ALT results as quickly as schools get them in. The whole purpose of setting up the schedule like it is centers around being able to get the results back to everyone before school is out. District results can't be calculated until all schools are in. That is why it is imperative that everyone stay on schedule. Both teachers and parents will get their results unless someone doesn't follow the schedule. Second grade results have all been returned to the schools, along with two copies of the parent report. High school preliminary results have been returned to Parkview and Fair. McClellan's results are here and are being scored. Central and Hall have not turned in their answer sheets yet. All make-ups were to have been completed by this past Monday. Retests for high schools are due back on Friday. The first page of the parent report can be printed, but we can't print the longitudinal report for parents unless all high schools are in. 70875^ Our elementary schools did a great job during 2nd grade testing\nso if they keep that up, we will sail right through their scoring and printino. They have all of their results. We're still missina two of the middle schools' Algebra I / geometry results as of this morning. We are having a scoring problem with the high school science tests, but NWEA is working on it. The subject specific math and science tests require no retests, so that shouldn't hold things up. . . . Also, we have provided data on request any school who wants to know last fall's ALT scores for their rising grade students. If you have any other questions, please let me know. Kathy Original Message From: Sent: To: Subject: LESLEY, BONNIE Wednesday, April 18, 2001 10:37 AM LEASE, KATHY R. ALT Results I met with a group of principals yesterday who suggested to me that if they can't receive their ALT results before school is out that there is no use in sending them at all. Kids and parents need them quickly, and the school needs them quickly in order to plan for next school year. What our your chances of being able to do that? Dr. Bonnie A. Lesley, Associate Superintendent for Instruction Little Rock School District 3001 S. Pulaski Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 501/324-2131 501/324-0567 (fax) LESLEY, BONNIE From: Sent: To: Subject: Paulette Mabry [pmabry(gnewfuturesforyouth.org] Wednesday, April 18, 2001 10:59 AM Bonnie Lesley\nBrady Gadberry\nJunious Babbs\nLinda Austin\nMarian G. Lacey\nSadie Mitchell Words to encourage us Rosedoc Thought you might enjoy this today as a way to jumpstart the afternoon when things seem impossible. Paulette LESLEY, BONNIE From: Sent: To: Subject: BRIGGS. MONA R. Wednesday, April 18, 2001 10:10 AM LESLEY, BONNIE Cost of Tools for Learning (Fred Jones)\nParent Component Importance: High The discounted costs of books is: 500 books @ $18.00 (regularly priced at 29.95) 300-499 @ $18.50 200-299 @ $18.95 100-199 @ $19.95 Shipping for 500 is S546.75\nit may be slightly less for fewer numbers but not significantly. RE\nParent involvement with training 709GADBERRY, BRADY L. 735 From: Sent: To: Subject: LEASE, KATHY R. Tuesday, November 28, 2000 4:31 PM BABBS, JUNIOUS: FRANCES CAWTHON\nGadberry, Brady L\nHurley, Richard: LESLEY, BONNIE: Leslie Camine: LINDA WATSON: MARIAN LACEY: Milhollen, Mark: Sadie Mitchell: STEWART, DONALD M.: Vann, Suellen Steve Ross-Program Evaluation.ppt Steve Ross-Program Evaluation__ KL FYI--Here is a copy of Steve's presentation to the Board. GADBERRY, BRADY L. From: Sent: To: Subject: LEASE, KATHY R. Thursday, November 16, 2000 8:32 AM GADBERRY, BRADY L. RE\nPRE List Requested I shared with Babbs that I thought we could provide some assistance in PRE to make the surveying process a little easier We've got the equipment and the software! I just talked with Gene Jones to confirm his schedule, and he said that he was invited to the compliance meeting tomorrow morning. I told him, \"Great! See you then!\" KL Original Message From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: GADBERRY, BRADY L. Thursday, November 16, 2000 8:17 AM BABBS, JUNIOUS LEASE, KATHY R. RE: PRE List Requested We were told early in the year by Dr. Camine that all surveys would be done through PRE. -----Original Message----- From: BABBS, JUNIOUS Sent: Tuesday, November 14, 2000 7:15 PM To: GADBERRY, BRADY L. Cc: LEASE, KATHY R. Subject: FW\nPRE List Requested To my knowledge Vic and I both allowed department \"Quality of Service Surveys\" that went to appropriate building staff to be returned and worked through our own division shops. What is your thinking to continue with this format or consideration through PRE ? Junious C. Babbs, Jr jcbabbs@stuasn.lrsd.kl2.ar.us Little Rock School District Original Message From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: LEASE, KATHY R. Friday, November 10, 2000 12:18 AM Clay Fendley\"\nLESLEY, BONNIE\nBABBS, JUNIOUS\nMITCHELL, SADIE\nGADBERRY, BRADY L.\nSTEWART, DONALD M. CARNINE, LESLIE V. List Requested Dear Folks, Attached is the list of programs or strategies that have either received some evaluation services or have requested evaluation services. If you need additional information, please let me know. 15 Thanks, Kathy File\nAdditional Programs and Strategies Requesting Evaluation.doc GADBERRY, BRADY L. From\nSent: To: Subject: LEASE, KATHY R. Friday, October 27, 2000 2:52 PM MITCHELL, SADIE\nLESLEY, BONNIE\nBABBS, JUNIOUS\nGADBERRY, BRADY L\nSTEWART, DONALD M. Memo to Gene Jones 0 logo memo.doc know ASAP. KL Here is what I am having Irma send on Monday. If you see anything that needs to be changed, let her GADBERRY, BRADY L. From: Sent: To\nSubject\nLEASE, KATHY R. Wednesday, October 25, 2000 8:37 PM CARNINE, LESLIE V.\nMITCHELL, SADIE\nBABBS, JUNIOUS\nGADBERRY, BRADY L. FW\nBenchmark Scores Dear Folks. If Bonnie wants to continually harass me that is one thing, but I would appreciate it if she didn't pick on my assistant. Please read the exchanges below. She also left Irma a voice message that was very curt. Irma has been working like a dog in room 16 to finish up the answer documents for the CRTs, so she wasn't immediately available to read email or answer the telephone. No one came down here looking for her, so she didn't know that there was an urgent message. I emailed a reply message to Bonnie and sent you all a blind copy\nso I'm sure I'll be in trouble again. However, there has to be an end to this. We are working as hard as we can to produce these test reports, implement the assessment program, and produce program evaluations. I don't know how much more I can stand. She also continues to work behind my back through Eddie McCoy. This is ridiculous!! Who could be successful in such an environment? I'm sorry for ranting, but I am exhausted mentally, physically, and emotionally. Kathy Original Message From: Sent: To: Subject: TRUETT, IRMA Wednesday, October 25, 2000 8:21 PM LEASE, KATHY R. FW: Benchmark Scores Original Message From: Sent: To: Subject: LESLEY, BONNIE Wednesday, October 25, 2000 5:05 PM TRUETT, IRMA RE: Benchmark Scores I'm sorry, Irma, but I can't accept that response. -----Original Message From: Sent: To: Subject: TRUETT, IRMA Wednesday. October 25. 2000 2:08 PM LESLEY, BONNIE RE: Benchmark Scores Sorry, I'm just now getting your e-mail, but Ive been working in room 16. I don't have this information and from what I understand Dr. Lease has it with her to give to the principals this afternoon. Sorry! Original Message 16 From: Sent: To: LESLEY. BONNIE Wednesday. October 25. 2000 9:44 AM TRUETT. IRMA 7^3 Subject: Benchmark Scores I need copies of the state test results by school in my office asap. Board members and others are calling for information. Dr. Bonnie A. Lesley, Associate Superintendent for Instruction Little Rock School District 3001 S. Pulaski Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 501/324-2131 501/324-0567 (fax) GADBERRY, BRADY L. From: Sent: To: Subject: LEASE, KATHY R. Wednesday, October 25, 2000 8:17 PM LESLEY, BONNIE Benchmark Scores ?rma forwarded your messages to her about the test scores. As I told you when we met with Suellen, I would have your curriculum copies ready by Friday. They are ready now. After learning that you were insistent on having the scores immediately I stayed late tonight and finished them up. Irma came back down here from home to help me. I am iust waiting on your initials on the memos. I will bring them to the Institute tomorrow. Irma can come pick them up and make copies I understood Dr. Carnine to say that the Board reports could be sent in the Friday report. I had them readv at the Board meeting but he didn't want them distributed until we had more time to confirm the data. Since you have asked for them I printed what we have at this time in draft copy. I will give the copies to you that are printed for the Board. If you think they need to be sent by special courier rather than in the Friday report, that will be your choice. I was only trying to follow the directions I was given. ..... , u If you needed the scores so guickly. why didn't you call me out of the meeting today? Irma didn t even know where we had secured the copies of the reports. It was very unfair of you to keep harassing her and making her feel badly because ~ 1 \u0026gt; ir.____ J f-i-iz-. tkrt oAi iHocu Mt ck'inn mo tnr it i nau becuieu iHti cuuic:\u0026gt; UI uic\nicpwiio. It w.  ,.r\n--------\\l -t c jt i she couldn't oroduce the reports instantly for you. If you need something, please do me the courtesy of asking me for it. I r ..  . . \u0026lt; ________L'.-C_____________:tU . . U /z\u0026gt;t I okzM ilrl Izif ma Ln/^VA/ understood that the Friday timeline was satisfactory with you. If it wasnt, you should have let me know. Kathy Kathy Lease, Ed.D. Assistant Superintendent Planning, Research, and Evaluation 3001 S. Pulaski Little Rock, AR 72206 501-324-2122 (VM) 501-324-2126 (Fax) krlease@irc.lrsd.kl2.ar.us 17Subject: RE: This has been the week from hell. I hear that Walker may call Kathy to testify. Of course, that may not be good for the district. We'll see. I'm so tired I could fall on my face. Sooooooo glad it's Friday! Original Message From: Sent: To: Subject: BRIGGS, MONA R. Thursday, June 28, 2001 8:00 PM LESLEY, BONNIE RE: Bonnie, I hate all this, don't you? I guess you will have your day in court.\" Too bad Kathy didn't get in on it...I understand from Eddie that she took all her files with her. What a deal. Surelv, the judge will see through this and let us get on with our lives. Walker just doesn't want to give up those big bucks he makes off of us. Hope you have some down time somewhere along the line. Mona R. Briggs Middle Level Specialist Little Rock School District 501-324-2412 \"Seek First to Understand\nthen to be understood^ (Covey) -----Original Message------ From: LESLEY, BONNIE Sent: Thursday, June 28, 2001 9:08 AM To: CHAPMAN, SUSAN\nSLENN, RANDALL\nWATSON, LINDA\nELSTON, JO\nWIEDOWER, JULIE\nESSLESTON, DEANA\nADAMS, LEON\nARNOLD, LAURA BETH\nAUSTIN, LINDA\nBRANDON, BARBARA\nBRIGGS, MONA R.\nBROADNAX, KAREN\nBUSBEA, PAT\nCARR, MARCELLINE\nCARSON, RENE'\nCLEAVER, VANESSA\n CLIFFORD, ELIZABETH\nCRAWFORD, PAMELA\nDAVIS, SUZI\nDEBBIE MILAM\nDILLINGHAM, YVETTE\nDONALDSON, MABLE\nFINNEY, ANTONETTE\nFLETCHER, DANNY\nFREEMAN, ANN\nGILLIAM, ANITA\nGLASGOW, DENNIS\nHARDING, CASSANDRA\nHUFFMAN, KRIS\nJACKSON, MARION\nJOHNSON, VIRGINIA\nJONES, DOCIA\nJONES, STEPHANIE\n. 192Subject: RE: 751 This has been the week from hell. I hear that Walker may call Kathy to testify. Of course, that may not be good for the district. We'll see. I'm so tired I could fall on my face. Sooooooo glad it's Friday! Original Message From\nSent: To: Subject: BRIGGS, MONA R. Thursday, June 28, 2001 8:00 PM LESLEY, BONNIE RE: Bonnie, I hate all this, don't you? I guess you will have your \"day in court.\" Too bad Kathy didn't get in on it...I understand from Eddie that she took all her files with her. What a deal. Surely, the judge will see through this and let us get on with our lives. Walker just doesn't want to give up those big bucks he makes off of us. Hope you have some down time somewhere along the line. Mona R. Briggs Middle Level Specialist Little Rock School District 501-324-2412 \"Seek First to Understand: then to be understood!' -----Original Message------ From: LESLEY, BONNIE Sent: Thursday, June 28, 2001 9:08 AM To: CHAPMAN, SUSAN\nCLENN, RANDALL\nWATSON, LINDA\nELSTON, JO\nWIEDOWER, JULIE\nECSLESTON, DEANA\nADAMS, LEON\nARNOLD, LAURA BETH\nAUSTIN, LINDA\nBRANDON, BARBARA\nBRieOS, MONA R.\nBROADNAX, KAREN\nBUSBEA, PAT\nCARR, MARCELLINE\nCARSON, RENE'\nCLEAVER, VANESSA\n CLIFFORD, ELIZABETH\nCRAWFORD, PAMELA\nDAVIS, SUZI\nDEBBIE MILAM\nDILLINGHAM, YVETTE\nDONALDSON, MABLE\nFINNEY, ANTONETTE\nFLETCHER, DANNY\nFREEMAN, ANN\nGILLIAM, ANITA\nGLASGOW, DENNIS\nHARDING, CASSANDRA\nHUFFMAN, KRIS\nJACKSON, MARION\nJOHNSON, VIRGINIA\nJONES, DOCIA\nJONES, STEPHANIE\n192Cc: KIILSSAARD, SHARObJ\nKILLINSSWORTH, PATRICIA\nKOVACH, RENEE\nLA JUAN A RAINEY\nLOYA, STELLA\nMARION BALDWIN\nMARTEN, PAULETTE\nMcCOY, EDDIE\nMcNEAL, MARIE\nMILAM, JUDY\nNEAL, LUCY\nPAAL, MARY M.: PAUL, ANNITA\nPERRITT, YORIKO U.\nPRICE, PATRICIA\nRYNDERS, PAULA\nSMITH, CARY\nSMITH, PAULA\nTEETER, JUDY\nWALLS, COLLEEN\nWARD, LIONEL\nWILLIAMS, BARBARA\nWILLIAMS, ED\nWILSON, LEVANNA\nWOODS, MARION 'heller@fec.net' Subject: I just spoke with Chris Heller, our attorney. He asked me to reiterate to everyone that he does not want any of the staff talking with Mr. Walker about anything-to refer all his calls, faxes, and visits to Mr. Heller. And he asks that we absolutely not send to Mr. Walker anything without clearing it with him first. Finally, he asks that we remind all our staff once more about this! He was adamant. Please make sure the staff not named in this e-mail also understand this directive. Dr. Bonnie A. Lesley, Associate Superintendent for Instruction Little Rock School District 3001 S. Pulaski Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 501/324-2131 501/324-0567 (fax) LESLEY, BONNIE From: Sent: To\nSubject\nLESLEY, BONNIE Friday, June 29, 2001 2:47 PM ADAMS, LEON\nARNOLD, LAURA BETH\nAUSTIN, LINDA\nBRANDON, BARBARA\nBRIGGS, MONA R.\nBROADNAX, KAREN\nBUSBEA, PAT\nCARR, MARCELLINE\nCARSON, RENE'\nCLEAVER, VANESSA\nCLIFFORD, ELIZABETH\nCRAWFORD, PAMELA\nDAVIS, SUZI\nDEBBIE MILAM\nDILLINGHAM, YVETTE\nDONALDSON, MABLE\nFINNEY, ANTONETTE\nFLETCHER, DANNY\nFREEMAN, ANN\nGILLIAM, ANITA\nGLASGOW, DENNIS\nHARDING, CASSANDRA\nHUFFMAN, KRIS\nJACKSON, MARION\nJOHNSON, VIRGINIA\nJONES, DOCIA\nJONES, STEPHANIE\nKIILSG/V\\RD, SHARON\nKILLINGSWORTH, PATRICIA\nKOVACH, RENEE\nLAJUANA RAINEY\nLOYA, STELLA\nMARION BALDWIN\nMARTIN, PAULETTE\nMcCOY, EDDIE\nMcNEAL, MARIE\nMILAM, JUDY\nNEAL, LUCY\nPAAL, MARY M.\nPAUL, ANNITA\nPERRITT, YORIKO U.\nPRICE, PATRICIA\nRYNDERS, PAULA\nSMITH, GARY\nSMITH, PAULA\nTEETER, JUDY\nWALLS, COLLEEN\nWARD, LIONEL\nWILLIAMS, BARBARA\nWILLIAMS, ED\nWILSON, LEVANNA\nWOODS, MARION\nBABBS, JUNIOUS\nFRANCES CAWTHON\nGADBERRY, BRADY L\nHURLEY, RICHARD\nJAMES, KENNETH\nLINDA WATSON\nMARIAN LACEY\nMILHOLLEN, MARK\nSadie Mitchell\nSTEWART, DONALD M.\nVANN, SUELLEN\nWATSON, LINDA\nANDERSON, BARBARA\nASHLEY, VIRGINIA\nBRANCH, SAMUEL\nBROOKS, SHARON\nCARSON, CHERYL\nCARTER, LILLIE\nCOURTNEY, THERESA\nCOX, ELEANOR\nDARIAN SMITH\nDEBORAH MITCHELL\nETHEL DUNBAR\nFaith Donovan\nFIELDS, FREDERICK\nGOLSTON, MARY\nHALL, DONNA\nHARKEY, JANE\nHOBBS, FELICIA L\nJONES, BEVERLY\nKEOWN, ADA\nLillie Scull\nMANGAN, ANN\nMANNO, ROBERTA\nMARY BARKSDALE\nMENKING, MARY\nMORGAN, SCOTT\nNANCY ACRE\nOLIVER, MICHAEL\nPHILLIPS, TABITHA\nSHARON BROOKS\nSMITH, MARY\nTAYLOR, LESLIE\nTUCKER, JANIS A.\nWILSON, JANICE M.\nWORM, JERRY\nZEIGLER, GWEN S.\nBERRY, DEBORAH\nBLAYLOCK, ANN\nFULLERTON, JAMES\nHUDSON, ELOUISE\nLarry Buck\nMOSBY, JIMMY\nPATTERSON, DAVID\nROUSSEAU, NANCY\nSAIN, LLOYD DRA Results by Middle School Feeder Pattern 193 the ALTS, and so they were down there yesterday and again today just kind of picking it up, but they do not necessarily know' what they are supposed to be doing. They need direction, and I don't feel that I should provide it. How do you want to handle this? LESLEY, BONNIE From: Sent: To: Subject: LEASE, KATHY R. Monday, October 02, 2000 6:48 PM CARNINE, LESLIE V. FW: Priorities 2000-2001 Dr. C., I'm sorry. I guess I don't quite know what to do with the plan I sent to Bonnie. I guess I missed the mark. I thought we were to develop what we were doing in our department to meet the areas you outlined in your critical priorities processes. Do you want me to send the parts to the people Bonnie mentioned below? Or are you going to put it all together using what you want out of what we sent? Let me know what you want me to do. KL Original Message----- From: Sent\nTo\nSubject: LESLEY, BONNIE Friday, September 29, 2000 3:04 PM LEASE, KATHY R. RE: Priorities 2000-2001 You need to send the technology stuff to Lucy Neal. You need to send the Campus Leadership stuff to Sadie Mitchell. I suggest that you forward the other two pieces directly to Dr. Carnine. They are much more detailed than the other items in the Division of Instruction Work Plan and therefore don't \"fit\" with what we have, /^si^ I know nothing about the_Quality Initiative Plan, so that makes no sense, to. me. Perhaps he can just include your items separately. .......... ~ -----Original Message From\nSent: To: Subject: LEASE, KATHY R. Friday, September 29, 2000 2:50 PM LESLEY, BONNIE Priorities 2000-2001 Importance: High I had massive computer failures today. It took Ed, Ken, Virginia, and Irma to help me get it all back. Here are the priorities from PRE. Call me, if you want me to go over them with you. Thanks, Kathy  File: Priority II Technology 2000-2001.doc   File: Priority lll-2000.doc  Assessmentdoc   File: Priority IV lnstruction-evaluation.doc  File: Priority IV instruction- Kathy Lease, Ed.D. Assistant Superintendent Planning, Research, and Evaluation 3001 S. Pulaski Little Rock, AR 72206 501-324-2122 (VM) 501-324-2126 (Fax) krlease@irc.lrsd.kl2.ar.us 51sounds like the our data is available. LESLEY, BONNIE From\nSent\nTo\nSubject\nLEASE, KATHY R. Tuesday, October 03, 2000 6:09 PM CARNINE. LESLIE V. CTA issues 75^1 Did Clementine come in today to discuss assessment issues with you? I invited her in last spring to talk with me, but she never came. If she has some specific issues that you think we need to address in the questionnaire, let me know. I started drafting some ideas about questions, but I think 1 need some input from you. It looks like from one of the emails you sent that folks have been communicating with you about their concerns. They may have shared some things we haven't thought about. Let me know if you have any time tomorrow afternoon to visit with me (phone or in person) about the survey. Thanks, Kathy Kathy Lease, Ed.D. Assistant Superintendent Planning, Research, and Evaluation 3001 S. Pulaski Little Rock, AR 72206 501-324-2122 (VM) 501-324-2126 (Fax) krlease@irc.lrsd.kl2.ar.us LESLEY, BONNIE From: Sent: To\nSubject: LEASE, KATHY R. Tuesday, October 03, 2000 5:45 PM CARNINE, LESLIE V. RE: ALT Check-In, Etc. This is pure fabrication. This is not the situation here in PRE. We have a fox in the hen house. 1 thought this kind of thing was supposed to be over. The digs have continued. The ALT process has to have someone who shepherds it. I said originally that I would need Gayle at least six weeks to two months. I fully understand the strain that Sadie is under because she has come to depend on Gayle as well. If Gayle cannot fulfill her commitment with ALT, then I think she would let me know. She had to go over to the administration building to get some work done to be ready for the Bi-Racial committee report that she is scheduled to give tonight. Roz told her that she could take care of anyone who checked in things today. I guess the real question is that if my staff thinks they are having a problem \"handling\" the ALT today, why didn't they contact me? We had Ed here scanning and scoring, and Irma received no calls that she couldn't handle. I'm afraid 1 am left with no other conclusion but that this is continued harassment by the person that I thought had agreed to quit harassing. Can you help me with any other explanation? KL Original Message----- From\nSent To: Cc: Subject: CARNINE. LESLIE V. Tuesday, October 03, 2000 11:10 AM LEASE, KATHY R. Mitchell, Sadie FW: ALT Check-In, Etc. I know you know how assumptions can get you in trouble. Obviously, there appears to be a communication problem and I would hope you and Sadie could work it out. Original Message From: Sent\nTo: Subject: LESLEY, BONNIE Tuesday, October 03, 2000 10:55 AM CARNINE, LESLIE V. ALT Check-In, Etc. I have had three complaints already today-two from IRC staff and one from building-level. Gayle has returned to downtown, and Kathy is sitting in the school improvement meetings. Neither of them organized the staff for the return of 50LESLEY, BONNIE From\nSent: To: Subject\nLESLEY, BONNIE Wednesday, June 20, 2001 1:13 PM GRIFFIN, BEVERLY RE: Semester Test Exemption Thanks, Bev. -----Original Message----- From: Sent: To: Subject: GRIFFIN, BEVERLY Wednesday, June 20, 2001 1:15 PM LESLEY, BONNIE RE: Semester Test Exemption I gave a copy of the minutes from the February Board meeting to Mrs. Lacey earlier this week. I don't think I have a copy of the kids proposal, but I will check. I was under the impression that this action was for this year's seniors only. I might be wrong . . . but, it might be worth\nchecking with Board members to see if they intended for it to be a permanent change to the policy. I will fax you the minutes in just a minute. Original Message----- From: Sent: To: LESLEY, BONNIE Wednesday, June 20, 2001 12:51 PM GRIFFIN, BEVERLY Subject: Semester Test Exemption Bev, there is wide disagreement about what people remember as the motion the board made regarding the exemption of seniors from their spring semester tests. I don't remember the month they did thatprobably February or March? Will you send to me the text of the motion, as well as the text of the language used by the , kids in their proposal. I don't have that and will need it to update those regulations/poiicies. i Dr. Bonnie A. Lesley, Associate Superintendent for Instruction Little Rock School District 3001 S. Pulaski Little Rock,.Arkansas 72206 501/324-2131 501/324-0567 (fax) LESLEY, BONNIE From: Sent: To: Subject: LESLEY, BONNIE Wednesday, June 20, 2001 1:12 PM TRUETT, IRMA Compliance The compliance report lists several \"program evaluations\" that PRE reported that they had completed, but which I have never seen. Please provide me with three copies each of the following reports. They have been requested by Mr. Walker. Extended Year Schools Summer School HIPPY Program Charter School Campus Leadership Teams English as a Second Language Lyceum Scholars Program at Philander Smith College Southwest Middle School's SEDL Program Onward to Excellence (Watson Elementary) Collaborative Action Tearn (CAT) 3S1LESLEY, BONNIE From: Sent: To: Subject: LESLEY, BONNIE Monday, June 25, 2001 12:37 PM 'Clay Fendley'\n'heller@fec.net' RE: Meeting schedule Yea! Thanks you! I can't tell you how important this is! I just talked with Ann Brown. She wanted all the test scores. I put her off until the end of the week. We need to talk about what to give her. -----Original Message From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Clay Fendley [SMTP:FENDLEY@fec.net] Monday, June 25, 2001 12:42 PM BALESLE@IRC.LRSD.K12.AR.US Chris Heller RE: Meeting schedule Leaving at 1:05 on the 6th is fine. We will tell Walker that if he wants to call you as a witness, he will need to call you on the 5th. Thanks. \u0026gt; \"LESLEY, BONNIE\" \u0026lt;BALESLE@IRC.LRSD.K12.AR.US\u0026gt; 06/25/01 11:49AM \u0026gt; I just called the airlines. I would need to catch a plane at 1:05 on the 6th to get to Amarillo in time for the rehearsal dinner for this big wedding. If I can't do that, then the latest I could leave to get there at all on Friday is at 5:35. Then I would come home on Sunday. What do you advise? \u0026gt;-----Original Message----- \u0026gt; From: Clay Fendley [SMTP:FENDLEY@fec.net] \u0026gt; Sent: Monday, June 25, 2001 9:41 AM \u0026gt; To: BALESLE@IRC.LRSD.K12.AR.US\nblgadbe@lrsdadm.lrsd.k12.ar.us\nDMSTEWA@lrsdadm.lrsd.k12.ar.us\nIvcarni@lrsdadm.lrsd.k12.ar.us\nSMMitch@lrsdadm.lrsd.k12.ar.us\nJCBABBS@STUASN.LRSD.K12.AR.US \u0026gt; Cc: Chris Heller\nKJAMES@lrsdadm.lrsd.k12.ar.us Subject: Meeting schedule \u0026gt; \u0026gt; \u0026gt; Here's the meeting schedule so far Mr. Gadberry - Wednesday at 2:00 at our office. Dr. Lesley - Thursday at 1:00 at our office. Ms. Mitchell - Friday at 9:00 at our office. \u0026gt; \u0026gt; We should get Joshua's objections today and have requested a witness list \u0026gt; by Wednesday. \u0026gt; We are leaving Monday (July 2) open until we get Joshua's witness list. \u0026gt; Everybody plan on meeting Tuesday (July 3) all day at our office. Let me \u0026gt; know if that presents a problem for you, and we can try to work around \u0026gt; your schedule. \u0026gt; \u0026gt; Remember, the most important thing in preparation for the hearing is for \u0026gt; you to know what's in the Revised Plan and the interim and final \u0026gt; compliance reports. \u0026gt; \u0026gt; We will provide copies of Joshua's objections as soon as they are \u0026gt; received. \u0026gt; Let me know if you have any questions. 