{"response":{"docs":[{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_206","title":"Magnet Review Committee (MRC) meeting, agenda, minutes, handouts,and reports","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118"],"dcterms_creator":["Arkansas. Department of Education"],"dc_date":["2013-12-17"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Education--Arkansas","Arkansas. Department of Education","Educational statistics","Education and state","Pulaski County (Ark.)--History--20th century","Magnet schools"],"dcterms_title":["Magnet Review Committee (MRC) meeting, agenda, minutes, handouts,and reports"],"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/206"],"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":["agendas (administrative records)","minutes (administrative records)","handbills","reports"],"dcterms_extent":["239 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\n  \n\nMAGNET REVIEW COMMITTEE AGENDA December 17, 2013 I. Call to Order II. Reading of the Minutes of November 12, 2013 Ill. General Repor1t A. Correspondence B. Financial Tr\nansactions C. Newspaper Articles D. Recruitmer1t Update 1. P1-incipals' Recruitment Reports 2. MRC Office Recruitment Report E. LRSD Origi,nal Magnet Schools Personnel -Vacancies and New Hires IV. Business and/or Action Items A. Discussion of Tentative Desegregation Agreement B. Discussio1n of Magnet Schools Evaluation Report C. Set Next Meeting Date V. Adjournme:nt rameagsr ee9 112 areasin sch\u0026lt;X\u0026gt;l-suit Desegregation~case mediator sought JEANNIE ROBERTS ARKANSAS DEf,!OCRAT-GAZETTE Differences in the settlement of a 31-year-old federal school desegregation lawsuit will require the intervention of a federal magistrate to resolve, attorneys for the Pulaski County Special School District and the Joshua intervenors said Monday in a U.S. District Court filing. The joint request asked that U.S. District Judge D. Price Marshall Jr. assign a portion of the case for federal mediation, saying that they were able to \"reach tentative agreements, but have some disputes\" that remain. The settlement of the 1989 Pulaski County desegregation case was negotiated last month by attorneys for the state\nthe Little Rock, North Little Rock and Pulaski County Special school districts\nthe Joshua intervenors\nand the class of all employees in the three school districts known as the Knight intervenors. In the preliminary settlement, attorneys for the Pulaski County Special district See UNITARPYag, e 6A Unitary the communities in the Pulaski legal fees, and $500,000 to the More County Special School District Joshua intervenors and $75,0,00 to pursue a separate, commu- to.the Knight intervenors for  Continuedf romP age 1A informationni ty-based school district.\" legal fees. and the Joshua intervenors on the Web On Monday night, the Sher~ Marshall has given his pre-were charged with resolving wood City council passed a lirninary stamp of approval on their differences in how the Desegregation resolution to submifa written the settlement, but a final rul-district would achieve unitary arkansasonline.com/desegdocs. objection to the federal court ing will not be made until after status in nine key areas. The about the proposed settlement a Jan. 13-14\" fairnessh earing.\" .E.ittle Rock and North Little solved.'He added that he had preventing n~w school dis- In-November, Marshall reRock districts have already not been \"hopeful that we got tricts other than Jacksonville. quired that the parties to the been declared unitary, or de- any more than we.got.\" . Earlier, Walker said the case publicize the terms of segregated. Roberts said he would have three biggest roadblocks to the agreement and to publicly Marshall initially issued \"loved to have had another one achieving unitary status are notify individual members of a Dec. 2 deadline to Pulaski resolyed, but .we were ruhning facilities, student achievement the Joshua class or their atCounty Special and the Josh out of time.\" and discipline. He declined, torneys that they are entitled ua intervenors to either work Walker is confident, how- however, to go into detail to address the judge M'ith evout their differences amongst ever, that future negotiations about what it would take to idence and objections about themselves or to refer the will.bear more fruit.  reach an agreement. ' , the proposed agreement at the matter to a federal magistrate. , \"These are difficult issues, Roberts said in a previous January hearing. . That deadline was extended to and they take time to address. interview that there was sim- So far two l.etters have' Monday after both sides said We have a new administration ply t9o much to do in too little been received from individu   they felt they could resolve now..The other administrators time to equalize the condition als opposing the settlement.., more issues if given extra time. are gone, and their resolve of the district's decaying facil- One was from parent Stefanie In May 2011, U.S. District was sometim.es conflicting,\" ities.  Moore, who said the proposed Judge Brian S. Miller ruled that he said. ' ' \"  . , He was more hopeful.o n a agreement'.sl imits on interdis-the district was not desegre Walker said the current .quick resolution of the overall trict student transfers into Lit-, gated in the areas of student Pulaski Cqunty Special'superc agreement after Monday's fiP tle R,ock's six magnet schools: assignment\nadvanced place- intendent, Jerry-Guess, has ing, however.  :.   would hamper educational qpment and gifted education recognized that t-he school '\"If eel like we're very close, portunities for children who programs\nstudent discipline\ndistrict has riot made sufficient if not already there. They are live in.the Pulaski County Spe- school facilities\nscholarships\nprogress and is determined to probably in the'shape .that !hey' cial district'. ' special education\nstaffillg\ns tu- achieve unitary status in all could be 'handed back to the The other, Rizelle Aaron dent achievement\nand deseg- areas on a more satisfactory judge pretty_ quickly,\" Roberts of Jacksonville, questioned regation monitoring. timeline.  said, \"I think there~ _contin- the Jacksonville:c orrim.unity's' Pulaski County Special at- \"1 believe that he will do ue to be good-cooper~tion.M y financial, abilityt o support its torney Allen Roberts said re what 'lie says, He is the first th~ughts ar_eth at we ve got to , own school district.  cently that he was confident one to make that specific of a :\"mt to see~we do g_et_ma ~g- Objections must first be the parties could agree on at commitment in several years,\" iStiate appo1\nIltedT. hen _wev e submitted in writing to the least fiv_eo f the issues befiore Walker said.  got to get Wl th the,magiStiate federal court b xi M d  to see how.he wants us to pro-' Membe f thyn. Je h onl ay. . the second cutoff date. Walker pointed out that-a ceed,,  .  . rs o e os ua.c ass Monday's court filing, how- former Pulaski County Spe- R~ berts added that he who_~ave questions about the ever, reported that only two cial deputy superintendent, thinks a magistrate.would la~slllt, the s_ettlemenot ~ t~e areas - student assignment, Linda Remele, is now leading send the two partiesback to faun~ss h~arill~ _can put theu and advanced placement and an effort opposing a portion the drawing board for more questions ill wntillg to WaJer, honors programs -were able of the settlement that bars any negotiations, then ask that the lawyer f9r the Jos~ua ill to be resolved. The court doc new school districts in Pulas- they report back to him for a tervenors, Hi~ address 1s 1723 ument asked that the district ki County other than a new progress update. Broadway,_L ittle Rock, Ark. be rele.ased from federal over- Jacksonville school district. Under the proposed settle- 72206, or Johnwalkeratty@ sight on these two measures Remele and other members ment agreement involving all aol.com. . , . with the exception that it con of the Shetwood J?ublic Edu7 three districts, the state would. Members of:the Knigh~ illtinue \"generali mplementation cation Foundation formed ear- pay a total of $65.8 million a , terven_orcs an direct questions of these areas\" until the court lier this year to push for Sher- year through the end of the to therr attorneys, Mark Burenters an order with respect wood's own school district. 2017-18s choql year in desegc net~e or C~aytonB )ackstock, to the remaining obligations. The group held a news con- regation aid, In the fillal year, 1010 W. Third St., Little Rock, John Walker, the attorney ference last week, saying that the money can be used qnly A~k. 72201, or mburnette@ representing black students in its, members do not want to for construction and renova- m1tchellblacks_t?ck.com or Pulaski County's three school derail the desegregation set- tion of academic facilities: cblackstock@ rrutchellblack-districts who are known as the tlement but wanted to.express The agreement also calls stockcom. Joshua intervenors, said Mon- \"our surprise, and our extreme for the state to pay $250,000  Informationf or this article was day that he wasn't surprised disappointment and dismay,  to each of the three districts contribvted by Jake Sandlin of . that only two issues were re over the unequal treatment of to reimbu r, se them for their the ArkansasD emocrat-GazeI. t te DRAFT MAGNET REVIEW COMMITTEE MINUTES November 12, 2013 The regularly scheduled meeting of the Magnet Review Committee was held in the Magnet Review Committee Office, 1920 North Main Street, Suite 101, North Little Rock, Arkansas on Tuesday, November 12, 2013. Members Present: Dr. Sadie Mitchell, Chairperson - LRSD Terri Rogers, PCSSD-Alternate for Dr. Robert Clowers Danny Reed, ADE Members Absent: Dr. Robert Clowers, PCSSD Oliver Dillingham, ADE Joy Springer, Joshua lntervenors Micheal Stone, NLRSD Guest: Margie Powell, ODM The meeting was called to order at 8:35 a.m. by Chairperson Dr. Sadie Mitchell. She noted that a quorum was present since Danny Reed had the proxy vote of Oliver Dillingham, ADE representative. Dr. Mitchell called for a reading of the minutes of the meeting of October 8, 2013. Danny Reed made a motion to accept the minutes as presented, and Terri Rogers seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously. Chairperson Mitchell then called for a reading of the minutes of the Special-Called Meeting of October 16, 2013. Danny Reed made a motion to accept the minutes as presented, and Terri Rogers seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously. Several e-mails were presented to MRC members. Dr. Mitchell provided a brief recap of the e-mails and noted that several had to do with parents inquiring about enrollment and the MRC Office's response. Another e-mail was from Parkview thanking the MRC Office for assistance in obtaining mailing labels from NLRSD and PCSSDto notify parents of their recruitment night. No action was required by the MRC. Dr. Mitchell informed MRC members that LRSD is considering a STEM Academy and, on November 20, 2013, LRSD is going on a virtual tour of a Hartford, Connecticut school to follow as a model for STEM. She wanted to let MRC members know of the coincidence with Magnet Schools of America's national conference being held in Hartford in 2014. Bills in the amount of $2,518.95 were presented for payment. Danny Reed made a motion to pay the bills, and Terri Rogers seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. An e-mail was received from Hogan-Lovells, transmitting a memorandum entitled, \"Department of Justice and Department of Education Office for Civil Rights guidance on Fisher vs. University of Texas at Austin.\" Copies were given to MRC members for their information, but no action was required. With regard to a recruitment report, a copy of the October 1, 2013 Enrollment Report for all Little Rock School District schools was given to MRC members for their review. No action was required at this time. Margie Powell, from ODM, reported that they have started on their enrollment report, and she will provide the MRC Office with a copy as soon as possible. Updated recruitment reports from Stipulation magnet school principals were given to MRC members. Dr. Mitchell provided a brief recap of some of the activities of the schools. She noted, in particular, the participation of schools at -2- fJRAFT the Building Communities, not Bullies Rally and informed MRC members that the magnet schools were very well represented. A recruitment report, prepared by the MRC Office, listed all the activities that have been accomplished so far with advertising already established, as well as what is planned. Plans are underway for Magnet Fair on Saturday, January 25, 2014, prior to Early Enrollment which begins on Monday, January 27, 2014. With regard to Personnel Vacancies and New Hires, Dr. Mitchell said there were none to report at this time. Moving on to Business and/or Action Items, a discussion was held with regard to the Executive Director position. Dr. Mitchell reported that, during a SpecialCalled Meeting held on October 16, 2013, the MRC voted to accept the Interview Team's recommendation, and offered the job to one of the candidates who had applied and came before the Interview Team. However, that candidate did not accept the position because of the salary that was offered. No further discussion was held with regard to the position. Dr. Mitchell reported that the Evaluation Report will remain on the agenda for discussion. It was agreed by consensus that the next MRC meeting will be held on December 10, 2013, in the MRC Office. Dr. Mitchell asked if there were any special requests for the December 10th agenda. Upon hearing none, Danny Reed made a motion to adjourn the meeting, and Terri Rogers seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously, and the meeting was adjourned at 9:00 a.m. -3- DRAFT MAGNET REVIEW COMMITTEE BILLS TO BE PAID December 17, 2013 1. Arkansas Democrat-Gazette 985.00 (Advertising in \"Where We Live\") 2. Compsys 48.33 (Monthly Billing to Act as MRC's Website Host and E-Mail Access) 3. Magnet Schools of America 250.00 (MRC's Membership Dues for 2013-14) 4. Capital Business Machines 78.12 (Monthly Billing for MRC's Copier Maintenance Contract) 5. Central Arkansas Newspapers 225.00 (Advertising in \"Back to School\" Issue in Jacksonville Patriot, Maumelle Monitor, NLR Times and Sherwood Voice) 6. American Home Life 825.00 (MRC's Office Rent for December, 2013) 7. American Home Life 182.50 (MRC's Communications Expense for November, 2013) 8. Arkansas Democrat-Gazette 60.00 (Subscription Renewal for Three Months} 9. Kid's Directory 335.00 (Advertising in December, 2013} 10. Staples Advantage 122.65 (Supplies for the MRC Office} TOTAL BILLS TO BE PAID $3,111.60 Rx Date/Time DEC-16-2013(MO08N:2) 4 P.0 02 DEC/!6/2013/lM0:O26NA M FAXN o. P.0 02 Case: 4:82-cv-00866-DPM Document#: 4958-0 Date Filed: 12/13/2013 Page 1 of 1 FILED U.S. DISTRICTC OURT EASTERND ISTRICTA RKANSAS IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DEC 13 2013 EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION JAMES W. McCOR By:___::.'-!.-~~~--\n:\nDc'cEP-\n::CiE'LER~K LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, et al. v. No. 4:82-cv-866-DPM NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, et al. LORENE JOSHUA, et al. ORDER PLAINTIFFS DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS The Court has received the attached budgets from the Magnet Review Committee: the actual expenditures for 2012-2013 and the proposed expenditures for 2013-2014. The Court notes that the proposed budget for this school year is consistent timing-wise with the parties' pending proposed settlement-magnet funding is to be maintained without change through30 June 2014. Any objections to these budgets are due by 20 December 2013. So Ordered. D.P. Marshall Jf.\" United States District Judge I 3 IJ.u~ -\n.\u0026amp;I i Magnet Review From: Sent: To: Subject: CLOWERS ROBERT L. [RCLOWERS@pcssd.org] Wednesday, December 11, 2013 12:01 PM Magnet Review FW: Dem-Gaz re: M to M transfers Pulaski County school-transfer rules up in air Desegregation deal seen forcing redo on 3 districts By Cynthia Howell This article was published December 9, 2013 at 2:10 a.m. The tentatively approved settlement in the Pulaski County school desegregation lawsuit does more than phase out state desegregation money - it will change all the rules for the longtime interdistrict student-transfer programs in the three districts, including the Little Rock magnet schools. The proposed settlement was negotiated by attorneys for the state, districts and intervening parties. It was tentatively approved by U.S. District Judge D. Price Marshall Jr. on Nov. 22. The agreement that would end $65.8 million a year in desegregation aid in 2018 is scheduled to be the subject of a Jan. 13-14 fairness hearing before the judge makes any decision on its final approval. The tentative settlement states that no new student applications will be accepted for either the six magnet schools or for the majority-to-minority interdistrict student-transfer program that enables students to transfer from a district in which their race is in the majority to a district and school where their race is in the minority. Currently enrolled students in the magnet schools may remain in them until they complete all grades, according to the tentative settlement. Current students in the majority-to-minority transfer program may remain in the district in which they now attend school until high school graduation. A relatively small number of students who are not now in magnet schools or the transfer program would still be able to transfer across district lines to attend school - but they would have to exercise a \"legal transfer\" process that is authorized in state law but has not been used much in Pulaski County in recent years. Stephen Jones, an attorney for the North Little Rock School District, said the caps on the number of interdistrict student transfers to magnet and other schools are the product of compromise. The North Little Rock district wanted to \"keep the doors open\" for transfer students, Jones said. But the Pulaski County Special district, which is trying to remove itself from the state's fiscal distress program and raise money to build new schools, wanted to restrict transfers out of that district as a way to stabilize its enrollment, he said. \"This is just a middle ground that we were able to negotiate that accommodated our interests and at the same time accommodated the Pulaski County Special School District's interest in limiting their exposure to student loss,\" Jones said. The tentatively approved agreement would permit up to 30 students to transfer from the Pulaski County Special district to the Little Rock School District each year to attend magnet schools or other schools. Pulaski County Special also would approve up to 30 students to transfer each year to the North Little Rock district. In some years, more than 30 students could transfer to accommodate students with siblings, but no more than 150 students can transfer to each district over five years. Pulaski County Special could, but would not be required to, accept transfer students from Little Rock and North Little Rock. Additionally, the Little Rock and North Little Rock districts would allow transfers to each other's districts - 30 each per year, with some flexibility to allow siblings to transfer together. But again, no more than 150 student transfers would be allowed per district over five years. All those transfers would be done using the \"legal transfer\"process permitted by Arkansas Code Annotated 3- 18-316. Legal transfer students have to be approved by the school board of the sending district and the school board of the receiving district. The state aid for a legal transfer student follows the student to the receiving district. Local tax revenue does not follow the student to the receiving district, however. And legal transfer students would have to provide their own transportation to school unless the districts choose to provide it. Jones said the North Little Rock district wanted assurances of at least 50 students from the Pulaski County Special district, but the county district's position was \"If we don't take any of your students and send you 30, then that gets you a net of 50. \"That's how we got to that number,\" Jones said. \"It's just a negotiated number. If it was up to North Little Rock, we would have open choice and the kids could go to whatever district they wanted to,\" he said. Jones said the Pulaski County Special district's position heavily weighed upon the potential for Pulaski County Special students to also transfer under the state's revised School Choice Act of 2013 to surrounding districts outside Pulaski County - such as Bryant, Cabot, Sheridan, Mayflower and others. Both the Pulaski County Special and Little Rock districts earlier this year exercised an exemption clause in the School Choice Act because of their involvement in a federal school desegregation lawsuit.As a result, the districts do not send or accept School Choice Act transfer students from districts outside the county. \"They are looking at it from an economic point of view,\" Jones said of the Pulaski County Special district's efforts to retain students and the state funding for those students. The proposed settlement would enable some North Little Rock students to transfer to Little Rock to attend magnet schools. The proposal also allows Little Rock students to transfer to North Little Rock schools, which they have previously not been permitted to do under existing majority-to-minority program. The majority-to-minority student-transfer program and the six special-program magnet schools in the Little Rock district - Booker, Carver, Gibbs and Williams elementaries, Horace Mann Middle School and Parkview High - were established in the late 1980s to promote voluntary racial desegregation in Pulaski County's three school districts. 2 Although the number of students participating in those programs has dropped off in recent years, the programs are considered well-used and successful. In 2012-13, a total of 3,428 students from all three Pulaski County school districts were enrolled in the six magnet schools - 1,072 of them from North Little Rock and Pulaski County Special school districts. Another 1,723 students crossed district lines to attend schools in a Pulaski County district different from the district in which they lived as the result of the majority-to-minority transfer program. Little Rock Superintendent Dexter Suggs said the special-program magnet schools in his district may lose some of their interdistrict features as the result of the proposed settlement. But those schools and their programs in the arts, and math and sciences will be retained, he said. \"Our magnet program will continue. We will not lose the integrity of the programs,\" Suggs said. \"We are actually looking to improve the magnet program,\" he said, adding that he expects possible enhancements to be identified within the month. Suggs, who became the Little Rock superintendent in July, said he wants to keep and promote the magnet schools as a choice option for families. \"We want our magnet program population to increase,\" Suggs said and noted that the schools will be featured in a future marketing campaign to the public. \"If they can grow from 15 [percent] to 25 percent at each school, that would be great,\" he said about enrollment. The academic themes at the schools won't change, Suggs said. Nor will the racial guidelines for the schools. The magnet schools are supposed to have a racial makeup of 50 percent black students and 50 percent white and other races/ ethnicities. The magnet schools will be populated by students from across the district and will not draw from a defined attendance zone, as is practice for other schools in the district. Suggs has scheduled a meeting Tuesday with the principals of the six magnet schools to brainstorm ways to grow and improve the schools. One change he said he will propose is that students who are enrolled in magnet schools and complete the top grade in those schools be given first priority for enrollment at the next level of magnet schools. Pupils who finish at Booker Arts Magnet Elementary School, for example, would have a greater opportunity to continue in the arts program at Horace Mann Arts and Sciences Magnet Middle School and Parkview Arts and Sciences Magnet High. Currently, students in one magnet school have no greater chance of attending the next level of magnet school than any other student who applies for a special program school. Suggs also said he wants to include Dunbar Middle School's gifted and talented program in the magnet program but eliminate other \"magnet\" labels at schools in the district. Front Section, Pages 1 on 12/09/2013 Print Headline: Pulaski County school-transfer rules up in air 3 Magnet Review From: Sent: To: Subject: Attachments: Good Afternoon, Curtis, Kimberly D.H. [kimberly.curtis@hoganlovells.com] Monday, December 09, 2013 11 :17 AM Curtis, Kimberly D.H. School District Seeks Sup. Ct. Review of Ruling that Middle School Students Generally Have Constitutional Rights to Use Ambiguously Lewd Speech to Express Political/Social Commentary at Schools DOC044.PDF The attached document is being sent on behalf of John Borkowski and Joel Buckman. Please direct any responses to Mr. Borkowski at john.borkowski@hoganlovells.com and Mr. Buckman at joel.buckman@hoganlovells.com. Thank you, Kimberly Curtis Assistant to John Borkowski, Partner Hogan Lovells US LLP About Hogan Lovells Hogan Lovells is an international legal practice that includes Hogan Lovells US LLP and Hogan Lovells International LLP. For more information, see www.hoganlovells.com. CONFIDENTIALITY. This email and any attachments are confidential, except where the email states it can be disclosed\nit may also be privileged. If received in error, please do not disclose the contents to anyone, but notify the sender by return email and delete this email (and any attachments) from your system. No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2013.0.3426 / Virus Database: 3658/6903 - Release Date: 12/09/13 Hogan Lovells To FROM DATE School District Clients and Friends John W. Borkowski Joel D. Buckman December 9, 2013 MEMORANDUM Hogan Lovells US LLP Columbia Square 555 Thirteenth Street, N\\N Washington, DC 20004 T +1 202 637 5600 F +1202637 5910 www.hoganlovells.com SUBJECT School District Seeks Supreme Court Review of Ruling that Middle School Students Generally Have Constitutional Right to Use Ambiguously Lewd Speech to Express Political or Social Commentary at School On December 3, 2013, the Easton Area School District in Pennsylvania sought review in the United States Supreme Court of an important appellate court ruling against it. 11 In August, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit held that the school district violated the First Amendment by prohibiting middle school students from wearing \"I ., boobies: (KEEP A BREAST)\" bracelets. I/ The Court of Appeals concluded that school districts may categorically punish ambiguously lewd speech-as opposed to plainly lewd speech-only when such speech cannot plausibly be interpreted as political or social commentary. In short, students generally have a constitutional right to use ambiguously lewd speech to express political or social commentary. In the Third Circuit's view, because \"I ., boobies: (KEEP A BREAST)\" did not rise to the level of plainly lewd speech, and the bracelets were part of a breast cancer awareness campaign, the school district's ban violated the First Amendment. Unless the Supreme Court intervenes, the new test promises practical difficulties for school districts, at least those in Delaware, Pennsylvania, and New Jersey. I. Legal Background Students do not shed their free speech rights at the school house gate,J/ but they also do not have the same rights as adults on street corners. 1/ Over a series of cases, the Supreme Court has articulated a unique Constitutional framework for evaluating student speech. The cornerstone of that framework is the Court's decision in Tinker. In that landmark case, a school district had punished students for wearing black armbands protesting the Vietnam war. The Supreme Court ruled the district violated the First Amendment. The Court concluded that school 11 http://articles.mcall.com/2013-12-05/news/mc-easton-boobies-bracelets-su preme-cou rt-filing- 20131203 1 _easton-area-school-district-student-speech-brianna-hawk. 'l/ B.H. ex rel. Hawk v. Easton Area Sch. Dist., 725 F.3d 293 (2013) (3d Cir. 2013) (en bane). ~/ Tinker v. Des Moines tndep. Cmty. Sch. Dist., 393 U.S. 503, 506 (1969). 1/ See Morse v. Frederick, 551 U.S. 393, 406 (2007). Hogan Lovells US LLP is a limi!ed liability partnership registered 1n the Dlstnct of Columbia. Hogan Lovells\" is an international legal practice that includes Hogan Lovells US LLP and Hogan Lovells International LLP, with offices In: Alicante Amsterdam Baltimore Beijing Brussels Caracas Colorado Springs Denver Dubai Ousseldorf Frankfurt Hamburg Hanoi Ho Chi Minh City Hong Kong Houston Johannesburg London Los Angeles Luxembourg Madrid Miami Milan Moscow Munich New York Northern Virginia Paris Philadelphia Prague Rio de Janeiro Rome San Francisco Shanghai Silicon Valley Singapore Tokyo Ulaanbaatar Warsaw Washington DC Associated offices Budapest Jakarta Jeddah Riyadh Zagreb. For more information see www hogan1ove11cso m \\\\DC 7047261000300- 5275985v 1 School District Clients and Friends - 2 - December 9, 2013 districts may bar student speech protected by the First Amendment only when there is an actual or reasonable forecast of a \"substantial disruption\" to school activities or \"inva[sion] of the rights of others.\"/ When, as in Tinker,! there is no such disruption, student speech is generally protected. Tinker requires case-by-case analysis. In addition, the Supreme Court has concluded that school districts also may categorically restrict certain categories of speech:  School sponsored speech when restrictions relate to legitimate pedagogical concerns. School districts may limit \"expressive activities that students, parents, and members of the public might reasonably perceive to bear the imprimatur of the school,\" such as a school newspaper. Zf Districts may control the \"style and content of student speech in schoolsponsored expressive activities so long as their actions are reasonably related to legitimate pedagogical concerns.\"_/  Plainly lewd or vulgar speech. Districts may punish speech a reasonable observer would interpret as lewd, vulgar, or profane speech and conduct, even when it would be protected in other settings. 'd_/ For example, in nominating a peer for class office, a student used an '\"elaborate, graphic, and explicit sexual metaphor.\"' 1Q/ The Supreme Court upheld the student's suspension, concluding the \"(d]istrict acted entirely within its permissible authority in imposing sanctions [for the student's] offensively lewd and indecent speech.\" 111 It also suggested that, at least when the District is not engaging in viewpoint discrimination, the \"determination of what manner of speech in the classroom or in school assembly is inappropriate properly rests with the school board.\" .12_/ School districts may not, however, punish any speech that might be characterized as offensive. jl/  Speech promoting illegal drug use. School districts may prohibit speech that they reasonably interpret as promoting illegal drug use. HI For example, the Supreme Court upheld a principal's suspension of a student for holding up a banner reading \"Bong Hits 4 Jesus.\" .1./ The Third Circuit's decision purports to clarify when school districts may categorically prohibit speech that is ambiguously lewd. _! Tinker, 393 U.S. at 513-14. I Id.\nsee a/so id. at 517-18 {Black, J., dissenting) (explaining that the armbands did \"cause(] comments, warnings by other students, the poking of fun at them, and a warning by an older football player that other, nonprotesting students had better let them alone\" and that the armbands \"practically 'wrecked\"' one math class). ZI Hazelwood Sch. Dist. v. Kuh/meier, 484 U.S. 260,271 (1988). _/ Id. at 273. 'd_/ Bethel Sch. Dist. No. 403 v. Fraser, 478 U.S. 675, 678, 682-84 (1986). 1.QI Id. at 685-86. 111 Id. 12_/ Id. at 683, 685. 1]/ Morse 551 U.S. at 409. 14/ Id. at 403 . .1..1 Id. IIDC  70\u0026lt;1726/000300 5275985 v1 School District Clients and Friends - 3 - December 9, 2013 II. The Third Circuit's Ruling As part of a breast cancer awareness campaign, three Easton Area School District middle school girls wore bracelets to school proclaiming \"I ., boobies: (KEEP A BREAST).\" After several months, and despite no actual or impending substantial disruption, administrators demanded the girls take them off or face punishment. Citing the First Amendment two of the three refused. The administrators imposed 1.5 days' in-school suspension and prohibited them from attending a dance\nthe girls filed a federal law suit. On appeal, the Third Circuit held the district had violated the girls' Constitutional rights. Interpreting the Supreme Court's decisions on vulgar speech and speech promoting illegal drug use, the Court articulated a new rule for ambiguously lewd speech: 1. School districts may categorically restrict \"plainly lewd\" speech that \"offends for the same reasons obscenity offends\" regardless of whether it is political or social commentary. 2. School districts may categorically restrict speech not rising to the level of \"plainly lewd\" but that a \"reasonable observer could interpret as lewd\" only when the speech cannot \"plausibly be interpreted as commenting on a social or political issue.\".1/ In applying it, the court will \"defer to a school's reasonable judgment that an observer could interpret ambiguous speech as lewd, vulgar, profane, or offensive only if the speech could not plausibly be interpreted as commenting on a political or social issue.\" 1]_/ According to the Third Circuit, the bracelets presented \"an open-and-shut case.\" .1./ The Court held the bracelets were not lewd but that a reasonable observer could interpret them as lewd. In reaching this determination, the Court undertook a \"highly contextual inquiry.\"~/ It disregarded the speaker's subjective intent and evaluated the \"plausibility of the school's interpretation in light of competing meanings\nthe context, content, and form of the speech\nand the age and maturity of the students.\" 20/ The Court counted as significant that:  The bracelets bore \"no resemblance to ... 'pervasive sexual innuendo\"' plainly offensive to teachers and students (teachers had to request guidance about how to handle the bracelets, administrators waited two months to ban them, and the loudspeaker announcement used the term \"boobies\")\nand  \"Boobie\" was not \"remotely akin to the seven words that are considered obscene to minors on broadcast television\" and was just a \"sophomoric\" synonym for breast. 1_/ 1/ Hawk, 725 F.3d at 319-20. 11.J Id. 317. 1.1 Id. at 320. ~I Id. at 309, 320. 201 Id . .fl! Id. at 320. \\\\DC  7047261000300 - 5275985 v1 School District Clients and Friends - 4 - December 9, 2013 Because the ambiguously lewd bracelets were part of a national breast cancer awareness campaign, they could be interpreted as political or social commentary, and the district, therefore, could not categorically prohibit them. 22/ Ill. Legal and Practical Implications The Third Circuit's new test currently is the law only in Delaware, Pennsylvania, and New Jersey, and even that could change if the Supreme Court decides to consider the case. It also remains to be seen whether other courts will adopt the Third Circuit's approach. At least one federal district court in Indiana has already upheld the ability of school districts to prohibit the \"I ., boobies: (KEEP A BREAST)\" bracelets and expressly rejected the Third Circuit's reasoning. 23/ The key practical difficulty for school districts seeking to apply the Third Circuit's decision will be line drawing. The Court's opinion recognized it would require administrators to make difficult judgments: What line demarcates plainly lewd speech from speech that a reasonably observer might interpret as lewd? When is it plausible to think speech is political or social commentary? The Third Circuit's answers to these questions do not provide much clear guidance to school administrators. The majority suggests looking to the Supreme Court's obscenity-to-minors cases and to cases demarcating when speech involves a matter of public concern. 24/ Under this framework, school districts could not bar \"I ., boobies: (KEEP A BREAST)\" but presumably could bar \"I ., titties: (KEEP A BREAST)\" (because the latter includes one of the seven dirty words held to be obscene to minors). 25/ The majority offered little guidance on how to respond beyond these two examples. As a dissenting judge pointed out, the lack of a \"workable parameter unnecessarily handcuffs school districts.\" The Third Circuit took comfort that \"(o]ver time, the fault lines demarcating plainly lewd speech and political and social speech will settle and become more rule-like as precedent accumulates.\" 26/ Even if that prediction proves correct, in the meantime, teachers and administrators will face difficult day-to-day decisions. * * * If you have questions about this case or other First Amendment issues, feel free to contact John W. Borkowski at 574-239-7010, john.borkowski@hoganlovells.com or Joel Buckman at 202-637-6408, joel.buckman@hoganlovells.com. 221 Id. 23/ See JA v. Fort Wayne Cmty Sch., No. 12-155 (N.D. Ind. Aug. 20, 2013). 24! Hawk, 725 F.3d at 318-19. 25! Id. at 318\nsee a/so id. at 339 (Greenaway, Jr., dissenting) (pointing out practical flaws in the majority's approach). 26/ Id.at 319. IIDC - 704726/000300 - 5275985 v1 Recruitment Activities for Gibbs Magnet School of International Studies \u0026amp; Foreign Languages December 5, 2013 1. Publicity in the local news media and LRSD website A. Gibbs has been in the Arkansas Democrat Gazette newspaper three times already this year: (1) AUGUST-First Day of School with Fathers Brin in Students to School ~1 -- Arkansas Democrat-Gazette/MELISSA SUE GERRITS 08/19/13 - Amy Nicholas embraces daughter Avery Nicholas, 7, at Gibbs Magnet Elementary School August 19, 2013 while they wait to hear which classroom Avery will be in for her first year of school at Gibbs. (3) OCTOBER - Gibbs was included in the news article about the One-toOne Laptop Initiative. B. Gibbs has been featured in the Spanish Speakers newspaper, \"Hispanic,\" once so far this year on October 3, with a photo at WorldFest and a mention in the article. (See next page) ~~C:.\"i:::'..=: .:::.-...., .... _.:_ -.---.-.----.-- --.--.~- ---------- ---..---- IIU na vez mas la ciudad de Lillie U Rock organize el World Fest en el que se festeja la d1vers1dad cultural que hay en la c1ud.111 y en un marco de diversion se exp~nen muestras h1st6ricas y cullurales de_ dv~rsos palses de las cuales son onginano~ diferentes grupos de personas que habtan Arkansas Central. Los representados iban desde las indios amencanos hasta Ghana en Africa y Pakistan entre otras culturas. El evento se realiz6 a un co_stado del Zool6gico de la ciudad y abn6 con un ctesfile de las alumnos de la escu~la Magnet Gibbs de Estudios lntemacionales e ldiomas. quienes portaban banderas de diversos palses y se realizaron las honores a la bandera de Estados Unldos. Esta ocasi6n el juramenlo se realiz6 en Ingles. aleman, trances y en espai\\ol, este ultimo dirigido por Neyla Palacios de North Little Rock y estudlante del quinto grado de la escuela Gibbs. Como representante de la cultura hispana estaba Bongo Willie que como ya es tradici6n en el festival, comparti6 sus percusiones con los nii\\os y adolescentes que se dieron cita para conocer mtis de la gran diversidad de la que esta formada la ciudad. Por Laura MMlnez de Gut~rrez C. Gibbs has been featured on local television six times this year: (1) AUGUST - Japanese Students and Teacher from Niigata, Japan at Gibbs (2) SEPTEBMER - 9/11 Day of Service and Remembrance with Firefighter Ceremony (3) SEPTEMBER- Ozark Water Project (4) SEPTEMBER 27 -Benefit and Swab Party for Teecumpsy Wiggins (4th grader with leukemia) at Dunbar Community Garden (5) NOVEMBER 8 - \"Feel Good Friday\" segment on Fox 16 featured Gibbs Annual Breakfast Cereal Drive sponsored by the Mini United Nations. r (6) NOVEMBER 12 - KARK Ch 4 had news story about the Gibbs Annual Breakfast Cereal Drive sponsored by the Mini United Nations. Elementary School Fights Hunger 1 Cereal Box at a Time by Drew Petrimoulx 11/07/2013 LITTLE ROCK, AR -- Every night, many children across the state go to sleep hungry. Some of the kids at Gibbs Elementary are trying to change that in their school. As children at Gibbs stood with cereal boxes in hand, they explained their feelings, knowing some kids at their school don't have enough food. \"{It) makes me sad that they don't have enough food and then they need some,\" Nina Millender said. \"It's unfair that we are like eating and eating the night away while others don't even have food at all,\" Simon Nuckle said. To help make a difference, the children are encouraging their classmates to bring in boxes of cereal, and they're getting help organizing from their international studies teacher Vicki Gonterman. \"They think maybe that it's going to go out and feed the hungry in Little Rock somewhere, but what it does is it stays right here in the school community, because we all have hunger very close to us,\" Gonterman said. Nearly half of the students at Gibbs qualify for free or reduced lunch. The cereal boxes collected go home with those most in need each weekend. \"It makes me feel good that we're doing the food drive because we're helping them,\" Millender said. Their teacher calls it a service-learning project. The kids are serving their peers in need while at the same time learning how close to home the problem of hunger can hit. D. Gibbs has been featured on LRSD website four times, once on Twitter (LRSD) and twice on Facebook (LRSD): (1) Gibbs Educator Selected for Global Conference in NYC Gibbs Educator Participates in Japan Society's Global Conference in NYC In May, Ms. Vicki Stroud Gonterman, International Studies Specialist at Gibbs International Magnet School, received a select invitation to participate in the Third Annual Going Global: International Student Social Networking Conference for Educators organized by the Japan Society. Gonterman, one of only ten US-based educators invited, attended the three day conference, August 7-9 in New York, with educators from Japan and Pakistan. The all-expenses paid conference was sponsored in part by the Japan Foundation Center for Global Partnership and the Toshiba International Foundation. The U.S.Japan Foundation submitted Gonterman's name for inclusion in the conference as she was their 2006 Elgin Heinz Humanities Educator of the Year. Gonterman now has a Japanese \"Kamishibai\" lesson published online with the Japan Society on their educator's website! Click here to view the lesson. Also, as a result of participation in the conference, Gonterman is currently establishing a new partnership with an international elementary school in Japan. Photo: Gonterman is sitting on the far right of the first table with educators from Japan and Pakistan. (2) Two LRSD Teachers Win Competitive Study Opportunity at the Truman Library Chris Gonterman, Physical Education Teacher at Hall High School, and Vicki Stroud Gonterman, International Studies Specialist at Gibbs International Magnet Elementary School, have both been selected as winners of the Summer Teachers Seminar entitled, \"U.S. Presidents and the Middle East: Truman to Obama,\" offered by the Truman Library in Independence, Missouri this July. The two will attend the weeklong conference, along with teachers selected from across the United States, attend lectures, and utilize the Truman Library's primary source documents on Presidential Policy Making in the Middle East to create lesson plans. The competitive application process included a personal essay explaining the content and pedagogy that would be utilized in their classroom along with an application and resume. (3)Reading Quiz Bowl Results Results for Gibbs Magnet's First Reading Bowl! Gibbs International Magnet School has just concluded its first Reading Bowl of the year! Students in grades 3-5 had an assigned book over the summer. Upon their return to school in August, the children anticipated involvement in a quiz bowl competition around their book. The competition was conducted in each classroom. The winning team in each classroom faced off against the winning team in the opposing grade level homeroom! Homeroom winners were: Third Grade - Mrs. Jennifer White's students\n4th Grade - Mrs. Julie Davis's students\nand Fifth Grade - Ms. Jennifer Gillespie's students! Each student on the winning teams received a certificate with their team photo. A trophy is also displayed outside each classroom! These children exhibited great sportsmanship! They are looking forward to the next Reading Quiz Bowl at Gibbs! Pictured above are (1) fourth graders and (2) third grade students competing in the first-ever Gibbs Reading Quiz Bowl! (4) LRSD Launches One-to-One Laptop Initiative The Little Rock School District announced an exciting new 1 :1 (one-to-one) technology initiative Tuesday to be piloted at four elementary schools. The initiative will put laptops in the hands of 4-Sth grade students at Gibbs, Forest Park, Otter Creek and Roberts Elementary schools starting in January, 2014. (Gibbs featured in photo top row, center) LRSD is launching the initiative first to teachers, with an extensive Professional Development push, then to students and parents in a three-phase process. The three phases will occur over two years and include: Four schools - Phase One Eight-ten schools - Phase Two All elementary schools - Phase Three Students will be able to take the laptops home with them every day, providing them with a 24-7 learning opportunity. The devices will be used to prepare students for college and career in a digital world incorporating National Educational Technology Standards (NETS). These standards are used to provide the experiences students should routinely encounter as well as the skills and knowledge they need to acquire - a few are listed below.  Creativity and Innovation  Communication and Collaboration  Research and Information fluency  Critical Thinking\nProblem-solving and Decision making\nDigital Citizenship\nand Technology Operations and Concepts \"The laptops will help to better engage students in the learning process, increase academic achievement and help students to become independent learners,\" said LRSD Superintendent Dr. Dexter Suggs. \"Providing the 1 :1 computing opportunity to our students sends a definitive message that access to technology can be transformative.\" LRSD Director of Instructional Technology Barbara Williams added, \"The 1 :1 initiative is just what we need as we prepare our teachers and students with twenty-first century technology teaching and learning skills.\" The district will provide one bag and charging accessory for the laptop. The goal is to eventually replace textbooks with laptops. Parent information meetings will begin in January, 2014 for students who receive devices. (5) Twitter/ lrsd: Congratulations to Gibbs Head https://twitter.com/lrsd/status/403894029483380737 Nov 22, 2013 - Congratulations to Gibbs Head Custodian Carl Shumate who is celebrating 40 years at Gibbs! He started working at. .. http://fb.me/2xDcUKK2s. (6) Little Rock School District - Little Rock, AR - Public School I Facebook https://www.facebook.com/mylrsd?ref=stream\u0026amp;viewer_id=O ... 3 The Gibbs Mini United Nations is supporting this fundraiser as this year's Change for Peace for Victims of Typhoon Haiyan. (7) Little Rock School District - Little Rock, AR - Public School I Facebook https://www.facebook.com/mylrsd?rf=187111201326948 GIBBS MAGNET STUDENTS COMMEMORATE VETERAN'S DAY ... grades 3-5 at Gibbs International Magnet School made and assembled red poppy wreaths to commemorate Veteran's Day in French foreign language classes ... E. Gibbs is currently featured on the LRSD Access Channel with two programs: (1) Gibbs \"9/11 Day of Service and Remembrance\" which included First Lady of Arkansas, Ginger Beebe, reading to a Kindergarten class and many other service volunteers reading in grades K-3 (Filmed September 11) and ( continued) (2) Gibbs Third and Fourth Grades Musical Program \"Music, Arts, and Play-The Gibbs Way\" (Filmed October 7) 2. Community Involvement: (1) SEPTEMBER 27 - Gibbs fifth graders perform at Opening Ceremony of WorldFest annually for school and community relations (City of Little Rock and LR Racial and Cultural Diversity Commission). Photos to appear on LRRCDC Website. (2) Other community events such as with the Clinton Foundation, the Sister Cities Commission, Heifer International, etc. as requested during the year. 3. Weekly newsletter (every Wednesday) 1st Quarter - The newsletter is called El Mundo, Spanish for The World. 2nd Quarter-The newsletter is called Le Monde, French for The World. See separate attachments. 4. Special Days at School for Families ( 1) SEPTEMBER 6 - Grandparents Day Luncheon (2) OCTOBER 25 - Dads Day Luncheon (3) Moms Day Luncheon (May 9) (4) Coffee Cafe (monthly on a Friday) for parents and staff before school in media center September 13, October 4, November 8, December 6 5. Special Evenings at Gibbs: (1) AUGUST - New Student/Family Orientation (2) SEPTEMBER - Open House (3) MONTHLY - Scouting Nights (4) QUARTERLY -PTA Meetings SEPTEMBER 12 - 1st PT A Meeting NOVEMBER 14 - 2nd PTA Meeting (5) OCTOBER 22 - Family Math and Literacy Night (6) November 22 Family Movie Night (7) International Fest (May 2) (8) Science Fair Family Meeting (grades 3-5) (9) Musicals each year performed by students OCTOBER 7 - \"The Arts, Music, and Play: The Gibbs Way\" Musical by 3rd and 4th graders (two performances, 1 :00 and 6:00 p.m.) DECEMBER 16 - \"Winter Fun and Games\" Musical by 1st and 2nd graders (two performances, 1:00 and 6:00 p.m.) 6. Recruitment Invitations, Brochures, and CD's (1) We will send invitations to the parents of P4 (Pre-K) students in Early Childhood Schools to visit Gibbs during the two weeks prior to registration for the 2014-15 school year. (2) We will send invitations to our Partners in Education for prospective families to tour the school. (3) We will also alert our current Gibbs families and staff to talk with friends, church/work acquaintances, new neighbors to the LR area, etc. that have young children to invite them to Gibbs for a tour or a special evening event. 7. Magnet Schools Fair, Saturday, January 25, 2014 (ON-HOLD) (1) Information booth worked by teachers and parents with a tour signup sheet, brochures, and CD's to be given away (2) Foreign Language Performances by Gibbs students 8. Tours of the School (1) Scheduled Tours - International Studies Specialist gives scheduled tours of the school. (2) NOVEMBER 11-15 - \"Check Us Out\" Week- (including Check Us Out Days -November 12-14). We offer a week of tours guided by parent volunteers or the International Studies Specialist and distribute informational brochures to prospective families. (3) JANUARY 27-FEBRUARY 7 - Open Enrollment Period. We offer tours with parent volunteers or IS Specialist for that two week period and distribute CD's of our magnet program to prospective families. Compiled and submitted by Vicki Stroud Gonterman Magnet Review From: Sent: To: Subject: Attachments: Betty Bradford (bradfordb@nlrsd.org] Friday, December 13, 2013 8:40 AM Magnet Review Fwd: Revised URGENT INFORMATION Desegregation Settlement Agreement Exhibit 1.pdf ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Micheal Stone \u0026lt;stonem@nlrsd.org\u0026gt; Date: Wed, Dec 4, 2013 at 4:26 PM Subject: Revised URGENT INFORMATION Desegregation Settlement Agreement To: NLRSD Faculty \u0026lt;nlrsd-faculty@nlrsd.org\u0026gt; SCHOOL DESEGREGATION SETTLEMENT PENDING The Proposed Settlement. In November 2013, the parties of the class action lawsuit joined a new Proposed Settlement Agreement to release the State from its obligations under the 1989 Settlement Agreement. Individual members of the class will not be (and have never been) awarded any money through the new Proposed Settlement Agreement. The key terms of this Proposed Settlement Agreement for the will affect magnet schools, m to m transfers, desegregation funding, and the legal transfer of students within the three districts in Pulaski County. 1) The State will continue to make desegregation payments to the NLR School District for four more years and no longer. 2) No new M to Mor Magnet School transfers will be permitted. 3) Students currently enrolled in M to M and Magnet programs may continue. 4) The Districts will continue to provide free transportation to existing M to Mor stipulation Magnet students for at least three years. 5) The LRSD and PCSSD have currently opted out of the State's School Choice law. Under the Proposed Settlement Agreement, PCSSD and LRSD will allow 30 legal transfer students to attend NLRSD yearly and NLRSD will allow 30 legal transfers to attend LRSD. During this five year settlement agreement, siblings of students attending NLRSD through legal transfer will be given first priority to legally transfer into the NLRSD. 6) Students currently enrolled in one of the Districts under the State's School Choice law may continue to attend until they move or graduate from high school. More Information Available. '54.n Individual Approach to a World ef Knowledge\" December 4, 2013 Good Afternoon, Parents: We are required by law to provide you with a copy of the attached legal notice regarding the proposed desegregation settlement. In addition to this copy which has been sent home with your student, for your convenience, you will also find the legal notice posted the following ways: On the website: LRSD.org Linked to LRSD's Facebook page and Twitter accounts Pamela Srnith LRSD, Director of Communications 810 W. Markham  Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  www.lrsd.org 501-447-1000  fax: 501-447-1001 Notice Of Proposed Settlement Of Class Action, Rights Of Class Members, And Fairness Hearing To Consider The Proposed Settlement TO: All African-American or black public-school-age children of Pulaski County, Arkansas, and their parents or guardians\nand All certified and non-certified staff employees of the Little Rock School District, Pulaski County Special School District No. 1, and North Little Rock School District The Background. A class action lawsuit is pending in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas: Little Rock School District, et at: v. Pulaski Cpunty Special School District, No. 4:82-cv-866 DPM. This case is sometimes called the Little Rock or Pulaski County desegregation case. The parties to this lawsuit.include a group of individuals kriown as the Joshua Intervenors. The Court has designated these Intervenors to represent the Joshua Class - \"all current, past and future LRSD, PCSSD and NLRSD black students, their parents and next friends.\" The other parties to the case are the Little Rock School District, the Pulaski County Special School District, the North Little Rock School District, a group of certified and noncertified staff organizations and individuals known as the Knight Intervenors, and the State of Arkansas by the Arkansas Department of Education. The class action does not involve payment of any money to individuals. It deals only with how schools in Pulaski County, Arkansas, are operated. It is only for injunctive relief. Since 1990 a document called the 1989 Settlement Agreement has required certain actions by the State and the three Districts including two programs to affect the racial balance of students in schools in Pulaski County. One program, the Majority to Minority (or M to M) transfer program, allowed some students to attend a school outside of the district in which they live. A second program allowed students to attend one of six stipulation Magnet schools in the LRSD. The six stipulation Magnet schools are Booker Elementary, Carver Elementary, Gibbs Elementary, Williams Elementary, Horace Mann Middle School, and Parkview High School. Both programs provide free transportation to students. The 1989 Settlement Agreement also requires the State to take other actions, some in support of desegregation of the schools. The State's total payments to the three Districts are currently around $67 million each year. The ADE has asked the Court to immediately release it from all obligations under the 1989 Settlement Agreement. The Joshua Intervenors and the Districts have argued to the Court that the ADE should not be released from its obligations under the 1989 Settlement Agreement. The Proposed Settlement. In November 2013, the parties joined a new Proposed Settlement Agreement to release the State from its obligations under the 1989 Settlement Agreement. Individual members of the class will not be (and have never been) awarded any money through the new Proposed Settlement Agreement. The key terms of this Proposed Settlement Agreement are:  The State will continue to make desegregation payments to the Districts for four more years and no longer\n The M to M program will not accept new applications this year, and applications for students living in NLRSD or PCS SD to transfer to the.six stipulation Magnet schools in LRSD will no longer be accepted\n Students currently enrolled in the M to M program can continue in this program as long as their parent or guardian chooses (including through high school graduation)\n Students living in NLRSD or PCSSD now enrolled in one of the six stipulation Magnet schools in the LRSD can continue in their school as long as their parent or guardian chooses (including through the highest grade in the school)\n After three years the Districts will not be required to provide free transportation to M to Mor stipulation Magnet students who cross District lines, but the Districts may do so if they choose to\nand '  All of the State's obligations in this case end once the last payment is made to the Districts under the Proposed Settlement Agreement. The six stipulation Magnet schools will continue to exist. The Proposed Settlement Agreement changes the rules for who can enrolfin these schools and the availability of transportation. The PCSSD will remain under Court supervision for a time and continue to pursue unitary status. The possible creation of a Jacksonville/North Pulaski area school district consistent with state law is authorized. The State will oppose the creation of any other school district from PCSSD's territory until PCSSD is declared fully unitary and released from Court supervision. The Proposed Settlement Agreement also provides for some attorney's fees: $250,000 each to LRSD, NLRSD, and PCSSD\n$500,000 to the Joshua Intervenors\nand $75,000 to the Knight Intervenors. If there is any objection to the attorney's fees for the Intervenors, then the Court will decide what fee is reasonable. More Information Available. Copies of the documents described above, and a longer summary of the Proposed Settlement Agreement, can be found on several websites. Look for Desegregation Case Proposed Settlement Materials. Go to:  State of Arkansas (http://www.arkansas.gov)  Attorney General Dustin McDaniel (http://www.ag.arkansas.gov/),  Arkansas Department of Education (http://www.arkansased.org),  Little Rock School District (http://www.lrsd.org),  North Little Rock School District (http://nlrsd.org), and  Pulaski County Special School District (http://www.pcssd.org). 2 Fairness Hearing and Objections. The Proposed Settlement Agreement will not be final until the United States District Court approves it. The Court has set a Fairness Hearing to hear evidence and objections of class members about the Proposed Settlement Agreement at 9:30 a.m., on January 13 and 14, 2014, at the Richard Sheppard Arnold United States Courthouse, Court Room 1-A, 500 West Capitol Avenue, Little Rock, Arkansas. Members of the Joshua Class may participate in the Fairness Hearing throt.1:ghc ounsel or personally. Any objections that members of the class have to Proposed Settlement Agreement must be submitted in writing to the Court by December 23, 2013. If you want to participate in the Fairness _ Hearing you must say so in your written Objection. Objections not received by Dece1T1be2r3 , 2013, may not be considered. Failure to object in writing by the deadline may mean you cannot participate in the Fairness Hearing. Submit objections to this address: James W. McCormack, Clerk of Court United States District Court Eastern District of Arkansas Richard Sheppard Arnold United States Courthouse 600 West Capitol Avenue, Room A149 Little Rock, AR 72201 Attn: Desegregation Case - Proposed Settlement Agreement No Opt Outs. Members of the Joshua Class cannot opt out of the class. This means that all members of the class will be bound by the Proposed Settlement Agreement if it is approved by the Court. They will also be bound by any judgment issued by the Court. Questions. Members of the Joshua Class who have questions concerning the claims asserted in this litigation, the Proposed Settlement Agreement, or the Fairness Hearing, should direct their questions in writing to counsel for the Joshua Intervenors: John W. Walker, 1723 Broadway, Little Rock, AR 72206-1220, johnwalkeratty@aol.com  Members of the Knight Intervenors who have questions concerning the claims asserted in this litigation, the Proposed Settlement Agreement, or the Fairness Hearing, should direct their questions in writing to counsel for the Knight Intervenors: Mark Burnette or Clayton Blackstock, Mitchell Blackstock Law Firm, 1010 West Third Street, Little Rock, AR 72201, mburnette@mitchellblackstock.com or cblackstock@mitchellblackstock.com Piease do not caii or write the Court, or the Cierk of the Court, for information or advice. 3 More information regarding the proposed settlement, including a copy of the Proposed Settlement Agreement, can be found on the NLR School District website: www.nlrsd.org  Fairness Hearing and Objections. The Proposed Settlement Agreement will not be final until the U.S. District Court approves it at a Fairness Hearing on January 13 and 14, 2014. The Court will hear evidence and objections of class me~bers about the Proposed Settlement Agreement at 9:30 am on January 13 and 14, 2014 at the Richard Sheppard Arnold U.S. Courthouse, Court Room 1-A, 500 West Capitol Avenue, Little Rock, Arkansas. Any objections members of the class have to the Proposed Settlement Agreement must be submitted in writing to the Court by December 23, 2013. If you want to participate in the Fairness Hearing you must say so in your written objection. Objections not received by December 23, 2013 may not be considered. Submit objections to this address: James W. McCormack, Clerk of Court U.S. District Court Eastern District of Arkansas Richard Sheppard Arnold U.S. Courthouse 600 West Capitol Avenue, Room A149 Little Rock, AR 72201 Attn: Desegregation Case - Proposed Settlement Agreement Micheal Stone. ED:-, b\nccuti\\'e Director of Student and I:quit: Sen ices orth I ittlc Rock School District Of1ice (501) 771-8050 I a, (501) 771-8097 Ed11catio11i s for all, our charge i\\ to gfre our best i11a ll we do for the rncceH \u0026lt;?(the children a11dfamilies ll'e sel\"l'e! Case 4:82-cv-00866-DPM Document 4949-1 Filed 11/27/13 Page 1 of 3 Notice Of Proposed Settlement Of Class Action, Rights Of Class Members, And Fairness Hearing To Consider The Proposed Settlement TO: All African-American or black public-school-age children of Pulaski County, Arkansas, and their parents or guardians\nand All certified and non-certified staff employees of the Little Rock School District, Pulaski County Special School District No. 1, and North Little Rock School District The Background. A class action lawsuit is pending in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas: Little Rock School District, et al. v. Pulaski County Special School District, No. 4:82-cv-866 DPM. This case is sometimes called the Little Rock or Pulaski County desegregation case. The parties to this lawsuit include a group of individuals known as the Joshua Intervenors. The Court has designated these Intervenors to represent the Joshua Class - \"all current, past and future LRSD, PCSSD and NLRSD black students, their parents and next friends.\" The other parties to the case are the Little Rock School District, the Pulaski County Special School District, the North Little Rock School District, a group of certified and noncertified staff organizations and individuals known as the Knight Intervenors, and the State of Arkansas by the Arkansas Department of Education. The class action does not involve payment of any money to individuals. It deals only with how schools in Pulaski County, Arkansas, are operated. It is only for injunctive relief. Since J 990 a document called the 1989 Settlement Agreement has required certain actions by the State and the three Districts including two programs to affect the racial balance of students in schools in Pulaski County. One program, the Majority to Minority (or M to M) transfer program, allowed some students to attend a school outside of the district in which they live. A second program allowed students to attend one of six stipulation Magnet schools in the LRSD. The six stipulation Magnet schools are Booker Elementary, Carver Elementary, Gibbs Elementary, Williams Elementary, Horace Mann Middle School, and Parkview High School. Both programs provide free transportation to students. The 1989 Settlement Agreement also requires the State to take other actions, some in support of desegregation of the schools. The State's total payments to the three Districts are currently around $67 million each year. The ADE has asked the Court to immediately release it from all obligations under the 1989 Settlement Agreement. The Joshua Intervenors and the Districts have argued to the Court that the ADE should not be released from its obligations under the 1989 Settlement Agreement. The Proposed Settlement. In November 2013, the parties joined a new Proposed Settlement Agreement to release the State from its obligations under the 1989 Settlement Agreement. Individual members of the class will not be (and have never been) awarded any money through the new Proposed Settlement Agreement. The key terms of this Proposed Settlement Agreement are: Exhibit 1 - ---- Case 4:82-cv-00866-DPM Document 4949-1 Filed 11/27/13 Page 2 of 3  The State will continue to make desegregation payments to the Districts for four more years and no longer\n The M to M program will not accept new applications this year, and applications for students living in NLRSD or PCSSD to transfer to the six stipulation Magnet schools in LRSD will no longer be accepted\n Students currently enrolled in the M to M program can continue in this program as long as their parent or guardian chooses (including through high school graduation)\n Students living in NLRSD or PCSSD now enrolled in one of the six stipulation Magnet schools in the LRSD can continue in their school as long as their parent or guardian chooses (including through the highest grade in the school)\n After three years the Districts will not be required to provide free transportation to M to Mor stipulation Magnet students who cross District lines, but the Districts may do so if they choose to\nand  All of the State's obligations in this case end once the last payment is made to the Districts under the Proposed Settlement Agreement. The six stipulation Magnet schools will continue to exist. The Proposed Settlement Agreement changes the rules for who can enroll in these schools and the availability of transportation. The PCSSD will remain under Court supervision for a time and continue to pursue unitary status. The possible creation of a Jacksonville/North Pulaski area school district consistent with state law is authorized. The State will oppose the creation of any other school district from PCSSD's territory until PCSSD is declared fully unitary and released from Court supervision. The Proposed Settlement Agreement also provides for some attorney's fees: $250,000 each to LRSD, NLRSD, and PCSSD\n$500,000 to the Joshua Intervenors\nand $75,000 to the Knight Intervenors. If there is any objection to the attorney's fees for the Intervenors, then the Court will decide what fee is reasonable. More Information Available. Copies of the documents described above, and a longer summary of the Proposed Settlement Agreement, can be found on several websites. Look for Desegregation Case Proposed Settlement Materials. Go to:  State of Arkansas (http://www.arkansas.gov)  Attorney General Dustin McDaniel (http://www.ag.arkansas.gov/),  Arkansas Department of Education (http://www.arkansased.org),  Little Rock School District (http://www.lrsd.org),  North Little Rock School District (http://nlrsd.org), and  Pulaski County Special School District (http://www.pcssd.org). 