297 76 Z selected to receive Merit Scholarship*' awards. The info in italics is from the National Merit web site. So, of the 1.2 million entrants, only 7,900 are named Finahsts for National Merit scholarships and corporate-sponsored scholarships. That amounts to 6/10 of 1 % of the entrants. Mr. Walker's statement on page 22 is: \"We note here that the district is yet to have a single Black national merit scholar in the nineteen years of this active litigation.\" THIS IS INCORRECT. Without reviewing 19 years of data (and we don't have all of the data for those years), as recently as 4 years ago Salonica Gray, an Afiican American female senior at Central, was a National Merit Finalist. Hope this helps! Suellen S. Vann, APR Director of Communications Little Rock School District (501) 324-2020 LESLEY, BONNIE From: Sent\nTo: Subject: LESLEY, BONNIE Thursday, June 28, 200T 11:36 AM MITCHELL, SADIE RE\nI am wondering how he is feeling as well. This is baptism by fire. -----Original Message From: Sent: To: Subject: MITCHELL, SADIE Thursday, June 28, 2001 9:29 AM LESLEY, BONNIE RE: I panicked when I got here and saw all of the stuff from John. I am worried about Dr. James. I hope he will be able to handle all of this. Sadie Mitchell smmitch@lrsdadm.lrsd.kl2.ar.us Original Message----- From\nSent To: Subject\nLESLEY, BONNIE Thursday, June 28, 2001 9:09 AM MITCHELL, SADIE RE: He was kind of angry that we are even attempting to respond to this stuff. He asked me what he needed to do to make sure everyone understands that we are not to play Mr. Walker's game. How ya doing today? Original Message----- From: Sent: To: LESLEY, BONNIE MITCHELL. SADIE Thursday, June 28, 2001 9:18 AM Subject: RE\n:) Sadie Mitchell smmitch@lrsdadm.lrsd.kl2.ar.us 218762. Original Message From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: LESLEY, BONNIE Thursday, June 28, 2001 9:04 AM MITCHELL, SADIE\nEGGLESTON, DEANA: GADBERRY, BRADY L\nSTEWART. DONALD M  BABBS JUNIOUS\nJAMES, KENNETH 'heller@fec.net' RE: I just spoke with Chris Heller, and he asked me to tell all of you that we are not going to make this information (copies of our invitations and documents sent to Mr.Walker or Ms. Springer) available to Mr. Walker. It is without exception stuff we have already sent to him. He also asked me to reiterate to everyone that he does not want any of the staff talking with Mr. Walker about anything-to refer all his calls, faxes, and visits to Mr. Heller. And he asks that we absolutely not send to Mr. Walker anything without clearing it with him first. Finally, he asks that we remind all our staff once more about this! He was adamant. Original Message From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: MITCHELL, SADIE Thursday, June 28, 2001 9:03 AM EGGLESTON, DEANA LESLEY, BONNIE\nGADBERRY, BRADY L.\nSTEWART, DONALD M.\nBABBS, JUNIOUS RE: Thank you Sadie Mitchell srnmitch@lrsdadm.lrsd.kl2.ar.us -----Original Message From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: EGGLESTON.DEANA Thursday, June 28, 2001 8:38 AM MITCHELL, SADIE BABBS, JUNIOUS RE: Everyone sent the information when it was requested, however. I'm not sure if they have sent recent documents since his original request. I just spoke with Clay and he said to make the folders we have available to Joy on Monday as per her request, but for me to not to put the documents in any particular order (ie. date, subject, etc.) Deana Original Message From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: MITCHELL, SADIE Thursday, June 28, 2001 8:41 AM LESLEY, BONNIE\nSTEWART, DONALD M.\nGADBERRY, BRADY L\nBABBS, JUNIOUS\nJAMES, KENNETH EGGLESTON, DEANA Mr. Walker sent a fax requesting \"all invitations to Ms. Springer or Mr. Walker to meetings of any kind, as well as copies of any documents you have sent to them over the past three years. Also any document of whether Mr. Walker or Ms. Springer actually attended the meetings to which you invited them.\" I think we already sent this information to Mr. Babbs and he compiled it. Is this correct? Sadie Mitchell smmitch@lrsdadm.lrsd.kl2.ar.us 219LESLEY, BONNIE From: Sent: To: Subject: LEASE, KATHY R. Tuesday, February 13, 2001 12:54 PM CARNINE, LESLIE V. FW: Test Pack Importance: High Dr. Camine, What is the purpose of this? Am I missing something? Is Bonnie trying to eliminate her need to work with this department? We have some software that is licensed to this department. Eddie has been trying to get it loaded on her computer. My guess is that she needs it to work on her dissertation. She has not spoken to me about what her data needs are for her dissertation. Most doctoral candidates come in and visit with us about their data needs. We work with them, but they get data in an aggregate form, not individual students' information. I wish you would please tell me what role you want this department to play. I know the game that is being played. I am about to my wit's end with it. Kathy -----Original Message----- From: Sent To: Subject: JOHNSON, VIRGINIA Tuesday, February 13, 2001 12:43 PM LEASE, KATHY R. FW: Test Pack Original Message From: Sent To\nCc: Subject LESLEY, BONNIE Monday, February 12, 2001 5:31 PM RUFFINS, JOHN JOHNSON, VIRGINIA\nMcCOY, EDDIE\nCLEAVER, VANESSA RE: Test Pack Thanks so much, JOhn. -Original Message From\nSent To\nSubject RUFFINS, JOHN Monday, February 12, 2001 4:46 PM LESLEY, BONNIE RE: Test Pack I will come over and personally visit with Virginia and Eddie to access their data and program needs. From: Sent: To: Original Message- LESLEY, BONNIE Monday, February 12, 2001 2:40 PM RUFFINS, JOHN Subject: Test Pack John, 1 am moving Eddie McCoy and Virginia Johnson out of the rooms designated for PRE and into the room where Vanessa Cleaver is. Both of them will have some program evaluation responsibilities and need to be able to access the SAT9 data, as well as other student data. How do I get those programs loaded onto their machines? Dr. Bonnie A. Lesley, Associate Superintendent for Instruction Little Rock School District 3001 S. Pulaski Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 SOl/324-2131 S01/324-0S67 (fax) 19 \" LESLEY, BONNIE From: Sent: To: Subject: LEASE, KATHY R. Tuesday, February 13, 2001 5:36 PM CARNINE, LESLIE V. RE: Another thought Here's one more thought, then I'm burying this frustration. I wouldn't have known about what she is doing at all if Virginia hadn't forwarded me a copy of the message. I'm trapped in junior high!!! Can't somebody save me??? Kathy Original Message From: Sent: To: Subject: CARNINE, LESLIE V. Tuesday, February 13, 2001 4:05 PM LEASE, KATHY R. RE\nAnother thought I can support but you do not want to hold the data... You want free access. Give her ail the access she wants or needs... and then give her more. -----Original Message From\nSent\nTo: Subject: LEASE, KATHY R. Tuesday, February 13, 2001 12:56 PM CARNINE, LESLIE V. Another thought Is it possible to require Bonnie to work through me to get the data she needs? She is doing everything possible to undermine the work of this department. I have never seen such viciousness in ail my professional experience. Can you support us or are we on our own? Kathy Kathy Lease, Ed.D. Assistant Superintendent Planning, Research, and Evaluation 3001 S. Pulaski Little Rock, AR 72206 501-324-2122 (VM) 501-324-2126 (Fax) krlease@irc.lrsd.kl2.ar.us LESLEY, BONNIE From: Sent: To: Subject: LEASE, KATHY R. Tuesday, February 13, 2001 4:10 PM CARNINE, LESLIE V. RE: Another thought I totally agree with that. I want everyone to have access to the data at his or her fingertips. I just continue to be frustrated with the way she refuses to work with me. Kathy Original Message From: Sent: To: Subject: CARNINE, LESLIE V. Tuesday, February 13, 2001 4:05 PM LEASE, KATHY R. RE\nAnother thought I can support but you do not want to hold the data... You want free access. Give her all the access she wants or needs... and then give her more. -----Original Message From: Sent\nTo: Subject\nLEASE, KATHY R. Tuesday, February 13, 2001 12:56 PM CARNINE, LESLIE V. Another thought 177^^ is it possible to require Bonnie to work through me to get the data she needs? She is doing everything possible to undermine the work of this department. I have never seen such viciousness in all my professional experience. Can you support us or are we on our own? Kathy Kathy Lease, Ed.D. Assistant Superintendent Planning, Research, and Evaluation 3001 S. Pulaski Little Rock, AR 72206 501-324-2122 (VM) 501-324-2126 (Fax) krlease@irc.lrsd.kl2.ar.us LESLEY, BONNIE From: Sent: To: Subject LEASE, KATHY R. Tuesday, February 13, 2001 12:59 PM CARNINE, LESLIE V. Positions After Don's comment in Cabinet about not hiring people, I visited with him about the positions that I currently have advertised. He suggested that I visit with you about whether or not I can hire the people I need to do the assessment program. I am currently down to three employees. I don't think we can do assessment for 20,000 kids with that number. I want to set up interviews this week, but I want your blessing! Thanks, Kathy Kathy Lease, Ed.D. Assistant Superintendent Planning, Research, and Evaluation 3001 S. Pulaski Little Rock, AR 72206 501-324-2122 (VM) 501-324-2126 (Fax) krlease@irc.lrsd.kl2.ar.us LESLEY, BONNIE From: Sent To: Subject: LEASE, KATHY R. Tuesday, February 13, 2001 12:56 PM CARNINE. LESLIE V. Another thought Is it possible to require Bonnie to work through me to get the data she needs? She is doing everything possible to undermine the work of this department. I have never seen such viciousness in all my professional experience. Can you support us or are we on our own? Kathy Kathy Lease, Ed.D. Assistant Superintendent Planning, Research, and Evaluation 3001 S. Pulaski UttleRock, AR 72206 501-324-2122 (VM) 501-324-2126 (Fax) krlease@irc.lrsd.kl2.ar.us 18From: Dr. Faucette To: Mrs. Hargis Date: 17 November 2000 76 S Subject: Exclusion of regular English students from Jennie Calder lecture I write to request a bit of information concerning the recent visit of Jennie Calder, a Robert Louis Stevenson scholar from Scotland, to Central as a part of the conference celebrating this great writer. It was my understanding, after our conversations last spring, that the event was in recognition of the universal appeal of a revered writer. Known and loved the world over, Stevenson is one of a select group whose works attract readers from widely varying backgrounds, uniting people of all classes and condition in the appreciation of a gifted artist. I was excited about the opportunity Central studentsincluding my own students would have to be^exposed to a world of exciting and enthusiastic research that would be especially significant for seniors, (Traditionally, the last year of high school English is dedicated to the exploration of the rich legacy of British literature.) I was disappointed beyond belief to learn that nonenot oneof my regular English students would be allowed to benefit from the singular experience of having the chance to see and hear the visiting scholar. Only AP and pre-AP students were allowed to attend the presentation. In fact, most teachers of regular English classes only learned of the event when students began to ask why they were not allowed to attend the assembly that students in other classes were discussing at lunch. Limiting the experience to students in AP and pre-AP English classes meant that very few black students were allowed to attend. I am shocked and outraged that yet another singular educational opportunity has been reserved for the children of privilege. Because many of the privileged AP English students took advantage of the event to slip out of the building and skip the assembly, and because you wanted to supplement their numbers, you solicited the attendance of students from AP science and history classes, still denying access to students from regular English classes. If you really wanted to impress Ms. Calder, having the Creative Writing Club presented would have done just that. The knowledge that, at 287 members, the Creative Writing Club is the most active club at Central would impress any true scholar or teacher. One can only wonder why you, Mr. Howard, and the third floor English department all miss the significance of the fact that the club that most fully represents the student diversity in our building is a club centered around an academic endeavor, the study and practice of literature. Yes, this is quite an example you set for our students. Central, Mr. Howard, the English department, and you all had a chance to shine as this scholar brought her enthusiasm to our large and diverse student body. Central, Mr. Howard, the English department, and you dropped the ball disastrously on this one. Rather than seizing the opportunity to be shining beacons by providing this opportunity for learning outside the traditional limitations of the classroom to all of our students, you have shown your true stripe. I thank you for the demonstration once again that, instead of a single unified English department. Central actually has two\nthe second floor containing primarily regular English classes, and the privileged third-floor home of AP English. I would now ask an additional bit of information. Please inform me in writing of your reasons for this latest instance of educational snobbery so that I might explain more accurately to my classes your dismissal of them as second-class students. I 1 I i ! I i j I i i i j iVia Facsimile - 324-2146 December 16, 1998 7^7 Dr. Leslie Gamine Superintendent of Schools Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Dr. Carnine: Would you please ask Mr. James Washington, the Districts ombudperson, to look into the complaint of Mr. \u0026amp; Mrs. Deodis Fleming regarding their concerns at Carver Magnet. You are probably not aware that this office has had several complaints from other parents regarding the unfair treatment of black students at Carver. You should have received a letter from the Flemings outlining their concerns along with a response from Ms. Barksdale. Copies of both are enclosed for your convenience. The Flemings believe that Ms. Barksdale is trying to excuse the reason for Ms. Ransoms exclusion of their son from participation by stating that he had behavior problems. In todays society, persons who discriminate usually attempt to establish legitimate reasons for their discriminatory actions. The reason given by Ms. Ransom, we believe, is pretextual. In other words, the reason that she has given is not legitimate. The Flemings were not previously advised that their son had behavior problems regarding his participation in Odyssey of the Mind. Moreover, they are not aware that their son has a behavior problem. Ms. Barksdales commitment to establish an OM Guideline booklet is a step, I believe, in the right direction. However, I do not believe that she should wait until next year. That process should start immediately. Opportunity for discrimination evolves when there are no written guidelines or rules for participation in a particular activity. The person overseeing or administering the activity usually has the discretion to make rules as they go along. These rules usually favor their own personal interests. Moreover, these rules or guidelines usually change daily to fit a particular interest or situation. I am not sure why the Flemings chose not assist in the coaching of Odysseys students as indicated by Ms. Barksdale\nhowever, many of our childrens parents are unable to participate in many of the schools activities because often they occur when they are obliged to work and other commitments to meet the overall needs of their families. 76 7 Page 2 - Letter to Dr. Carnine December 17, 1998 I have indicated to Mr. \u0026amp; iVIrs. Fleming that I would be happy to sit down with Mr. Washington, Ms. Mitchell, Ms. Barksdale, and any other persons that they believe can help brini ig this matter to an amicable resolution. In fact, Mr. Washington may assume the role as the parent advocate, if the Flemings agree. I would, however, like to receive a report of his findings and resolution. Thank you for your attention to this request. Sincerely, Joy C. Springer Joshua Intervenors JCS/ Enclosures cc: Mr. \u0026amp; Mrs. Deodis Fleming Ms. Diane Barksdale Ms Sadie Mitchell Mr. James WashingtonVia Facsimile - 324-2146 February 18, 1999 Ms. Sadie Mitchell Associate Superintendent for Student Services Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Ms. Mitchell: This office has received several calls regarding the selection process for the new football coach at J. A. Fair High School. It is our information that the selection process has been changed to favor the selection of a particular coach for the position. In order to address the concerns that have been raised, would you please provide to me a copy of process being utilized by District officials for the selection of coaching positions including the selection criteria. If this information has changed from prior years, also please provide the process and criteria that was utilized in previous years. I have spoken with Mr. Gillespie regarding this matter and he has assured me that the only change in the process was that the selection committee did not meet on the school campus as it has done in previous years. I was, however, a bit concerned about the gender makeup of the selection committee for the Fair position. I voiced my concern to Mr. Gillespie that the committee was all males. I am available to discuss this matter with you and Mr. Gillespie at a mutually convenient time. Thank you for your attention to this request. Sincerely, Joy C. Springer Joshua Intervenors JCS/ cc: Mr. Ray GillespieVia Facsimile - 324-2308 March 17, 1999 Rudolph Howard  Principal, Central High School 1400 Park Street Little Rock, AR 72202 Dear Mr. Howard: I am writing on behalf of Rev. \u0026amp; Ms. Bennie Horton and their son, Tarick, to request a conference regarding his grades. As I review the revised desegregation plan, I can point to a number of areas including equal treatment, participation in honors and gifted classes, academic achievement, parental involvement etc. that are involved in these parents concern. By copy of this letter to the Districts Ombudsperson, Mr. James L. Washington, I am also putting him on notice of this concern and invite him to participate in the conference. I have spoken with Ms. Horton and she is available during her lunch hour to discuss this matter. Please let me hear from you. Sincerely, Joy C. Springer Joshua Intervenors JCS/ cc: Rev. \u0026amp; Mrs. Bennie Horton Mr. James L. WashingtonJohn W. Walker, P.A. Attorney At Law 1723 Broadway Dttle Rock, Arkansas 72206 Telephone (501) 374-3758 FAX (501) 374-4187 . 377(. ./7 JOHN W. WALKER RALPH WASHINGTON N-LARK BURNETTE AUSTIN PORTER, JR. Via Facsimile - 324-2213 October 14, 1999 Mr. James Washington Little Rock School District Office of Ombudsman 810 West Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Mr. Washington: I am writing to request that you look into the selection process for students participating on mock trial teams at Central High School. We request that you obtain some background information regarding past composition by grade, race and gender and the current composition by grade, race and gender. This office has received a complaint that these teams are generally one race and favor white students because their parents or other relatives are business professionals such as lawyers, judges, etc. Thank you for your attention to this matter. We further request a report of your findings with respect to this inquiry. By copy of this letter to Mr. Howard, Nir. Babbs and Dr. Camine, I am also advising them of these allegations. On Behalf of Joshua JCS/ cc: Mr. Ruduloph Howard Nir. Junious Babbs Dr. Leslie Camine y?/ Via Facsimile February\nThis project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resoources.