2 Exhibit 1 , ' Case 4:82-cv-00866-DPM Document 4949-1 Filed 11/27/13 Page 3 of 3 Fairness Hearing and Objections. The Proposed Settlement Agreement will not be final until the United States District Court approves it. The Court has set a Fairness Hearing to hear evidence and objections of class members about the Proposed Settlement Agreement at 9 :30 a.m., on January 13 and 14, 2014, at the Richard Sheppard Arnold United States Courthouse, Court Room 1-A, 500 West Capitol Avenue, Little Rock, Arkansas. Members of the Joshua Class may participate in the Fairness Hearing through counsel or personally. Any objections that members of the class have to Proposed Settlement Agreement must be submitted in writing to the Court by December 23, 2013. If you want to participate in the Fairness Hearing you must say so in your written Objection. Objections not received by December 23, 2013, may not be considered. Failure to object in writing by the deadline may mean you cannot participate in the Fairness Hearing. Submit objections to this address: James W. McCormack, Clerk of Court United States District Court Eastern District of Arkansas Richard Sheppard Arnold United States Courthouse 600 West Capitol Avenue, Room A149 Little Rock, AR 72201 Attn: Desegregation Case - Proposed Settlement Agreement No Opt Outs. Members of the Joshua Class cannot opt out of the class. This means that all members of the class will be bound by the Proposed Settlement Agreement ifit is approved by the Court. They will also be bound by any judgment issued by the Court. Questions. Members of the Joshua Class who have questions concerning the claims asserted in this litigation, the Proposed Settlement Agreement, or the Fairness Hearing, should direct their questions in writing to counsel for the Joshua Intervenors: John W. Walker, 1723 Broadway, Little Rock, AR 72206-1220, johnwalkeratty@aol.com Members of the Knight Intervenors who have questions concerning the claims asserted in this litigation, the Proposed Settlement Agreement, or the Fairness Hearing, should direct their questions in writing to counsel for the Knight Intervenors: Mark Burnette or Clayton Blackstock, Mitchell Blackstock Law Firm, 1010 West Third Street, Little Rock, AR 72201, mburnette@mitchellblackstock.com or cblackstock@mitchellblackstock.com Please do not call or write the Court, or the Clerk of the Court, for information or advice. 3 J:x_hibit 1 PCSSD Home E':itafDf 1recmry Home News Families Get Involved Schools Staff Notice of Proposed Settlement Notice Of Proposed Settlement Of Class Action, Rights Of Class Members, And Fairness Hearing To Consider The Proposed Settlement TO: All African-American or black publlc-school-age children of Pulaskl County, Arkansas, and their parents or guardians\nand All certified and non-certified staff employees of the Little Rock School District, Pulaski County Special School District No. 1, and North Little Rock School District Background A dass action lawsuit is pending ln the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas llttle Rock School District, et al. v. Pulaski County Special School District. et al., No. 4:82-cv-866 OPM The parties to this lawsuit are  The Joshua Class - A group of individuals known as the Joshua lntervenors  The Court has designated these lntervenors to represent a class ot au past, present and future AfricanAmerican or black publlc-school-age children of Pulaski County, Arkansas and their parents or guardians  The Litue Rock School Oistrid  The Pulaski County Spedal Sd1oo! Distnd  The North LIIUe Rod\u0026lt; Sd1oo! DIstnd  The Knight lntervenors A group of aH certified and non-certified staff employees of the UtUe Rock Sdlool District, Putaski County Special School Oistrid No 1, and North little Rock School Oistrid  The State of Arkansas by the Ar1\u0026lt;ansas Department of Education No da1m for damages or payment of money to indiVidual members of the dass has ever been made in this case. U only deals with how sdlools are operated In Pulaski County, Arkansas This case only asked for 1nIundive rehef The dass was certified under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23{b)(2) This notice wall refer to the existing settlement agreements and consent deaees among the parties related to LitUe Rod\u0026lt; School District, et al. V. Putaski County Special School D1strid, et al, No 4 82-cv-1166 DPM and cases consohdated therein {UllS uugation) as the 1959 Settlement Agreement. The ADE has filed a Mabon for Release from 1989 Setuement Agreement in this hbgat,on. The AD E's motion asks the Court to immediately relieve the State from any and all obligations under the 1989 Settlement Agreement. The Joshua lntervenors and the D,stncts have argued to the Court that the ADE should oot be released from its obligations under the 1989 Settlement Agreemenl Summary of 1989 Settlement Agreement The 1989 Settlement Agreement requires the State to, among other things  Provide part of the funding for six Magnet schools in Pulaski County  Provide funding for majonty-to-minority student transfers, induding transportation costs, to Iha following Magnet schoo{s Gibbs, Booker, Carver, Parkview, Mann, and IMlliams  Provide funchng for compensatory education payments to (LRSD), the North little Rock School Distnd (NLRSD), and the Pulaski County Special School Dostnd (PCSSD) (cotled1vely \"the Oistrids). These payments for compensatory education programs ended in 1998 t..u-.!l ............... _,....,..,..,..1 ,...,..,...../_,..,....,..,...,...,,..,~ ,..,,..,..,...1,,...,...-...+.. Page I of 5 Tf:\u0026gt;dl Suppc,r1 Experianr.t': tho power cf pqbhc r:d,.1,..:i11on Our Leadership Departrnents .Top Headlines PCSSD teachers mcogn1zed as Amazing Educators PCSSO schools cc1~1bra1EeA ST Night Out The lat2 Major Franzen I,onortid by Jaeksonv,Ue High PCSSD scholars rewarded for !heir nard work EdL1calion Matten\u0026gt; Speaal education for pre-K cnildren Search  J ...:::::, Orstnd Galandar I Studtnl l'lutnlion Ml?nu-s g Footoall se1,eduIe, Social Media II a  Recent PCSSD News PCSS D sehools r\u0026lt;\"'()pc.nT w ?Sday December 10 V\\lmrers of Bus Su~tty Poster Contest anncun,:c.-\u0026lt;1 Summary of Bodrd Oierdt1ons. November 2013 PCSSO pr11paresf vr pos~b,hly cf severe eitom,s f.iPlp Mills High Sift th~ sleigh fO( area fos:c..,c. htdren 1 ')/1 t:,/')()11 PCSSD Home  Refrain trom retaliating against the Olstnds because of this Litigation or the 1989 Settlement Agreemen~ and refra1n from enacting any legislation that has a substantial adverse impact on the ability of the o,stncts to desegregate  Monitor compensatory education programs by the Districts  Join LRSO If LRSO pelilIons Ille Court lo allow ,1 lo hold a millage electioo  Research and list laws that impede desegregation and submit legislation to repeal such laws to the Arkansas General Assembly as soon as practicable, not knowingly promulgate or retain any regulations that impede desegregation, and modify or repeal any regulation that Is demonstrated to impede desegregatJon  Remain committed to the prlnaples that there should be a remedIabon of the racial academic achievement disparities for Arlcansas students, that special education classes and gifted and talented dasses should not be racially identifiable, and that the ADE and the Districts should work cooperatively to promote the desegregation goals of the State and the Districts and to ensure educational excellence in the public schools In Pulaski County and throughout the State  Develop and search for programs to remediate ach1evemenl disparities between black and white students  Conduct periodic reviews of tests used In the State's testing program to determine if students' race, sex, or culture adversefy affect their test scores, and, If bias is found in any test, the test w,11 not be used unless modified to ehminate the bias  Establish in-service programs to assist in providing training for the staffs ot desegregating school d1stncts  Obtain from higher education sources information by race on new teacher graduates kl subject areas that the Districts Identify actual or foreseeable shortages of minority teachers and provide that information to the Districts, seek to increase the pool of minority teachers available to the Districts and through reauitment efforts, and develop annual profiles of teachers available by race, specialty, subject area, and area of certification  Work with the Arkansas Department of Higher Education to reduce any racial disparity that may exist in the distribution of existing scholarships and to serure passage of legislation to financially assist minority students attendlng Arkansas colleges and umversilies who commit to become tead'lers in Arkansas, Including scholarships for freshmen and sophomores who are committed to pursuing a teacher-training program and Juniors and seniors who have been accepted in teacher education programs Develop and implement a plan to identrfy jobs and consultant positions w,thin the Department in which mmonlies are underrepresented and recruit and employ minority applicants for those positions so as to create a balanced, desegregated staff at all levels Develop criteria for site selection of new schools, maIor school expansion and school closings, require that a district applying to it for approval of new construction or maIor school expansion provide a desegregation Impact statement setting forth evidence that the proposed Improvements do not have a segregative effect, and refrain from recommending or approving the site of any school in any county contiguous to Pulaski County if the construction or expansion of the school at the requested location of such school will have a substantial negative Impact on any District's ability to desegregate A copy of the 1989 Settlement Agreement is available by dicking here. Summary of Proposed Settlement Agreement In November 2013, the parties agreed that the State should be released from its obligaUons under the 1989 Settlement Agreement. This summary will refer to this new agreement among the parties in November 2013 as the Proposed Settlement Agreement. The parts of the Proposed Settlement Agreement are summarized below. The key terms are:  The Slate will continue to make desegregation payments to the Districts for four more years and no longer,  The M to M program will not accept new applications this year, and applications for students living in NLRSD or PCSSD to transfer to the six stipulation Magnet schools in LRSO will no longer be accepted\n Students rurrently enrolled in the M to M program can continue in this program as long as their parent or guardian chooses (induding through high school graduation)\n Students living Jn NLRSD or PCSSD now enrolled in one of the six stipulation Magnet schools in the LRSD can continue in their school as long as their parent or guardian chooses (including through the highest grade in the school)\n After three years the Districts will not be required to provide free transportation to M to M or stipulation Magnet students who cross Distnct lines, but the Districts may do so if they choose to\n The PCSSD will remain under Court superviSion for a time and continue to pursue unitary status\n The possible creation of a Jacksonville/North Pulaski area school distnct consistent with state law is authorized. The State will oppose the creation of any other school district from PCSSO's territory until PCSSD is dedared fully unitary and released from Court supervision\n The Proposed Settlement Agreement also provides for some attorney's fees: $250,000 each to LRSD, NLRSD, and PCSSD\n$500,000 to the Joshua lntervenors\nand $75,000 to the Knight lntervenors. If there is any obJection to the attorney's fees for the lntervenors, then the Court will decide what fee is reasonable  All of the State's obligations in this case end once the last payment is made to the Oistrids under the Proposed Settlement Agreement Page 2 of 5 1')/11':/')()11 PCSSDHome Because this litigation only involved Injunctive relief, no money will be paid to any individual members of the class. No claim of monetary damages was ever made in this litigation and no payment of any monetary damages will be available through the Proposed Settlement Agreement.  Unitary Status: PCSSD will remain under Court supervision for a time and continue to pursue unitary status. The parties agree that the Proposed Settlement Agreement will not hinder PCSSD's unitary status efforts.  Dismissal of Parties: The Court will release the State, LRSD and NLRSD from the case. Also, LRSO and the Joshua lntervenors will voluntarily dismiss with prejudice their appeal of the Court's prior decision on charter school issues.  State's Payments Under the Proposed Settlement Agreement:  Payments will continue as they always have for the 2013-14 school year.  Beginning on July 1, 2014, however, the State wilt change how it pays desegregation funds to the Districts. For three years the State will pay the Districts the same amount it paid the Districts in the 2012-13 school year. The to.ta! amounts of the payments for each of the first three years will be: LRSD = $37,347,429\nNLRSD = $7,642,338\nPCSSD = $20,804,500. Each year this money will be divided into eleven equal installments. These payments will be made in the 2014-15 school year (Year 1)\nthe 2015-16 school year (Year 2): and the 2016-17 school year (Year 3). In Year 4 (the 2017-2018 school year), the State will make payments to the Districts in the same amount as the prior year. However, the Year 4 payment can only be used for academic facilities construction projects as defined in Arkansas Code Annotated 6-20-2502(2) (Rep!. 2013).  If the Districts use the payments in Years 1-3 (2014-2017) for qualifying academic facilities construction projects, then they can certify those amounts to the ADE. The restriction on the use of the Year 4 payments will not apply to the extent that the Districts have certified to the ADE academic facilities construction project expenses incurred in Years 1-3.  The payments made pursuant to the Proposed Settlement Agreement will not be considered in determining the State's share of financial participation in local academic facilities projects eligible for State financial participation in any Academic Facilities Partnership Program projects that the Districts may apply for during the term of the Proposed Settlement Agreement. M to M student transition: Currently, students enrolled in the M to M student transfer program are not counted in the Districts' regular enrollment for the purpose of calculating regular state funding. The Proposed Settlement Agreement provides a method for transitioning those students back to the District's regular student counts. Magnet student transition: The State normally pays regular state funding to a district In which a student is enrolled, not the district where the student lives. Under the stipulation Magnet program in this case, the State pays regular state funding to the District in which the Magnet student lives. The Proposed Settlement Agreement provides a method to transition regular State funding to the District where the student Is enrolled.  In no event will the State have any obligation to disburse any funding under the Proposed Settlement Agreement except as described herein.  Under the Proposed Settlement Agreemenl the Slate will pay attorney's fees to the parties. As allowed by Ad 395 of 2007, the State will pay LRSD, NLRSD, and PCSSO $250,000 for reimbursement of legal fees within ninety days of the Proposed Settlement Agreement being approved by the Court. The State will also pay the Joshua tntervenors $500,000 and the Knight lntervenors $75,000 unless contested, in which event the Court may award a reasonable fee unless otherwise agreed upon.  The State holds title to a number of buses used by the Districts for the Magnet and M to M student transfer programs. 1/Vithinn inety days of the Proposed Settlement Agreement being approved by the Court, the State will transfer title to buses used for Magnet and M to M transportation to the respective operating District of each respective bus.  State's Obllgatlons to Tennlnate:  The Proposed Settlement Agreement immediately ends the State's obligations under the 1989 Settlement Agreement and this litigation.  When the last payment is made under the Proposed Settlement Agreement, the State's obligations under the Proposed Settlement Agreement and in the litigation end.  After the Effective Date of the Proposed Settlement Agreement the only jurisdiction the Court would have over the Slate would be in the event that the Slate fails to pay any amount due under the Proposed Settlement Agreement.  The parties will support the Court's approval of the Proposed Settlement Agreement, the entry of a Consent Judgment consistent with the Proposed Settlement Agreement, and the entry of any and all orders necessary to effectuate the Proposed Settlement Agreement.  Jacksonville/North Putaski Area School District  The Proposed Settlement Agreement authorizes the possible creation of a Jacksonville/North Pulaski area school district consistent with state law. It also provides that the State will oppose the creation of any other school districts from PCSSO's territory until PCSSD is dedared fully unitary and is released from Court supervision. 1-~-. ,, ... ___ .., _ ,..,..,_,l ,.._,...., ______ ,..,.,...,...,:I \",,...-4-+f,. .._,..,.......,+ Page 3 of 5 1 'J/1 hnn11 PCSSDHome  School District Obllgations:  Students already enrolled in the Magnet or M to M program as of the effective date of the Proposed Settlement Agreement may remain in their assigned schools and assigned District. No new applications will be accepted under lhe Magnet or M to M Stipulations after the effective date of the Proposed Settlement Agreement, but students may enroll in the Magnet schools as legal transfers as set out in another part of the Proposed Settlement Agreement.  Each District will be required to continue providing transportation to remaining Magnet or M to M students residing in their District for three years, or up to and through the 201617 school year. After that the Districts may, but are not required to, provide transportation to any remaining M to M or Magnet transfer students in the 2017-18 school year or thereafter.  The LRSD and the PCSSD have currently opted out of the State's school choice law. Under the Proposed Settlement Agreement, PCSSD wilt allow legal transfers of up to 30 students to LRSD and up to 30 students to NLRSO each year for five years, LRSD and NLRSD will allow legal transfers each to the other of up to 30 students each year for five years. During this time, siblings of transferred students will be given first priority. After the end of the five years, student transfers among the Districts will be governed by State law.  The Proposed Settlement Agreement also releases the parties' obligations to each other.  The 1989 Settlement Agreement contained a somewhat complicated provision known as the \"Magnet pooling agreement. It dealt with payment of funds for Magnet students between LRSD and PCSSD. The Proposed Settlement Agreement releases this obligation.  The PCSSD will remain under Court supervision for a time and continue to pursue unitary status. A copy of the Proposed Settlement Agreement is available here. A copy of the 1989 Settlement Agreement is available here. Fairness Hearing The Proposed Settlement Agreement will not be final until the United States District Court approves it. The Court has set a Fairness Hearing to hear evidence and objections of dass members about the Proposed Settlement Agreement at 9:30 a.m., on January 13 and 14, 2014, at the Richard Sheppard Arnold United States Courthouse, Court Room 1-A, 500 West Capitol Avenue, Little Rock, Arkansas. Members of the Joshua Class may participate in the Fairness Hearing through counsel or personally. Any objections that members of the dass have to the Proposed Settlement Agreement must be submitted in writing to the Court by December 23, 2013. If you want to participate in the Fairness Hearing you must say so ln your written Objection. Objections not received by December 23, 2013, may not be considered. Failure to object in writing by the deadline may mean you cannot participate in the Fairness Hearing. Submit objections to this address: James W. McCormack, Clerk of Court United States District Court Eastern District of Arkansas Richard Sheppard Arnold United States Courthouse 600 West Capitol Avenue, Room A 149 Little Rock, AR 72201 Attn: Desegregation Case - Proposed Settlement Agreement Rights of Class Members No Opt Outs: Members of the Joshua Class cannot opt out of the dass. This means that arr members of the class will be bound by the Proposed Settlement Agreement if ii is approved by the Court. They will also be bound by any judgment issued by the Court. Questions: Members of the Joshua Class who have questions concerning the claims asserted in this litigation, the Proposed Settlement Agreement, or the Fairness Hearing, should direct their questions in writing to counsel for the Joshua lntervenors: John W. Walker, 1723 Broadway, Little Rock, AR 72206- 1220. johnwa!keratty@aoJ.com Members of the Knight lntervenors who have questions concerning the daims asserted in this litigation, the Proposed Settlement Agreement, or the Fairness Hearing, should direct their questions in writing to counsel for the Knight lnlervenors: Mark Burnette or Clayton Blackstock, Mitchell Blackstock Law Firm, 101 0 West Third Street, Little Rock, AR 72201, mburnette@mitchellblackstock.r..om or cblackstock@mi!chelfblackstock.com Please do not call or write the Court, or the clerk of the court, for lnfonnation or advice. 1-u-. //TT_T....,.TY _,...,..,,..,,..l ,..,... ..r.r l .......,.... ...,.,.,..,.,..,,...,.,l. .,,...,ul,..,...,_.,....... .+. Page 4 of 5  1 'l/1 t:./'l(\\1 '.l ,.PCSSDHome Contact Us We welcome your feedback and questions. Please do not use this fom1 lo report tech support issues  induding TAC and HAC - or to apply for careers with PCSSO. For tech support, please go tlfil!!. To apply for careers, go here Name: Email Address\n Subject Message: lil, i.1!  c:}r.111 ~ 1li:- t t.c~-:fr::.-:1cJii.n'. :t ]Ue~f.l'.'ll-~. Captclla: xfour=16 httn-1/ww-w nl'c:c:rl nro/nrrmnc:Prl-\u0026lt;:PttlPrnPnt Page 5 of 5 Staff Links Parent Links P.r.adc,m,cA ccountab111tyS erver Webma,1 Login AESOP Login eSd10ol Plus login eSr.hoolT eacherA cc.\"?~C$ onter Stale Required lnformalion SEAS Access fer Teachers ESC W\u0026lt;\u0026gt;r1S\u0026lt;sh Oebox Pulaski County Special School District 925 East Dixon Road Lottie Rock, AR 72206 ?013 Par\u0026lt;\u0026gt;ntal ln-.iolvr.mc-,nl Survey Adult l:Cucatioll C~nler-GED Apply fvr a car~i::r w,tn PCSSD -------~ Horne Aoc\"'.'ss Centrr MyP aymonts Plus PCSSD Libraries Orulne Report susp1cion1o:fo i llegal acriv1ly SafePuptl Log,n Conned Vv'ilh kids Vl.'eOSourr..a Or Jerry Guess, Superintendent 501 234 2000 1 \")/1 h/\")f\\1 '.l\nThis project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resoources.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\u003cdcterms_creator\u003eArkansas. Department of Education\u003c/dcterms_creator\u003e\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1229","title":"Oral deposition of Roy Brooks, Little Rock, Ark.","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":["Bushman Court Reporting"],"dc_date":["2006-12-13"],"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 Roy Brooks, Little Rock, Ark."],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/1229"],"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":["35 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\nLittle Rock School District vs. Pulaski County Special School District\nThis transcript was created using Optical Character Recognition and may contain some errors.\nIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT vs. LRC 82 --866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO . 1 , ET AL MRS . LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL ORAL DEPOSITION OF MR . ROY BROOKS DECEMBER 13TH , 2006 BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING'  620 WEST THIRD SUITE 201 LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201 (501) 372-5115 bushma.nreporting@aoi.com RECEIVED _IMI 1 0 2006 OfflCEOF DESEGREGA\"iiuN MONITORING PLAINTIFFS DEFENDANT INTERVENORS INTERVENORS APPEARANCE OF COUNSEL ON BEHALF OF PLAINTIFF: MR . CHRISTOPHER HELLER FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK, LLP 2000 REGIONS CENTER 400 WEST CAPITOL AVENUE LITTLE ROCK , AR . 72201 ON BEHALF OF JOSHUA INTERVENORS: MR . JOHN WALKER , P . A. 1723 BROADWAY LITTLE ROCK, AR . 72206 STATE OF ARKANSAS OFFICE OF ATTY GENERAL: SCOTT P . RICHARDSON ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL 323 CENTER STREET SUITE 1100 LITTLE ROCK, AR. 72201 2 STYLE AND NUMBER APPEARANCES STIPULATION PAGE I N D E X Examination by Mr . Walker . .......................... . Examination by Mr . Heller ........................ . Deposition concluded ..... : ........... . . . .... . ...... . COURT REPORTER ' S CERTIFICATE BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501 ) 537 - 5110 1 1 3 5 73 74 75 3 4 ROY BROOKS PRODUCED, SWORN, AND EXAMINED at the law office of John Walker, 1723 Broadway, in Little Rock, Arkansas, beginning at 10:10 a . m. on December 13th, 2006, the above-entitled cause now pending in the United States District Court, Eastern District of Arkansas, Western Division, said deposition being taken pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, by agreement of counsel, at the instance of counsel for Joshua Intervenors. BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501) 537 - 5110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. WALKER : Q State your name . A Roy Brooks. Q Dr. Brooks, you have been deposed before? A Yes. Q I won 't go through the preliminary ' s . When you were hired 5 did you have any experience first of all, in your training -- you do have a doctorate degree in education? A Q A Q A Q A Yes, that's correct. From what institution? Nova Southeastern University in Fort Lauderdale . Is that an on-line university? No . You had actual classes? Yes, sir. Q Did you have classes that dealt with evaluation and curriculum? A Q A Q A Q I would think so, yes . You don't recall? Yeah. I see. Undergrad. All right. I take it you don't mind giving us a copy of t his undergraduate transcript and this graduate transcript? BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501 ) 537-5110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 BY MR . HELLER : We ' ll see if it's part of his application . may be . BY MR. WALKER : Q Where did you attend college? A Florida . Q Which college? A Florida A\u0026amp;M . Q FAMU? A Uh huh. Q Do you remember my namesake and \"friend down there , Dr . Charles Walker? A No . He was head of the pharmacology department . No. What year did you graduate? '73 . With a major in what? Elementary ed. Were you an honor graduate? No . I see . It Q A Q A Q A Q A Q A Q A I barely got out of there . I was happy to get the degree . Did you receive a master's degree? Yes. BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501 ) 537-5110 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 7 Q From what institution? A Nova Southeastern University. Q What year? A I don't remember . Q Would it have been within three or four years after you graduated from college? A It could have been . I don ' t have that document in front of me . Q I see . Did you graduate with honors from Nova Southeast University with respect to your master ' s degree? A Q A Q A Q A I barely got out of there too . Are you being facetious? No, I 'm being honest . I had to work hard to get it. Okay. Now, when did you get your doctorate degree? Sometime in the '90 ' s . I don't remember . So that would have been in the last 10 years? Perhaps, yeah. Would it be 10 years or almost 20? It was '90 and it's 2006, that ' s 16, 17 years. Q But you said '90's so I just assumed that it was in mid- 90's, which would have been A Q I think it was earlier than that . I see. Now, have you ever been a superintendent of schools before you came to Little Rock? A Q No . Have you ever written any books on any subject? BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501 ) 537-5110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A No . Q Have you written any articles which appeared in any learning journals? A No . Q Have you published anything under your authorship or name? A Q A Q A Q A Q No, just when I was in school . What was the subject of your Ph . D dissertation? I don ' t remember . Do you have a copy of it? I don ' t think so . Is it capable of being reviewed? Oh , I 'm sure you could pull it up fro~ th~ archives . Of what institution? A The university I just said , Nova Southeast University, the second largest private university in America . Q I understand. Most of the students that attend there are on- line\naren ' t they? A No . It ' s a full university in Fort Lauderdale with football, baseball, soccer, dormitories . Q I see. A Q Go on-line and look it up . Weil, with respect to your dissertation, can you give me any general subject that you addressed in your dissertation? A Mr . Walker, I don't remember . That was a long time ago. don't remember what it was about. BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501 ) 537-5110 8 I 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q A You don't recall what your investigation was? I don't remember what that was about. It had something to do with self-esteem or -- I don't remember. Q Were you employed during the time you were obtaining your master's and doctorate degrees? A Yes. Where were you employed? Orange County, Florida. 9 Q A Q Would you tell me your employment history in Orange County, Florida? A Q A Q A Q A Q A Q A Q A Q A I was a teacher . For how many years? 