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1101","title":"\"Interim Compliance Report,\" Little Rock School District","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["2000-03-15"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--21st Century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Educational law and legislation","School integration","School boards","Education--Standards"],"dcterms_title":["\"Interim Compliance Report,\" Little Rock School District"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/1101"],"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":["reports"],"dcterms_extent":["22 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\nThis transcript was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.\nancaa1DeS1:iaraciat1on UQlil0rq FILECOPY Interim Compliance Report Little Rock School District March 15, 2000 Interim Compliance Report Little Rock School District Dr. Leslie Carnine Superintendent of Schools Board of Directors Sue Strickland, President Dr. Katherine Mitchell, Vice President H. Baker Kurrus, Secretary Larry Berkley Mike Daugherty Mike Kumpuris Judy Magness THE REVISED DESEGREGATION AND EDUCATION PLAN Compliance Status Report March 15, 2000 The Little Rock School District (District or LRSD) is committed to compliance with the provisions and philosophy of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan (Revised Plan). The Revised Plan is built on the philosophy of providing equitable opportunities for the students and employees of the District. The District recognizes that equitable and equal are not completely synonymous. Equity is based on unbiased attitude, fairness, and reasonableness. Equity takes into account the vestiges of past illegal and discriminatory acts\ntherefore, this Revised Plan does not guarantee equal treatment. It provides for some incentives and possible enhancements to ensure equity in the operation of the District. On March 15, 2001, the District is required to issue a report indicating the state of the LRSD's compliance with the Revised Plan. This status report is being issued on March 15, 2000, one full year in advance of the required report. It is intended to help the District assess its progress toward full compliance and to reassure the court, the parties, and the community of the District's good faith efforts to be in total compliance with the Revised Plan. The District hopes to receive comments and suggestions from interested persons as to the District's compliance with the Revised Plan and the format and content of this status report. This status report covers Sections 2, 5, and 6 of the Revised Plan. These are the sections that could be interpreted as obligation or compliance related. Sections 1, 7, 8, 9, 10, and 11 are more associated with issues other than compliance obligations such as the plan's modification process or continuing jurisdiction. Sections 3 and 4 cover school assignments and interdistrict schools. While not explained in detail in this report, the LRSD believes it has complied with all of their delineated aspects. In this report a brief summary of activities associated with Sections 3 and 4 are covered in the sequentially appropriate sections. This status report should reassure its readers that the LRSD is moving swiftly and in good faith to be in total compliance. The District has every reason to be proud of its efforts and accomplishments since transition to the Revised Plan began. The philosophy of the Revised Plan permeates the activities of the District. Since there are not hundreds of minute and specific obligations like the previous desegregation plan, there is no longer a \"scorekeeping\" mentality. Decisions are made considering the spirit and the intent of the Revised Plan as well as the express obligations of the respective sections. Compliance and Quality Assurance The Associate Superintendents of Administrative Services, Instruction, Operations, and School Services and the Special Assistant to the Superintendent comprise the \"Compliance and Quality Assurance Committee.\" The committee has responsibility for the development, implementation, oversight, review, and revision of the compliance program. The compliance program includes any programs, policies, and/or procedures necessary to ensure that the District fulfills all of its obligations under the Revised Plan. The committee meets weekly to discuss compliance issues and to discuss plan implementation in their respective areas. I The compliance philosophy is based on internalizing the Revised Plan through the performance responsibilities of the respective organizational divisions. For example, the instruction division is responsible for integrating the Revised Plan's requirements into the development of the curriculum, staff development, and other similar functions of that division. The associate superintendent who heads the division is the responsible person for the components of the Revised Plan that are appropriate for his/her division. Through the internalization of the philosophy and the integration of the Revised Plan into the District's structure, the respective divisions proactively monitor compliance. The associate superintendents are responsible for taking appropriate action with respect to incidents of noncompliance and taking steps to prevent future similar incidences of non-compliance. Compliance Plan The Compliance and Quality Assurance Committee systematized the components of the Revised Plan to ensure that the District complied with all of the commitments that it made in the Revised Plan. The systematized approach was compiled into a document titled \"Compliance Plan for the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan, Programs, Policies, and Procedures\", commonly called \"The Compliance Plan.\" The document provides the identification of the administrator responsible for assuring compliance with each individual section of the Revised Plan. It also delineates specific programs, policies, and/or procedures which support compliance efforts of the District for each component of the Revised Plan. Employees are fully expected to comply with the Revised Plan. To ensure compliance it is the responsibility of all employees to report instances of non-compliance when they are aware of it. Failure to report non-compliance also may result in disciplinary action being taken. Appropriate disciplinary action may range from warning to non-renewal or the termination of employment. It is also the responsibility of employees to monitor the effectiveness of the implementation of the Revised Plan in their assigned areas. Employees are expected to cooperate in the collection of any information needed to monitor and/or assess compliance and effectiveness. Employees are encouraged to provide suggestions for improvement in the implementation of the Revised Plan to their principals, supervisors or the Associate Superintendent for Administrative Services. Quality Schools The Revised Desegregation and Education Plan is the foundation on which the District is assuring equity. However, equity alone will not restore confidence in the LRSD. Quality is also a key component. Equity and quality fit hand in hand in the approach that the District is taking. Quality principles are reflected in the programs used as supporting documentation throughout this status report. With a rich past and a promising future, the Little Rock School District is embarking on a new era in educational leadership. The District is creating ownership for those responsible for carrying out decisions by involving them directly in the decision making process and by trusting their abilities and judgements. These ideas are embedded in the many terms being used to portray the shift of authority, autonomy, and accountability to the school site and personnel within. Included are such terms as decentralization, restructuring, site-based 2 decision making, school-based management, participatory management, and school-based autonomy, to name a few. The Little Rock School District has chosen the Campus Leadership Program as the model for the District. The School Board and Administration believe this process fosters the best opportunity for the school children of Little Rock. The Board adopted the Campus Leadership Policy in July 1998. The Campus Leadership Program is a District commitment to allow each school campus the autonomy to develop programs and strategies that best meet the needs of children served at that unique school. The Little Rock School District also pledges to maintain and further develop a quality education program. The Campus Leadership Program is the participatory vehicle that will ensure that a quality education program is available at all District campuses. The primary focus of the Little Rock School District is ~tudent achievement. Each campus accepts the responsibility and challenge to provide equitable educational opportunities that ensure every student is successful. Based on the Campus Leadership Program, each Little Rock School District campus is committed to establishing a Campus Leadership Team that will work collaboratively with the principal in the decision-making process to enhance student achievement. The purpose of the Campus Leadership Team is to establish instructional goals and strategies to further promote the education of all children. Involvement and total commitment are paramount to reaching the ultimate in performance, and involvement is the key component of the Campus Leadership Program. Principals, teachers, auxiliary staff, parents, students, business leaders and community members are included in the Campus Leadership Program. Each school is assigned a central office staff member to serve as a \"broker\" for the school. The primary role of the broker is to serve as a liaison between central office and the school and to provide other means of support as needed. Each school year the principal of each school campus, with the assistance of the Campus Leadership Team, develops, reviews, and revises the campus improvement plan for the purpose of improving student performance for all students. This plan takes into account Quality Indicators and any other appropriate performance measures for special needs populations. All school plans have been submitted and approved for the 1999-2000 school year. As part of the Campus Leadership Program, a Cluster Coordinating Committee consisting of campus representatives, principals and school brokers meet quarterly with the superintendent and central office staff. The purpose of this committee is to provide feedback to the superintendent on policy and implementation of the Campus Leadership decision-making model. Since its inception, the Cluster Coordinating Committee has addressed empowerment strategies such as implementing a reward and recognition plan for schools, conducting parent surveys, recommending capital improvements, developing master schedules, and advising on staffing issues. 3 The Little Rock School District has also embraced the Total Quality philosophy. This focus will enable the District to capture wisdom and new information and to expand human thinking to improve people, services, and products. The Quality Schools Program in the Little Rock School District is based on four principles:  Continuous Improvement  Continuous Education  Customer Satisfaction  Data-Driven Decisions The District believes that in order to have Total Quality schools everyone must be committed to meeting or exceeding customer expectations. Therefore, continuous training is being provided to brokers, principals, and central office administration. Through the Campus Leadership Teams, this quality training will in turn be communicated to the school staffs. Terrence Roberts, a Little Rock School District Desegregation Educational Consultant, has provided consultation to District administrators on the Quality Schools Training Program. In addition, building principals participate monthly in study groups reviewing aspects of quality schools. Note the following: Quality Timeline July 1997 -- Superintendent received Arkansas Leadership Academy Training September 1997 through March 1998 -- Site-Based Decision Making Model designed March 1998 -- Campus Leadership Teams started Team Training through Arkansas Leadership Academy July 1998 -- Customer Service training for all central office staff -- \"Making Your School a School of Choice\" (Institute 1998) September 1998 -- Broker (central office support personnel) assigned to each school as a facilitator/coach March 1999 -- First school district in Arkansas to apply for the Arkansas Quality Award March 1999 -- Nine staff members (principals, supervisors, assistant superintendents) trained to be Arkansas Quality Examiners July 1999 -- Week-long Campus Leadership Institute designed for 600 Campus Leadership Team participants August 1999 -- Customer Service Training presented by 4 Blue Cross/Blue Shield to district secretaries September 1999 through May 2000 -- Principals, brokers and supervisors receiving Total Quality Schools training December 1998 \u0026amp; January 1999 -- All principals and brokers received three-day training on Total Quality Management through Arkansas Blue Cross/Blue Shield September 1999 -- Three staff members trained to be Arkansas Leadership Academy facilitators October 1999 -- Little Rock School District recognized at Governors Quality Awards program as first school district in Arkansas to receive the Arkansas Quality A ward on the Interest Level July 2000/Ongoing -- All principals scheduled to receive Arkansas Leadership Academy Training Ongoing -- Superintendent's Cabinet receiving Arkansas Leadership Academy Training. To enhance the Total Quality philosophy, the Little Rock School District submitted an application to the Arkansas Quality Award and became the first school district in the state to be recognized by the Governor in the Arkansas Quality Award annual recognition ceremony. The initial application in 1998 was submitted on the first of four levels, which is the starting point for any organization expressing interest in adopting and applying quality principles. Currently, an application at a higher level is being written. The very essence of this Compliance Status Report will show evidence of sincere effort, skillful execution, and careful planning on the part of all stakeholders of the Little Rock School District. These are signs of a district orchestrating quality service and investing energies into new ways of doing things while building on past successes to make our work even more effective. 5 Interim Compliance Report Section 2.1.1 LRSD shall retain a desegregation and/or education expert approved by the Joshua Intervenors to work with LRSD in the development of the programs, policies and procedures to be implemented in accordance with this Revised Plan and to assist LRSD in devising remedies to problems concerning desegregation or racial discrimination which adversely affect African-American students. The LRSD retained two desegregation/education experts approved by the Joshua Intervenors. They are Dr. Terrance Roberts and Dr. Steven Ross. Vitae for both Dr. Roberts and Dr. Ross are included in the attachments. Dr. Roberts is a noted psychologist with a strong link to the Little Rock School District. He earned his Ph.D. in Psychology from Southern Illinois University in 1976. He attended school in the LRSD and was one of the \"Little Rock Nine.\" Dr. Roberts has received several awards in the areas of civil and human rights. He has worked extensively with the District on policy review and staff development in cultural differences and sensitivity. Dr. Roberts is currently developing a staff development program, \"Leaming to Cope with Differences\", for all District employees and is providing training as well as training trainers to fully implement the program. During a 19-month period that initiated in July '98, Dr. Roberts has focused on the following areas: 1. Hiring, assignment and promotion of African-American teachers 2. Placement in and referral of students to schools and school programs 3. Student discipline 4. Instruction for students 5. Counseling services for students 6. Parent and community involvement in school programs 7. Learning to honor and embrace difference Dr. Roberts has been involved in the review and suggested changes to policies in personnel practices, student discipline, public safety, student counseling, instructional delivery systems, curriculum development, student assignment, parent and community involvement, use of volunteers in the District, student transportation, and other related areas. He has prepared presentations for designated groups (i.e. LRSD Cabinet (August 30, 1999), Extended Cabinet, Building Principals (December 1, 1999, January 26, 2000), Campus Leadership Teams, Bus Drivers (October 11, 1999), Campus Security Officers (January 25, 2000), Student Registration Personnel (October 11, 1999), etc.) and visited numerous school sites (April 12, 1999, April 13, 1999, August 30, 1999, October 14, 1999, November 30, 1999, January 26, 2000) to witness policies in action. Dr. Roberts has met individually with LRSD Board members and provided ongoing desegregation updates at school board / agenda meetings (October 14, 1999, December 2, 1999, February 24, 2000). 6 In addition, Dr. Roberts has assisted the division oflnstruction in planning and implementing several initiatives:  Revision of \"I\" section of Board policies and administrative regulations (see section 2. 7)  Restructuring of parent education and involvement programs and review of the work of the Collaborative Action Team in partnership with Southwest Educational Development Laboratory (see section 2.8)  Planning relating to the Talent Development Plan (see sections 2.6, 2.6.1 and 2.6.2)  Review of PreK-3 Literacy Plan (see section 5.2.1)  Review of programs funded by the National Science Foundation (see sections 2.7 and 5.3)  Review of plan to develop behavior standards and implement character-centered teaching program (see section 2.7)  Review of implementation of middle school transition plan (see section 3.4)  Planning and implementation of training in prejudice reduction and cultural sensitivity (see section 2.12.1)  Review of High School Curriculum Catalog  Review of K-8 grade-level and course benchmarks and the \"refrigerator curriculum\" publication for parents (see sections 2.7 and 2.8)  Review of the new assessment and accountability plans (see section 2.7.1) Dr. Steven Ross earned his Ph.D. in Educational Psychology from Pennsylvania State University in 1974. He is Senior Researcher, Center for Research in Education Policy, at the University of Memphis. During the past ten years he has worked extensively with school districts to develop and evaluate programs for improving student achievement. His primary focus has been assisting schools predominately serving disadvantaged inner-city minority children. Dr. Ross has assisted the Division of Instruction in its planning and implementation of the following initiatives:  Development of new assessment plan, particularly the addition of the achievement level lists so that growth can be measured (see section 2.7.1)  Development of the new Collective Responsibility Plan and the Quality Indicators by which school performance will be measured (see section 2. 7 .1)  Development of and training for the middle school scholarship process (see section 2.7.1)  Presentation to principals and brokers on the components of successful school restructuring  Presentation to Board of Education on assessment and accountability plans (see section 2.7.1) 7  Completion of development of curriculum content standards and benchmarks (see sections 2.7.1, 5.2, and 5.3)  Design of program evaluations (see section 2.7.1)  Evaluation of\"Success for All\" programs (see sections 2.7.1, 5.2.1, and 5.2.2)  Review of \"I\" section of Board Policies and administrative regulations (see section 2.7) Section 2.2 LRSD shall implement programs, policies and/or procedures designed to ensure that LRSD hires, assigns, utilizes and promotes qualified African-Americans in a fair and equitable manner. Policies / Regulations GA - Personnel Goals GBA - Open Hiring/Equal Employment Opportunity and Affirmative Action GCE - Professional Staff Recruiting GCE-R- Professional Staff Recruiting Policies GA, GBA, GCE, and GCE-R, adopted by the Board on November 18, 1999, provide tracking of hiring, assignment, utilization and promotion to assure that each activity is done in a fashion to promote the desegregation obligation. Section 2.2.1 LRSD shall maintain in place its current policies and practices related to the recruitment of African-American teachers which have allowed LRSD to maintain a teaching staff which is approximately one-third African-American. Policies / Regulations GA - Personnel Goals GBA - Open Hiring/Equal Employment Opportunity and Affirmative Action GCE- Professional Staff Recruiting GCE-R - Professional Staff Recruiting (regulation) GCF - Professional Staff Hiring GCF-R- Professional Staff Hiring (regulation) Policies and regulations GA, GBA, GCE, GCE-R, GCF, and GCF-R, also adopted by the Board on November 18, 1999, implement this obligation. The District continues to recruit within the state and at historically black colleges and universities in the region. These efforts have resulted in pre-employment contracts for African-American teachers as follows: 1998-99-25 1999-00- 22 2000-01 - 10 (verbal) 8 Revisions of the Teachers of Tomorrow (TOT) program, a long-range recruiting effort in collaboration with the PCSSD and NLR school districts to increase the availability of minorities in the staffing \"pipeline\", are being enacted. In the same vein, we have initiated discussions with the Arkansas Department of Education to implement a career development program in which non-certified employees with college degrees may become certified. We also continue to support classified staff with release time so they may continue their schooling and, ultimately, become certified staff. Section 2.2.2 LRSD shall implement programs, policies or procedures designed to increase the number of African-American media specialists, guidance counselors, early childhood teachers, primary grade teachers and secondary core subject teachers, including offering incentives for African-American teachers to obtain certification in these areas, and to assign those teachers to the LRSD schools where the greatest disparity exists. Policies/Regulations GCE - Professional Staff Recruiting GCE-R- Professional Staff Recruiting (regulation) Policy and regulation GCE and GCE-R, adopted by the Board November 18, 1999, were implemented to monitor areas of certification and direct minorities into the designated areas. Priority consideration for tuition reimbursement for course work that will allow minority candidates to become fully certified in the designated areas has been initiated ('99-00). A program is in place to monitor staffing levels at each school site for the above criteria. Staffing will be re-directed accordingly. Section 2.2.3 LRSD shall implement a uniform salary schedule for all positions within the District, including a salary range for director and assistant and associate superintendent positions, designed to provide compensation in accordance with qualifications and to minimize complaints of favoritism. A comprehensive uniform salary schedule adopted by the Board October 28, 1999 was researched and recommended by a nationally recognized consultant. Initially, it has been implemented for administrators and clerical employees. The conversion to a single master salary schedule is continuing for other employee units\nhowever, teachers, custodians, security officers, paraprofessionals (aides), and LRSD employed bus drivers negotiate salaries through collective bargaining agreements. The specified job classifications, Director, Assistant and Associate Superintendent, were included and placed on the approved uniform salary schedule. As part of the implementation process, a Compensation Committee has been formed for the purpose of hearing concerns about salary placement and errors in salary determination. The committee will also be charged with establishing the appropriate salary placement for new/revised positions. 