10 or 8. I don't remember exactly. All right. Then what were you next? Assistant Principal. For how many years? A couple. I don't remember exactly. At what school? Chickasaw. Is that an elementary school? Yes. What was your next job there? Principal. Of which school? There were a number of schools. BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501 ) 537-5110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q A Q A Q A Q A Q A Q A Q A Q A Q A Q A Q A Q A Q Tell me the names in order . Tangelo Park. T- A- N-G- E- L-O Park . For how many years? Four or five . I don't remember exactly. All right . That's an elementary school? Yes . And ih~ next one? Catalina . Is that an elementary school? Yes. For how many years? Three or four. I don ' t remember exactly. And the next one? Orange Center. Is that an elementary school? Yes . For how many years? The same. Three or four? Yes . And the next one? I became an area superintendent . What year was that? '96, I think . And in Orange County, were the areas geographically BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501 ) 537 - 5110 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 arranged? A Yes. Q Were they also grade level arranged? A No. The schools were -- it was geography . Q Did they cover K through 12? A Q A Q A Yes. I see . Your training was in elementary education? Yes . Was your certification in K through 12 as a teacher? No . Q I see . Was your -- all right . So you ' ve never been certified for high school? A Q A Q A Not as a teacher . I see . How many schools were in your area? 34 or 35 . Were most of the elementary? No. Elementary, middle and high school . Q By definition, most of the schools in any district are elementary\naren't they? A Most of them were elementary, yes. Q All right. Now, what was the -- for the Orange County School System what were the demographics of the student body? A For the district? Yes. 11 Q A I would say maybe 25 percent African- American and maybe 15 BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501 ) 537-5110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 12 or 20 percent Hispanic and the rest white. Q So your experience as a supervisor is with a majority white school system\nis that correct? A That ' s correct . Q All right . So you have no previous experi ence with a majority black school system? A Orange County was more white kids , yes . Q So your experience is with a predominately white school system\nisn ' t that correct? A As an area superintendent , yes . Q I see . Also as a teacher and principal? All of it is within a majority white school system\nisn ' t it? A No . As a teacher, yes . Q Weren ' t the schools Tangelo Park , Catalina and Orange Center -- A Q A Q A Q No. They were -- Black schools , yes. They were black schools? Yes, sir . I see . What do you call a black school in terms of percentages? A I think if it's a majority. Q A That means 51 percent or more? I think that whatever if there are more black kids than BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501 ) 537-5110 \" II 1 - 2 3 \" 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 white kids then I would think it would be the majority of the kids would be black, yes . Q I see . Are there any results that you have that are 13 reduced to writing which reflect the achievement of the students under your leadership at Tangelo Park, Catalina and Orange Center? A I don ' t know exactly what you mean . Q Were any written reports made by the county school system which address the issue of academic achievement of Tangelo Park, Catalina A Oh , yeah. There were standardized tests at all those schools consistent with policy, district policy and Florida law , yes . Q What I 'm asking is is there a report which reflects the relative achievement of those students in which A I'm sure back in the archives that you can go and get the achievement results of those youngsters in those schools . Q I'm not talking about the achievement results. I'm not talking about the test results . Is there any report which sets ' out how well, in writing, how well, comparatively speaking, those children in those three schools did -- A I 'don't know if that exists, Mr . Walker . Q I see . I see. Now, have you been the subject, other than in Little Rock, of any article or comment regarding your qualifications for anything, other than when you came to Little BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501 ) 537 - 5110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Rock in newspapers or otherwise? A Yes. Q Which publications? A The Orlando Sentinel . Q A Q A Q What year was that? It was i n the '90 ' s . Was that when you got ready to leave? No, that was before . Do you recall what the Orlando Sentinel -- was that an editorial or was it just a news report? A There were several editorials but I 'm sure you can pull them up . Q What was the subject of the editorial? A Q A Q A I don't remember the subject . Were you the subject of the editorial? A couple, yes . What do you recall the comments of the editorials to be? The Orlando Sentinel talked about the title was expecting excellence and it chronicled my success in being able to move one of Orlando's poorest and highest minority schools forward. That was just not a editorial, it was a feature article in Florida Magazine, which was a insert into the Orlando Sentinel and distributed to almost, I guess , 700,000 people . Q A I see . Do you recall what year that was? It was in the '90's. I don't remember what year , Mr . BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501 ) 537-5110 14 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 15 Walker . Q I see . Now, what school was that? A That was Orange Center . I think I have a big copy of that in my office on the wall . Q So you can make that available to us? A Oh, s ure . I ' d love for you to read that. Q All right. Now , can you tell me any programs that you initiated on purpose to address academic achievement of minority students while you were there? On purpose . Not just that were already there or were required by the curriculum. Any new programs that you initiated? A I can ' t recall . Q Did you initiate any new programs that you can identify by name? A Q A Q Academic programs? Yes, sir . I can't I don't remember initiating any . I see. Now, I take it then that basically your forte was to see to it that the teachers did well or better than they were doing before in that school . Is that fair to say? A To supervise the school, yes, as principal. Q I see. And you held the teachers more accountable\nis that fair to say? A I held e veryone accountable. Q I see . Is i t fair to say that most of the teachers in that BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501 ) 537-5110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 16 school were white? A I don ' t know what the percentage was. Q Well, you know that more than 51 percent is majority so is it fair to say that most of them were white or were most of them black? A I'd have to see something in front of me to answer that completely . Q You can't recall? A I would think that a majority were probably white . Q I see. Okay . Is it fair to say that in Catalina and Tangelo Park that a majority of those teachers were also white? A Here again , I ' d have to have that in front of me . I can 't recall. Q Do you recall ever being in a situation as a teacher or a principal where a majority of your staff, professional staff , were African-American? A I don ' t recall that, no . Q All right. So your basic experience is also with situations where white people ran everything and did the teaching and everything else\nisn ' t that correct? A Q I'm not clear on your question . Well, they ran the school system\ndidn't they? The board was majority white\nwasn't it? A Q Yes. I see . And the administration was majority white\nwasn't BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501 ) 53 7-5110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 it? A Q Yes . And the teaching staff where you were when you were principal were majority white? A Q Yes . I see . Were you under court order? Was this district under court order at the time you were area superintendent? A Q Yes . Did you ever make or give any testimony in any proceeding while the case was in court? No . 17 A Q With all the wonderful results that you obtained, you were never called upon to give testimony? A Q No . What was the court order that you were under , to your knowledge? A Q A Q any A Q A Q There was a 1972 court order . Do you know the name of the case? No . I see. Did you have any responsibility for aspect of the court order? No . Did you ever make any report to the court? No. implementing I see. What was the district ordered to do while you were BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (50 1 ) 537-5110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 the area superintendent? Do you recall? A The court order was in place long before I became area superintendent. Q I understand. What did you understand your duties, under the court order, to be during the time you were area superintendent? A To comply with it . Q Well, I understand. What specifically were you to do in order to comply? A It was a court order that really focused in on attendance zones. Q That ' s right. It didn't have to deal with remediation of achievement disparities\ndid it? A Not that I recall. 18 Q I see. Is it fair to say that the achievement disparities between black and white students in Orange County were comparable to those that you found when you came to Little Rock? A I would think so. Probably everywhere . Q You have no first-hand experience with everywhere\ndo you? You only have first - hand experience with two districts? A Q That's correct. I see. You haven't had any training that allows you to make a judgment about what is everywhere\ndo you? A Q That's correct. Now, do you recall when you came here that you caused the BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501 ) 537-5110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 19 removal of a number of principals? A I didn't cause the removal. Q Do you recall that a number of principals left the school system for one reason or another? Do you recall that? A I think there were some retirements and that kind of thing. Q For one reason or another? A Yeah. Q Is it fair to say that they are as follows: The principal at Hall High School\nthe principal at McClellan\nthe principal at Fair\nthe principal at Forrest Park, Forrest Heights Middle School\nthe principal at Cloverdale Middle School? Do you recall those four? A There are different principals at those schools, yes, sir. Q But soon after you got here those principals left\nis that fair to say? A I was here for a year with some of those . Q I understand. Soon after you got here, they left. Is that right? A For one reason or another, yes. Q And they were all African-American? Is that fair to say? A No. Q Was not the principals at Cloverdale, Forrest Heights, Fair and McClellan, the ones who left the district, were they not all African-Americans? A No. McClellan was a white principal. BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501 ) 537-511 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q A Q A Q Was that Mr . Larry Buck? Yes . Did you not assign Mr . Larry Buck to McClellan? No. That was by Dr . James, I take it? A I wouldn ' t know who assigned him, Mr . Walker . Q I see . Do you recall the name of the principal at McDermott that left? A I don't want to take a guess. I don't recall the name . 20 Q You did replace the principals at McClellan, Fair, Forrest Heights, and Cloverdale in the first year with white persons\ndidn't you? A No. Q Upon the leaving or departure of the principal, which one of those people was replaced by a black person? A All those principals are black at all those schools . Q I'm not talking about now. The immediate replacement upon the departure of the people were white\nweren't they? A No. Q Isn't it true that last year during the 2004 - 2005 school year, all of your secondary principals were white? All of your high school principals were white? A I would have to think of the schools. I don't think so . Q That's fine. Now, Dr. Brooks, how much did you know about the court order in the Little Rock School District at the time BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501 ) 537-5110  I ~ ~ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 21 you were interviewing for the job? A Very little. Q And when did you, after being hired, or have you ever read all the court opinions in this case? A No. Q I see. Can you tell me any of them that you have read? A The first and most important one I read was Judge Wilson 's Order upon my appointment as superintendent . In fact , that was the first document that I received and I think I received that document in Florida , if I recall , before I permanently settled in here in Little Rock . In fact, I remember reading the document on an airplane , I think . Q Do you recall the date of that order? A I think it was 2004 . I think it was either June or July of 2004 . Q Have you read any of the other orders that Judge Wilson or any other judge entered in this case? A I have looked at some of those -- Q No . Read is my question . Have you read any of the other orders of any other persons? A Not with the thoroughness that I've read Judge Wilson ' s Order because Judge Wilson ' s Order was the one that was most important and most pertinent to me. Q I see. Now, the only one that you recall with some recollection is the order of 2004? BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501 ) 537-5110 I I 22 J 1 A That 's correct . 2 Q I see . Now, did you, upon being hired , meet with Mr . 3 Heller? 4 A Soon after I was hired , yes , I got together with Mr. 5 Heller . 6 Q Did you have a discussion regarding the 2004 order with 7 him? 8 A Yes . 9 Q Do you recall who else was present? 10 A I don ' t remember . 11 Q Was anybody else present at the time? 12 A I don ' t remember , Mr. Walker . 3 Q How long did the meeting last? 14 A I don ' t remember, Mr . Walker . 15 Q I see . Was it more than one meeting regarding the 2004 16 order? 17 A I probably met more than one time with Mr . Heller regarding 18 that . 19 Q Do you recall a second meeting? 20 A I recall a number of times talking with Mr\nHeller about 21 the 2004 order . I can't list times, dates, etcetera, etcetera . 22 I've sp'oke with Mr . Heller on a number of occasions. 23 Q Do you make a distinction between meetings and 24 conversations? 25 A I think they are distinctly different. BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501 ) 53 7-5110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24  25 23 Q Do you recall more than one meeting regarding the judge 's 2004 order with Mr. Heller? A I remember mult i ple meetings with Mr . Heller regarding that order . Q Where did those meetings take place? A Mo s tly in my office. Q A Q A Were any other people present? I don't remember. Were any Board members present? I don ' t remember . Q Do you recall having any one on one discussions with any Board member regarding the 2004 order? A Yeah , I ' ve talked with the Board members about that order. Q Tell me when you first talked with Mr . Tony Rose regarding the 2004 order . A I don ' t remember exactly . Q Tell me what conversation took place between you and Mr . Rose with respect to the 2004 order . A I think that the fact that the district was still in court came up, if I refall, during my interview . Q I'm talking about meetings after you were hired. Tell me about the conversations you had one on one with Mr . Rose regarding A I can't go back and recall , with as many times as I have interacted with Board meetings, individual times with BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501 ) 537 - 5110 1 2 3 4 s 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 specificity in terms of when I talk with a Board member about the order . Here is what I am going to say : I do recall on occasions having spoke with Board members about the order reassuring them that we would do everything we could to comply with the Judge ' s order. 24 Q Let me ask you : Have you created any writings with re s pec t to this r eassurance or which reflects your understanding of the court order? A Q I don't think there is anything that I -- I see. Now , going back to my question : Do you recall any meeting one on one with Mr . Tony Rose regarding the evaluations? A The evaluation of -- Q The evaluation process , yes . Do you recall any one on one meeting with him regarding that? A I don ' t recall . Q I see . That doesn ' t mean you didn't have any\ndoes it? A Q A Q A Q No, it doesn ' t. Did you regularly speak with Mr . Tony Rose? I regularly spoke with each and every Board member. I'm asking about Mr. Tony Rose now. In what regard? Any regard . A Here again, I spoke -- Q That ' s yes or no . Did you regularly speak with Mr. Tony Rose during the time that he was on the Board? BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501 ) 537-5110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A Q A Yes , as I did with every other Board member. I see. Have you regularly spoken with Mr. Armstrong? Since Mr . Armstrong has been on the Board, I have spoken with him by phone a number of occasions . I think we ' ve eaten lunch at least once, maybe twice . I think we ate lunch at a school together. Q I see. Have you ever discussed with Mr . Armstrong the subject of program evaluation? A Not specifically . 25 Q Have you ever discussed with him this Board resolution that was dated November 16th, 2006, which is Exhibit 8 to the previous deposition? Have you ever discussed that with -him? A Before the Board votes on anything , I call Board members to Q I 'm not asking you about A Let me finish this . Q Go ahead. I'll let you finish. A I call Board members and I ask Board members if they have any questions about any of the agenda items . That has been my longstanding practice. The Board members are provided with the i -nformation and they read it, review it, and if they have questions then they ask me . Q My question again is: Did you have any discussion with Mr . Armstrong regarding this resolution before the Board meeting? A Not one on one with Mr . Armstrong . BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501 ) 537 - 5110 - ~ 26 1 Q I see . How did you get this resolution? Did you develop 2 it yourself? 3 A It was part of what we needed to do . 4 Q Did you develop it yourself? How did you get it is my 5 question . I 'm not asking why yo had it . How did you get it is 6 my question. 7 A It was through our attorney. 8 Q Did it come to you by letter or by e-mail? 9 A I don 't remember. It could have been e-mail. 10 Q Did you send it to the Board members the day you got it? 11 A I don 't know if I sent it the day I got it, no . I don't 12 know if I send anything everyday. 3 Q Well, it's written in here , \"it is so resolved this 16th 14 day of November\". 15 A They all got it. 16 Q Did they get it before the meeting? 17 A Yes, sir . 18 Q How much in advance of the meeting did they get it? 19 A They got it, I think, 48 hours before. 20 Q Now, at the time that you sent this resolution did you send 21 a whole volume, a large volume of other documents? 22 A An- agenda packet. It's on-line, yes. 23 Q It's your practice, isn't it, to give them the agenda 24 packet two days before the meeting? Is that fair to say? 25 A That's the law . You have 48 hours. BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501 ) 537 - 5110 -- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 27 Q What is the time that Board members have to review these documents? 48 hours? A That and somet i mes less if it is an emergency . Q Was there any emergency involving this? A It was part of the agenda packet . I don't know if an emergency meet i ng was called because of that . Q Now, did you tell anybody on the Board what the purpose of this resolution was? A It ' s self- explanator y. Q No . Did you tell anybody what the purpose of this resolution was? A I don ' t recall. Q I see . Now , did you know what was happening in PRE as of November 16th, 2006? A What do you mean what was happening? Q Did you know what was taking place within the department of PRE during that time? A What was taking place? Q Yes. A I'm not sure I understand your question . Q Let me ask you : You were aware that there had been for much of the year a number of evaluation team meetings regarding PRE matters and evaluations? You were aware of that\nweren't you? A Sure . BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501) 537-5110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 , 25 Q A Q A Q A Did you ever attend one of those team meetings? No . I see . Yes . Is there a reason you chose not to? What is that reason? I had staff members attend . Q I see. With this being so important , is there any reason 28 that you, as a CEO, would not come to not one of those meetings? A I tell you , there are a lot of meetings that I didn ' t attend but I had staff there. Q Well, I notice that you regularly met with the Chamber of Commerce\ndidn't you? A Pardon? Q You regularly met with people from the Chamber of Commerce\ndidn ' t you? A We're a member of the Chamber of Commerce . Q I understand. But you regularly met with the executive director and the president of the Chamber of Commerce\ndidn't you? A I have met with members of the Chamber of Commerce, yes . Q Name each one of them, please . A I met with the executive director, previous executive director. I don't think I met him with just one on one and I remember being in a meeting with Jay Chesher (phonetic sp. ) Q Is it fair to say that you met with them at least every BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501 ) 537-5110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 month? A Q I don ' t think I met every month , no, sir . But pretty regularly, wouldn't you say? 29 A I don ' t think -- I wouldn't characterize it , Mr . Walker , as regularly . Q How often would you say you met with them in the last 12 months? A I would say that I met with Mr . Chesher may two or three times , along with other superintendents . Q A Oh, you were not the only person meeting with them? No . The last two or three meetings I think we met with the superintendent of Pulaski County Special School District and North Little Rock . Q Did you discuss the subject with those people release from court supervision? A Q A Q My discussions with those That's yes or no. - - people was regarding Please listen to my question . I didn't ask what all of them were. I asked if you discussed the subject of release from court supervision . A The last time the three superintendents met with Jay Chesher, I think that did come up. Q Did you ever tell anybody what the advantages to being out of court were? BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501 ) 537-5110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 30 Who is anybody? Anybody in the world. Anybody? A Q A I think one of the most important advantages is is that for the first time the court is not really supervising the district but the Board of Directors are supervisini the district. I would think with the historic hoopla about a majority black board that those members would readily embrace the fact that now we can supervise this district without the intervention of the court, without the intervention of the lawyers, etcetera, etcetera . I think it would be something that would be historic in nature. Q That's the only one that you can come up with? A I think that's a very important one. Q What are the disadvantages to court release? A I think the public . I think the expense . I think that getting -- Q A You said the expense is a disadvantage? I think there are expenses associated with this court supervision. We're paying lawyers -- Q Let me go back. I'm asking you about the difference between a pro and a con . I'm asking you what are the disadvantages. Do you know what is meant by disadvantage? A Q A Yes .. What are the disadvantages of getting out of court? The disadvantages? BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501 ) 537-5110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q A Yeah . I think there are advantages -- Q I'm asking only about disadvantages . 31 A I am not going to suggest to anyone that not getting out of court is not a good thing . Getting out of court is a good thing . Q You see no disadvantages? A Personally, I think it would be a glorious day to get out of court. Q My question is : Do you see any disadvantage in A I only see advantages in getting out of court . Q Let me ask you this : If you lose 30 million dollars a year or 40 million dollars a year, what is the advantage of that? A That is a number that I ' ve heard you throw around and I don't think Q Wait a minute . Let ' s assume if you lose 10 million , whatever million, what is the disadvantage of losing that money? A We don ' t know how much we'll lose if we lose and we don't know when we'll lose it . I think that that is something that people have overstated and exaggerated and it's speculation . Q Just a moment . Have you sought to conduct a study to determ~ne what the loss will be -- A Q A I've done no study . --and how it will be made up and from where it will come? We've done no study . BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501 ) 537 - 5110 ' -~ 1 - 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q I see . A No , sir . Q Now, what will be the disadvantage in losing the magnet schools? What will be the advantage in losing the magnet schools? A I think the magnet schools are very important. Q What would be the advantage in losing them? A I don ' t want to think about losing them, sir . Q I see . But you haven ' t considered that\nhave you? A I don ' t think we ' ll lose them . Q Have you considered that? A We ' ve -- Q That ' s yes or no . 32 A We ' ve considered that we would have to really find ways to continue what I think is something very important . Q Have you had a discussion with Mr . Heller about that subject? A We've talked about the magnet schools , yes . Q Now, have you reported to the Board the results of those conversations with Mr . Heller on retention of and continuation of magnet schools upon court - - A No, there hasn't been any reason to do that. Q All right . Have you - - what is the advantage of eliminating the M to M transfer program? A Here again, it - - BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501 ) 537 - 5110 1 2 3 4 5 q 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 is 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q A Q What is the advantage? The advantage? Yes . What is the advantage of doing that? A I'm not sure I understand your question . Q You don't understand? You're a superintendent and I am 33 sure that is a simple question . What is the advantage of losing the M to M transfer programs? A Well , the advantage would be that some districts have a lack of kids- - Q A Your district . --going from majority to minority schools and being provided with the transportation. Q So the advantage would be to put them back in their neighborhoods? A I don't think that will happen. Q Well, just a moment . What will happen upon the loss of M to M funds by this district if you chose to let that happen? What would be the advantage of that? A I don't see that happening . Q You don't see that happening? Hasn't Mr. Heller informed you and you have informed others that you may expect to lose M to M funding? That's yes or no. BY MR . HELLER : Object to the form of the question . BY MR. WALKER : BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501 ) 537-5110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q 34 Have you not been informed that you will soon, by the 2007 year, lose M to M funding? A I don't think that taxpayers Q Just yes or no . A I have to -- Q I'm not asking you about what you think. I'm asking you about your information now. Your thoughts -- A Nothing is going to last forever. Jhis funding one day is going to go away. Q Just a moment. Have you been. infermed that you will lose M to M funding at the beginnirig of the 2007- 2008 school year? A r don't think a decision has been made about that. Q Have you been so informed? Yes or no? A No. That would be speculation. Q In the event that M to M funding is lost, do you have a plan for replacing that money? A We have no plan, Mr . Walker. Q In the event that those children are no longer able to go their regular schools, where will they be assigned? Do you have a plan for that? A We have no plan . Q I see. Who will be the children most disadvantaged by being removed from their M to M transfer schools? race of the students? A I'm not sure. BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501) 537-5110 What is the 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q Who are the students being transferred from tl School District to Pulaski County now under the M to M transfer rules? A Q Black children. Which means that if they have to, if they are no longer able to go to the county schools under M to M then that means they ' ll h ave to return to Little Rock\ndoesn ' t it? A And we will get the funding for those youngsters . Q Do you know how much funding that will take? A Whatever the foundation funding is per student. Q No . I 'm asking you : Do you know how much funding that will take? A Q A Q Oh, no, I don't know that . Do you know the schools to which they would be assigned? No, I don ' t . No , sir. Have you asked Mark Millholland to run an analysis of cost benefit to that endeavor? A No. Q A Have you had cabinet discussions regarding that subject? No . Q I see . Have you had discussions with Tony Rose and Mr . Brock regarding that subject? A No. Q Now, have you had discussions before she became president of the Board in the last year with Dr . Katherine Mitchell on any BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501 ) 537-5110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 1.5 16 17 - 18 19 20 21 22 Ill 23 24 25 36 subject? A Oh , sure . Q Is it fair to say that she told you in no uncertain terms that you were not treating the teachers of the district fairly? Did she tell you that one on one? A I don ' t recall if she used those words, no . Q Did she tell you that your performance as superintendent was sorely lacking? A I don ' t remember that . Q Did she oppose your getting a raise? A She probably did. Q Probably? Do you know? A I ' d have to have it in front of me . I don't know. Q When you say she probably did, did she not tell you face to face that she felt that you were adversely impacting upon black children and poor children in southwest Little Rock? A No. Q She did not? A She ' s never told me that. Q Do you play tennis with her? A If she'd give me a call, I'd love to play tennis with Dr . Mitchell . Q I understand. Do you play tennis with Mr . Berkley regularly? A Yes . BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (50 1 ) 537-5110 37 1 Q Y' all go to eat every so often after playing tennis? 2 A No, we don't. 3 Q Y'all don ' t socialize afterwards? 4 A No. 5 Q You don ' t socialize with Mr . Berkley at all? 6 A I've been to Mr . Berkley 's house, yes . 7 Q Okay. Now, how many times have you been to Mr . Walter 8 Hussman's house? 9 A I don't recall going to Mr . Hussman ' s house . 10 Q Not at all? 11 A I don't recall . 12 Q You don't recall? 3 A No . 14 Q Are you saying you never did? ) 15 A No, I haven ' t been 16 Q How many ~imes do you regularly meet with Mr . Hussman? 17 Have you in the last year met with Mr. Hussman? 18 A I've met with Mr. Hussman on several occasions . 19 Q Is several more than five or six or just one or two? 20 A I don't kn9w exactly how many times, Mr. Walker. 21 Q How many times have you met with his staff? Somebody other 22 than him representing the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette? 23 A I don't recall meeting with anyone else. 24 Q You don't remember meeting with Mr . Paul Greenburg? 25 A I do remember that, yes . - BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (50 1 ) 537 - 5110 - I 1 -- 2 3 \" 4 5 - 6 - 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 38 Q All right. You understand he ' s on Mr . Hussman ' s staff? A Yes. Q You do recall meeting with him and Hussman together\ndon't you? A yes, that ' s correct . Q On more than one occasion\ndon't you? A No, only one occasion . Q What was the subject of that meeting? A We talked about, I think, the district's reorganization , if I remember correctly. I don't think Mr . Hussman was there . In fa~t , Mr . Hussman was not there . Q I see . Did Mr. Hussman privately fund yo~r merit pay initiative? A The first year Mr . Hussman did fund that, yes , sir. Q And did you ask the Board to approve him doing that at the time that it was done? A The second year, yes . Q No , the first year . A The first year I wasn't here . Q Well, was that done through the Public Education Foundation? A The first year? Q Yes . A Yes, it was. Q Now, the Public Education Foundation was not really a BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501 ) 537-5110 I - 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 private organization\nwas it? A Yes, it's a private organization . Q But y ' all paid from this district payroll at least one of the staff members\ndidn't you? A A portion of her salary, yes . Q You paid all of her salary for three years\ndidn't you? A I don ' t remember paying all of it . I do remember paying a portion of it . Q And you do remember paying a portion of the salary of other people\ndon ' t you? A No , I don't recall that . Q Isn ' t it true that you let them bill you on a monthly basis for at least one- third of their salary and Mr . Millholland regularly cuts the check upon presentation of an invoice? A I only recall one employee that we were some how or another helping with her salary . Q Does the Public Education Foundation have any voice or role in the evaluation process? A Not in Little Rock Public Schools. Q How is Project Sword being evaluated? A Project Sword is not being evaluated . Project Sword is Q That's all I asked . You said it's not being evaluated. Now, does the Little Rock Public Education Foundation have interaction with the teachers involved in Project Sword? A Yes. BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (5 01 ) 537 - 5110 I I 1 I 2 3 - 4 5 - 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 40 Q And who is the principal person from the Little Rock Public Education Foundation who interac~s with your teachers from the Public Education Foundation? Who is that person? A You'd have to ask Olivine Roberts . I'm not sure I know . Q Are you on the board of the Public Education Foundation? A Yes . Q Is the Public Education Foundation subject to the pol i cies, rules and requirements of the Board of Education of the Little Rock School District? A They're independent . Q I see . So the Board cannot determine what the Public Education Foundation ' s role with it is\nis that your position? A No . Public Education Foundation is a separate entity. It ' s not regulated by the school board of Little Rock . Q Now , is there any board resolution authorizing the Public Education Foundation to receive public funding from the Little Rock School District? A Any what? Q Has the board approved any regulation authorizing the Public Education Foundation to get funding directly or indirectly from the Little Rock School District? A The Public Education Foundation -- Q That's yes or no. A - - has contributed magnificent Q Listen to my question. BUSHMAN COURT REPORTI-NG (5 01 ) 53 7-5110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A Okay . Q Is there anything authorizing the Public Education Foundation to receive funds from the Little Rock School District? A Not that I 'm aware of . Q Are you aware that regularly every month Mr . Millholland cuts a check to the Public Education Foundation? A He no longer does that . Q When did he stop doing that? Last month? A Q It could have been . Why did he stop doing that? 41 A Because it was an agreement that cince the Public Education Foundation got solid enough that they would assume that responsibility . Q I see . Now, have you explained the role, including Mr. Armstrong, the relationship between the Public Education Foundation and the Little Rock School District? Have you done so? A I asked Lisa Black -- Q I'm asking if you have done so . A I wouldn't be the one to do that, Mr. Walker . Q I see. Now, Ms. Black doesn't work for the school district\ndoes she? A Q No, sir . -She did until last month\ndidn't she? About the time of BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501) 537 - 5110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 \\ this resolution? Ms . Black didn't work for the school district . She was just paid by the district? A portion of her salary, yes . Did she have a written contract with the district? I don ' t know that. You'd have to ask Mr . Millholland . You don ' t recall seeing the contract? No, sir . 