9 Section 2.2.4 LRSD shall implement a policy for the centralized hiring and assignment of teachers by the LRSD Human Resources department designed to provide an equitable distribution of teaching resources and to prevent nepotism and pre-selection of a school principal. Policy GCF, Professional Staff Hiring, and its accompanying regulation, GCF-R, were adopted November 18, 1999 to assure recommendations for new employees by principals or department managers promote equity and fairness in placements made by the Human Resources Department. Section 2.2.5 LRSD shall implement a policy of promotion from within which shall include procedures for notifying district employees of open positions. All vacant jobs are posted throughout the District when school is in session. Additionally, all vacant jobs are posted in the Human Resources Department. Certified staff has in place a procedure whereby they are allowed to pre-select three positions to which they wish to be transferred. Our Applications Coordinator accepts \"blanket\" applications that are submitted in advance of any specific opening (i.e.: future principalship ). Section 2.2.6 LRSD shall implement programs, policies and/or procedures designed to ensure that the teaching staffs at all LRSD schools are substantially similar with regard to average years of experience and percentage of teachers with advanced degrees. Policies/Regulations GCE- Professional Staff Recruiting GCE-R- Professional Staff Recruiting (regulation) A program is in place to monitor staff's length of service and level of advanced degrees. This data is provided to all principals to consider when hiring. New hire requests submitted through the assistant superintendent and/or human resource office that are outside of the prescribed staff composition may not be approved. Upon instances whereby an individual is being recommended outside of LRSD staff composition sought, approval must be provided through the Associate Superintendent of Administrative Services. Human resource officials will continue to monitor these elements for equity allocation purposes. Section 2.2.7 LRSD shall negotiate with the Knight Intervenors to establish a procedure for the mandatory reassignment of teachers as necessary to enable LRSD to meet its obligations under Section 2.2 of this Revised Plan. The Little Rock Classroom Teachers Association representing the Knight Intervenors and the LRSD added language to their collective bargaining agreement addressing this plan provision. Article 18, Involuntary Transfers, covers the process for involuntarily moving teachers from one school to another. The parties agreed that this would be the covering provision and process with the addition of the following language as a parenthetical addition after the introductory paragraph of the article: The parties agree that some mandatory reassignments may be necessary to meet the District's obligations under the Desegregation and Education Plan in order to assure that schools are substantially similar with regard to average years of experience, percentage of teachers with advanced degrees, and racial composition. Section 2.3 LRSD shall implement student assignment programs, policies and/or procedures designed to ensure the desegregation of LRSD schools to the extent practicable, including but not limited to Sections 3 and 4 of this Revised Plan. Policies JCJCA-School Attendance Student Assignment Draft polices JC and JCA are scheduled to be presented to the Board at the April 2000 meeting for approval. The attendance zones have been redrawn and student assignments for 1999-2000 were made in accordance with the new zones. Little Rock School District continues to operate 6 stipulation magnet schools and 7 interdistrict magnet programs which provide school options to LRSD families in addition to their attendance zone schools. School organizational levels have been modified to accommodate the transition to middle schools, with 6th graders exiting elementary buildings and 9th graders moving to high school campuses. One of the two new schools permitted by the Revised Plan, Stephens Elementary, is under construction and scheduled to open in January 2001. Interdistrict schools - King, Washington, Romine, Clinton, Crystal Hill and Baker - continue to attract some students across district lines with varying degrees of success. During the 1999-2000 school year approximately 585 LRSD students attend a PCSSD interdistrict school and 175 PCSSD students attend a LRSD interdistrict school. Section 2.4 LRSD shall implement programs, policies, and/or procedures designed to ensure that there is no racial discrimination in the referral and placement of students in special education or in other programs designed to meet special student needs. Policies The Little Rock School District Division of Exceptional Children follows the federal regulations of the Individual with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) and Section 504 to assure that placement of students is based on the documented existence of an eligible disability. No singular evaluation is used to determine the need for specialized services. Any evaluation used must be conducted by qualified personnel, used for the purpose intended, and not be culturally biased. The Educational Management Team must discuss pre-referral strategies attempted and eliminate the cause of any educational deficiencies as being the result of cultural or socioeconomic causes. Any decision to provide specialized II I services must consider the least restrictive environment to provide for a free and appropriate public education. Policy IHBA, Special Education for Students with Disabilities, adopted by the Board of Education on July 22, 1999, makes a commitment to the provision of educational programs through individualized instruction and related services for children with special needs. Policy IKFC, Graduation Requirements for Special Needs Students, adopted by the Board of Education on July 22, 1999, sets forth the expectation that students with disabilities earn high school diplomas. Procedures The Little Rock School District Division of Exceptional Children developed a Strategic Plan to guide its work. The plan is monitored in monthly staff meetings and was updated in 1998- 99. Procedures for the administration of special education programs are outlined in the Special Education Administrative Procedures Manual. This document is distributed not only to special education staff, but also to principals and other school-level staff. The Little Rock School District Division of Exceptional Children has employed two additional school psychology specialists for the 1999-2000 school year to assure availability to all elementary schools for the participation on pupil service teams. The participation of the school psychology specialist is to provide school staff with pre-referral interventions, including positive behavioral supports, to reduce the over-identification of minority students for special education. Assignments of school psychology specialists result in one specialist for each three elementary schools. School Psychology Specialists are conducting additional tests beyond the minimum requirements for students suspected of having mental retardation to eliminate any cultural or socioeconomic factors. In August 1999 special education teachers were included in curriculum staff development available to all regular education staff members to assure linkage of curriculum with specialized programs. Additional training is scheduled in March for all resource teachers, school psychology specialists, and speech pathologists in Early Literacy Learning in Arkansas (ELLA) and Effective Literacy. An additional \"indirect\" teacher has been employed to provide additional indirect services for students with disabilities in the general education classrooms. Supervisors and coordinators are monitoring all evaluation procedures and placement decisions at schools as they occur. Special education programs are routinely audited by both state and federal teams to ensure compliance and quality. These audit reports are sources of data for program improvement. 12 Materials and supplies are equivalent and, in most cases, duplicate those materials found in the general education curriculum. Secondary resource teachers have been surveyed regarding the general education texts needed for instruction. A committee has been formed to review supplemental materials needed for the 2000-2001 school year. Programs Co-teaching (special education teacher and general education teacher co-presenting curriculum/instruction) is occurring in the following schools to assure reduction of \"pull-out\" services that segregate students with disabilities from the general curriculum: Fulbright Elementary King Elementary Cloverdale Middle School Dunbar Middle School Mablevale Middle School Pulaski Heights Middle School Section 2.5 LRSD shall implement programs, policies, and/or procedures designed to ensure that there is no racial discrimination with regard to student discipline. Policies ACB - Non Discrimination on the Basis of Ethnicity and Race JRAA - Student Discipline Records JRAA - R - Student Discipline Records (regulation) Policies ACB, JRAA and regulation JRAA-R adopted by the Board will help assure that the District aggressively improves the learning climate for ALL students. Student handbooks were revised and an online student discipline reporting system for each school building was established. Appropriate staff development/training was conducted. A comprehensive approach was developed which considered a variety of instructional and behavior issues. This became a priority for all those concerned with the learning climate of the Little Rock Public Schools. Suspensions have decreased from the 1997-98 school year. Eighty percent of the reductions are at the middle school level. The remaining 20% of the reduction came at the elementary level. Interestingly, the addition of the 9th grade class to the high schools showed little affect on the number of suspensions. There was a 15% reduction from the total number of sanctions issued during the 1998-99 school year to the 1997-98 school year. A total of 5312 sanctions were issued during the 1998-99 year compared to 6247 issued in the 1997-98 school year. 13 During the first semester of 1999-2000, suspensions dropped with only 1839 students receiving sanctions - a 22% reduction from the corresponding first semester of 1998-99. 6400 6200 6000 5800 5600 , 5400  5200 5000 4800 SANCTIONS m1997.99  1998-99 1998-99 1999-2000 ! II 1st Semester j 1997-98 vs. 1998-99 Sanctions 1998-98 vs. 1999-00 1st Semester Sanctions We have sampled parental and teacher perceptions of changes implemented. While working to implement varied program strategies for improvement, the District is sensitive to parent and teacher perception of safety and general decorum that affect the school learning atmosphere. Parental, student, community and teacher satisfaction has been excellent based on the first quarter operations at the middle school level. A sample of teachers and parents indicates a much safer and orderly school environment. A management study (MGT) in 1998 noted that only 42% of the teachers thought the schools were relatively safe and free from crime. That differed very little from the Plain Talk analysis. In the most recent survey in the fall of 1999, 93.7% of teachers reported that they felt safe at school. And 88% of the parents indicated that they thought their children were safe in school. Interestingly, 8% of the parents indicated they did not know or were unsure, with only 4% indicating that they had grave concerns. Ideally we would want these numbers to be 100%, but perceptions arising out of recent national events probably will not support that ideal. The District has expanded the number of alternative learning sites, but most importantly, attempted to develop a consistent standard of behavior. The alternative learning sites are: 1. Metropolitan - Career Technical Center - 9th - 12th 2. Philander Smith College - 9th 3. Penick Boy's Club- 7th and 8th 4. Pfeifer Camp Residential Elementary Program 5. Accelerated Learning Program - 9th - 12th 6. Alternative Learning Program- 6th - 12th 7. ALC Elementary Sites (3rd - 5th ) 8. LRSD Elementary Residential Charter School (Badgett) - Scheduled to open August 2000 14 In 1997-98 through 1998-99, expulsions dropped from 119 to 1. Alternative education played a major role in the reduction, but stepped up activities for young people with a variety of intervention processes could all be credited with being part of the solution. Section 2.5.1 LRSD shall strictly adhere to the policies set forth in the Student Rights and Responsibilities Handbook to ensure that all students are disciplined in a fair and equitable manner. In addition to due process and appeal procedures clearly outlined in the LRSD Student Handbooks, new policies and regulations have been drafted to bolster those already in place. Draft polices, JBA, Racial Disparities in Programs and Activities and its accompanying regulations, and JI, Student Rights and Responsibilities, are scheduled for presentation at the April 2000 Board meeting. They have been written to ensure LRSD's commitment to providing fair and equitable treatment to students involved in disciplinary matters. Principals were directed to closely adhere to the Student Handbooks in their staff development training on the Revised Plan, and it has been restated at principals' meetings. The students' and their parents' awareness of the disciplinary standards, sanctions, and appeals process is part of the communications from the schools annually. The employment of the Ombudsman has reinforced the equity efforts of the District in this arena. Section 2.5.2 LRSD shall purge students' discipline records after the fifth grade and eighth grade of all offenses, except weapon offenses, arson and robbery, unless LRSD finds that to do so would not be in the best interest of the student. Policies JRAA - Student Discipline Records JRAA - R - Student Discipline Records (regulation) The Board adopted policy JRAA and regulation JRAA-R June 24, 1999. Inservice was provided to building administrators (September 1999). At the end of each school year the Assistant Superintendent for School Discipline reviews student discipline records for serious offenses prior to student promotion and determines which records need to be maintained. The purged records are then sent to the new schools. Section 2.5.3 LRSD shall establish the position of \"ombudsman\" the job description for which shall include the following responsibilities: ensuring that students are aware of their rights pursuant to the Student Rights and Responsibilities Handbook, acting as an advocate on behalf of students involved in the discipline process, investigating parent and student complaints of race-based mistreatment and attempting to achieve equitable solutions. The ombudsman position was filled in February '99 15 The mission of the ombudsman is to provide services for parents and students by answering questions, providing information, direction and assistance regarding LRSD policies or procedures, particularly as they relate to student rights and equitable treatment. The ombudsman also assists in resolving disputes between the home and school while working to achieve equitable solutions. Goals were developed through input from ODM, Joshua Intervenors, community members, and administrators. Goals 1. Ensure that parents and students are aware their rights pursuant to the Student's Rights and Responsibilities handbook. 2. Act as an advocate on behalf of parents and students involved in the discipline process. 3. Investigate parent and student complaints of alleged race-base mistreatment and to work to achieve equitable solutions. 4. Promote collaboration between the school and community. 5. Promote District and community awareness about the role of the ombudsman. 6. Establish mediation procedures for resolving disputes and conflicts. 7. Increase community awareness about the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. 8. Increase community awareness about course offerings, student assignments, academic competitions, transportation, and guidance services. 9. Establish intervention activities for stude.nts. Efforts continue to increase community awareness of the ombudsman. Monthly reports are compiled relating to the ombudsman's activities. Section 2.5.4 LRSD shall work with students and their parents to develop behavior modification plans for students who exhibit frequent misbehavior. Students who exhibit frequent misbehavior have their cases referred to the schools' Pupil Services Team. The team is comprised of the building administration, the students' teachers, the counselor, the parents and any specialists deemed necessary. The team develops a behavior modification plan as warranted. An exit conference committee has been established at the Alternative Learning Center. Each student who has violated conduct codes in the student handbook and is assigned to the ALC is required to go before the committee before he/she is returned to his/her home school. The committee includes the ALC director, the administrative assistant, the counselor, the student's grade-level facilitators, the student's parent, and the student. The therapist, social worker, or/and probation officer participate in this process on a case-by-case basis. The ALC exit process requires students to complete the following steps before a final decision is made about the students' return to their home schools: 1. Complete a written self-evaluation that is read to the committee, 2. State verbally in concrete reasons why they should return to their schools, 16 - 3. Explain/discuss how various group sessions assisted in their academic or/and behavioral improvement, 4. Answer committee member questions to provide an in-depth perspective of the students' readiness to return to their schools, 5. State achievable goals that help them be successful in their schools. Section 2.6 LRSD shall implement programs, policies, and/or procedures designed to promote participation and to ensure that there are no barriers to participation by qualified African-Americans in extracurricular activities, advanced placement courses, honors and enriched courses, and the gifted and talented program. The school service division was primarily responsible for the extracurricular activities in Section 2.6 of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. The following procedures have been implemented. Extracurricular activities are District sponsored and directed activities designed to provide opportunities for students to explore areas of interest that compliment and enrich the curriculum. These activities include clubs and organizations such as Student Council, YTeens, or Beta Club. A policy addressing extracurricular has been approved by the Little Rock School District Board of Directors in 1988. A committee during the 1999-2000 school year reviewed this policy. It was determined that it should be revised to be in compliance with the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. A draft copy of the policy was submitted for feedback to the Associate Superintendents, the Special Assistant to the Superintendent and Dr. Terrence Roberts. The committee reconvened, made modifications and submitted the policy to the Board of Directors. The policy and regulation (JJ and JJ-R) were adopted by the Board in November 1999 (JJ) and October 1999 (JJ-R). The Superintendent and his cabinet determined in January 2000 that an Activities Advisory Board would be organized to promote, support and enhance extracurricular activities. A steering committee with representation from the middle and secondary schools has been selected to determine how the Activities Advisory board will be organized. The first meeting took place in February 2000. Policies The Little Rock School District Board of Education has approved five new policies to ensure that there are no barriers to the participation of African-American students in advanced placement courses and the gifted and talented program.  Policy IHCC, Pre-Advanced Placement and Advanced Placement Courses, Grades 6-12, was approved by the Board of Education on July 22, 1999. Equity language in this policy follows: 17 i I \"The District shall develop appropriate programs and procedures to ensure that there are no barriers to participation in Pre-Advanced Placement and Advanced Placement courses due to ethnicity, race, gender, national origin, creed, socioeconomic level, or handicapping condition. To that end, the District shall include in its professional development program for teachers and counselors training in identifying and encouraging increasing percentages of students to participate in Pre-Advanced Placement and Advanced Placement courses.\" With this policy and the Board's adoption of new middle schools and high school curricula in fall 1998 for 1999-2000 implementation, the previous layer of \"honors and enriched courses\" was eliminated. Instead, each school offers Pre-Advanced Placement courses.  Policy IHBB, Gifted and Talented Education, was approved by the Board on July 22, 1999. This policy statement includes the following equity statement: \"The Little Rock School District is committed to each child having an opportunity to participate in its gifted programs, regardless of race, color, creed, socioeconomic level, national origin, or handicapping condition. This commitment is guaranteed through equitable procedures for assessing gifted potential, through program designs that are flexible and varied enough to be adaptable to individual student need, and through curricula designed to nurture gifted potential.\"  Policy IKC, approved by the Board of Education on September 23, 1999, outlines the specific procedures that will be used in calculating students' grade-point averages and rank-in-class, including the grading scales to be used for regular and Advanced Placement courses. This policy promotes equity in that it ensures that the same procedures will be used for all students in a given high school and among the several high schools in the Little Rock School District. The first paragraph of the policy follows: \"It is the policy of the Board of Education that students' rank-in-class and grade-point averages be determined by District regulations that govern the calculation procedures, ensure consistency among the high schools, and ensure that these regulations are widely communicated and understood by students, their parents/guardians, and the staff.\"  Policy IKF, approved by the Board of Education initially in December 1998 and then revised on July 22, 1999, effective for the graduating class of 2002, establishes new, enhanced course requirements with a total of 24 required units. The Board also established a \"Recommended Curriculum\" of27 units that provides encouragement and incentives to students to take the most rigorous curriculum possible. One incentive is that in order to earn the 18  Honors Seal on the Diploma, a student must complete the Recommended Curriculum of 27 units, successfully complete at least six Pre-Advanced (PreAP) and two Advanced Placement (AP) courses, and earn a grade-point average of at least 3.5. Policy IHBEA, English as a Second Language, also includes an equity statement. This policy is included under this section not only to illustrate the District's commitment to equity for all, but also because there are several students with African backgrounds in the English as a Second Language program. The following statement provides for access to special opportunity programs: \"The District will ensure the provision of appropriate ESL curriculum standards and benchmarks, professional development, technical assistance, parent involvement, staffing, materials, access to special education and other special opportunity programs, qualified staff, and other resources to ensure compliance and effectiveness.\" These strong policy statements are intended not just to establish rules, but also to create a culture of high expectations for all students. Procedures (Regulations, Administrative Directives, Handbooks, etc.) Many procedures and processes have been created to enforce and facilitate the implementation of the new policies: Administrative Regulations IHCC-R: Pre-Advanced Placement and Advanced Placement Courses The following sections of Administrative Regulations IHCC-R are new (adopted October 21, 1999). These statements were written specifically to promote the increase of percentages of African-American students who enroll in Pre-AP and AP courses: \"Placement in Pre-Advanced Placement or Advanced Placement mathematics courses is determined by interest and the path that began in grade 6. However, a student may not be excluded from a Pre-Advanced Placement course simply because he/she was not enrolled at that level the previous year. \"Students who earn at least a \"C\" in a Pre-Advanced Placement course may, upon request, be automatically enrolled in the next level course. No teacher recommendation is required. \"Counselors must routinely check each year to make sure that students with grades of \"A\" or \"B\" in regular-level courses and/or who are scoring at the highest levels on the state's criterion-referenced test or the norm-referenced tests are placed appropriately in Pre-Advanced Placement or Advanced 19 r II II II I i .... Placement courses. It is the responsibility of both teachers and counselors actively to recruit students into these courses. \"Schools are held accountable for ensuring that increasing percentages of students are enrolled in these rigorous courses.\" High School Curriculum Catalog (Grades 9-12), 1999-2000 and 2000-2001 The placement criteria from the Administrative Regulations were printed in the High School Curriculum Catalog for 1999-2000 and for 2000-2001, along with the following language: \"The Little Rock School District offers Pre-AP and AP courses in several content areas: English language arts, mathematics, science, social studies, foreign language, computer science, art, and music. Students are placed in these courses based on established criteria. Pre-AP and AP courses are designed to give students experiences in college-preparatory and college-level courses. \"Each secondary school must identify as many students as possible for these courses if the school and the District are to meet the challenging goals established in three critical planning documents: the LRSD Strategic Plan, the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan, and the National Science Foundation project in mathematics and science.\" National Science Foundation Project The goal of increased participation of African-American students in Pre-AP and AP courses is powerfully reinforced in the proposal that the Little Rock School District wrote to the National Science Foundation to fund its project in the amount of $3.4 million. The District's accountability plan for this project includes annual reports on the enrollment of students, by race, in advanced mathematics and science courses, including Pre-AP and AP courses. The following language is included in the District's proposal for funding to NSF: \"A need exists for students to begin preparation to enter high school Advanced Placement mathematics and science courses and other upper level mathematics and science courses while they are still in elementary and junior high school. Many students, even if they meet the course prerequisites for upper level courses, have not acquired the type of skills and content knowledge that is required to be confident about their ability to succeed in these courses. The prerequisite skills and the confidence they engender are both critical elements in increasing the number of students in AP and other upper level mathematics and science courses. This is particularly true for some minorities who may not be well represented among upper classmen who are currently enrolled in these courses.\" 20 The Program Evaluation Plan for the NSF project includes the following: \"Data has been and will continue to be disaggregated by gate-keeping mathematics and science courses-algebra, geometry, calculus, biology, chemistry, and physics. \"Data will be disaggregated by the number of students enrolled and the number completing gate-keeping courses. The total number of students enrolled in each course in October of the first semester has been identified for the baseline year, year one, and year two and will continue to be identified across each succeeding year of the project. Similarly identified will be the total number of students completing each course identified as those receiving a grade of A, B, C, or Din the fourth quarter. Students who drop out, receive an F or no grade at the end of the course will be tallied and included in a separate cohort. \"Data will be disaggregated by gender and race/ethnicity, specifically American Indian/Alaskan Native\nAsian/Pacific Islander\nBlack (not Hispanic)\nHispanic\nWhite (not Hispanic)\nand other (i.e., multi-racial). \"For each gender and racial/ethnic cohort, district-wide total numbers and percentages have been and will continue to be computed. \"This information will be displayed in table and figure form (graph with accompanying table) for the baseline year and each succeeding year of the project. In addition, figures will identify gate-keeping course enrollment and completion rate trends by displaying the percent of change from the baseline year to year five (2003) of the project for the following: 1. All students vs. minority students in science gate-keeping courses\n2. All students vs. minority students in mathematics gate-keeping courses\n3. All students vs. minority students in mathematics and science gatekeeping courses.\" Course Selection Sheets Another change in procedures that was made was to add to the Course Selection form that each high school student completes for the next year's registration a statement that students who made at least a \"C\" in a previous Pre-AP course do not have to have teacher approval to take the next-level course. Both the 1999-2000 and 2000- 2001 forms included this statement. (See also Administrative Regulations IHCC-R, Pre-Advanced Placement and Advanced Placement Courses, Grades 6-12.) Student/Parent Guide to LRSD Middle School Curriculum, 2000-2001 This new publication was mailed to the parents of all grade 5-7 students (who will be in grades 6-8 in fall 2000) in anticipation of the registration process in spring 2000. It included copies of the Middle School Mission, the Middle School Program Standards, references to the \"refrigerator curriculum\" (list of specific standards/benchmarks for 21 each core middle school course), a list of available courses, and other guidance information for middle school students and parents. High School Course Selection, 1999-2000 This publication included the policy on graduation requirements for students graduating in 2000 and 2001 and also the new policy, effective for students graduating in 2002 and beyond. In addition, the publication listed the course number, course title, grade levels at which taught, and prerequisites for all the courses, including Pre-AP, AP, and University Studies courses, available in the District's high schools. This publication has been discontinued and replaced with a more comprehensive one: Student/Parent Guide to Course Selection and Graduation Requirements, 2000-2001 . Student/Parent Guide to Course Selection and Graduation Requirements, 2000-2001 The Little Rock School District produced a new publication in spring 2000 (to replace the former one that only listed graduation requirements and course lists) for high school students and their parents. The purpose of the new guide is to assist them in choosing from the more than 450 courses available in the District's high schools and to provide tools for the selection of appropriate courses and Career Focus pathways that are included in the graduation requirements. This guide includes a list of the 30 AP courses that are available, encouragement to students to take Pre-AP and AP courses, and information about the Advanced Placement examinations, as well as information about the University Studies program at Hall High School. A major reason for investing in the time and funds required to produce this 20-page publication and mail it to parents/guardians is to improve the access of all students, especially African-American students, to the \"valued\" curriculum\nthat is, to Pre-AP and AP courses and to the recommended curriculum. Enough copies have been printed to make it available to all students, grades 7-11, and to new students to the District. Every high school teacher will receive a copy, and enough additional copies were printed for use by grade 7 students in their required Career Orientation course. Each high school will be expected to conduct a parent meeting during the registration process to review the content of the Guide. The District will also sponsor several opportunities to teach the content of the Guide to parents and other patrons. Little Rock School District's Quality Index Another vehicle that the Little Rock School District is using to promote the enrollment of African-American students in the Pre-AP and AP courses is the Quality Index. The District's collective responsibility (or accountability) plan includes a number of indicators by which school performance will be evaluated annually in the Quality Index. Academic indicators are routinely disaggregated by race/ethnicity and gender so that progress for each group can be determined. 22 II II Elementary schools do not have Pre-AP and AP courses, but they will be held accountable for moving more and more students into the upper levels of academic achievement. Their indicators include the following:  Percentage of students who perform at the advanced level on the state grade 4 benchmark examinations in literacy and mathematics.  Percentage of students who perform in the top quartile on the SAT9 in reading, language, and mathematics.  Percentage of students who perform at the advanced level on the District's Achievement Level Tests (criterion-referenced test) in reading, language, mathematics, and science, grades K-5. Among the indicators for middle schools are the following:  Percentage of grades 6-8 students enrolled in at least one Pre-AP course.  Percentage of grade 8 students who successfully complete Algebra I.  Percentage of students who perform at the advanced level on the state benchmark examinations in literacy and mathematics.  Percentage of students who perform in the top quartile on the SAT9 in reading, language, and mathematics.  Percentage of students who perform at the advanced level on the District's Achievement Level Tests (criterion-referenced tests) in reading, language, mathematics, and science, grades 6-8. High school indicators are as follows:  Percentage of students who earn the honors seal on their diplomas.  Percentage of students in grades 9-12 enrolled in at least one Pre-AP or AP course.  Percentage of students who perform at the advanced level on the state's endof- course examinations in Literacy, Algebra I, and Geometry.  Percentage of students who perform in the top quartile on the SA T9 in reading, language, and mathematics.  Percentage of students who perform at the advanced level on the District's Achievement Level Tests (criterion-referenced tests) in reading, language, mathematics, and science, grades 9-12.  Percentage of students taking the ACT.  Percentage of students earning at least a score of 19 on the ACT.  Percentage of students taking AP examinations.  Percentage of students earning a score of at least \"3\" on AP examinations. Administrative Regulation IHBB-R: Gifted and Talented Education The administrative regulations for the gifted and talented program, adopted on October 21, 1999, were derived from a handbook that had in the past been distributed to principals and others directly involved in the administration of gifted and talented programs. The new regulations are not only accessible to a larger audience, but they also are more formal since they are now included in the Board's policy book. 23 I I Principals' Edition: Gifted Program Handbook This handbook is an expanded version of the administrative regulation IHBB-R and includes step-by-step procedures for identifying gifted students at all grade levels. One important aspect of the District's procedures for screening and identifying gifted and talented students is the use of a non-verbal IQ test, the Raven Matrices, so that a student's poverty or language background will not be tested instead of his or her ability to think and solve problems. Administrative Regulation IKC-R: Class Rankings and Grade-Point Average Specific procedures were established in this regulation, adopted on October 21, 1999, for the calculation of grade-point averages and rank in class. Also included are the procedures for weighting grades in AP courses. Copies have been published in the official policy notebook and in Leaming Links (a weekly publication for principals from the Division oflnstruction). They have also been distributed to all counselors and registrars. In addition, the new Student/Parent Guide to Course Selections and Graduation Requirements, 2000-2001 includes a section that reprints the regulations so that all students and parents will be well informed of the new procedures. Administrative Regulation IKF-R2: General Graduation Requirements This regulation, adopted initially in December 1998 and then revised on October 21, 1999, and on February 24, 2000, lists the specific courses that are required in the minimum program, all the options for selecting a career focus, and the specific courses that must be taken in the recommended curriculum. Also included are the requirements for earning the honors seal on the diploma. In an effort to build understanding of the new graduation requirements, the District published the new requirements in the 1999-2000 Course Selection Guide for students and parents\nheld at least three meetings with counselors to ensure their understanding\naired a television show on the District's cable channel as a part of the Superintendent's Roundtable series to inform parents and patrons\nand published the new requirements with explanations in the new Student/Parent Guide to Course Selection and Graduation Requirements, 2000-2001. The individual schools have taken additional steps to build understanding. Administrative Regulation IHBEA-R: English as a Second Language This comprehensive regulation for the ESL program, adopted on October 21, 1999, includes a section of student access to \"special opportunity programs, as follows: \"The District will ensure that LEP students have equal access to the Gifted and Talented program and Pre-AP and AP courses at the secondary level throughout the District and to the University Studies program at Hall High School. \"The District will provide parents of LEP students information about any opportunities, requirements, selection criteria, or general information 24 regarding the GIT program, Pre-AP and AP courses, and the University Studies program that is provided to the parents of non-LEP students. \"Screening tests should be in the language of the students, if at all practicable. If nonverbal tests are administered, the instructions should be in the language of the students. Staff who administer GT screening tests to LEP students must have received training on addressing the needs of LEP students.\" The procedures to increase minority enrollment in advanced courses were carefully communicated to principals, counselors, and registrars in the curriculum orientations that precede student registration in both 1999 and 2000. Also, frequent written and oral reminders are provided at every opportunity. Master schedules for each school are monitored to ensure that everyone is in compliance. The February 2000 curriculum orientation meetings emphasized, especially, that students with \"A\" and \"B\" grades and students scoring at high levels on state and District tests must be identified and placed in Pre-AP courses. Programs Curriculum Access and Consistency One of the. most significant steps taken to \"ensure that there are no barriers to participation\" was in December 1998 when the Board of Education approved new curriculum for middle and high schools. The new middle school curriculum provides Pre-AP courses in English, mathematics, science, and social studies for grades 6-8 in all eight middle schools. These courses all have established standards/benchmarks so that there is more consistency and higher quality among the middle schools. At the high school level, the Board made available to all high schools all the available AP courses. That is, all high schools are to offer the entire AP curriculum ( except that Music Theory AP is available only at Parkview). If the courses are not taught, it will be due to insufficient enrollment, but not due to some courses not being available to a given school. Another step that was taken in December 1998 was to eliminate a layer of courses usually entitled \"honors\" or \"enriched\" between the regular and Pre-AP/AP levels. This step enabled many more students to step up to the Pre-AP/AP courses and to engage in a more rigorous and challenging curriculum. Curriculum Standards and Benchmarks The District established in 1998-99 curriculum content standards for all K-6 English language arts, mathematics, science, and social studies programs. In 1998-99 the standards for grades 7-12 were established and in 1999-2000 new K-12 grade-level and course benchmarks were implemented, which delineate specifically for each level the content knowledge and skills that students should know at the conclusion of that course. These standards and benchmarks, when fully implemented in every classroom, have the effect of creating higher expectations for all students. The District staff determined that one of the most powerful things that could be done would be to raise the bar for everyone and to align instruction with the standards over which students are tested. 25 National Science Foundation Project This K-12 initiative in mathematics and science has taken on the challenge ofrestructuring curriculum, instruction, and assessment with the goal of producing many more students prepared to take advanced, Pre-AP, and AP courses in the high schools and then to major in these areas in college. As noted above, both mathematics and science standards and benchmarks were implemented in fall 1999. The following teaching materials were adopted to support mathematics instruction: Investigations in Number, Data, and Space, grades K-5 Connected Mathematics Project. grades 6-8 Heath McDougal-Littell, grades 11-12 Pacesetter Pre-Calculus Through Modeling (College Board), high school The new adopted materials for science are as follows: Science and Technology for Children, grades K-6 Science and Life Issues, grade 7 Science Education for Public Understanding Project, grade 8 Active Physics, grade 9 These new curricula are aligned with the state's mathematics and science curriculum frameworks, the Little Rock School District's standards and benchmarks, and the state's benchmark examinations in mathematics. Programs were selected based on what is needed to radically improve student achievement in these curriculum areas so that students will be well-prepared to take advanced, Pre-AP, and AP courses. The NSF project organizes a variety of strategies around what NSF calls major issues ( or drivers) of systemic reform. NSF has defined the drivers as follows:  Implementation of comprehensive, standards-based curricula as represented in instructional practice, including student assessment, in every classroom, laboratory, and other learning experience prqvided through the system and its partners.  Development of a coherent, consistent set of policies that supports: provision of high quality mathematics and science education for each student\nexcellent preparation, continuing education, and support for each mathematics and science teacher (including all elementary teachers)\nand administrative support for all persons who work to dramatically improve achievement among all students served by the system.  