42 A Q A Q A Q A Q All right . That's fine . Let me ask about this evaluation . Before I get to that part , have you had occasion to refer to present counsel as a parasitic lawyer? A I would never do that, Mr . Walker . Q I see . Are you aware of any payments that have been made to the Joshua counsel in this matter in the last two to three years? A Only what I ' ve seen on paper . Q Have you seen anything on any paper indicating that we've received any payment for cost or fees in that period of time? A What period of time? Q Between the time you got here and now . A Q Since I've been here, I haven't seen anything, sir . Now, do you contend that you have the authority to hire lawyers for the district? Do you contend that you have that authority? A Yes, I ho~e so . BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501 ) 537 - 5110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 43 Q Is there a writing that sets the terms and conditions under which you may hire lawyers? A There is a policy, yes. Q Does it set the hourly pay and things like that or is it subject to bidding? A I'm not sure. Q I see. Let me go to direct matters . Is there a difference, in your opinion, between of policy of the school district and a regulation of the school district? A Yes . Q A Q What is the difference? A policy needs Board approval. What about a regulation? A I don't think a regulation needs approval of the Board . can be part of a policy. Q I see . Is there a process -- let me understand it . One needs approval from . the Board and one doesn't. What is the purpose of a policy? It A The purpose of a policy is something you abide by . It's a rule. Q A Q What is the purpose of the rule? To make sure there is consistency in what you do. Doesn't it set the standard for the district as to what conduct may be engaged in by the administration? A I hope so. BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501 ) 537-5110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 \\ Q A Q 44 I see . Isn't a regulation something to implement a policy? It can be part of a policy, yes. But a regulation itself is not a policy\nis it? A A regulation is separate from a policy but it can be part of a policy . Q Is Policy IL-Ra policy or part of a policy? A That is a Board policy that was approved by the Board . It is the comprehensive assessment process. Q I'll show you a policy that says IL-R. Is that the Board policy? A Q A Q A Q A Q It seems as if it's the policy, yes. Do you know whether that was approved by the Board? Yes, it was. When was it approved? December 2004. Were you present at the time? Yes. So there should be a motion and a second and all the other things that.approves it in that process? A I'm sure the minutes would reflect that. Q Now, if this is a policy it is supposed to be posted to the website\nisn't it? A It is posted. BY MR. HELLER: Should we make that an exhibit t.o his deposition BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501 ) 537-5110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 so we can see what we're talking about? BY MR. WALKER: Yes. We'll make copies and give it to you. BY MR. WALKER: Q Now, is there a difference between the program evaluation 45 agenda, which also has JL-R as its code and what will be to your deposition Exhibit 3, is there a difference between the two? Is there a difference? A Q is? A Q I don't know what this is. In other words, Exhibit 3, you 're not aware of what that I'm familiar with this , yes . And you're not aware whether Exhibit 3 is posted on your website? A I'm only familiar with this, yes. Q So it's your position that the document that is entitled as . Comprehensive Program Assessment Process is posted, not the Program Evaluation Agenda\nis that right? A I'm aware of this, yes. Q And you 're referring to Exhibit 2, Comprehensive Program Assessment Process? A Yes . Q Thank you. Now, you don 't know what number three is at all? You've never seen it before? A Not to my recollection. BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501 ) 537-5110 - ' 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q I see. A I see a lot of stuff. Q Let's get to your testimony about evaluation. Would you agree that you have not informed Mr. Armstrong of the Court's requirements with respect to program evaluation? 46 A Mr. Armstrong met with legal counsel the first week or two he was on board . Q My question is you. I'm talking about you. Would you agree that you have not informed Mr. Armstrong of the Court's requirement? A I have not talked-with Mr. Armstrong about that document, no. Q I see . Have you heard Mr. Armstrong express in a public place -- you were aware that he ran for office? A Yes. Q And were you aware that he ran for office in part for the purpose of focusing attention upon the achievement of AfricanAmerican students? Were you aware of that? A I heard him talk about the achievement of students, yes. Q Okay. At the time that he was talking about the achievement of students, is it or is it not to true that you were aware that I was in the audience? A I'm not aware of that, no . Q Did he ask that Dr. DeJarnette or did any Board member ask that Dr . DeJarnette provide information to the Board regarding BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501) 537-5110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 program evaluation? A Q Dr. DeJarnette did report to the Board . My question was: Was this on the initiative of some Board member? A Q I 'm not sure I follow your question . Do you not recall sending an e - mail to Dr . DeJarnette indicating that the Board members had some questions regarding prQgram evaluation? A Q Yes . And is it fair to say that that e--mail was approximately dated November 3rd, 2006? A Q I would have to see it but -- If the Board members requested information from Dr. DeJarnette regarding program evaluation, would it have been appropriate for her to have responded at the public meeting to their concerns? A Q If they asked that, yes. I see. You were aware that they did ask it\nisn ' t that correct? A Q A Q A Q Yes . Which Board member asked you to ask that? I think there were two . Who were they? Dr. Mitchell and Mr . Berkley. I see. Now, did they tell you why they wanted her to BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (50 1 ) 537-5110 47  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 48 address the issue of program evaluation? A I don't recall. Q That was just in October or November. Are you saying that less than six weeks ago you have no recollection of what they told you? A Dr . Mitchell and Mr . Berkley asked for the report I believe because there was some disagreement in some information that had been shared _with them, with the whole Board, in factj I think . Q I'll show you an e - mail dated November 2nd and a response on November 6th regarding the evaluation. Do you recall that? November 2nd from 'you . It says, \"Olivine , Please notify Dr. DeJarnette that the Board has requested a compliance reme9y update at the November 9 agenda meeting. That presentation should also involve other members of PRE. Everyone in the department should be available that evening \". A Yes. Q You sent that? A Yes, I did. Q- Did yo_u expect her to give an honest appraisal or presentation to the Board of Directors at that time? A I would hope so. Q I see . Now, did you inform the Board, the other Board members, that the request for Dr. DeJarnette to appear before it had come from at least two of them? A They were there that night . BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501 ) 537-5110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ' 49 Q I understand they were there that night but did you , before they got there, inform them that the Board members had initiated the request that Dr . DeJarnette make an appearance and presentation to the Board? A I didn't see it necessary . They were all there that night . Q I see . But you understood that at that meeting that night that Mr . Baker Kurrus raised the question of Dr. DeJarnette coming directly to the Board with her presentation. Do you recall that? A No, I don ' t recall that. I think that ' s taken out of context. I think what Mr . Kurrus said that night, as I recall, was Dr . DeJarnette providing information to Board members and everybody else without going through appropriate protocol. Q All right . What was the appropriate protocol after the Board requested the update? A Q I think we ' re . talking about two different things. Tell me what the protocol was that she was required to follow according to Mr. Kurrus . A I think we're talking about two different things. We need . to clarify - - Q was A Q I'm talking about Mr. Kurrus' response . Your answer to me Are you talking about Mr. Kurrus' response that night? Yes, that night. BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501 ) 537-5110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 \\ 17 18 19 20 21 22 -23 24 25 I I A At the Board meeting? Q Yes. You're saying that Mr. Kurrus was dealing with protocol\nis that correct? A Yes. Q What did he understand, according to what you understood, the proper protocol to have been? A To go through the proper chain of command . Q What was that? A Dr. Roberts. Q And then whom? A Mr. Hattabaugh. Q And then whom? A Me. Q Before going to the Board? A Before presenting to the Board? Q Yes. A We're talking about information. That information was shared that was inconsistent with the chain of command and protocol. Q What information was shared with the Board that was not shared with Dr. Roberts or Mr. Hattabaugh or you by Dr . DeJarnette? 50 A I'm not sure I know what information you're talking about. You tell me what information and I could -- Q You're saying that she did not f o llow protocol and that she 9USHMAN COURT REPORTING (501) 537-5110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 went directly to the Board\nis that correct? A Q Yes . So what information did she present to the Board that had 51 not previously been given to you , Dr . Hattabaugh or Dr. Roberts? A You have to help me here . Tell me exactly what information are you referring to and then I can help you , then I can answer your question . Q You ' re saying that when she went to the Board directly she did follow protocol , according to Mr . Baker Kurrus . Now , what information did she provide to the Board that had not been previously provided to you by her? What information? A Did she provide - - Q To the Board that had not been previously provided to you . A She sent a letter to the Board that I had never seen before. Q A Q A Q Was it dated after November 2nd? I don't remember what date it was. And what did the letter say? I don't remember exactly . What do you understand the content or the substance of the letter to have said? A I think the substance of the letter was to imply that the Board had not been given all of the information which was false and erroneous and to also suggest that what was turned in was not factual and accurate, which was also false and erroneous . BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501 ) 537-5110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 52 Q I see . It was turned in to whom? A Provided to the Board in a letter to Dr . Katherine Mitchell . Q I see . Now, so you're saying that she should not have written a letter to Dr . Katherine Mitchell? A I'm not saying she shouldn't have written the letter . Q You ' re saying that she should have provided accurate information? A I'm saying that her actions with that information going to the Board after something had been submitted to you and the Court and everyone else gave me reason to believe that something improper was going on here. Q What was improper that was going on? A To send a letter to the president of the Board and to other Board members that had very little or no factual basis. Q Let ' s just deal with that for a moment. What was it that had no factual basis? A I think the letter and report -- Q Just the contents of the letter as you recall it . Just identify the things that -- A I can ' t identify the specifics of that letter. If you put it in front of me - - Q All right . Since I don't have that letter can you tell me whether she indicated that program evaluations had not been embedded in the curriculum? BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501 ) 537-5110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A Q I don't have the letter in front of me. Did she indicate that program evaluations had not been embedded in the assessment and evaluation process? A I don't know if that was in the letter . It was not accurate. 53 Q I see. Tell me this: Has program assessment been embedded, in your opinion , in the fabric of the school district? A I think that - - Q A Q That's yes or no. Yes. All right . Tell me how it has been embedded, please. A I think it's a part of our process to use data and to look r at programs in terms of whether or not they are effective to determine if kids are learning . Q All right. Tell me what is your definition of embedded in the process . A Being able to provide data and information to determin~ the effectiveness of the programs, particularly those programs that were a part of the Court order, to determine whether or not we're getting the desired results. Q How do you embed something? I'm not talking about how you use it. How do you embed it? How did you expect it to be embedded? A You embed it by it becoming a part of the actual pr0cess that you use to determine what you do. BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501 ) 537 - 5110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ll 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q 54 Tell me how the process is embedded in the school district at this time. A I think it's embedded because we have data now . We have information that can be used to determine whether or not something is being effective and, if it is, then certainly we want to continue to do it. Q A Where are those data at this moment? I'm talking about data as it relates to where kids are, test scores, etcetera. Q Where are those data maintained? I'm using data plural and that's why I'm saying are. A Q A Q A Q A Q A Q Data is everywhere. Data is Just everywhere? Yeah. All right. It's at the schools. It's at the district level. I see. Now, is there a central source where it is? I think we're working to do that . There is a warehouse But you haven't done it? I think to a degree we have. I understand. What is the status of that at this time? What is the status of what you've just described at this time? A I think it's good. Q Good doesn't mean anyt hing to me. Is it complete? Is the data storage -- BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (5 01 ) 537 -5110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A I don ' t think that nothing is as it relates to continuous improvement is ever complete. You continue to work . You continue to improve . 55 Q Doctor , is there a data warehouse completed in the district at this time? A I think there ' s a data warehouse that can provide the information that we need . Q Is there a data wa rehouse completed in the district at this time? A I think that there is a data warehouse that we can still work and make better . Q A Make better? Yes , sir . Q Going back to your memo dated November 2nd . Did Dr. Olivine Roberts tell you that she had asked Dr . DeJarnette to respond to the Board? A I would think she did . This is what she was asked to do . Q Is this the letter that Dr . DeJarnette sent in response to Dr . Mitchell ' s request that is dated November 3rd? Do you recall that? BY MR. HELLER : I ' ll object to the form of the question . recall anything about Dr . Mitchell ' s letter . BY MR. WALKER : Well, the request for Dr. Mitchell is the BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501) 537-5110 I don ' t 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 56 question. BY MR. BROOKS : This is interesting because I've never seen this letter . BY MR . WALKER : Q Can you tell me anything in that letter -- first of all , should that letter first have gone to Dr . Roberts for approva l? A Apparently it didn ' t . Q No . Should it have, according to protocol? A I think I would have , yes. She should have been aware of that. Q Is there anything in writing that requires that that level of protocol be-applied? A Yes, the chain of command . Q Is the chain of command in writing? A Q Yes , it ' s the organizational chart . Well , that ' s the chart but the chart just shows who reports to whom\ndoesn ' t it? A It certainly does . Q I see . Now , did you before that time ever require that any letter that came from Dr . DeJarnette be first given to Dr. Roberts? A I would hope so if it ' s going to the Board . Q If it's going anywhere is there a requirement that she cannot directly communicate to those persons that she feels BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501) 537-5110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 necessary, that ~s Dr . DeJarnette, that she feels necessary to be responded to? A I think this was a very aifferent circumstance here . 57 Q So you're saying that she should, after you have requested that she make a report to the Board , you are taking the position that she should have gone directly to Dr . Mitchell? A This was a situation where Dr. DeJarnette provided information that was not accurate and it was not proper . Q What was the information in that letter that you recall was not accurate? A I don't have it . Q Now, at the time that she sent this , she sent it to Mr . Heller\ndidn ' t she? A Q Mr . Heller has been copied. He ' ll have to answer . Now, she indicated first that she thought that there was some important information that the Board had not received directly from PRE on some occasions . A Q A Yes . Was that improper for her to say? And it was not factual . Q Well, how do you know that the Board had received information that all the Board members had received information directly from PRE? A I can only say that since we believe that the Board of Directors has not received important information direct from PRE BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501 ) 53 7-5110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 58 on some occasions that this unusual delivery should be. That's not true . Q How do you know it IS not true? A All information relative to -- Q How do you know it I S not true? A Pardon me? Q How do you know it's not true? BY MR . HELLER: Let him answer . BY MR . WALKER: Q I'm not talking about what you normally do. You say you give information out that is given to you but now how do you know that it's not true that the Board did not receive some important direct information? How do you know that's not true? A No one has ever told me that the Board has not received all important information as it related to this compliance issue . Q All right . I'll just go to the next one. \"One of the occasions when we feared the Board did not receive this department's thoughts was the last quarterly written update\" . Was the last quarterly written update provided to the Board, the one dated September 1, 2006? That's yes or no. A Q A Q Here again, I -You don't know? (No audible response) All right. The second sentence -- is it true that you BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501 ) 537-5110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 59 don't know? Is that fair to say? A I wouldn't say that . One of the occasions when we feared the Board did not receive the department's thoughts was the last quarterly written update Q Did you provide the Board the last written quarterly update dated September 1, 2006? That 's yes or no . A I would think so, yes . Q You would think so? A Q Yes. You don ' t know. A Yes . Q Okay. The version delivered to the superintendent's office for the Board's review is Appendix A. The version submitted to ODM omitted all of Section Band much of Section C\nisn ' t that correct? A What is correct? Q That there -- first of all, the version that was delivered by her to you all had been edited and then the edited version was submitted to ODM\nisn't that correct? A The version that was submitted was an accurate, factual version upon which Dr. DeJarnette, as I understand it, was in a meeting and agreed Q Please listen to my question . You had two different versions of this report\ndidn't you? A There was only one version submitted. BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501) 537-5110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 60 Q Listen to my question. It is true that there were two different versions of this report\nisn't that correct? A There was only one version submitted -- BY MR. HELLER: Listen to his question . BY MR. WALKER: Q There were two different versions of this report\nwasn't there? A Yes. Q All right . The one that was submitted to you was given to Mr . Heller and Mr. Heller edited it\nisn't that correct? A Q It was just not Mr. Heller. Whoever . But it was given to Mr. Heller and Mr. Heller edited it\nisn't that correct? A It was just not Mr . Heller. Q Who else edited it? A It involved Dr . Olivine Roberts, Hugh Hattabaugh and I think input from other members of the PRE staff that had a different opinion about what was in this document and Dr . DeJarnette. It was just not Q Let me ask you: It is true that the version that she submitted to your office was not given to the Board\nisn't that correct? A Q Which version? The first version was edited, yes . BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501) 537 -5 110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 \\ Q And it was not given to the Board? A Exactly . We ' re not going to give the Board unfactual information . Q All right . Now , the first one she says , \"On these pages PRE described obstacles to the district's embedding and sustaining timely and accurate assessments of its program\". A That ' s not true. 61 Q She says , \"it ' s omission from the update allows a reader ' s false i mpression that the district has progressed further than it has \". Now, is that not a conclusion that perhaps reasonable people can disagree with? A No, that ' s not true . Q What is not true? A Q A Q A What you just read. Well, it was the description That ' s her opinion . I understand . But it's not true . Q Isn ' t that what the Board members requested was her opinion? A Q A No . Let me ask you this - - The Board members expected factual information . It was her opinion. It was not the opinion of Or . Olivine Roberts. It was not the opinion of Hugh Hattabaugh. It was not the opinion of BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501 ) 537-5110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 our attorney and it was not the opinion of members in the PRE Department who work with her . This was her opinion . Q A Q Wasn't she -- Her opinion only. Wasn ' t she entitled to give, as a director of that department, her opinion to the Board? That's yes or no. A Q A No . All right . That ' s fine. Now Everybody has an opinion. We want facts given to the Board. Q Now, if the Board asks for opinions, isn't she obliged to give the opinion? A Facts. That's what we give to the Board . I can give an opinion to the Board. You can give an opinion. Q If the Board asks for an opinion -BY MR. HELLER: Just answer the question . BY MR . WALKER: Q If the Board asks for an opinion from one of your staff members regarding that person's best professional judgment -- A Then that's fine. Q Isn't that what the Board asked? A Not from her, sir. Q They did not? A No, sir. This is a very important document. BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501 ) 537-5110 62 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 63 Q I see . Now , \"another reason for submitting this document to you is a probable absence by two of our department ' s members on November 9\". Is that correct? A I think there were a couple of people out for whatever reason or another . Q I see . So you object to her conclusion that the district may give, by what it is submitted, a false impression that the district has progressed further than it , in fact, has? A I object to anyone in the organization who is producing and giving a document that is not factual . Q Now , has any of the other quarterly reports been edited by Mr . Heller? A Q We review all the quarterly reports . Listen to my question . Had any of the previous quarterly reports been edited by Mr . Heller? A I 'm sure someone has . If it wasn't Mr. Heller, it was someone else . Q Did you direct Mr . Hattabaugh or Mr . Heller to edit this _,,)\nreport that had been delivered to you by Dr . DeJarnette? A I asked Mr. Hattabaugh, Dr. Olivine Roberts, and Mr. Heller to make sure and assure me that the information that we were going to submit to the Board for approval to be submitted to the Court was accurate and was truthful, yes, I did that . Q Isn't it true that Mr . Heller informed you and other people that it wasn't that the information was not accurate, it was BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501 ) 537-5110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 that it was unnecessary to provide to the Court? A Q There was some information Listen to my question . BY MR . HELLER : Let him answer the question . BY MR . WALKER : Q Go ahead . A There was not only information that was not necessary, there was information that was not accurate and there was information that was not factual . Q What information was not accurate? A Some information regarding the Arkansas Department of 64 Education , some information regarding the programs, some information regarding Tetra data as it relates to business objects was not only not factual but it was untruthful and a deliberate attempt to distort the truth. I was not happy about it. Q Where does she say anything in here about Tetra data? A That was all a part of the report that you were asking me about. Q All right. So that was in the initial report\nis that fair to say, that was taken out by Mr . Heller? A Mr . Heller did not just alone do that. Q A Can you tell me Let me finish. It was -- BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501 ) 537-5110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q I understand what your answer is . Now, can you tell me what portions of the report were edited by Dr. Roberts? A It was a team effort. Q A Q Can you tell me? Dr. Roberts -- Please listen to my question. 65 A --Mr. Hattabaugh, Mr . Heller, people in the PRE Department all working together to make sure that the information that was provided to the Board was accurate and was factual because this was a very important document. It's not one person that Dr. DeJarnette has tried to create that really is all encompassing to do this. That's not how we operate in this district. I'm sorry people felt that way. BY MR. HELLER: Just answer his question. Do you know any particular part that Dr. Roberts edited? BY MR . WALKER: Q A Q Do you know what part of the report -I wasn't in the meeting, no. I see. Did anybody ever report to you the parts that they individually edited? A Not on an individual basis, no. Q I see. She submitted one report and that was edited and then the edited report was sent to the ODM and it would be useful for the Board to have both reports\nthat's what she said BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501) 537-5110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 66 wasn't it? A That's what she said in the letter . Q And you're saying that she should not have told the Board that there were two reports? You ' re saying that\naren't you? A Absolutely, because one report -- Q That 's fine . A -- was not accurate . Q All right . And she's saying that because one report has an commission it allows the false impression that the district has progressed further than it has . That's what she said\nright? And you disagree with that? A In the letter, yes . Q I see . All right . Now, you ' re saying that she should not have told the district that one report may give a false impression? She should not have said that to the Board\nis that your position? A If it were not true . Q All right. Isn't it for the Board to determine whether or not one report gave a false impression rather than the other? Isn't that the Board's duty? A The Board relies on us, the staff, to be able to make sure that information we bring to them is accurate and is factual. Q A Q Now, you understand that -I hope they do. --the present Board members have questioned your judgment, BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501 ) 537-5110 I 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 \\ 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 -25 some of them , both in the election and thereafter? You understand that\ndon't you? You don ' t understand that? A I understand it and that ' s fine . That ' s their opinion . Q Now , didn't they tell you that they wanted to get this information and that was after the e lection? Di dn ' t they tell you that . they wanted to find out what Dr . DeJarnette was actually saying be fore a court date was actually attended? A That ' s when we -- 67 Q And if they asked what i s the status and they wanted to get her view, as opposed to yours , is there some reason that you would disallow that? A It's not a view. It ' s a staff working together . It ' s many people making sure that the information provided is accurate . Not one person -- if the Board wants to believe one person then that ' s their opinion . Q That's right. But now the Board, if ,they had wanted to have Dr . Ed Williams' view , they could have asked for that\ncouldn ' t they? A I think they asked for that . Q Well, did they ask for that - - they asked for Dr . DeJarnette's view\ndidn ' t they? A The presentation should involve other members of the PRE staff . BY MR . HELLER : We're two hours into a 15 to 30 minute deposition BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501 ) 537 - 5110 I 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 - 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 now. BY MR. WALKER : Well, let me just sort of finish. BY MR . WALKER: Q You do acknowledge that it was within their prerogative to ask her any question they wanted to\nisn't that correct? A Oh, sure . Q I see. And if they had asked the question were there two reports and she had said yes, there would have been no problem with that\nisn't that correct? A Yeah . Q And if she had said that the matter had been edited and that it gives a false impression, there would have been nothing wrong with that, in her opinion? A In her opinion, yes . Q And then you would have been in a position -to state your contrary opinion to the Board\nwouldn't you? A I think that happened . Q When have you stated your contrary opinion to the Board? A The revised repor~. Q The revised report? A Yes. Q So that's what you were saying to the Board at the time\nright? A Yes. BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501 ) 537 - 5110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 I 69 Q Now, let me go on to some other things about you . Have you ever spoken to Dr. Victoria Burnhart , personally? A No. Q I see . So you ' re not aware of who she is or what she does? A I know she works with us . Q Do you know of any of her qua l ifications? A No . Q I see . You disagree with Dr . DeJarnette that the process of the school district has not been embedded into its assessment process? A Not I. Q I 'm asking about you . A No. Q Do you know anything about the portfolio ' s that were supposed to have been developed? A No. Q Were there any impediments that you knew of to implementing a data warehouse , any cost impediments to implementing that? A I 'm not aware of that . Q All right . Do you disagree that a data warehouse system is not now in place? A I think we have something in place . Q You have something . Would you call it a completed data warehouse? A To the extent practically, yes . BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501 ) 537 - 5110 I I I 1 - 2 3 I 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 ' 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 70 Q To the extent practically? A Yes. Q Are you aware that much of the information in one of these reports is based on false data? BY MR. HELLER : Object to the form of the question . BY MR . WALKER: Q Are you? A What report? Q The report submitted to the Court . The evaluation report . A We submitted a truthful report to the Court. Q Let me ask you : Did you have occasion in September and October to meet several times with Dr . Ed Williams outside of the presence of Dr . DeJarnette? A Perhaps, yes. Q Let me ask you now: Did you ever speak with Dr . Steven Ross regarding anything connected herewith? A No . Q Did Mr. John Ruffin have any role with respect to any of this? A Not that I know of. Q Did you ever speak with Mr. James Wohlleb? A Yeah, I've spoken with James before. Q Were you aware that Mr . Wohlleb and Dr. DeJarnette hired their own lawyers on or about November 3rd or before? BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING ( 501 ) 537 - 5110 I 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 71 A I know Dr . DeJarnette did . Q Did Dr . DeJarnette -- she's indicated that you said several things to her to express displeasure with her work performance . Did that happen before November 3rd? BY MR. HELLER: Object to the form. BY MR . WALKER : Q You can answer. A Dr. Roberts is the person that evaluates Dr. DeJarnette . Q I'm asking about you. Did you ever express displeasure with the work performance of Dr. DeJarnette? A I don't recall doing that, no, sir. Q All right. Now , have you ever given her a written evaluation before November of her work performance? A No, sir . Q Have you ever approved one? A Q No , sir. Have you ever seen one? A No, sir . Q Isn't it true that she was recommended for renewal at the end of the 2005-2006 school year? A Yes, sir. Q So that meant at that time that her work performance was satisfactory? A At that time, yes . BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501) 537-5110 ' ' ,1 1 - 2 3 I 4 5 I 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 72 Q All right. I take it you haven ' t had any direct discussions with Mr. Armstrong or any of the other Board members regarding your decision to remove her temporarily for her position\nis that correct? A No . Q All right . Who is the present director of the department? A There is an interim director . Q Who is that person? A Dr. Ed Williams . Q Was that position posted before you put him in it? A I t ' s not a vacancy, sir. Q Was it posted? A It ' s not a vacancy . Q Was there another position in PRE posted upon his being placed as interim director? A Yes , sir . Q Who made the decision to post another position? A We did. Q Who is we? Did you make that decision? A Dr . Roberts, Mr . Hattabaugh, and, yes, I was involved. Q Was that a position for a statistician? A Yes, sir. Q Was that the position that Mr . Williams formerly held? A Yes, sir . Q Did you all make a judgement that there was a need for a BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501 ) 537 - 5110 ~ -- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 -25 73 second statistician? A Yes, sir. We wanted the department to have what they needed . Q So you wanted to have two statisticians in the department at this time? A We have three. Q All right. Let's assume that Dr . DeJarnette is reinstated . What happens to Dr . Williams? Does he go back to his former position? A We can't make a decision about that now . Q I see . But at this point it is intended that Dr . Williams will go back to his former position? A We haven ' t made a decision, sir . Q Is it his position that you all are advertising for to be filled? A It's the position he held , yes. Q I see . All right . BY MR. WALKER: I don't have any more questions. CROSS EXAMINATION BY MR . HELLER : Q Dr. Brooks, with respect to Exhibit 4, the letter to Dr. Mitchell from Dr . DeJarnette, it references an accompanying document . Was there an accompanying document? A Yes. BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501 ) 537 - 5110 ' I ' 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 \\ Q A Q 74 Was that document called the Compliance History 2004-2006? I think so, yes. Okay. And were there things in the accompanying document to which you objected? A Yes, sir . Q Did Dr. DeJarnette have a grievance pending at the time on November 3rd, 2006? A Yes, sir. Q Did the submission of the letter, which is Exhibit 4, and the accompanying document violate the district's policy with respect to processing grievances? A Yes, it did, sir. Q Okay. BY MR: HELLER: That's all I have . BY MR. WALKER: I want to make sure I have not gone into her grievance. I'm not representing her and I don't have any questions about her grievan~e and I didn't ask any questions about it. I don't have any questions . WHEREUPON, the deposition of Mr . Brooks concluded at 12 : 05 p.m . , December 13th, 2006. BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501 ) 537 -5 110 I 75 C E R T I F I C A T E STATE OF ARKANSAS , )ss COUNTY OF LONOKE I, KELLY S. ADCOCK, Certified Court Reporter and Notary Public, do hereby certify that the facts stated by me in the caption on the foregoing proceedings are true\nand that the foregoing proceedings were recorded verbatim through the use of the Stenomask and thereafter transcribed by me or under my direct supervision to the best of my ability, taken at the time and place set out on the caption hereto. I FURTHER CERTIFY that I am neither counsel for , related to , nor employed by any of the parties to the action in which these proceedings were taken\nand further , that I am not a relative or employee of any attorney or counsel employed by the parties hereto, nor financially interested, or otherwise, in the outcome of this action. WITNESS MY HAND AND SEAL this 17th day of December 2006 . KELLY S . DCOC~ Certified Court Reporter #643 My Commission Expires : 04 / 15 / 14 BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501 ) 537-511 0\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_441","title":"21st Century Community Learning Centers Evaluation, 2005-2006, Final Technical Report","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":["Center for Research in Educational Policy, University of Memphis, Memphis, Tennessee"],"dc_date":["2006-11"],"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","School management and organization"],"dcterms_title":["21st Century Community Learning Centers Evaluation, 2005-2006, Final Technical Report"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/441"],"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":["153 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\nCREP V ftaearck M Educaaonai Policy Little Rock School District Center for Research in Educational Policy The University of Memphis 325 Browning Hall Memphis, Tennessee 38152 Toll Free: 1-866-670-6147 21 ** Century Community Learning Centers Evaluation FINAL TECHNICAL REPORT CREP * Center for Research in Educational Policy Center for Research in Educational Policy The University of Memphis 325 Browning Hall Memphis, Tennessee 38152 Toll Free: 1-866-670-6147 Little Rock School District 21^ Century Community Learning Centers Evaluation 2005-2006 Final Technical Report November 2006 Heidi Kenaga, PhD Jerry A. Bates, EdS Fethi Inan, MS Center for Research in Educational Policy John Nunnery, PhD Old Dominion University Table of Contents: 21 CCLC Technical Report iiTable of Contents Executive Summary Technical Report Introduction 1 10 10 Evaluation Questions Evaluation Design and Measures Evaluation Instrumentation 10 12 14 Procedure 18 Results 20 Teacher Questionnaire (CCLCTQ) Parent Questionnaire (CCLCPQ) Student Questionnaire (CCLCPQ) K-2 Students 21 28 33 34 3-5 Students 36 6-12 Students 39 Interviews 42 Site Coordinators 42 School Principals Mabelvale Case Study Classroom Observations 52 56 56 Student Focus Group Results Student Achievement Results 62 64 Conclusions 79 Evaluation Questions Compliance Remedy Questions References 79 84 90 Appendices Appendix A: Survey Instruments Appendix B: Teacher Survey Comments by School Appendix C: Parent Survey Comments by School 91 92 97 104 Table of Contents: 2 CCLC Technical Report hiTables Table 1. Table 2. Table 3. Table 4. Table 5: Table 6: Table 7. Table 8. Description of 2L CCLC Program Components at the Six Study Schools Demographics of the 2L' CCLC Schools in the Study Summary of Instruments, Participants, and Data Sources by Evaluation Question Data Collection Summary 21st CCLC Teacher Questionnaire (CCLCTQ) Results: Implementation 21st CCLC Teacher Questionnaire (CCLCTQ) Results: Impact 21st CCLC Parent Questionnaire (CCLCPQ) Results 21st CCLC Student Questioimaire (CCLCSQ) Results, Grades K-2 11 12 13 19 22 23 30 35 Table 9. Table 10. Table 11. Table 12. Table 13. Table 14. 21st CCLC Student Questionnaire (CCLCSQ) Results, Grades 3-5: Implementation . 21 st CCLC Student Questionnaire (CCLCSQ) Results, Grades 3-5: Impact . 21 st CCLC Student Questionnaire (CCLCSQ) Results, Grades 6-12: Implementation . 21st CCLC Student Questionnaire (CCLCSQ) Results, Grades 6-12: Impact . Race of Students Enrolled in 21st CCLC Programs in Study Schools, 2006-07 . Gender of Students Enrolled in 21st CCLC Programs in Study Schools By Grade Level, 2006-07 37 38 40 42 66 66 Table 15: Adjusted Means and Effect Size Estimates by School, Grade, and Treatment Level, 2006 ITBS Scores Table 16. Percentage of Students (Treatment and Control) Proficient in Literacy and Mathematics on the Arkansas Benchmark Exams by School, Grade, and Treatment Level 73 76 Figures Figure 1. Proportion of Male 21st CCLC Participants, Broken Down by Grade Level 67 Figure 2. Number of 21st CCLC Sessions Attended by Students at Henderson Middle School 69 Table of Contents: 2P CCLC Technical Report ivFigure 3. Number of 21 st CCLC Sessions Attended by Students at Mabelvale Middle School 70 Figure 4. Number of 21 st CCLC Sessions Attended by Students at McClellan High School Figure 5. Number of 21st CCLC Sessions Attended by Students at Southwest Middle School Figure 6. Number of 21st CCLC Sessions Attended by Students at Woodruff Elementary School Figure 7. Proportion of 21st CCLC Participants Substantially Served, by Grade Level Figure 8. Percentage of Students Obtaining Proficiency on the Arkansas Benchmark Exams in Literacy and Mathematics by Treatment Level Figure 9. Standardized Residuals of ITBS Total Reading NCE Scores vs. Total Days Attended Figure 10. Standardized Residuals of ITBS Total Math NCE Scores vs. Total Days Attended 70 71 71 72 75 77 78 Table of Contents: 2P CCLC Technical Report VEXECUTIVE SUMMARY INTRODUCTION This report summarizes the results of an evaluation of the 2005-06 Little Rock School Districts (LRSD) 2P Century Community Learning Centers (2L CCLC). The overall purpose of the evaluation was threefold: (1) to assess the effects of the 2L CCLC on raising the academic achievement of African Americans, (2) to examine implementation of the 2L CCLC program in the study schools, and (3) to document the perceptions of students, teachers, principals, and school staff regarding the 21' CCLC program. BACKGROUND Seven schools in the Little Rock School District host 21' Century Community Learning Centers, which offer academic support\nmath/science activities\nmusic/arts/drama\nentrepreneurial programs\ndrug/violence prevention, counseling, and character education\ntutoring/mentoring\nparent involvement\ntechnology and communication\nfamily literacy/education\nrecreational programs\nextended library hours\nand services for truant, suspended or expelled students. Individual centers provide a subset of the possible activities. Each school develops a slate of activities specific to the needs of the student population. RESEARCH QUESTIONS Primary Evaluation Question: 1. Have the 21 ** Century Community Learning Center (21 CCLC) programs been effective in improving and remediating the academic achievement of African American students? Supplemental (Qualitative/Step 2) Evaluation Questions: 1. What is the nature and level of implementation of the 2 CCLC programs? 2. What is the level of participation in 2U CCLCs by African American students? 3. What are the perceptions of teachers and school administrators regarding program implementation, impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? 4. What are the perceptions of parents/guardians and students of program impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? 2U CCLC Technical Report 1DESIGN Participants. LRSD identified 6 schools implementing a 21' CCLC program to participate in the evaluation: 1 elementary school, 3 middle schools, and 2 high schools. Collectively, the schools enrolled approximately 4,200 students and employed approximately 410 classroom teachers. Over 84% of the student enrollment was African American. Design. The evaluation design was based on both quantitative and qualitative data collected from the participating schools. Quantitative analyses examined district test scores to determine the effect of the 21' CCLC on Afncan American students learning as compared to non-21' CCLC students. In order to identify the level and quality of program implementation, the quantitative results of surveys distributed to teachers, parents, and student participants were descriptively analyzed, and qualitative analysis examined interviews conducted with 21' CCLC site coordinators and principals. One school was selected for a more focused case study, Mabelvale Magnet Middle School. INSTRUMENTATION Teacher, Student, and Parent Survey  Teacher survey. This instrument was used to collect teacher knowledge of and perceptions about the 21' CCLC program as it operated at their school.  Parent survey. This instrument was designed to capture parent perceptions regarding their childs participation in the 2L' CCLC program.  Student surveys. Because the evaluation assessed students in elementary, middle, and high schools, different surveys were developed for each of three age groups: K-2, 3- st 5, and 6-12. These surveys were used to gauge student perceptions about the 21 CCLC program activities at their school. Interviews  The site coordinator and principal interviews focused on basic features, implementation, support, and strengths and weaknesses of the 2P CCLC program at the participating school. Classroom Observation Measure (case study school only)  An observation instrument (Classroom Observation Tool) was used to record student and teacher activities during a typical 2 CCLC classroom meeting at the case study school, Mabelvale Magnet Middle School. 2 CCLC Technical Report 2Student Focus Group (case study school only)  The student focus group protocol was used to document student impressions of the nature of 2P CCLC program activities\nthe usefulness of the program\nand student satisfaction with the range of activities offered. The focus group was conducted at the case study school, Mabelvale Magnet Middle School. Student Achievement  Researchers used scores from the following standardized achievement tests to examine the effect of the 2P CCLC program on African American students learning: Iowa Test of Basic Skills (ITBS) (ITBS, 2002) and Arkansas Benchmark Exams (Arkansas Benchmark Exams, 2005). PROCEDURE The evaluation involved the collection of a variety of information at the 6 schools by researchers who had no association with LRSD or the 21* CCLC program. Surveys were distributed to students who were participating in the program and their parent or guardian, and to all teachers at each school in order to obtain their perceptions of the 21* CCLC program. In addition, researchers conducted interviews with the site coordinator and principal at each school. At Mabelvale Magnet Middle School, the case study school, researchers observed 21* CCLC classrooms during prearranged sessions and also conducted a student focus group. Analyses of student achievement on the ITBS and the Arkansas Benchmark Exams were conducted to determine the impact of the 21* CCLC on the academic achievement of African American as compared to non-African American students. RESULTS Key results of the study are presented by measurement strategy. In the conclusion section, findings are synthesized across instruments in order to address each research question. Survey Results Teacher Survey. A total of 187 teachers at the participating LRSD schools completed surveys, the 21* CCLC Teacher Questionnaire (CCLCTQ). (Results are summarized below.) Parent Survey. A total of 82 parents/guardians of primarily African American children completed surveys, the 2L CCLC Parent Questionnaire (CCLCPQ). (Results are summarized below.) Student Survey. A total of 270 students (50 elementary, 140 middle school, and 80 high school) completed surveys, the 21* CCLC Student Questionnaire (CCLCSQ). (Results are summarized below.) 21  CCLC Technical Report 3Interview Results Site Coordinators. Nearly all the site coordinators had high praise for the 21 CCLC program and the afterschool staff and affiliates working at their schools. They consistently identified three strengths of the program: (1) that it provided a safe, secure environment for children at a time (after school) when they were most at risk, even those working at or above proficiency who found a place to further enhance their skills\n(2) that it afforded students many opportunities (the community activities, access to technology) which they otherwise may not have had\nand (3) that it constituted a psychological reward, as the students were made more acutely aware that there was a group of adults devoting their extra time and energies toward helping them achieve academic success as well as improve their classroom behaviors. st While the site coordinators never experienced problems recruiting students into the 21 CCLC program at their school, all except one (at Woodruff) identified student retention/ attendance rates as an ongoing challenge. In general, those days following the administration of standardized tests saw less frequent attendance, and as the warmer weather returned in the spring semester there were general declines in participation rates as well. Another area for improvement identified by the coordinators (except at Woodruff Elementary and Southwest Middle School) was parental involvement, particularly in the upper grades. The high school coordinators in particular tried several strategies for eliciting parents participation, without too much success. However, the site coordinators at Woodruff and Southwest reported that any public performance or display (e.g., music, drama, art) by their child/ren in the 21 CCLC program was guaranteed to bring out the parents. Principals. Most of the principals responses to questions during interviews were similar to those provided by the site coordinators, reiterating the major themes described above. Classroom Observation Results On the basis of the three 21 CCLC sessions observed at Mabelvale Magnet Middle School, both Afidcan American and non-African American students participated equally in activities and with a fairly high level of engagement. The academic relevance of the range of activities was generally clear\nthe quality of instruction and classroom environment was usually good\nand the commitment and enthusiasm of the teaching staff was much in evidence. Student Focus Group The student focus group conducted at the case study school, Mabelvale Magnet Middle School, comprised 6 students. They liked having useful activities in which to engage after the close of the regular school day, and most felt that participation was having a positive impact on their schoolwork. In terms of areas for improvement, student indicated that greater variety and perhaps more creative development of 21 CCLC program activities (e.g., recreation, enrichment or arts instruction) would enhance student enjoyment of afterschool, and also contribute to higher attendance rates. In addition, although most students felt that afterschool activities were improving their academic performance, it did not cause them to like school more. 2P CCLC Technical Report 4Student Achievement Results According to Federal guidelines, students must attend a program at least 30 days to be considered substantially served. The three groups assessed in CREPs statistical analysis  control, not substantially served, and substantially served students  performed equally on ITBS Reading and Mathematics after controlling for prior achievement, free or reduced-price lunch status, special education status, and gender. There was no relationship between student attendance of the 21^ CCLC program nor numbers of days attended and student achievement scores. CONCLUSIONS The conclusions of this study are presented in association with each of the major research questions in the respective sections below. Primary Evaluation Question Have the 21^ Century Community Learning Center (21^ CCLC) programs been effective in improving and remediating the academic achievement of African American students? Although CREP employed rigorous methods to estimate 2L CCLC effects, the small number of students who were substantially served mitigate against ascribing the observed effects to the 2L CCLC programs. The available evidence suggests that there was no relationship between student achievement on standardized tests and attendance of 2L CCLC programs. No relationship was observed between the number of sessions attended and student achievement in reading or mathematics. A significant negative relationship was observed between treatment and literacy proficiency on the Arkansas benchmark examination, but given the preponderance of students who were not substantially served, it is quite plausible that this effect is attributable to students self-selecting out of the program, rather than to the interventions themselves. Supplemental (Qualitative/Step 2) Evaluation Questions What is the nature and level of implementation of the 21^ CCLC programs? On the basis of survey results as well as observations conducted at the case study school Mabelvale Middle, it would appear that many participants are highly engaged with 2L' CCLC activities. The academic relevance of the classes was generally clear\nthe level of instruction and quality of classroom environment was usually good\nand instructor preparation, commitment, and enthusiasm were clearly evident. Most of the teachers were very positive in their comments about the programs efficacy and impact on their students, as were the parents of 2L CCLC program participants. However, in regard to the level of implementation, the attendance rates for the majority of 2 L' CCLC participants were quite low. Only two of the six schools that received 2L CCLC funding substantially served a majority of the students who enrolled in the program. The two exceptions were Woodruff Elementary, where essentially all participants were 2P CCLC Technical Report 5substantially served, and Southwest Middle, where slightly more than half of participants were substantially served. Thus, while the quality of the observed implementation of the 2L CCLC program was good, the level of implementation (on the basis of attendance rates) fell far short of expectations, especially at the middle and high school levels. Overall, only about 20% of students in grades 6- 12 who enrolled in 2P CCLC programs attended 30 or more sessions, which is comparable to the 16.4% who attended no sessions at all. What is the level of participation in 21^ CCLCs by African American students? Since the majority of students in the study schools were African American, the level of participation by this ethnic group in 2L CCLC activities was quite high: 87% of the K-2 respondents, 85% of the middle school, and 82% of the high school identified themselves as Afncan American. Interviews with site coordinators and principals confirmed this level of participation. What are the perceptions of teachers and school administrators regarding program implementation, impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? Staff at the 6 study schools were generally very positive about and supportive of the program. In terms of implementation, nearly all agreed that the CCLC offered students a safe place to be after school and that it offered academic help to students who needed it. Large proportions also felt that the CCLC program appealed to a wide variety of students and that the program offered students enough choice of activities. Also, many teachers praised the afterschool staff for their commitment and dedication to helping students improve their skills. In their survey responses, teachers were somewhat more ambivalent about the programs positive impact on participants in terms of changes in academic and social domains. A little less than half agreed that almost all or many 2L CCLC participants were performing better academically, and on average approximately 40% saw improved behaviors in terms of how they related to classmates and teachers as well as in-class conduct. In terms of students facility in using technology, almost half reported that almost all or many participants showed improvements in computer literacy skills. In general, school staff identified three strengths of the 2L CCLC program. First and foremost, the provision of safe and secure environment in which to build skills was seen by most respondents as crucial. Second, participants now had multiple opportunities (such as computer access and arts enrichment), to which they otherwise may not have had access. Third, students were reaping the psychological rewards of knowing that teachers cared enough about their development and progress to work in the afterschool program. These responses by administrative persoimel, who are in the best position to observe the operation and impacts of the 2P' CCLC on students, acknowledge a salient aspect of the program: oversight of participants activities beyond the regular school day may have had positive impacts not easily captured nor sufficiently measurable by standard survey methods. The two most commonly noted areas for improvement included increasing students rates of attendance and expanding efforts to reach and engage the parents of program participants. In addition, some of the site coordinators noted that they had occasional problems finding qualified and available staff, especially in math and science. 21  CCLC Technical Report 6What are the perceptions of parents/guardians and students of program impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? st A majority of parents who returned the surveys responded very positively to the 21 CCLC program at their child/rens school. They felt that the center was a safe place for their children to be and that the 21 CCLC had good programs with different activities from which to choose. A large proportion would sign their child up again and would encourage other children to attend as well. More than three quarters of responding parents thought that the CCLC program was having a positive impact on their child/rens academic performance. There were some differences between the parents responses and the school staff responses. Higher percentages of parents than teachers thought that their child/ren were exhibiting improvements in other areas: feeling better about her/himself, more clearly understanding the importance of graduating from high school, and working better with other students. No parent identified the same areas for improvement - student attendance and parental engagement - as did the teachers and administrators. In fact, when asked whether they had attended any of the 2L CCLC programs for parents, almost two thirds said that they had, which did not match data gathered from school staff. These results should be viewed with caution, since (1) there were fewer parent responses (n = 82) than teacher responses (n = 187) and (2) this data set comprises less than 10% of all parents of participants. Thus, the parent responses constitute a self-selected sample and may be biased (that is, it is more likely that parents who returned surveys were more engaged with the program and had children who attended more often). In regard to student perceptions of the 2P' CCLC, the elementary school children (all at Woodruff) appear to be enjoying and benefiting from the program. For both the younger cohort (K-2) and the older cohort (3-5), the afterschool teachers and staff are strong features of the program\nthey also like the range and variety of activities offered, although the older children were somewhat less satisfied with some of the programs. The safety issue was broached in the surveys: approximately three quarters of both cohorts said that they felt safe at the center. These children identified participation with having a positive impact on their self-image, as a large majority said that the program made them feel better about themselves. Almost two thirds of the older cohort felt that participation had helped them behave better at school and understand the importance of graduating from high school. Like the two younger cohorts, the participant respondents in grades 6-12 identified the teachers and staff in their 21^ CCLC as a real strength. Similarly, a majority of the older students indicated that they felt safe in the afterschool program. Approximately two thirds liked the programs offered, would sign up again, and would recommend the program to other kids. Still, as perhaps might be expected of this age group, only about half said that being in the program was better than other things they could be doing after school. Although in general the responses of the older students indicate they believe the 21 St CCLC to be of much benefit, they were less sure than the younger students of its impact on their academic performance: raising their grades, doing better at school, talking to teachers more, and simply wanting to attend school. At the same time, a little less than three quarters of students said that participation in the center had helped them understand the importance of graduating from high school, a very positive impact of the program. 2P CCLC Technical Report 7COMPLIANCE REMEDY QUESTIONS Teacher and Administrator Involvement The evaluation involved 6 LRSD schools that were implementing the 2L CCLC Program. At each of these schools, the site coordinator of the program as well as the principal was interviewed. Survey instruments were also distributed to all faculty at each of the schools, those who were involved with the 2L CCLC and those who were not. Recommended Program Modifications The 2L CCLC program was generally praised by teachers, faculty, parents, and students in the study as a valuable supplement to the schools. There may be important benefits of the program beyond the overtly measurable outcomes. As discussed above, 2U CCLC program participants reap the rewards of a safe learning environment during the afterschool hours, the knowledge that teachers and administrators care enough about their progress to expend time and effort on their behalf, and the many extracurricular and enrichment activities probably not otherwise available to them. At the same time, statistical analysis of standardized test scores conducted by CREP did not show a correlation between improved achievements in math and literacy and student participation in the program. Possible program modifications that might produce better gains in achievement scores are described below: 1. 2. 3. 4. Staff and administrators consistently identified low student attendance as a key problem, and attendance records confirm that, with the exception of Woodruff Elementary and Southwest Middle School, the average 2P CCLC participant is attending the program only sporadically. Site coordinators and school administrators should focus on effective ways of encouraging students to attend more frequently and regularly. Possible options include (1) providing incentives or rewards for good attendance and (2) the addition of more enrichment activities, such as arts or drama-oriented events, in order to gamer more student interest, as well as parental involvement. Closer attention should be paid by 2L CCLC site coordinators to the mandated attendance record-keeping, so that during the evaluation process more accurate and specific assessments can be developed regarding the impacts of the program on student achievement scores and other domains. Greater efforts should be made to identify those students who are consistently working below proficiency levels and encourage them to attend the 2P CCLC program as much as possible. Interviews with staff indicated that primarily mid-range students and those who didnt need the extra help constituted the majority of participants. Especially at the high schools, school staff felt that the 2L CCLC provided such crucial academic assistance to the many students who needed it that it should not be voluntary but in fact compulsory. At the same time, both the qualitative and quantitative data collected for this report indicate that the 2P CCLC program is most effectively implemented at the elementary and middle school levels\n85% of 21 CCLC participants 21^ CCLC Technical Report 8in grades 6-12 survey were in the 6* through 9* grades. Correspondingly, mandatory attendance might be most practical and feasible for high school freshmen only, assuming compliance measures were acceptable to relevant stakeholders. 