Convergence of the usage of all resources that are designed for or that reasonably could be used to support science and mathematics educationfiscal, intellectual, material, curricular, and extra-curricular-into a focused and unitary program to constantly upgrade, renew, and improve the educational program in mathematics and science for all students.  Broad-based support from parents, policymakers, institutions of higher education, business and industry, foundations, and other segments of the 26 community for the goals and collective value of the program, based on rich presentations of the ideas behind the program, the evidence gathered about its successes and its failures, and critical discussions of its efforts.  Accumulation of a broad and deep array of evidence that the program is enhancing student achievement, through a set of indices (e.g., achievement test scores, higher level courses passed, advanced placement tests taken, college admission rates, college majors, portfolio assessment, research experiences, ratings from summer employers). In the specific instance of student test scores, awardees shall report, on an annual basis, the results of student mathematics and science achievements in a multi-grade level context for the SI (Systemic Initiative) impacted schools/districts/states relative to appropriate cohort entities (non-SI districts, the state, all of which are defined by the performance baseline.  Improvement in the achievement of all students, including those historically underserved, as evidenced by progressive increments in student performance characterized by the requisite specificity of the SI as a catalytic resource and the appropriateness of attendant attributions. The District has implemented a number of new initiatives in each of these areas, is continually collecting data on their impact on academic achievement, and will modify the programming as necessary. University Studies, Hall High School At Hall High School, in partnership with the University of Arkansas at Little Rock, grade 11- 12 students may take a variety of courses for which they receive both high school and college credit. This program does not necessarily target the students who are already taking Pre-AP or AP courses, but, rather, strong students who have the capacity of doing college work. To be eligible to enroll, students must have a minimum grade-point average of 2.5 on at least 50 percent of the college preparatory courses\nor a minimum overall grade-point average of 3.0\nor a minimum score of at least 21 on the ACT. Because the courses are conducted at Hall High School and are co-taught by Hall High teachers, the students receive a reduced tuition rate. 1999-2000 courses are as follows: English III (1 high school credit) and UALR 1311 and 1312: Composition 1-11 (6 hours) Sociology (1/2 credit) and UALR 2300: Introduction to Sociology (3 hours) Biology IIA (1/2 credit) and UALR 1401: Science of Biology (3 hours) Psychology (1/2 credit) and UALR 2300: Psychology and the Human Experience (3 hours) Communications IA (1/2 credit) and UALR Speech 1300: Speech Communications (3 hours) In 2000-2001 the following courses will be available: English IV (1 high school credit) and UALR 1311 and 1312: Composition 1-11 (6 hours) 27 Pre-Calculus B (1/2 credit) and UALR MA1302: College Algebra (3 hours) Physics I Pre-AP (1 credit) and UALR 1321 and 1322: Elementary Physics I-II (6 hours) United States History (1 credit) and UALR 2311 and 2312: United States History (6 hours) Psychology (1/2 credit) and UALR 2300: Psychology and the Human Experience (3 hours) Sociology (1/2 credit) and UALR 2300: Introduction to Sociology (3 hours) Communications IA (1/2 credit) and UALR Speech 1300: Speech Communications (3 hours) Biology IIA (1/2 credit) and UALR 1401: Science of Biology (3 hours). During fall 1999, 49 of 51 students successfully earned both high school and college credit. A total of 41 students enrolled in spring 2000 semester courses. District-level and Hall High School educators work closely with UALR staff to ensure the continued success of this wonderful opportunity for LRSD students. Talent Development Plan Early conversations in the District about the obligations in Section 2.6 centered at first on the analysis of student achievement data by race and number of African-American students performing in the highest quartile of the SAT9. These analyses convinved the staff that the District not only needed to ensure the enrollment of more high-performing students in advanced classes, but strategies had to put into place to \"grow talent,\" especially among African American males. Extensive research was done and the opinons of African American men in the community were sought to advise the committee. Among those consulted were Dr. Frank James of Philander Smith College, Leon Modeste, and Dr. Terrence Roberts. The committee read research as well. Among the literature consulted were the following books and articles:  Freeman A. Hrabowski III, Kenneth I. Maton, and Geoggrey L. Grief. Beating the Odds: Raising Academically Successful African American Males. New York: Oxford University Press, 1998.  Ronnie Hopkins. Educating Black Males: Critical Lessons in School, Community, and Power. Albany: State University ofNew York Press. 1997.  Vernon C. Polite and James Earl Davis (eds.). African-American Males in School and Society: Practices and Policies for Effective Education. New York: Teachers College Press. 1999.  Christopher Jencks and Meredith Phillips (eds.). The Black-White Test Score Gap. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press. 1998.  Mano Singham. \"The Canary in the Mine: The Achievement Gap Between Black and White Students.\" Phi Delta Kappan. September 1998. Pp. 9-15.  Steven C. Ender, Byron A. Wiley, and Charles Pagano. \"The Philadelphia Partnership: Improving College Access and Retention among Minority and Low-Income Students.\" The College Board Review. Summer 1998. 28  Stephen B. Plank and Douglass J. Maciver. \"Talent Development: A Philosophy and Blueprint for Middle School Reform.\" Principal Magazine. January 1998.  Stephanie Bell-Rose. \"What It Takes: A Look at Black Achievers.\" College Board Review. Winter 1998-99.  Harold Stevenson and James Stigler. The Learning Gap. New York: Summit Books. 1992.  Williams, Belinda (ed.). Closing the Achievement Gap: A Vision for Changing Beliefs and Practices. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. 1996. A committee was formed in September 1998 to develop a Talent Development Plan. Research assignments were made, and the committee moved very quickly to put some infrastructure in place:  Eliminated the honors/enriched layer of courses between the regular level and Pre-AP/AP level at grades 6-12 for the 1999-2000 school year (approved by the Board of Education on November 19, 1998)\n Made all AP courses ( except Music Theory AP) available to all high schools for 1999-2000\n Changed admission so that students with a grade of at least \"C\" in a prior PreAP or AP course can enroll in the next level without teacher approval\n Surveyed all honors, enriched, Pre-AP, and AP teachers to determine what training they had had so that a professional development plan could be designed\n Conducted study of current percentages by school of those students who are performing in the top quartile\npercentages of students who are taking the ACT\npercentages of students enrolled in AP courses\npercentages of students passing AP courses by school\netc.  Paid fee for Mable Donaldson to participate in the first year of training for Project AVID directors\n Investigated two potential grants to fund the Project AVID initiative: GearUp and Javits federal grants\n Conducted one-half day of training on Project AVID for representatives of the curriculum staff, high school principals, high school counselors, parent representatives, and community advocates\n Conducted one evening of training for members of the Board of Education on Project AVID\n Distributed information on the Talent Development Middle School (Baltimore model) to all middle school principals for restructuring ideas\n Continued research on effective strategies to close achievement gaps\n Met with representative teachers and counselors at three of the five high schools to hear what they believe they need to support the goal of increasing AP enrollment\n Discussed with Dr. Angela Sewall, Dean of Education at UALR, the possibility of a university partnership relating to Project AVID\n29  Met with ODM staff to discuss Project AVID and its potential benefits to LRSD students. The committee members understood that building the academic capacity for success in higher-level courses requires students to start early in developing their knowledge and skills. The District needs procedures in both identifying students who perform at high levels and making sure that they are placed in challenging classes. We must provide the necessary supports for more students to move into higher levels of performance-to develop the talent that is there. The assistance of Dr. Terrence Roberts, one of the District's desegregation consultants, was sought early in the development of this plan, and he has provided assistance on several occasions. Project AVID An early recommendation of the Talent Development Committee was that the District implement in its middle and high schools a national program called Project AVID. This recommendation was first presented to the Board of Education in December 1998. Due to the extraordinarily high costs of funding the training in San Diego, California, for teams of eight from each school, the only piece that was funded at that time was training for the Gifted/Talented Supervisor in the program's implementation. The Talent Development Committee is still interested in this program for the District's high schools-if the national organization can provide training at a site closer to Little Rock or if grant funding for the initial implementation can be secured. Gear-Up Grant Proposal In spring 1999 the Little Rock School District collaborated with the University of Arkansas at Little Rock (UALR) and other community organizations to submit a grant proposal to the federal government to fund Project AVID and other initiatives at the middle school level. These programs would have assisted the District in its goal of increasing minority participation in higher-level courses, including the Pre-AP courses available at the middle school level. The proposal was not, however, funded. Accelerated Student Academic Program (ASAP) Since the costs of implementing Project AVID are prohibitive at this time, the Talent Development Committee has devoted itself in 1999-2000 to the development of an alternative, locally designed plan based on the critical components ofthe AVID model:  Data-driven decisions  Identification, monitoring, and placement of students  Development of high-level reading skills and vocabulary  Development of high-level writing, note-taking, and test-taking skills  Mentoring, tutoring, and service learning  Parent involvement  Test (PSAT, SAT, ACT, AP) preparation  College preparation  Leadership development 30  Professional development for teachers, counselors, tutors, and mentors  Vertical teams  Summer programs  Program evaluation Staffs have briefly defined strategies for elementary, middle, and high schools for each of these strands. (See the following pages.) Accelerated Student Academic Program (ASAP) Program Objectives: 1. To improve student access to Pre-AP and AP courses (% enrolled by grade level). 2. To improve student success in Pre-AP and AP courses(% earning a \"C\" or above). 3. To improve ACT scores. 4. To improve percentage of students earning the Honors Seal on their diplomas. 5. To improve the percentage of students performing at the Advanced Level on the State Benchmark and End-of-Level Tests. 6. To improve the percentage of students performing at the Top Quartile on the SAT9 in reading and mathematics. 7. To radically narrow the achievement gap between African-American and white students. Strand Elementary School Middle School High Sch,ool Data-Driven Analyze perfonnance Analyze perfonnance data, Analyze perfonnance data, set Decisions data, set goals, and set goals, and establish goals, and establish interventions. establish interventions. interventions. Identification, Identify and monitor all Place all elementary- Place all gifted/talented, Monitoring, and \"Advanced\" and \"Top identified gifted/talented, \"Advanced,\" and \"Top Quartile\" Placement of Quartile\" students in \"Advanced,\" and \"Top students m Pre-AP or AP courses. Students reading and Quartile\" students in Pre-AP mathematics. courses. Development of Implement independent Implement independent Implement independent reading High-Level reading program with reading program with program with specific lists to Reading Skills specific lists to develop specific lists to develop develop skills, vocabulary, and and Vocabulary skills, vocabulary, and skills, vocabulary, and content knowledge. Require at least content knowledge. content knowledge. Require 30 books each year, Require at least 30 books at least 30 books each year. each year. 31 Strand Elementary School Middle School High School Development of Implement writing Implement ASAP class for Implement ASAP class for students High-Level ' across the curriculum. students in third quartile, to in third quartile, to emphasize Writing, Note- Emphasize writing for emphasize systematic note- systematic note-taking skills, taking, and Test- learning, learning logs, taking skills, writing of writing of informative and Taking Skills. reader response journals, informative and persuasive persuasive essays, test-taking skills, etc. essays, test-taking skills, vocabulary, AP test preparation, etc. vocabulary, etc. Mentoring/ Establish a Establish a peer Establish a peer tutoring/service Tutoring/ mentoring/role model tutoring/service learning and learning/mentoring program. Use Service Learning program for advanced mentoring program. Use college students, community students. Use high school students, volunteers. middle/high students, college students, community college students, volunteers. community volunteers. Parent Individualize School- Individualize School-Parent Individualize School-Parent Involvement Parent Compacts to Compacts to accelerate Compacts to accelerate advanced accelerate advanced advanced students Focus on students. Focus on dads/male role students. Focus on dads/male role models. models. dads/male role models. College Provide information on Provide information on Provide information on college Preparation college preparation, college preparation, preparation, advanced courses, advanced courses, advanced courses, gifted/talented education, the Hall gifted/talented education, gifted/talented education, University Studies Program, etc., in the Hall University the Hall University Studies the Student Handbook. Studies Program, etc., in Program, etc., in the Student the Student Handbook. Handbook. Leadership Include curriculum Expand opportunities for Incorporate a Leadership Development modules on leaders, student participation in Development course into the including many who are co/extra-curricula curriculum with a service learning ethnic minorities, across opportunities at the middle component. Form partnership with the curriculum. schools. Encourage reading Leadership Little Rock. Encourage of biographies and reading of biographies and autobiographies. autobiographies, Professional Provide quality Provide quality professional Provide quality professional Development- professional development for teachers on development for teachers on the Teachers development for teachers the development of higher- development of higher-level on the development of level thinking. thinking. higher-level thinking. Professional Provide quality Provide quality Provide quality professional Development- professional professional development development for counselors. Counselors development for for counselors. counselors. Professional Provide quality training Provide quality training for Provide quality training for tutors. Development- for tutors. tutors. Tutors Professional Provide quality training Provide quality training for Provide quality training for mentors. Development- for mentors. mentors. Mentors Vertical Teams Implement vertical teams Implement 6-12 vertical Implement 6-12 vertical teams of at all elementary schools. teams of teachers in teachers in English, mathematics, English, m_athematics, science, social studies, and foreign science, social studies, and languages. foreign languages. 32 II Strand summer Programs Evaluation ~esign Elemen~ary _School Implement top quality summer reading program for elementary students. Gather and analyze relevant quantitative and qualitative data. Evaluate program. Make necessary modifications for improved effectiveness. Middle School Implement summer programs to prepare students for advanced study: Grade 6-Etymology Grade 7-Mathematics Grade 8-Writing and Reading Gather and analyze relevant quantitative and qualitative data. Evaluate program. Make necessary modifications for improved effectiveness. High School Implement summer programs to prepare students for advanced study. Grade 9-Mathematics Grade 10-PSA T Preparation Grade I I-ACT Preparation Gather and analyze relevant quantitative and qualitative data. Evaluate program. Make necessary modifications for improved effectiveness. Dr. Terrence Roberts' suggestions (Note: all program components are incorporated in this draft.) 1. Establish high expectations for all students to get top quality work. 2. Introduce a leadership component-skills training. 3. Use existing structures in the district and community whenever possible-to lessen the work, to minimize cost. For instance, he recommended that we consult with community organizations such as Boy Scouts, PARK, and church groups to impact black male student achievement. 4. Be sure to use community volunteers as mentors-not just other public school students or college students. 5. Each school must use a process to involve teachers in planning the school's implementation. Teacher buy-in is critical. 6. Focus on African-American males. Adult males need to form alliances with the black boys. Relationships are important. Consideration of problems. Connections to the school and to the community. Must change the mind-set. Restore/build the boys' ability to survive in a society that does not give the message: you are valued and needed. 7. Consider a scholarship program. Dr. Terrence Roberts, desegregation consultant, has been instrumental in the development of this tentative plan, which will require further revision and refinement. Implementation will be phased in at the high school level, beginning with the addition of double-period English I Pre-AP courses in fall 2000 at three high schools (see below). These courses will include the curriculum components of the plan. Other components will be implemented as possible when the plan is fully developed and approved. Gear-Up Grant Proposal Two meetings were held during the week of February 14, 2000, to begin the planning necessary to submit a second proposal for funding from the federal Gear-Up program. LRSD will form a partnership with UALR, Philander Smith College, the Chamber of Commerce Education Committee, the 33 I Arkansas Commitment, the League of United Latin American Citizens, and others to implement, according to the tentative plan, five major components (strands) from the preliminary Accelerated Students Academic Program (ASAP) plan discussed in this section:  Professional development for teachers and counselors  Student supports (mentoring, tutoring, extended day, summer programs, etc.)  Communication (use of cable channel, publications, etc.)  Parent education and involvement  College and career awareness. The grant funds programs at middle and high schools where 50 percent or more of the students are eligible for free and reduced lunches. The qualifying middle schools in LRSD are Henderson, Southwest, Mabelvale, and Cloverdale. The LRSD/UALR proposal will carefully coordinate and align the activities designed for this initiative with the work that is already in progress with the Collaborative Partnerships for Mathematics and Science Achievement (CPMSA) funded by the National Science Foundation. The proposal will also set the planned initiatives into the context of reforms that have already been initiated or will be implemented in fall 2000. The District will also investigate other possible sources of funds for the other four middle schools. English I-II Pre-AP Workshop (2 periods) The Board of Education approved in December 1999 a proposal to allow high schools the option of offering a double-period English I (for 2000-2001) and English II (for 2001-2002) at both the regular and Pre-AP levels. Students in the regular-level course will work on the knowledge and skills necessary for them to perform at the \"proficient\" level on the state's benchmark examinations. Students in the Pre-AP level course will concentrate on notetaking, writing, vocabulary, critical reading skills, self-discipline, and other knowledge and skills that are necessary to prepare for success in the Advanced Placement English and social studies courses. These curricula components are similar to those included in Project AVID courses. English I teachers will receive during summer 2000 intensive training in the implementation of this new program. English II teachers will be trained in summer 2001. As of February 2000, the English I Workshop and English I Pre-AP Workshop will be implemented at Fair, Hall, and McClellan High Schools in fall 2000. 34 Section 2.6.1 LRSD shall implement a training program during each of the next three years designed to assist teachers and counselors in identifying and encouraging African-American students to participate in honors and enriched courses and advanced placement courses. Procedures Staff at the District level are using six basic procedures to provide for identification of increasing numbers of African-American students to participate in advanced, Pre-AP, and AP courses.  The District is providing teachers and counselors with the rationale ( ethical, philosophical, pedagogical, legal, and compliance-whatever works) to open more sections of Pre-AP and AP courses and to encourage increasing numbers of students, especially African-American students, to enroll in these courses.  The District is allowing students to take the Pre-AP or AP courses without having to secure \"teacher approval\" if they made a grade of \"C\" or higher in the previous course.  The District is monitoring enrollment in Pre-AP and AP courses on a nineweek basis to determine not only the numbers of students enrolled, but also to see if enrollment is holding\nthat is, if counselors are encouraging students to stay in the courses.  The District has set as an indicator in the Quality Index that schools should have approximately 65 percent of their students enrolled in Pre-AP/AP courses. As a result, some schools took the initiative at the end of the fall semester 1999 to move stronger students into the Pre-AP level from the regular level. Middle school principals discussed at their February 9, 2000, meeting that they are all building in more Pre-AP sections to their master schedule for 2000-2001 so that they will have space to increase their enrollment in these higher-level courses.  The District has constantly provided information to principals, counselors, and teachers-either in writing ( copies of articles about successful programs/schools which enroll high percentages of students in Pre-AP and AP courses), in discussions at meetings, and in training activities so that staff have the tools they need to teach a wider diversity of students.  The District is looking for every opportunity to inform parents of the benefits of their children being enrolled in this more rigorous curriculumpublications, television shows, newsletters, conversations, and parent meetings. As more and more parents understand this program, we know that they will insist that their children be involved. The Middle School Curriculum Catalog for 2000-2001, published for school staff, provides encouragement and guidelines for increasing minority participation in Pre-AP and AP courses. Counselors will receive more detailed information at the Curriculum Orientation sessions in February 2000. 35 The High School Curriculum Catalog for both 1999-2000 and 2000-2001 provide encouragement and guidelines for increasing minority participation in Pre-AP and AP courses. Several meetings occurred during 1998-99 and again in 1999-2000 to ensure that counselors and teachers understand these new expectations. The 2000-2001 Student/Parent Guide to Middle School Curriculum includes information on the Pre-AP courses that are available at all middle schools. The 2000-2001 Student/Parent Guide to Course Selection and Graduation Requirements includes sections on Pre-AP, AP, and University Studies courses. Advanced Payment of Pre-AP and AP Workshop Fees The Supervisor of the Gifted/Talented Program provided leadership in establishing a special account through which the State funds for AP workshops and institutes are processed. This fund allows all teachers equal access to the opportunities for training because attendance is no longer dependent on whether the teacher can pay the fees and wait for reimbursement or whether the schools have the available funds to pay for the fees and wait for reimbursement. The procedures that have been established enable all students in the District to have equal access to the same types of Pre-AP and AP course work and strategies. Programs Training for Counselors Curriculum Orientation workshops were conducted for elementary, middle, and high school counselors in January 1999 and February 2000 to prepare for student registration. A significant emphasis in these workshops was on increasing enrollment in Pre-AP and AP courses, especially of African-American students. The sections in the High School Curriculum Catalog relating to this issue were highlighted. On October 14, 1999, the Supervisor of the Gifted/Talented Program conducted a training session for counselors on \"Recruiting and Preparing Students for a Rigorous Academic Program.\" She discussed the recruitment of minority and disadvantaged students to the PreAP and AP programs and the importance of involving parents so that they will be supportive of students enrolling in these courses. They viewed a video entitled, \"Advanced Placement Inventive Program: Improving Education and Changing Lives.\" Training for Teachers All teachers of Pre-AP and AP courses are offered special training sponsored by the College Board and funded by the State. The Little Rock School District encourages participation and, in addition, provides supplemental training to include issues relating to minority participation. 36 In summer 1999 27 LRSD teachers attended the Summer Pre-AP and AP Institute: Central High 3 Fair High 3 Hall High 6 McClellan High 2 Parkview High 5 Cloverdale Middle 1 Dunbar Middle 5 Mann Middle 2 The AP courses that these 27 teachers represented were as follows: English (11), Social Studies (2), Mathematics (4), Science (3), Art (3), French (1), Spanish (2), and Psychology (1). On December 5-6, 1999, 94 LRSD teachers attended the AP Workshops: Central High 12 Fair High 4 Hall High 4 McClellan High 3 Parkview High 4 Cloverdale Middle 4 Dunbar Middle 7 Forest Heights Middle 13 Henderson Middle 10 Mabelvale Middle 3 Mann Middle 17 Pulaski Heights Middle 7 Southwest Middle 6 The courses represented by these 94 teachers were as follows: Pre-AP English (47), Pre-AP Social Studies (33), AP U.S. History (1), Pre-AP Spanish (5), AP Spanish (4), AP French (2), Pre-AP French(l). A third AP Conference was conducted on February 25-26, 2000. LRSD has registered 111 teachers who plan to participate: Central High 15 Fair High 4 Hall High 9 McClellan High 8 Parkview High 9 Cloverdale Middle 5 Dunbar Middle 4 Forest Heights Middle 11 Henderson Middle 7 Mabel vale Middle 10 37 - -- - -- Pulaski Heights Middle 9 Southwest Middle 6 IRC 1 The courses represented are as follows: Pre-AP Science (37), AP Chemistry (2), AP Environmental Science (2), AP Biology (1), Pre-AP Biology (4), Pre-AP Chemistry (4), AP Physics (1), Pre-AP Physics (2), Pre-AP Mathematics (51), AP Statistics (3), AP Calculus (4). Vertical Teams in Mathematics and Science Mathematics and science vertical teams were formed to align local mathematics and science standards and benchmarks with the national standards. These standards and benchmarks were used to help select the curriculum for the high school mathematics courses. State funds provided under the Advanced Placement Incentive Program, Act 929 of 1997, were allocated for Pre-Advanced Placement and Advanced Placement teachers to attend oneday and/or two-day conferences. During 1998-99, 31 mathematics teachers, grades 6-12, attended College Board's two-day Mathematics Vertical Teams Conference in Little Rock. In addition, 26 science teachers, grades 6-12, attended UALR's Vertical Teams Conference for science teachers. The mathematics teachers have a new newsletter, The Mathematics Vertical Teams Newsletter with a first issue in December 1999. The following \"purpose\" for vertical teams is included on the first page: \"Our primary goal as educators in the Little Rock School District should be to help our students master the material in our discipline. Vertical teams should be viewed as a vehicle to improve student scores and grades. Vertical teams should also improve communication between teachers in the same building, in the same grade level, in the same courses, and in the same district. A Vertical Team never comes to a complete end because decisions must be reviewed, revised, and implemented over and over.\" Training for Principals During July 1998 one day of training on the new mathematics and science curriculum and the NSF accountability plan was presented to all principals. Follow-up meetings have been conducted during the school year in 1998-99 and 1999-2000. Training for Campus Leadership Teams During July 1999 the District provided two and one-half days of training for a core group of each school's Campus Leadership Team. A major emphasis in this training was on the District's new Collective Responsibility Plan and the Quality Index-including those indicators relating to increasing minority student participation in advanced and Pre-AP/AP courses. Each school's performance will be evaluated, in part, based on those indicators. 38 Section 2.6.2 LRSD shall implement programs to assist African-American students in being successful in honors and enriched courses and advanced placement courses. Procedures Identification of Students for Gifted and Talented Programs Students are identified for placement in the Gifted and Talented Programs as per administrative regulation IHBB-R and the steps outlined in the Gifted Program Handbook. Guidelines for Placement of Students in Pre-AP and AP Courses Students are placed in Pre-AP and AP courses according to the guidelines established in administrative regulation IHCC-R. These are reprinted in the Gifted Program Handbook, the High School Curriculum Catalog. and the Middle School Curriculum Catalog. Review and Monitoring of Enrollment in Pre-AP, AP, and GT Programs Staff in the Planning, Research, and Evaluation office routinely monitor enrollment, by school, by race, and by gender, in Pre-AP, AP, and GT programs as a part of the program evaluation functions. The Associate Superintendent for Instruction also monitors each semester's enrollment in Pre-AP and AP courses when she reviews schools' master schedules. Individual schools monitor as well. At both the middle and high school levels, one of the indicators in the Quality Index is the percentage of students at each grade level who are enrolled in at least one Pre-AP or AP course. School-level staff, therefore, are learning that their school's performance cannot be rated well if they do not attend to this indicator. Enrollment in these courses is also encouraged in the following additional indicators:  Percentage of students scoring in the highest quartile on the SA T9 reading and mathematics sub-tests  Percentage of students scoring at the advanced level on the State's Benchmark and end-of-level tests  Percentage of students scoring at the advanced level on the LRSD Academic Level Tests  Percentage of students earning at least a 19 on the ACT  Percentage of students taking Advanced Placement examinations  Percentage of students earning at least a \"3\" on AP examiniations  Percentage of students earning the Honors Seal on their diplomas  Percentage of students who require remediation in college Building-Level Guidance Plan Each school designs and implements an annual guidance plan that is aligned with State and LRSD expectations. 39 Review and Monitoring of Quarterly Grade Distribution Reports The Superintendent and the Associate Superintendent for Instruction monitor quarterly the grade distribution reports, as do school-level staff. National Science Foundation Accountability Report The NSF program staff compile and submit to NSF an annual report that includes a narrative on the activities implemented and many tables and charts of data that are required for accountability. These data include enrollment in Pre-AP and AP courses, as well as other higher-level courses in mathematics and science. Programs College Preparatory Enrichment Program (CPEP) This summer tutoring program is funded by the State of Arkansas. The program goal is to improve students' mathematics and verbal scores on the ACT. The knowledge and skills that are taught reinforce student success in advanced classes. Academic Enrichment and Gifted in Surnrner (AEGIS), Grades 7-12 This program is state funded for identified gifted students. Southeastern Consortium for Minorities in Engineering (SECME) SECME is a premiere pre-college program that prepares and motivates students for engineering and other technical fields. LRSD received $22,000 from SECME to implement the SECME program in thirteen elementary and secondary schools. SECME's goal, which is tightly aligned with the Little Rock NSF project, is to increase the pool of minorities who are prepared to enter and complete post-secondary studies in engineering, mathematics, and science. The Little Rock SECME program works in partnerships with faculty from the School of Engineering at the University of Arkansas at Little Rock (UALR). The faculty provides in-kind contributions to deliver technical assistance to school teams. NSF funds were used to support the SECME program in five additional schools. Early College Planning Process (middle school) Students plan their high school graduation and for college both in their grade 7 Career Orientation class and through the middle school guidance program. SMART This SF-funded program provides a summer enrichment program in mathematics to ensure higher levels of success among grade 9 students in Algebra I. School-based Student Support Teams Each school has a Student Support Team whose goal is to monitor student achievement and provide support and necessary interventions to students at risk of failure. English I-II Workshop Pre-AP Three high schools plan to implement in fall 2000 a double-period English I Pre-AP course (and then to add the double-period English II Pre-AP course in fall 2001). This course will 40 include the curriculum content standards and benchmarks of the English I Pre-AP course, plus specific instruction in areas that students need for success in AP courses: note-taking, essay writing, critical reading skills, vocabulary development, test preparation, college application skills, and so forth. A part of the plan is to work with the community to secure mentors/tutors for students who need assistance in these courses. The curriculum will support student success not only in AP English courses, but in other AP courses as well. Section 2.7 LRSD shall implement programs, policies, and/or procedures designed to improve and remediate the academic achievement of African-American students, including but not limited to Section 5 of this Revised Plan. Alignment of Multiple Plans Early in 1998 the staff concluded that everyone was going to be confused unless District leaders could clearly demonstrate the alignment and connections among at least six critical planning documents and accountability systems for the District:  LRSD Strategic Plan  LRSD Revised Desegregation and Education Plan  Title I  Arkansas Smart Start Initiative  Urban Professional Development Initiative  Collaborative Partnerships for Mathematics and Science Achievrnent (funded by NSF) What all these documents had in common were standards, professional development, and accountability. Members of the Division oflnstruction worked diligently, therefore, to keep all those tightly aligned as work proceeded toward implementation so that everyone at every level would see the six initiatives as basically one initiative, especially as they relate to curriculum, instruction, and assessment. Graphics were constructed, as were matrices, so that staff could see the connections. Student Success Model The Little Rock School District has adopted a comprehensive plan to improve student achievement. The Student Success Model has six components, as follows:  Establish a continuum of learning ( curriculum standards and benchmarks)  Provide professional development on effective instructional strategies  Design an assessment system to measure academic progress  Create opportunities for personalized education  Build community support  Communicate. Communicate. Communicate. The Work Plan for the Division oflnstruction was organized under these six components in 1998-99 and continued into 1999-2000. They guide the staffs thinking and their work. The Student Success Model was unveiled for the first time at the July 1998 Summer Principals' Institute. The graphic used to explain the model was used every week during 1998-99 on the front page of the Division of Instruction's publication for principals, Leaming Links, to remind everyone of both the model and the focus: improved student achievement. 41 A formal presentation of the Student Success Model was made to the Board of Education, principals and members of the Campus Leadership Teams, and the community in November 1999 at the Excelsior Hotel. Packets of explanatory materials and lists of programs were distributed. The presentation was taped and then broadcast on the District's cable channel. In a school district that is 68 percent African-American, as is the Little Rock School District, everything that responsible educators do must serve to improve opportunities, access, support systems, and academic success of African-American students. The following policies, procedures, and programs have been implemented in 1998-99 and 1999-2000 to that end. All policies and administrative regulations were reviewed not only by representative staff, but they were also sent for review and input to ODM, John Walker of Joshua Intervenors, Frank Martin of the Classroom Teachers Association, and to both Dr. Terrence Roberts and Dr. Steve Ross, desegregation consultants. Policies The section on Instruction in the Board of Education's policy manual has almost totally been revised. The following new policies (those not discussed in other sections of this document) have been adopted:  Policy IA, Academic Content Standards and Benchmarks, adopted on July 22, 1999, by the Board of Education, establishes a standards-based education system for all students. Also stated is the expectation that, \"The District, each school, each individual educator, students, and their parents/guardians are collectively responsible for ensuring student success to every extent possible.\"  Policy IB, Academic Freedom, adopted by the Board on July 22, 1999, establishes rights of both teachers and students in the area of academic freedom.  Policy IC, School Year, adopted by the Board of Education on July 22, 1999, establishes the length of the school year and allows the Superintendent to apply for a waiver of up to five instructional days to be used for the professional development of staff.  Policy ICA, School Calendar, adopted by the Board of Education on July 22, 1999, sets forth the requirement that the Board annually adopt the school calendar.  Policy ID, School Day, adopted by the Board of Education on July 22, 1999, establishes the number of required instructional hours in the school day for elementary and secondary students.  Policy IG, Curriculum Development, Adoption, and Review, adopted by the Board of Education on August 26, 1999, requires Board approval for new courses added to the curriculum.  Policy IGA, Curriculum Program Alignment and Coherence, adopted by the Board of Education on July 22, 1999, requires that all curriculum be aligned with the District's planning documents and the regular education program. It further requires that special education, Title I, ESL, migrant education, gifted and talented education, 504 programs, alternative education, and other instructional programs reflect the district-adopted standards and benchmarks. 42  Policy IGE, Curriculum Guides, adopted by the Board of Education on July 22, 1999, requires curriculum guides for all courses offered in the District.  Policy IHAL, Religion in the Schools, adopted by the Board of Education on July 22, 1999, reinforces the American tradition of separation of church and state. The policy specifically permits teaching about religion.  Policy IHBDA, Remedial Instruction, adopted by the Board of Education on July 22, 1999, makes a commitment to provide \"expanded learning opportunities for all students.\" The policy further states that \"Intervention and remediation efforts ... will be comprised of a broad range of alternatives to ensure that all students are afforded equitable opportunities to perform at or above the 'proficient' level as defined by the standards of Arkansas and the Little Rock School District.\"  Policy IHBH, Alternative Education Programs, adopted by the Board of Education on July 22, 1999, states that the District will \"provide alternative educational opportunities to the extent practicable for those students unable to succeed in a traditional learning environment.\"  Policy IHCA, Summer School, adopted by the Board of Education on July 22, 1999, authorizes summer school programs for extended learning opportunities.  Policy IHCD, Credit for College Courses, adopted by the Board of Education on July 23, 1998, establishes concurrent credit programs between high schools and area universities.  Policy IHCDA, Opportunities to Earn College Credit, adopted by the Board of Education on July 22, 1999, allows students to enroll in college courses while they are still in high school.  Policy IIB, Teacher-Student Ratio, adopted by the Board of Education on July 22, 1999, reinforces the Arkansas Accreditation Standards for teacher and student ratios.  Policy IJ, Instructional Resources and Materials, adopted by the Board of Education on July 22, 1999, establishes the responsibilities of the Board in the selection, adoption, maintenance, and control of instructional materials.  Policy IKA, Grading Systems, adopted by the Board of Education on September 23, 1999, establishes a purpose for grading, the expectations of fairness, the requirement of written procedures, the requirement that grades reflect only academic performance--not discipline, and the provision for adaptions in instruction, performance standards, and assessment strategies for students with special needs.  Policy IKB, Homework, adopted by the Board of Education on July 22, 1999, sets forth a philosophy on homework.  Policy IKE, Promotion and Retention of Students, adopted by the Board of Education on July 22, 1999, requires standards to be established to guide promotion and retention decisions.  Policy IKEC, Award of Credit, adopted by the Board of Education on July 22, 1999, defines a unit of credit and authorizes the Superintendent to award credits earned in various ways. 43  Policy IKFA, Early Graduation, adopted by the Board of Education on July 22, 1999, discourages, but allows a student to graduate early.  Policy IMB, Teaching about Controversial/Sensitive Issues, adopted by the Board of Education on July 22, 1999, establishes parameters to guide decisions.  Policy IMCA, Distribution of Materials and Literature Through Schools, adopted by the Board of Education on July 22, 1999, requires the Superintendent's authorization for the distribution of external materials.  Policy IMH, Class Interruptions, adopted by the Board of Education on July 22, 1999, establishes the expectation that non-academic interruptions to instruction be radically limited. Policies still under development include those relating to the administration of Title I, those relating to the professional development program, and one on computer literacy. The Board of Education also approved the revised middle school curriculum requirements in November 1998 and the revised high school curriculum in December 1998. Both were slightly revised by Board action in December 1999. Procedures The following Administrative Regulations establish the procedures for curriculum, instruction, and assessment staff, as well as school-level staff:  Administrative Regulation IA-R, Academic Content Standards and Benchmarks, adopted October 21 , 1999, establishes eight exit standards for students to achieve by the time they graduate from high school.  