5. Staff at the study schools had a fairly high degree of success in eliciting community involvement in their 21 CCLC program. However, they had little luck in involving the parents of participants in center activities. Site coordinators might explore innovative tactics, such as offering continuing education courses in skills or career development, to involve more parents in their 21 CCLC program. 6. Implementation of a self-evaluation by each of the schools receiving a 21 CCLC grant may be a good way for individual schools to pinpoint specific areas for improvement and develop workable solutions for addressing problem areas. CREP recommends that the LRSD consider partnerships with local universities to institute a structured evaluation component for each school in the district receiving a 21 CCLC grant. Expectations of Program Modifications The 21 CCLC holds promise for addressing the gaps in the academic achievement of African American students, even if the statistical analysis revealed no relationship between participation and attendance of the program and standardized test scores. As noted by teachers and staff at the study schools, there are social and psychological benefits of program participation which may be as equally valuable as test outcomes. CREP believes that if the recommendations outlined above are followed, 21 CCLC program staff can expect 1. Progressive gains in all participants scores on standardized literacy and mathematics tests, but particularly those students working at or below proficiency levels and who have been attending the afterschool program regularly. 2. Higher rates of attendance by participants in the middle and high schools, or at least higher proportions of those who, following Federal guidelines, would be considered substantially served. If participation by high school freshmen were rendered mandatory, school staff might see gains in math and literacy in this cohort which are extended through subsequent years of these students secondary school education, as well as (given the socialization function of the 21 CCLC program in the first year of high school) improved high school graduation rates. 3. Greater parental involvement in the 21 CCLC programs, with potentially the positive outcomes associated with such engagement. Further, the initiation of continuing education courses specifically for parents would have multiple educational and prosocial benefits, not the least of which would include additional reinforcement of the value of education for their children. 4. Improved program implementation in the study schools via the incorporation of a selfevaluation component. 21 CCLC Technical Report 9LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 2C CCLC Community Learning Centers Evaluation TECHNICAL REPORT Introduction This report summarizes the results of an evaluation of the 2005-06 Little Rock School Districts (LRSD) 2P' Century Community Learning Centers (2P' CCLC). The overall purpose of the evaluation was threefold: (1) to assess the effects of the 2P CCLC on raising the academic achievement of African Americans, (2) to examine implementation of the 2P CCLC program in the study schools, and (3) to document the perceptions of students, teachers. principals, and school staff regarding the 2P CCLC program. st This evaluation study examined the following 6 schools who were implementing a 21 CCLC program in LRSD\nWoodruff Elementary\n-Henderson, Southwest, and Mabelvale Magnet Middle Schools\nand Hall and McClellan High Schools. Mabelvale was selected as the case study school. More detailed descriptions of the 2P CCLC program at each study school can be found in Table 1. EVALUATION QUESTIONS The 21* CCLC evaluation was structured around one overarching, primary question concerning the impact of the program on student achievement. Four supplemental questions addressed contextual factors related to the implementation of the 21* CCLC program. 21* CCLC Technical Report 10Table 1. Description of 21 CCLC Program Components at the Six Study Schools School Woodruff Elementary Henderson Middle Southwest Middle Mabelvale Middle Hall High McClellan High ______________Description of 2L CCLC Program______________  Before and afterschool, on Saturdays, and during intersessions (Woodruff is a year-round school)  Visual and performing arts enrichment  Cultural activities and educational and recreational field trips  Educational technology  Parent and family services____________________________________________  Before and afterschool\nsummer camp  Before school provides homework help, extended access to the library, and technology resources.  Tutoring Club afterschool designed to assist students academically  Enrichment opportunities are coordinated with community partners  Summer camp focuses on mathematics, literacy and science, with technology a strong component____________________________________________  Afterschool, Saturday Sojourns  Focus on improving standardized test scores in literacy and math  Homework Club  Community partnerships for cultural enrichment activities  Parent and family services____________________________________________  Before and afterschool program\nsummer camp  Homework Club before school provides homework assistance and extended library hours  Tutoring Club afterschool offers computer-based programs and personalized instruction for algebra preparation and literacy development  Enrichment Club provides extended learning opportunities relating to magnet programs of Environmental Science, Medical Studies, and Technology . Summer camp focuses on mathematics and literacy, primarily through the use of technology  Parent programs and family services____________________________________  Before and afterschool\nSaturdays\nsummer camp  Drug and violence prevention program and a youth development component emphasizing counseling, service learning, mentoring, and employment opportunities . Summer camp offers a six-week Algebra 1 program and a two-week transition program for students entering 9* grade  Arts enrichment  Parent/family sessions_______________________________________________  Before and afterschool\nSaturdays\nsummer camp  Drug and violence prevention program and a youth development component emphasizing counseling, service learning, mentoring, and employment opportunities  Summer camp offers a six-week Algebra 1 program and a two-week transition program for students entering 9' grade  Arts enrichment  Parent/family sessions 2P CCLC Technical Report 11Primary Evaluation Question'. 1. Have the 2P Century Community Learning Center (2L' CCLC) programs been effective in improving and remediating the academic achievement of African American students? Supplemental (Qualitative/Step 2) Evaluation Questions: 2. What is the nature and level of implementation of the 2P CCLC programs? 3. What is the level of participation in 2L CCLCs by African American students? 4. What are the perceptions of teachers and school administrators regarding program implementation, impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? 5. What are the perceptions of parents/guardians and students of program impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? EVALUATION DESIGN AND MEASURES Participants LRSD identified 6 schools with a 2L CCLC program to participate in the evaluation: 1 elementary school, 3 middle schools, and 2 high schools. Collectively, the schools enrolled approximately 4,400 students and employed approximately 340 classroom teachers. Over 84% of the overall student enrollment was African American. LRSD data indicated a total of 859 students registered for the program (see Table 2). Table 2. Demographics of the 21 st CCLC Schools in the Study School Name Elementary School Woodruff Elementary Middle Schools Mabelvale Middle School Southwest Middle School Henderson Middle School High Schools Hall High School McClellan High School Grade Level Percentage of African American Students* Number of 21 * CCLC registrants K-5 6-8 6-8 6-8 9-12 9-12 89% 74% 96% 80% 73% 93% Total 55 260 167 107 6 264 859 * Common Core of Data, 2006 2L' CCLC Technical Report 12Design The evaluation was conducted during the spring of 2006. Both quantitative and qualitative data were collected from the 6 participating schools using survey instruments and established research procedures (Ross, Smith, Alberg, \u0026amp; Lowther, 2004) (see Table 3). Table 3. Summary of Instruments, Participants, and Data Sources by Evaluation Question Evaluation Question Primary Question Have the 21 Century Community Learning Center (21  CCLC) programs been effective in improving and remediating the academic achievement of African American students? Supplemental Questions What is the nature and level of implementation of the 21 CCLC programs? What is the level of participation in 21 CCLCs by African American students? What are the perceptions of teachers and school administrators regarding program implementation, impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? What are the perceptions of parents/guardians and students of program impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? Participants Data Sources  Students participating in 21 CCLC programs in 6 LRSD schools  Control group matched to participating students  21  CCLC Program/School administrators  21 CCLC Teachers  21 CCLC Students 21 CCLC Students  21 CCLC Teachers  21 CCLC Program/School Administrators Parents of 21 CCLC students 21 CCLC Students ITBS and Arkansas Benchmark Reading and Math Subtests  Principal Interviews (phone and on site)  Site Coordinator Interviews (phone and on site)  Teacher Survey (administered at faculty meetings)  Student Survey  Student Focus Group (case study)  21  CCLC Observations (case study)  School records/participation rosters  21  CCLC Observations (case study)  Teacher Survey (administered at faculty meetings)  Principal Interviews (phone and on site)  Site Coordinator Interviews (phone and on site)_______________  Parent Survey  Student Survey  Student Focus Group (case study) Quantitative analyses examined district test scores to determine the effect of the 21 CCLC on African American students academic achievement. In order to identify the level and quality of program implementation, the quantitative results of surveys distributed to teachers, parents, and 21 CCLC Technical Report 13student participants were descriptively analyzed. Qualitative analyses were conducted on information gained during staff interviews conducted at the 6 study schools. The evaluation design also included a case study of an individual school, Mabelvale Magnet Middle School. The case study approach was selected so that a comprehensive understanding of that instance obtained by extensive description and analysis taken as a whole and in its context (GAO, 1990) would provide richer contextual detail regarding the implementation of the community learning center concept. Researchers employed a triangulated method, which entailed multiple classroom observations and a focus group in addition to the surveys and staff interviews. The one school chosen for the case study was regarded by district personnel as having an exemplary 2P CCLC program. EVALUATION INSTRUMENTATION Five strategies were used to collect evaluation data from all 6 schools\nteacher. parent/guardian, and student surveys\nstaff interviews\nand assessment of student achievement scores. In addition, direct classroom observations and a focus group were conducted at the case study school, Mabelvale. Copies of the instruments can be found in Appendix A. Teacher, Parent/guardian, and Student Surveys Teacher survey. The 21' Century Community Learning Center Teacher Questionnaire (CCLCTQ) was used to collect teacher knowledge of and perceptions about the 21' CCLC program as it operated at their school. The first section of the survey asked teachers to identify whether they were part of the 21' CCLC program at their school. The second section asked them for their opinion of the program by rating their level of agreement with 5 general 21' CCLC Technical Report 14statements, using a 5-item Likert-type scale that ranged from Strongly Agree/Agree/ Neutral/Disagree/Strongly Disagree. The third section of the CCLCTQ section asked teachers to assess how many students had been impacted by the program in a variety of areas, including academic performance, classroom and school behavior, interpersonal and social development. and computer literacy, using a 5-item Likert-type scale that ranged from Almost all of them/Many of them/Some of them/A few of them to Almost none of them. The final section asked teachers to list the strengths of the program and ways it might be improved. (See the example of the teacher survey in Appendix A.) Parent/guardian survey. The 2L Century Community Learning Center Parent Questionnaire (CCLCPQ) instrument was designed to capture perceptions of parents or guardians regarding their child or childrens participation in the 2L CCLC program. The first section of the instrument asked parents or guardians to identify their child/rens ethnic group. The second section asked respondents to indicate which (if any) clubs or activities affiliated with the 2P CCLC their child/ren participated in (Yes/No/Dont Know). The list of possible programs (e.g.. Enrichment, Tutoring, Saturday program. Summer Camp) was compiled from the schools grant applications, which described the various activities implemented at the schools. The third section of the CCLCPQ asked parents opinion of the program by rating their level of agreement (5-item Likert-type scale that ranged from Strongly Agree to Strongly Disagree) with a list of 6 statements. The fourth section asked respondents to indicate their agreement with any of 8 general statements describing the programs potential impact on their child/rens views about school, schoolwork, and interpersonal and social behavior. The final section asked parents to list the strengths of the program and ways it might be improved. (See the example of the parent/guardian survey in Appendix A.) 21* CCLC Technical Report 15Student surveys. The 21' Century Community Learning Center Student Questionnaire (CCLCSQ) was used to gauge student perceptions about the 21 CCLC program activities at their school. Because the evaluation assessed students in elementary, middle, and high schools. different surveys were developed for each of three grade cohorts: K-2, 3-5, and 6-12. (See the examples of these surveys in Appendix A.) All students were asked to identify their grade. gender, and ethnic group membership\nthe wording of these questions was altered to fit the age level of the respondent. The K-2 instrument. This questioimaire contained fewer items (12) and used more simple language than the other student surveys. Students were asked to fill in the appropriate 3- st point Likert bubble (Agree/Dont Know/Disagree) regarding statements about aspects of the 21 CCLC program at their school. To aid the children in understanding the 3 options, the instrument contained small face icons, e.g., a smiley face next to Agree, a nonsmiling face next to Dont Know, and a frowning face next to Disagree. Teachers were also instructed to read the statements out loud as necessary, and they were advised that they might also explain the question about ethnicity. (See the sample survey found in Appendix A.) The 3-5 and 6-12 instruments. These two versions were the same except for the initial questions about gender and grade (see the sample surveys found in Appendix A). The first section asked students to indicate (Yes/No) whether they participated in clubs or activities affiliated with the 21* CCLC, such as Enrichment, Saturday program, or Summer Camp. The next section asked students to rate their level of agreement with 9 statements about the program. using a 5-point Likert-type scale (Strongly Agree/Agree/Neutral/Disagree/Strongly Disagree). The final section asked students to complete a set of statements assessing the programs impact 21' CCLC Technical Report 16on their views about school, schoolwork, and interpersonal and social behavior, using a 4-point Likert-type scale (A great deal/Somewhat/A little/Not at all). Interviews An interview protocol was developed for both the site coordinators and principals of all 6 schools in the study. Six of the interviews were conducted in person onsite, and six via telephone. Some of the protocol was designed to gather basic information from staff, such as questions about their role in the operation of the 2L CCLC program\nwhom the program serves\nand the types of approaches and scheduling used (e.g., meeting times. Homework or Enrichment Club, Saturday program. Summer Camp). Most of the protocol required staff to elaborate on the specific implementation of the 21' CCLC at their school: the programs primary purpose. recruiting and retention rates, typical participant, school and parental support, community partnerships, and strengths and weaknesses. At the conclusion of the interview, staff were asked to contribute any additional comments. Classroom Observation Tool The Classroom Observation Tool was custom-designed to document the processes and practices evident in the 21' CCLC classrooms in the case study school. The instrument was used to record contextual data (e.g., number of students observed participating in the afterschool program, number by ethnicity, number of teachers, number of parents) and the type of activities and materials in use. Data were also recorded regarding student involvement or engagement in the activities, how well the period observed represented a learning center. While this tool guided the observations in ensuring key data were observed, qualitative field notes were also to be used as part of the data collection process. 21' CCLC Technical Report 17Student Focus Group The student focus group protocol was used to document student impressions regarding 21 CCLC program activities\nthe usefulness and effectiveness of the program\nsatisfaction with the range of activities offered\nand strengths and areas for improvement. At the conclusion of the focus group, students were asked to contribute any additional comments. The focus group protocol was designed for use in the case study school. Student Achievement CREP used scores from the following standardized achievement tests to examine the effect of the 2L CCLC program on African American students learning\n(1) Iowa Test of Basic Skills (ITBS, 2002), and (2) Arkansas Benchmark Exams (Arkansas Benchmark Exams, 2005). PROCEDURE The ten data collection measures are summarized in Table 4 by type of measure. instrument, number completed, and the data collection procedure. Surveys. There were three types of survey instruments: the 2L* CCLC Teacher Questionnaire (CCLCTQ), the 2L' CCLC Parent Questionnaire (CCLCPQ), and 21 CCLC Student Questionnaire (subdivided into K-2, 3-5, and 6-12). In March 2006, packets containing instruments, instructions, and return envelopes were sent to the site coordinators at each study school, who administered and then collected all instruments for return via mail to the evaluator. The site coordinator distributed the teacher questionnaires at the faculty meeting\nprovided each student participating in the 2L CCLC program with a parent/guardian questionnaire (enclosed in envelopes with an instruction label)\nand administered the student questioimaires to program 2L CCLC Technical Report 18participants. In some instances, researchers picked up completed instruments at the school itself. All three surveys were received from each site, with one exception: parent surveys were not received from Southwest Middle School. Interviews. The 2P CCLC site coordinator and the principal at each study school were interviewed, either via telephone or in person on site, using a standard interview protocol. The site coordinator interviews usually took about 45 minutes and the principal interviews about 30 minutes. Each interview was audiotaped and then a detailed transcription made that incorporated both interview notes and the audiotape version. Twelve interviews were completed and transcribed by May 2006. Table 4. Data Collection Summary Type of Measure Instruments Number Completed Data Collection Procedure Surveys 1) 21st Century Community Learning Center Teacher Questionnaire (CCLCTQ) 187 Administered during faculty meetings at each of the 6 study schools Interviews Classroom Observations Student Focus Group Student Achievement Analysis 2) 21st Century Community Learning Center Parent Questionnaire (CCLCPQ) 3) 21st Century Community Learning Center Student Questionnaire (CCLCSQ) 1) Site Coordinator Inten/iew Protocol 2) Principal Interview Protocol Site Classroom Observation Tool Student Focus Group Protocol 1) ITBS 2) Arkansas Benchmark Exams 82 270 (30 K-2,20 3- 5,220 6-12) Distributed by site coordinators at all 6 study schools. Surveys were returned to the schools by the parent/guardian and then mailed to the evaluator. Distributed to all students participating in the 2V CCLC at all 6 of the study schools. There were 3 different surveys developed for grade cohorts: K-2,3-5, and 6-12. Researchers individually interviewed site coordinators and principals at all 6 of the study schools\nthe inten/iews lasted between 30 and 45 minutes One morning and two afternoon sessions were observed at the case study school, Mabelvale Middle School. Additional visits were scheduled but canceled by the site coordinator 1 focus group conducted at the case study school, Mabelvale Middle School: 6 students (3 in the 6*', 2 in the 7** grade, and 1 in the 8 grade) Analyses of student achievement on the ITBS and the Arkansas Benchmark Exams were conducted to determine the impact of the 21  CCLC on the academic achievement of African Americans 2P' CCLC Technical Report 19 6 6 3 1Classroom Observations. There were three observations (two in the afternoon and one in the morning) of 2P' CCLC classrooms in operation at the case study school, Mabelvale Magnet Middle School. The researcher prearranged these visits with the site coordinator. In the afternoon session, the researcher observed the activities of separate groups of 6*, 7*, and 8* graders, and in the morning session all grades were observed in one classroom. Student Focus Group. One focus group was conducted by the researcher at Mabelvale Magnet Middle School using a focus group protocol\nthere were 6 students, 3 in the 6*, 2 in the 7**, and 1 in the 8* grade. The students selected for the focus group were those for whom parental consent had been received. The discussion lasted approximately 30 minutes and took place in the site coordinators office. Achievement Tests. The results of two tests taken in April by LRSD students, the Iowa Test of Basic Skills (ITBS) and the Arkansas Benchmark Exams, were forwarded to the evaluator for analysis. The ITBS scores arrived in July and the Benchmark scores in September. Researchers examined scores of those African Americans who participated in the 2P' CCLC program and matched them to control students within the same grade and school in order to discern the possible impact of the program on participants academic achievement. Researchers also compared the results of students who were enrolled in the program and substantially served to those who were enrolled but not substantially served. Substantially served was defined according to Federal guidance for such programs, based on program attendance of at least 30 days over the course of the year. RESULTS The results of the study are presented in the section below. In the Conclusion section, the findings are synthesized across instruments to address each research question. 21  CCLC Technical Report 20Survey Results This section contains the results of the 2P Century Community Center Teacher Questionnaire (CCLCTQ), the 2L' Century Community Parent Questionnaire (CCLCPQ), and the 2L Century Community Student Questioimaire (CCLCSQ). 2r CCLC Teacher Questionnaire (CCLCTQ) The CCLCTQ was completed by a total of 187 teachers working at the 6 schools implementing a 2L CCLC program, out of a possible 410 (the total number of teachers at all six schools), which represents a 46% response rate. Approximately 69% of the respondents were teachers at the school but not affiliated with aftercare program, and approximately 25% were st both teachers and involved with the program\nonly 1 respondent was employed only by the 21 CCLC program and not a faculty member at the school. Eleven did not respond to the question about their role in the program. The first section was used to gauge teacher perception of the 2P CCLC as it was implemented in their school. As shown in Table 5, two of the statements were rated very highly on the survey (as indicated by the combination of the categories Strongly Agree and Agree). A large majority strongly agreed or agreed that the CCLC offered students a safe place to be after school (91.4%) and that it offered academic help to students who needed it (88.2%). Two other statements were rated highly: almost three quarters (74.9%) strongly agreed or agreed with the statement that The CCLC program appeals to a wide variety of students and more than two thirds (66.8%) with the statement that The CCLC program offers students enough choice of activities. This last statement about the range of program activities elicited the highest percentage (9.6%) of respondents who strongly disagreed or disagreed, although the level of disagreement was still quite low. Respondents were more clearly ambivalent about the last 2L CCLC Technical Report 21statement, The CCLC program reaches student families\na little more than half (56.1 %) agreed or strongly agreed, with about a third (34.2%) responding neutral about their agreement with this statement. Table 5. 2V CCLC Teacher Questionnaire (CCLCTQ) Results (all schools combined)\nImplementation Responses(%) Items The CCLC program offers students enough choice of activities. The CCLC program offers academic help to students who need it. The CCLC program offers students a safe place to be after school. The CCLC program appeals to a wide variety of students The CCLC program reaches Strongly Agree and Agree 66.8 88.2 91.4 74.9 56.1 Neutral 21.9 8.6 5.3 18.7 34.2 Disagree and Strongly Disagree 9.6 2.7 1.6 4.8 8.0 Mean (SD) 3.86(.99) 4.38(79) 4.52(.67) 4.08(88) students' families_______________________________________________________________________________ Notes. Percentages for responses may not total 100% because of missing input from some respondents, n = 187 3 All items measured using a 5-point Likert scale: 1 = strongly disagree\n5 = strongly agree 3.73(.95) The concluding section of the CCLCTQ asked teachers to assess the extent of the CCLC programs effect on student participants by indicating whether Almost all of them, Many of them, Some of them, or Almost none of them exhibited positive changes in a variety of academic, social, and technological domains. As shown in Table 6, teachers responses indicate that less than half of them think that the CCLC program is having a positive impact, as indicated by the combination of the Almost all of them and Many of them categories. For example, 47.6% of respondents agreed that almost all or many students in the program exhibited improved academic performance, and 39.6% thought that at least some were exhibiting improvement. Slightly more than two fifths (41.2%) of teachers said that almost all or many participants attendance had improved, with a similar proportion (43.9%) noting better attendance during the regular school day by some of the students. In addition, several teachers 2P CCLC Technical Report 22saw improved behaviors for 2P' CCLC participants in terms of how they related to classmates (38.5%) and teachers (40.6%) and how they behaved in class (36.3%) (see Table 6). Table 6. 21st CCLC Teacher Questionnaire (CCLCTQ) Results (all schools combined): Impact How many students that you know who participate in the 2V CCLC program exhibit... Improved academic performance? Increased school attendance? Improvement in how they relate to classmates? Improvement in how they relate to teachers? Improvement in how they behave in class? Almost All of Them and Many of Them 47.6 41.2 38.5 40.6 36.3 Responses (%)\u0026gt; Some of Them 39.6 43.9 43.3 40.6 43.3 A Few of Them and Almost None of Them 9.6 11.8 13.3 15.0 16.5 Mean (SD)^ 3.50 (.90) 3.39 (.98) 3.33 (.99) 3.37(1.01) 3.25 (.98) Greater self-worth and self-esteem? Involvement in community services? Development as leaders? Greater awareness of health issues? Greater awareness of drug and violence issues? Improvement in computer skills/ 44.4 26.7 27.3 27.8 32.1 38.5 39.6 41.2 39.0 37.4 12.8 27.2 26.7 27.2 23.6 3.41 (.94) 2.93 (1.09) 2.98 (1.04) 2.98 (1.07) 3.10(1.04) 45.5 38.5 10.2 computer literacy?_______________________________________________________________ Note: Percentages may not total 100% because of missing input from some respondents, n = 187 All items measured using a 5-point Likert scale: 1 = almost all of them, 5 = almost none of them. 3.49 (.94) Percentage response calculated after collapsing points. b In terms of students psychosocial lives, 44.4% of teachers responded that almost all or many 2L CCLC participants were exhibiting greater self-worth and self-esteem, and another 38.5% responded that some students were exhibiting improvements in this area. For other items. somewhat lower percentages and a wider distribution range were found. For example, while 41.2% of respondents observed that some students exhibited greater development as leaders. 17.6% said that only a few did so, and another 9.1 % said that none did so. Taken together. this means that more than a fourth (26.7%) of teachers thought that few or none of the program participants exhibited development as leaders. Further, while 39.0% of respondents said that 2L CCLC Technical Report 23some of the students were more aware of health issues as a result of participation, again well over a fourth (27.2%) of teachers said that few or almost none exhibited heightened awareness. In terms of students use of technology, however, almost half (45.4%) of teachers reported that almost all or many and nearly two fifths (38.5%) that some students showed improvements in computer literacy skills (see Table 6). The teachers also responded to 2 open-ended questions on the CCLCTQ which asked them to identity the strongest aspects of the 2P CCLC program as it operated at their school, as well as suggest areas for improvement. In the main, the tenor of the comments reflects the survey results shown in Tables 5 and 6, although there are some divergences. A full transcription of teacher comments to the open-ended questions can be found in Appendix B. A summary of these comments follows, presented in grade-level order (elementary school, middle school, high school). Elementary School Teacher Comments. At Woodruff Elementary School, the teachers who responded to the survey ( = 13) were quite positive about the program. One was effusive\n[The program] is a safe, vibrant place for students to grow. Two others commended the enrichment activities which form the core of Woodruffs 2P CCLC program, specifically mentioning the piano classes, chess club, and Tae Kwon Do as strengths. They also thought students extra time in the computer lab was helpful and mentioned the health and nutrition class as benefits. Another respondent liked how the program attended to the individual needs of the students, and one commended the leadership and organizational skills of the site director. Only one respondent out of the 7 from Woodruff who included comments noted an area for improvement: adding new activities each semester that will encourage and enhance thinking skills.' 