Administrative Regulation ID-R, adopted on October 21, 1999, establishes the minimum number of courses in which a student must enroll in grades 9-12.  Adminstrative Regulation IGE-Rl, Curriculum Guide Development, adopted on October 21, 1999, establishes a five-year cycle for curriculum guide development, describes the processes that will be used, and sets expectations for dissemination and implementation.  Administrative Regulation IGE-R2, Approval of New Courses, adopted on October 21, 1999, lays out the processes to be used for the approval of new courses in the curriculum.  Administrative Regulation IHBDA-R, Intervention/Remediation, adopted on October 21, 1999, requires that assistance be provided \"for any student who is performing below the standard levels of achievement in the areas of mathematics and reading/language arts.\" Intervention/ remediation programs include \"re-teaching, tutoring, extended-day programs, Saturday programs, summer school, and special courses offered within the school day.\"  Administrative Regulation IHCDA-R, Concurrent Enrollment, adopted on October 21, 1999, provides procedures for concurrent enrollment and credit.  Administrative Regulation IJ-Rl, Textbook Adoptions, adopted on October 21 , 1999, establishes the procedures for adoption of textbooks. 44  Administrative Regulation IJ-R2, Library Media Center Materials Selection, adopted on October 21, 1999, establishes the procedures for the selection, retention, and/or removal of library media center materials.  Administrative Regulation IKA-R, Nine-Week/Semester/Yearly Grading Procedures, adopted on October 21, 1999, provides procedures for teachers to use in grade calculations at the elementary, middle, and high school levels. Included is the provision for semester test exemptions at the high school level.  Administrative Regulation IKE-R, Student Promotion and Retention, PreK- 12, adopted on October 21, 1999, provides specific guidelines for decisions relating to promotion and retention at each level.  Administrative Regulation IKEC-Rl, Credit for College Dual-Credit and College Summer Enrichment Programs, adopted on October 21, 1999, establishes parameters and criteria for award of credit earned in these programs.  Administrative Regulation IKEC-R2, Credit for Correspondence Courses, establishes procedures and parameters for the use of credit earned through correspondence courses.  Administrative Regulation IKEC-R3, Credit by Examination, establishes a list of approved courses for which credit by examination can be earned and the procedures for administering the program. Curriculum Content Standards/Benchmarks The District developed in 1997-98 and 1998-99 comprehensive curriculum content standards, plus grade-level and course benchmarks in K-12 English language arts, mathematics, science, and social studies. In addition, curriculum maps were constructed for each area to ensure that the LRSD standards were aligned with the State's curriculum frameworks and assessments. Teachers received their copies of the new curriculum documents in August 1999, along with some initial training in their implementation. Follow-up training has occurred throughout 1999-2000. (See Section 5.) Standards are important to ensure that high expectations for learning are established for every student. They describe for all involved the specific knowledge and skills that students should acquire during a year of instruction. Extensive, in-depth, and follow-up training is important for teachers so that they have the tools that they need to ensure student success in achieving the established curriculum standards and benchmarks. Instructional Standards A committee has been at work throughout 1999-2000 to identify or adapt or, perhaps, create a set of desired instructional ( or delivery) standards for use throughout the District, K-12. These standards will guide the design of professional development programs at both the District and school levels\nwould serve as part of the criteria by which educators at the District and school levels can evaluate potential curricula as 45 staff plan for improved student achievement\nwill be used by staff who observe instruction to provide feedback\nand eventually will be used to inform a revised teacher evaluation system. This work has been exciting in that it has provided a forum for professional development, for critical thinking about the available options, for discussions about culture and differences among both students and teachers, and consideration of the K- 12 and across-the-curriculum needs. Among the resources that the committee has studied are the following:  Robert Marzano. A Different Kind of Classroom: Teaching with Dimensions of Learning. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. 1992.  Robert Marzano. A Theory-Based Meta-Analysis of Research on Instruction. Aurora, CO: Mid-continent Regional Education Laboratory. 1998.  Stephanie Stoll Dalton. Pedagogy Matters: Standards for Effective Teaching Practice. Santa Cruz, CA: Center for Research on Education, Diversity, and Excellence. 1998.  Gloria Ladson-Billing. The Dreamkeepers: Successful Teachers of African American Children. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. 1994.  Robert Cole. Educating Everybody's Children: Diverse Teaching Strategies for Diverse Learners. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. 1995.  Steven Zemelman, Harvey Daniels, and Arthur Hyde. Best Practice: New Standards for Teaching and Leaming in America's Schools. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. 1998.  Gordon Cawelti. Handbook of Research on Improving Student Achievement. Arlington, VA: Educational Research Service. 1999.  Bruce Joyce and Emily Calhoun. Creating Learning Experiences: The Role oflnstructional Theory and Research. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, 1996.  National Research Council. How People Learn: Brain, Mind, Experience, and School. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. 1999.  Fred Newmann, Walter Secada, and Gary Wehlage. A Guide to Authentic Instruction and Assessment: Vision, Standards, and Scoring. Madison, WI: Wisconsin Center for Education Research. 1995.  Barbara Presseisen. Teaching for Intelligence. Arlington Heights, IL: SkyLight. 1999.  Charlotte Danielson's Enhancing Professional Practice: A Framework for Teaching. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. 1996.  Bruce Joyce and Marsha Weil's Models of Teaching. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, Inc. 1986.  U.S. Department of Education's Programs for English Language Learners. Washington, DC: Office of Civil Rights. 1999. 46 The core committee doing this work includes diverse participants-those representing general education, special education, gifted education, career and technical education, English-as-a-Second Language, and both elementary and secondary. A representative of ODM serves as well. More diverse levels of staff will be involved as the process continues. The Instructional Standards will be established by the end of the 1999-2000 school year and will be used immediately in planning for 2000-2001 professional development activities. Programs Title I Programs The District's Title I program serves all elementary schools and middle schools, with the exception of magnet schools that already receive supplemental funding. Money is allocated to the District and then to schools on the basis of student participation in the free and reduced lunch program. Targeted students are those who are performing at the \"below basic\" and \"basic\" levels on assessments in reading and mathematics. PLATO Labs The District has acquired PLATO laboratories for Hall, Central, and McClellan High Schools. These schools are using the programs for remediation of socially promoted students to the high schools, for tutoring in English and mathematics concepts and skills, and for retaking courses that students have failed in the core areas. Accelerated Learning Center The Accelerated LearningCenter at Metropolitan serves more than 300 over-age and creditdeficient high school students in 1999-2000 in three sessions daily and in the summer. The competency-based, accelerated program allows students to earn high school credits as quickly as they can complete the courses they lack. This program has already had a dramatic postive effect on the drop-out rate, allowing many students to graduate who might not otherwise have done so. Alternative Learning Center The Alternative Learning Center serves middle and high school students who are on longterm suspension or expulsion. Students at this school can not only continue to make academic progress, but they also receive instruction and coaching on behavior modification so that they can be more successful when they return to their home schools. Summer School The District runs a comprehensive summer school for elementary, middle, and high school students. In summer 1999 the elementary program was conducted with an emphasis on literacy, using the Reading Clinic model. Modifications to the secondary program in summer 1999 included the decision to limit enrollment to students who live in LRSD, thereby ensuring adequate space for LRSD students. 47 Tutoring Programs Several schools offer in-classroom or extended day tutoring services, especially in reading and mathematics. 21 st Century Community Learning Centers Project (Little Rock LEADERS) Little Rock LEADERS (Literacy Education, Academic Development, Educational Resource Services) is a federally funded grant project, awarded in summer 1998 that provides educational programming to students and adults of the Little Rock community. An advisory committee comprised of community partners, parents, and school district personnel provide direction and feedback regarding the LEADERS program. Programs sponsored by this project include after-school tutoring for students in grades K-12, 2 Cool 4 School, and One Three One Five Workforce Readiness and Community Service Program (for 13-15 yearolds). Mental and physical health services are also provided. ACT Tutoring A series of three-hour workshops in each of the core test areas is provided on Saturdays for persons taking the ACT. These workshops are scheduled on consecutive Saturdays leading up to the test dates available during the school year. Career Orientation (Required Grade 7 Course) The Board approved the new middle school curriculum in November 1998. At grade 7 there is a new requirement that all students take one semester of Career Orientation. The curriculum for the course was restructured so that it now meets the objectives of the Middle School Curriculum Committee. A part of the class time is devoted to a study of the high school graduation requirements and all its options, and then students make a first draft of a graduation plan. This class also includes vocational aptitude testing and feedback. The intent is to carve out sufficient time for all students to be well informed about high school and to receive good information and guidance on the choices they have. Block Scheduling All of the LRSD high schools block scheduled in fall 1999\nthat is, teachers and students met a given classes every other day. Students may take eight courses (four each day), and teachers teach six (three each day). Longer class periods have been found to facilitate the kind of instructional\nThis project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resoources.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n "}],"pages":{"current_page":16,"next_page":17,"prev_page":15,"total_pages":27,"limit_value":12,"offset_value":180,"total_count":319,"first_page?":false,"last_page?":false},"facets":[{"name":"educator_resource_mediums_sms","items":[{"value":"lesson plans","hits":8},{"value":"teaching guides","hits":5},{"value":"learning modules","hits":1},{"value":"timelines (chronologies)","hits":1}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":16,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"type_facet","items":[{"value":"Text","hits":292},{"value":"Sound","hits":20},{"value":"MovingImage","hits":13},{"value":"StillImage","hits":6}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":16,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"creator_facet","items":[{"value":"United States. District Court (Arkansas: Eastern District)","hits":41},{"value":"Arkansas. Department of Education","hits":21},{"value":"Little Rock School District","hits":16},{"value":"United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit","hits":6},{"value":"Bushman Court Reporting","hits":4},{"value":"Bell, Lorenzo, 1925-2001","hits":2},{"value":"Brown, Myers; Johnson, Ahnekii","hits":2},{"value":"Joshua Intervenors","hits":2},{"value":"Pulaski County Special School District","hits":2},{"value":"William Gordon Associates","hits":2},{"value":"Abernathy, Juanita, 1929-","hits":1}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"subject_facet","items":[{"value":"Education--Arkansas","hits":254},{"value":"Little Rock School District","hits":210},{"value":"Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","hits":166},{"value":"Education--Evaluation","hits":127},{"value":"Educational law and legislation","hits":105},{"value":"Educational planning","hits":88},{"value":"Little Rock (Ark.)--History--21st Century","hits":74},{"value":"School integration","hits":65},{"value":"School improvement programs","hits":64},{"value":"School management and organization","hits":64},{"value":"Arkansas. Department of Education","hits":52}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"subject_personal_facet","items":[{"value":"King, Martin Luther, Jr., 1929-1968","hits":6},{"value":"Kennedy, John F. (John Fitzgerald), 1917-1963","hits":3},{"value":"Walker, John W.","hits":3},{"value":"Abernathy, Ralph, 1926-1990","hits":2},{"value":"Baker, Augusta, 1911-1998","hits":2},{"value":"Bond, Julian, 1940-2015","hits":2},{"value":"Shuttlesworth, Fred L., 1922-2011","hits":2},{"value":"Young, Andrew, 1932-","hits":2},{"value":"Abernathy, Juanita, 1929-","hits":1},{"value":"Barnes, Billy E. (Billy Ebert), 1931-2018","hits":1},{"value":"Barnett, Ross R. (Ross Robert), 1898-1987","hits":1}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"name_authoritative_sms","items":[{"value":"King, Martin Luther, Jr., 1929-1968","hits":7},{"value":"Abernathy, Ralph, 1926-1990","hits":2},{"value":"Bond, Julian, 1940-2015","hits":2},{"value":"Kennedy, John F. (John Fitzgerald), 1917-1963","hits":2},{"value":"Shuttlesworth, Fred L., 1922-2011","hits":2},{"value":"Young, Andrew, 1932-","hits":2},{"value":"Abernathy, Juanita, 1929-","hits":1},{"value":"Barnes, Billy E. (Billy Ebert), 1931-2018","hits":1},{"value":"Barnett, Ross R. (Ross Robert), 1898-1987","hits":1},{"value":"Bell, Griffin B., 1918-2009","hits":1},{"value":"Borders, William Holmes, 1905-1993","hits":1}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"event_title_sms","items":[{"value":"Martin Luther King, Jr.'s Nobel Prize","hits":6},{"value":"Housing Act of 1961","hits":2},{"value":"Integration of Clemson University","hits":2},{"value":"Little Rock Central High School Integration","hits":2},{"value":"University of Georgia Integration","hits":2},{"value":"Brown versus Board of Education","hits":1},{"value":"Freedom Rides","hits":1},{"value":"Freedom Summer","hits":1},{"value":"Montgomery Bus Boycott","hits":1},{"value":"Selma-Montgomery March","hits":1}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"location_facet","items":[{"value":"United States, 39.76, -98.5","hits":263},{"value":"United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","hits":257},{"value":"United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","hits":249},{"value":"United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959","hits":233},{"value":"United States, Georgia, 32.75042, -83.50018","hits":9},{"value":"United States, Southern States, 33.346678, -84.119434","hits":5},{"value":"United States, Alabama, Montgomery County, Montgomery, 32.36681, -86.29997","hits":4},{"value":"United States, Georgia, Atlanta Metropolitan Area, 33.8498, 84.4383","hits":4},{"value":"United States, North Carolina, Guilford County, Greensboro, 36.07264, -79.79198","hits":4},{"value":"United States, Alabama, 32.75041, -86.75026","hits":3},{"value":"United States, Alabama, Jefferson County, Birmingham, 33.52066, -86.80249","hits":3}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"us_states_facet","items":[{"value":"Arkansas","hits":258},{"value":"Georgia","hits":15},{"value":"North Carolina","hits":10},{"value":"Alabama","hits":9},{"value":"Mississippi","hits":5},{"value":"","hits":4},{"value":"District of Columbia","hits":3},{"value":"Florida","hits":3},{"value":"Illinois","hits":3},{"value":"Louisiana","hits":3},{"value":"Tennessee","hits":3}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"year_facet","items":[{"value":"2000","hits":73},{"value":"1999","hits":69},{"value":"2001","hits":67},{"value":"2002","hits":65},{"value":"1996","hits":62},{"value":"1994","hits":58},{"value":"1995","hits":58},{"value":"1997","hits":55},{"value":"1992","hits":53},{"value":"1993","hits":53},{"value":"1998","hits":53},{"value":"2003","hits":46},{"value":"1991","hits":44},{"value":"2004","hits":43},{"value":"2006","hits":34},{"value":"2005","hits":32},{"value":"1990","hits":24},{"value":"1989","hits":19},{"value":"2007","hits":14},{"value":"2013","hits":14},{"value":"2008","hits":11},{"value":"2014","hits":11},{"value":"1980","hits":10},{"value":"2010","hits":10},{"value":"2012","hits":10},{"value":"2016","hits":10},{"value":"1983","hits":9},{"value":"1984","hits":9},{"value":"2009","hits":9},{"value":"2011","hits":9},{"value":"2015","hits":9},{"value":"2017","hits":9},{"value":"2018","hits":9},{"value":"1975","hits":8},{"value":"1978","hits":8},{"value":"1988","hits":8},{"value":"1967","hits":7},{"value":"1970","hits":7},{"value":"1974","hits":7},{"value":"1977","hits":7},{"value":"1979","hits":7},{"value":"1981","hits":7},{"value":"1982","hits":7},{"value":"1985","hits":7},{"value":"1986","hits":7},{"value":"1960","hits":6},{"value":"1962","hits":6},{"value":"1964","hits":6},{"value":"1965","hits":6},{"value":"1968","hits":6},{"value":"1971","hits":6},{"value":"1972","hits":6},{"value":"1973","hits":6},{"value":"1976","hits":6},{"value":"1987","hits":6},{"value":"2019","hits":6},{"value":"1959","hits":5},{"value":"1961","hits":5},{"value":"1966","hits":5},{"value":"1969","hits":5},{"value":"2022","hits":5},{"value":"1945","hits":4},{"value":"1950","hits":4},{"value":"1951","hits":4},{"value":"1952","hits":4},{"value":"1953","hits":4},{"value":"1954","hits":4},{"value":"1955","hits":4},{"value":"1956","hits":4},{"value":"1957","hits":4},{"value":"1958","hits":4},{"value":"1963","hits":4},{"value":"2020","hits":4},{"value":"2021","hits":4},{"value":"1900","hits":3},{"value":"1901","hits":3},{"value":"1902","hits":3},{"value":"1903","hits":3},{"value":"1904","hits":3},{"value":"1905","hits":3},{"value":"1906","hits":3},{"value":"1907","hits":3},{"value":"1908","hits":3},{"value":"1909","hits":3},{"value":"1910","hits":3},{"value":"1911","hits":3},{"value":"1912","hits":3},{"value":"1913","hits":3},{"value":"1914","hits":3},{"value":"1915","hits":3},{"value":"1916","hits":3},{"value":"1917","hits":3},{"value":"1918","hits":3},{"value":"1919","hits":3},{"value":"1920","hits":3},{"value":"1921","hits":3},{"value":"1922","hits":3},{"value":"1923","hits":3},{"value":"1924","hits":3},{"value":"1925","hits":3}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":100,"offset":0,"prefix":null},"min":"1860","max":"2033","count":1494,"missing":0},{"name":"medium_facet","items":[{"value":"documents (object genre)","hits":143},{"value":"filing","hits":63},{"value":"exhibition (associated concept)","hits":18},{"value":"reports","hits":18},{"value":"oral histories (literary works)","hits":14},{"value":"transcripts","hits":13},{"value":"correspondence","hits":12},{"value":"sound recordings","hits":12},{"value":"lesson plans","hits":8},{"value":"photographs","hits":8},{"value":"web sites","hits":8}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"rights_facet","items":[{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/","hits":263},{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/","hits":31},{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/CNE/1.0/","hits":10},{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/NKC/1.0/","hits":6},{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-RUU/1.0/","hits":4},{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/NoC-US/1.0/","hits":2},{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/UND/1.0/","hits":1}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"collection_titles_sms","items":[{"value":"Office of Desegregation Management","hits":255},{"value":"Oral Histories of the American South: The Civil Rights Movement","hits":7},{"value":"Teaching with Historic Places","hits":6},{"value":"John Burrison Georgia Folklore Archives Collection","hits":4},{"value":"Historical Manuscripts and Photographs","hits":3},{"value":"Veterans History Project: Oral History Interviews","hits":3},{"value":"Alabama History Education Materials","hits":2},{"value":"Augusta Baker papers, 1911-1998","hits":2},{"value":"Butler Center for Arkansas Studies Audio Collection","hits":2},{"value":"Civil Rights Clippings from Guilford College Publications","hits":2},{"value":"Civil Rights Papers","hits":2}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"provenance_facet","items":[{"value":"Butler Center for Arkansas Studies","hits":257},{"value":"Atlanta History Center","hits":8},{"value":"University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Documenting the American South (Project)","hits":7},{"value":"United States. National Park Service","hits":6},{"value":"University of Southern Mississippi. Libraries","hits":3},{"value":"Alabama. Department of Archives and History","hits":2},{"value":"Atlanta University Center Robert W. Woodruff Library","hits":2},{"value":"Guilford College. Library","hits":2},{"value":"Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCU) Library Alliance","hits":2},{"value":"John F. Kennedy Presidential Library and Museum","hits":2},{"value":"Richard B. Russell Library for Political Research and Studies","hits":2}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"class_name","items":[{"value":"Item","hits":311},{"value":"Collection","hits":8}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":100,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"educator_resource_b","items":[{"value":"false","hits":312},{"value":"true","hits":7}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":100,"offset":0,"prefix":null}}]}}