55 2P CCLC Technical Report 24Middle School Teacher Comments. Faculty respondents who taught in the middle schools (Southwest [zi = 23], Henderson [n = 21], and Mabelvale [n =36]) were generally quite positive about and supportive of the program, in terms of its academic impact, student engagement, and teacher commitment. Many teachers commended the academic assistance provided to students who were benefiting from the reinforcement of skills and concepts taught during the regular school day. As one put it, the program provides valuable help for students who have potential to succeed but need additional support, and another noted that the program gives students some extra incentives to work harder in class. Several mentioned homework help and the assistance with core subjects, literacy and math, as well as test-taking skills as strengths. Two respondents observed that the program improved students grades. These responses to the open-ended questions are in accord with the surveys quantitative results about the programs provision of academic assistance and its effect on school performance (see Tables 5 and 6). Another common theme in middle school teacher responses was students enjoyment of the afterschool activities, which respondents thought enhanced participants desire to attend regularly and improve their skills. As one respondent offered anecdotally, when the announcement comes over the intercom No After School [today] there is a groan, because Kids St Love It! Some individuals commented on the level of commitment and involvement in the 21 CCLC program by the teachers at their school (e.g., very dedicated). Comments from these respondents indicate that not only were students benefiting academically from more individualized attention, they reaped the psychological rewards of knowing that teachers cared enough about their development and progress to work in the afterschool program. This is in accord with the response to the survey item concerning the programs impact on student 21 ** CCLC Technical Report 25 participants (see Table 6), which indicated that nearly 45% of faculty thought that almost all/many exhibited greater self-worth and self-esteem. As one respondent put it, the potential to positively influence students was seen as a real strength of the program. One aspect seen often in the middle-school teacher comments (also a common feature of the staff interviews) was that the 2P CCLC gives our students a safe place to stay after school, providing a secure environment in which to engage in CCLC activities and concentrate on their academic work, which may not have been available in students neighborhoods, and perhaps in their homes. One respondent phrased this more negatively: the CCLC gives the students a place to go after school instead of getting into trouble. Still, this acknowledges a very salient aspect of the CCLC program as it operated in the LRSD study schools, that greater oversight of students activities beyond the regular school day was seen as a potential benefit both academically and behaviorally. In terms of areas for improvement, two areas were by far most commonly cited by middle school respondents: expansion of the program entailing more student participation and attendance, and greater parental engagement. There were few specific suggestions for how to achieve higher attendance rates, but one suggested additional incentives or rewards for coming to afterschool' regularly. Several others opined that their schools program should include more of an enrichment component to encourage greater attendance, such as crafts, art. or PE component,' 95 44, more camp-like/social activities, or just a more educationally fun dimension. Conversely, some teachers felt there should be more homework time, a greater focus on basic skills, or use of test scores to identify and focus on problem areas. Other respondents simply observed that a greater variety of activities with more flexible scheduling would improve the 2V CCLC at their school, which reflects the quantitative survey result * Afterschool was the term commonly used by respondents to refer to the 2L' CCLC program 21^ CCLC Technical Report 26indicating less satisfaction with the choice of activities (see Table 5). No respondent had a concrete suggestion for how to improve parental involvement\nagain, the quantitative survey results confirm that the program has had only measured success in reaching students families (see Table 5). High School Teacher Comments. The comments of those high school faculty who returned the questiormaires (at Hall [n = 36] and McClellan (n = 58]) to the open-ended questions on the CCLCTQ were generally close to those expressed by the middle school teachers, although there was more frequent address of the CCLCs impact on students academic achievement. The following are sample responses: Students are provided with a place in which they can improve their skills and grades to succeed academically. Students who take advantage of this service almost always do better in class and on tests. The strengths of the tutoring program are offering help to students who are behind academically, access to computers, and individual help with assignments. I think that this program has helped many borderline students to become academically successful. Reinforces classroom teaching in an alternative setting. Addresses a need for No Student Left Behind. Helps guide our students toward proficiency. Provides a vital service to students needing help with academics. CCLC Technical Report 27The central importance of the CCLC to the performance of students at Hall and McClellan is indicated by the last comment, and these others: should be mandatory for students who are failing, and if students with low academic performance could be required to attend the tutoring program, it would greatly benefit our students and our school. Other respondents cited as strengths of the program the 2L CCLC faculty and staff\nits convenience and accessibility (on-site location)\navailability before and after school\nand, like the middle school teachers, the provision of a safe environment for students, although all of these were noted less often than the academic benefit of the program. In terms of improvement, again greater student and parental involvement was cited, and at one school (McClellan) more instructors (especially in science and foreign languages) to teach in the program. 21 CCLC Parent Questionnaire (CCLCPQ) St The CCLCPQ was completed by 82 parents (or guardians) of participants in the 21 CCLC program. The number is especially low because (1) parent surveys were not returned by Southwest Middle School and (2) only 1 parent returned a survey to Hall High School. Thus, the parental response rate can be estimated as just under 10% (9.55%), assuming a total possible 859 responses from one parent of the 859 students who, according to district enrollment data, were registered in the program. Thirty-three were parents of elementary school students, 22 were parents of middle school students, and 27 were parents of high school students. With the low response rate (9.55%) to the parent survey, its findings are to be regarded with caution, as they may not be entirely representative of the perceptions of parents of children participating in the program. The first section of the questionnaire was primarily devoted to gathering basic information about their child/rens activities in the program, such as whether they belonged to a 21 CCLC Technical Report 28 particular afterschool club, attended a Saturday program, or would participate in the Summer Camp. Parents responses indicated that more students were involved in academic groups such as the Homework Club (54.9%) and the Tutoring Club (62.2%) than in the Enrichment Club (39.0%), and that the typical 2P CCLC student in the study schools attended the program after school, during the week. Participation in before-school, Saturday program, and Summer Camp was low (approximately 10%, 2%, and 7%, respectively), a result that accords with information provided by 21** CCLC staff during interviews. In the first section, respondents were also asked if they had attended any of the 21** CCLCs programs for parents. While almost two thirds (64.6%) said that they had, this does not accord with staff interviews. Site coordinators and principals frequently commented on the lack of parental engagement and involvement, which sometimes resulted in discontinuing such activities. Given the low response rate to the parent survey, the picture of parental involvement drawn from other data sources may be the more accurate. The first section concluded with a question asking parents to identify which ethnic group they belonged to. The largest proportion of respondents (86.6%) identified their ethnic group as African American\n7.3% as Caucasian American\n1.2% as Hispanic American\nand 1.2% as other. No respondent was identified as either Native American or Asian American. The second and third sections of the CCLCPQ were designed to elicit parents perceptions of the 21** CCLC as it was being implemented at their child/rens school and gamer a sense of how participation may have helped students academically and psychosocially. As shown in Table 1, the majority of parents responded very positively to the Centers programs and its impact on their children. They indicated a high level of agreement with all statements on the survey (as indicated by the combination of the categories Strongly Agree and Agree): that the 21** CCLC Technical Report 29Center was a safe place for their children to be (90.2%), that they would sign their child up again (90.2%), and that overall they were pleased with the CCLC at their school (89.0%). Two other statements were rated almost as highly: 85.4% strongly agreed or agreed that My childs Community Learning Center has good programs and that I would encourage other children at my childs school to join the Center. More than three quarters (80.5%) agreed with the statement that My child has enough different activities to choose from the Centers programs. The third section of the CCLCPQ asked parents to indicate the impact of the CCLC program on student participants in academic and social areas. Respondents clearly thought that the CCLC program is having a positive impact on academic performance, as more than three quarters (79.3%) responded that participation had helped their child get better grades. Table 7. 21 st CCLC Parent Questionnaire (CCLCPQ) Results Responses(%) Items My child's school Community Learning Center has good programs My child has enough different activities to choose from the Centers programs I feel my child is safe in the afterschool program I would sign my child up again for the program I would encourage other children at my childs school to join the Center Overall, I am pleased with the Strongly Agree And Agree 85.4 80.5 90.2 90.2 85.4 89.0 Neutral 9.8 13.4 4.9 7.3 12.2 8.5 Disagree and Strongly Disagree 0.0% Mean (SD) 4.58(.67) 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Community Learning Center_______________________________________________________ Note. Percentages may not total 100% because of missing input from some respondents, n = 82  All items measured using a 5-point Likert scale: 1 = strongly disagree\n5 = strongly agree 4.39(.72) 4.56(.59) 4.58(.63) 4.44(.7O) 4.55(.65) More than half of parent respondents indicated a positive impact of the program in other areas. For example, when asked to select all those ways in which they felt participation in the 2L CCLC had positively impacted their child/ren, 57.3% responded that that he/she felt better 21 CCLC Technical Report 30about her/himself\n56.1% that their child better understood the importance of graduating from high school\nand 54.9% that their child worked better with other students as a result of the program. A little less than half (48.8%) of respondents thought that participation had helped their child to talk more to their teachers, and 41.5% said it helped him or her to like school more. However, considerably fewer parents thought that participation in the program had helped their child behave better at school (32.9%) and come to school more often (23.2%). The CCLCPQ also asked parent'guardians to respond to 2 open-ended questions which asked them to identify the strongest aspects of the 2P CCLC program as it operated at their school, as well as suggest areas for improvement. A full transcription of these comments can be found in Appendix C. A summary of these comments follows, presented in grade-level order (elementary school, middle school, high school). Comments by Parents of Elementary School Children. The survey responses indicate that responding parents {n = 33) of children attending the 2L CCLC at Woodruff are generally satisfied with the program. Many identified additional help with homework as the best thing about the program. Like the teacher respondents, several parents liked its safe and secure environment, and one said that the program makes [students] do positive things that keep them out of trouble. Others mentioned the enrichment activities and field trips as the best aspect of the 2L' CCLC at Woodruff, with some commending the computer, chess, Tae Kwon Do, keyboard/piano, and exercise and nutrition classes in particular. In the program, noted one parent, students get to experience things and learn about things they wouldnt [otherwise] get a chance to do. Another parent praised the CCLC staff as very helpful and passionate about their work. They work closely with the student as well as with the parents in order to improve St the students work habits and learning abilities. Not all parents were pleased with the 21 2L CCLC Technical Report 31CCLC staff, however\nin response to the question concerning areas for improvement, one respondent cited the after school workers and another wished that the teachers/caregivers [were] more patient. One respondent asked for more positive reinforcing. In terms of the activities offered, one parent asked for more variety, another felt more math was warranted. St and two others would have preferred more field trips. Finally, one respondent hoped that the 21 CCLC would receive money to keep the program going and alive. So many programs start and stop even though it is working for kids and really makes a difference. Comments by Parents of Middle School Children. The following summary is based on parent responses from Henderson (n = 9) and Mabelvale ( = 13)\nSouthwest did not return parent surveys to the researchers. In general, the parents of middle school children attending the 2P CCLC were positive about the program, although they did not seem as familiar with its activities as did the parents of elementary school children. Several respondents focused on the academic help offered by the 2P CCLC at their childs school, citing assistance with homework and getting better grades, more exposure to math and science, and improvement of students 'overall learning skills as strengths. Some parents praised the interaction between the teachers and students and the individualized attention students received, which was facilitated by the smaller groups attending the various afterschool activities. There were few recommendations for improvement from the parents of middle school students in the 2L CCLC, other than more structure and one on one tutoring. However, one parent felt that the various components of the 2L CCLC program at their childs school were not sufficiently publicized: I didnt know anything about any clubs, summer camp, or programs for parents. Comments by Parents of High School Children. Only one parent survey was returned by Hall High School, so the following summary largely reflects the responses of parental 2CCLC Technical Report 32 responses returned by McClellan High School (n = 26). Like the elementary and middle-school survey responses, parents of high schoolers attending the 2P CCLC were quite supportive of the program. Most respondents praised the academic assistance it provided their children: responses commonly referred to the help with homework and specific subjects like algebra, the improvement of grades, and the individualized work with teachers. Several commended the teaching staff, the way the teachers stay late just to work with my children. Once more, a number of parents mentioned the safety and security issue\nfor example, one parent liked the fact that the 2L CCLC provided children [with] an environment they can work efficiently in. The social and psychological benefits of the program (a theme seen also in the teacher survey comments) were praised by these parents, who commended the staffs concern for and reaching out to help their children not just to do better in school but to affect how they view the long-term benefits of education. For example, one parent described the best thing about the 2L CCLC this way: My child realizes how important his grades are to be able to graduate and have a good life, better job and go to college. The 2L CCLC program, commented another parent, gives the children a future when they think no one cares. In terms of areas of improvement, the parents of high schoolers had few recommendations. One parent mentioned greater variety of classes (especially more science and algebra), more staff for different subjects. and longer hours, but in general these respondents were quite happy with the 2L CCLC at their childs school. 2r CCLC Student Questionnaire (CCLCPQ) A total of 270 surveys were completed by 2L CCLC participants in the 6 study schools: Woodruff Elementary (n = 50, with 30 K2 surveys and 20 3-5 surveys), Mabelvale 2L' CCLC Technical Report 33Magnet Middle School (n = 56), Southwest Middle School ( = 58), Henderson Middle School (n = 26), Hall High School {n = 26), and McClellan High School {n = 54). This represents an overall 31% response rate, based on district information reporting that 859 students were registered for the program. A summary of the quantitative survey results, subdivided by grade level (K-2, 3-5, and 6-12), is presented below. Kindergarten Through 2^ Grade. All 30 respondents to the K-2 survey (see Appendix A) attended the only elementary school in the study. Woodruff. Two questions were designed to collect demographic data: grade (4 were kindergarteners, 6 in the 1* grade, and 20 in the 2\"** grade)\ngender (12 were boys, 15 were girls, with 3 not responding)\nand ethnic group membership (26 were African American, 1 Asian American, 1 Caucasian American, and 1 Native American, with one not responding). One question asked if they would attend Summer Camp (19 Yes, 11 No). The majority of the survey asked respondents to mark bubbles labeled Agree/Dont Know/Disagree in regard to a set of 12 statements, simplified to match the reading comprehension level of the younger student. As indicated by a high level of agreement with all statements on the survey (see Table 8), these children appear to be enjoying and benefiting from the 21* CCLC activities. A discussion of each of the survey items follows. The afterschool teachers and staff are strong features of the program at the elementary school (Woodruff): a large majority of students (93.3%) Agreed with the statement I like the teachers who work with me and the statement Teachers give me help when 1 ask for it. In addition, more than three quarters (76.7%) agreed with the statement Teachers and other grownups in the program make me feel good. A majority of respondents liked the CCLC program (80.0%) and the range of activities offered (83.3%). More than three quarters (76.7%) 21* CCLC Technical Report 34agreed that I would sign up for the program next year and I think other kids should join the community learning program. Table 8. 2V CCLC Student Questionnaire (CCLCSQ) Results, Grades K-2 Items 1 like the CCLC programs I can choose from different activities I like the teachers who work with me Teachers give me help when I ask for it I feel safe in this program Teachers and other grownups in the program make me feel good I would sign up for the program next year I think other kids should join the community learning program The program has helped me to like school more The program has helped me to do better in school The program has helped me to behave better at school The program has helped me to feel better about Agree 80.0 83.3 93.3 93.3 76.7 76.7 76.7 76.7 63.3 63.3 76.7 86.7 Responses (%) Dont Know 6.7 16.7 6.7 6.7 23.3 16.7 13.3 16.7 26.7 26.7 16.7 6.7 Disagree 13.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.7 Mean (SD) 2.67(71) 2.83(.37) 2.93(.25) 2.93{.25) 2.77(.43) 2.70(.59) 6.7 3.3 10.0 10.0 6.7 6.7 myself__________________________________________________________________________ Note. Percentages may not total 100% because of missing input from some respondents, n = 30 a All items measured using a 3-point Likert scale: 1 = disagree, 2 = don't know, 3 = agree 2.72{.59) 2.76{.51) 2.53(.68) 2.70(.59) 2.80(.55) 2.70(.59) The afterschool teachers and staff are strong features of the program at the elementary school (Woodruff): a large majority of students (93.3%) Agreed with the statement 1 like the teachers who work with me and the statement Teachers give me help when I ask for it. In addition, more than three quarters (76.7%) agreed with the statement Teachers and other grownups in the program make me feel good. A majority of respondents liked the CCLC program (80.0%) and the range of activities offered (83.3%). More than three quarters (76.7%) agreed that I would sign up for the program next year and I think other kids should join the community learning program. The safety and security issue was also broached in these quantitative results: more than three quarters (76.7%) agreed that 1 feel safe in this program and The program has helped me behave better at school. And again, participation in the 2L CCLC appears to have a positive impact on students self-image, as 86.7% agreed that The program has made me feel better 21 CCLC Technical Report 35about myself. On two items, The program has helped me to like school more and The program has helped me to do better in school, the K-2 students were somewhat more ambivalent\n63.3% of respondents agreed with these statements, but 26.7% responded Dont Know, and 10% Disagreed. However, these response rates still indicate that the 2P' CCLC is having a positive impact on how many elementary student participants regard school. Third Grade Through 5^ Grade. All 20 respondents to the 3-5 survey (see Appendix A) attended the one elementary school in the study. Woodruff. The first part of the survey was designed to gather demographic data: grade (6 were in the 3^* grade, 8 in the 4* grade, and 4 in the 5* grade, with 2 not responding)\ngender (13 were boys, 7 were girls)\nand ethnic group membership (17 were Afiican American, 2 Caucasian American, and 1 other). Next, students were asked 7 questions about their activities in the program, such as whether they belonged to a particular afterschool club, attended a Saturday program, or would participate in the Summer Camp after school was over. Reflecting the structure of the 21* CCLC at Woodruff, all students in this age cohort reported that they belonged to the Homework Club and nearly all (89.5%) reported that they belonged to the Enrichment Club, with one half reporting that they were also in the Tutoring Club. All students attended the program after school, and as there was no before school or Saturday program, none of the Woodruff respondents reported attending either of these. The main components of the 3-5 survey were designed to elicit students perceptions of the 21* CCLC as it was being implemented at their school and to provide a sense of how participation might be benefiting them academically and psychosocially (see Table 9). Like the K-2 cohort, these older elementary students felt that the afterschool teachers and staff were a strong feature of the program. A large majority (85.0%) of the respondents Strongly Agreed or 21* CCLC Technical Report 36Agreed with the statement that Teachers in the program give me help when I need it and 70.0% Strongly Agreed or Agreed that I like the teachers who work in the community learning center program. Almost two thirds (65.0%) Strongly Agreed or Agreed with the statement that Teachers and other adults in the program make me feel comfortable. Once again, the safety and security of the program is a prominent aspect of its appeal\nthree quarters of students reported that they felt safe in the program, and 70.0% liked the variety of activities from which to choose. Other responses from the 3-5 cohort suggest that these students are less satisfied with some aspects of the 2P CCLC at their school. Only a little more than half (55.0%) of respondents Strongly Agreed or Agreed with the statements 1 like the programs the community Table 9. 21 CCLC Student Questionnaire (CCLCSQ) Results, Grades 3-5: Implementation Responses(%) Items I like the programs the community learning center offers There are enough different activities from which to choose I like the teachers who work in the community learning center program Being in this program is better than other things I could be doing after school Teachers in the program give me help when I ask for it 1 feel safe in the after-school program Teachers and other adults in the program make me feel comfortable 1 would sign up again for the program I would tell other kids to sign up for the community learning center activities Strongly Agree And Agree 55.0 Neutral 15.0 Disagree and Strongly Disagree 30.0 Mean (SD) 3.60(1.5) 70.0 70.0 55.0 85.0 75.0 65.0 50.0 65.0 15.0 15.0 15.0 10.0 10.0 20.0 10.0 5.0 15.0 15.0 30.0 5.0 15.0 15.0 40.0 30.0 3.75(1.2) 3.70(1.3) 3.20(1.5) 4.35(.87) 3.75(1.3) 3.80(1.4) 3.10(1.4) 3.55(1.7) Note. Percentages may not total 100% because of missing input from some respondents, n = 20 a All items measured using a 5-point Likert scale: 1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree 2L CCLC Technical Report 37learning center offers and Being in this program is better than other things I could be doing after school. In addition, only half (50.0%) of students would sign up for the program again, and 30.0% of students Strongly Disagreed or Disagreed with the statement I would tell other kids to sign up for the community learning center activities. The final section of the 3-5 survey asked students to indicate the extent to which participating in the 2P CCLC program had helped their academic performance, relationship with teachers, and other issues related to school. As shown in Table 10, three quarters of these respondents felt that it had helped improve their grades, and 70.0% said that it had contributed to greater self-esteem. Almost two thirds (65.0%) responded that participation had helped them behave better at school and understand the importance of graduating from high school. Half said that they worked better with other students. Table 10. CCLC Student Questionnaire (CCLCSQ) Results, Grades 3-5: Impact Responses(%) The Center has helped me to... Like school more Come to school more often Gel better grades Behave belter at school Work belter with other students Feel better about myself Talk to my teachers more Understand the importance of A Great Deal 45.0 60.0 75.0 65.0 50.0 70.0 45.0 65.0 Somewhat 35.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 15.0 15.0 35.0 15.0 A Little 5.0 30.0 10.0 10.0 20.0 0.0 10.0 15.0 Not At All 15.0 5.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 15.0 10.0 5.0 Mean (SD) 3.10(1.0) 3.20 (1.0) 3.55 (.88) 3.35(1.0) 3.00(1.1) 3.40 (1.0) 3.15 (.98) 3.40 (.94) graduating from high school______________________________________________________ Note, Percentages may not total 100% because of missing input from some respondents, n = 20  All items measured using a 4-point Likert scale: 1 = not at all, 4 = a great deal The potentially positive impact of the 2P CCLC was less clear in two areas. When asked if they talked to teachers more, 45% responded A Great Deal and 35% Somewhat. Although there was some divergence on this issue, responses still indicate that a large proportion of the 3-5 respondents (80.0%) were interacting with teachers more than before. Survey results 21^ CCLC Technical Report 38also indicated that participation in the 2P CCLC appeared to have less impact on whether students liked school more, with 45.0% responding A Great Deal and 35% Somewhat. Despite this divergence, responses once again do indicate that a large segment of the 3-5 students (80.0%) felt that participation had helped them enjoy the learning process more than previously. Sixth Grade Through Grade. All 220 respondents to the 6-12 survey (see Appendix A) attended one of the middle or high schools in the study (Mabelvale [n = 56], Henderson [n = 26], Southwest [ = 58] Middle Schools, and Hall [n = 26] and McClellan [n = 54] High Schools). More students in the lower grades completed surveys than those in the higher grades: 85% were in the 6* through 9* grades, and the remainder in the 10* or 11* grades. No respondent was in the 12* grade. A little more than half (114) were male, 100 were female, and 6 did not specify gender. In terms of ethnic group membership, 82.3% of students identified themselves as African American, 4.1% as Native American, 1.8% as Caucasian American, 1.8% as Hispanic American, 3.2% as other, and 15 did not respond to the ethnicity question. Like the 3-5 students, the 6-12 students were asked about their activities in the program. such as whether they belonged to a particular afterschool club, attended a Saturday program, or would participate in the Summer Camp. Three quarters of students in this age cohort reported that they belonged to the Tutoring Club, and a little over a half reported that they belonged to the Homework Club (54.5%) and the Enrichment Club (52.7%). Nearly all (91.4%) students attended the program after school, with approximately a fifth (19.5%) attending the before school program (if available) at their school. Large proportions reported not attending either the Saturday program (87.7%) or the Summer Camp (78.6%). 2CCLC Technical Report 39The major part of the 6-12 survey sought to elicit student perceptions of the 21* CCLC as it was being implemented at their school and to provide a sense of how participation might be benefiting them academically and psychosocially. The highest percentage of students who Strongly Agreed or Agreed was found for the statement Teachers in the program give me help when 1 ask for it (77.7%), a result similar to that seen in the K-2 and 3-5 surveys. High percentages for the combined categories Strongly Agree and Agree were also found for the other statements about teachers and staff: 1 like the teachers who work in the community learning center program (63.6%) and Teachers and other adults in the program make me feel comfortable (61.8%). Once again, the majority of students indicated that they felt safe in the after school program (75.0%), another result quite similar to that seen in the K-2 and 3-5 surveys. Overall, a large proportion of the 6-12 respondents (72.7%) liked the programs offered by the 21* CCLC at their school (see Table 11). Approximately two thirds (67.7%) would sign Table 11. 2V\u0026lt; CCLC Student Questionnaire (CCLCSQ) Results, Grades 6-12 (middle and high school responses combined): Implementation Items I like the programs the community learning center offers There are enough different activities from which to choose I like the teachers who work in the community learning center program Being in this program is better than other things I could be doing after school Teachers in the program give me help when I ask tor it I feel safe in the afterschool program Teachers and other adults in the program make me feel comfortable I would sign up again for the program Strongly Agree And Agree 72.7 61.8 63.6 47.3 77.7 75.0 61.8 67.7 Responses(%) Neutral 21.8 24.1 24.5 29.1 14.1 18.6 28.2 23.6 Disagree and Strongly Disagree Mean (SD)= 5.5 13.2 10.5 23.2 7.3 5.9 9.1 8.2 Note: Percentages may not add up to 100% because of missing input from some respondents, n = 220 3 All items measured using a 5-point Likert scale: 1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree 3.94(.94) 3.72(1.05) 3.80(1.09) 3.39(1.29) 4.14(1.00) 4.08(.94) 3.77(1.00) 3.89(1.07) 21* CCLC Technical Report 40up again for the program while 62.3% would recommend the program to other kids. Nearly the same percentage (61.8%) Strongly Agreed or Agreed that there was enough variety in the programs offered by the 2P CCLC. Like the 3-5 cohort, students in the 6-12 group expressed less agreement with the statement that Being in this program is better than other things I could be doing after school, with less than a half (47.3%) agreeing. The last section of the 6-12 survey asked students to indicate the extent to which participating in the 21 CCLC program had improved their academic performance or relationship with teachers and students and other similar school-related areas (see Table 12). The most positive impact of the program was found in students response to whether the program had helped them understand the importance of graduating from high school: 70.0% said A great deal. In regard to other items, however, the 6-12 students were more ambivalent in their responses than the 3-5 students had been, although the results still indicate that this cohort St perceives the program to be of much benefit. When asked whether participation in the 21 CCLC had raised their grades, slightly less than half of these respondents (48.2%) responded A Great Deal and approximately a third (30.5%) responded Somewhat. Likewise, 46.4% responded A great deal and 25.5% Somewhat when asked whether the program made them want to attend school often, and 45.5% said it improved their self-esteem A great deal and 27.3% Somewhat. There was broader disagreement reported for three other items: only 39.1% felt that the program helped them A great deal to do better at school, 39.5% to work better with other students, 35.5% to talk to teachers more. And only a little more than a fourth (25.9%) of students thought that participation in the 2P CCLC made them like school more\nslightly more (37.3%) responded Somewhat to this item. 2P CCLC Technical Report 41Table 12. 2V\u0026lt; CCLC Student Questionnaire (CCLCSQ) Results, Grades 6-12 (middle and high school responses combined): Impact The Center has helped to... Like school more Come to school more often Get better grades Behave better al school Work better with other students Feel better about myself Talk to my teachers more Understand the importance of graduating from high school A Great Deal 25.9 46.4 48.2 39.1 39.5 45.5 35.5 70.0 Responses(%) Somewhat 37.3 25.5 30.5 26.4 32.3 27.3 27.7 16.4 A Little 25.0 13.6 15.5 19.5 20.0 15.0 25.5 7.3 Not At All 10.9 12.7 4.5 13.2 7.3 10.5 10.0 5.0 Mean (SD)^ 2.79(.95) 3.07(1.06) 3.24(.88) 2.93(1.06) 3.05(.94) 3.10(1.01) 2.90(1.00) 3.53(.83) Note. Percentages may not total 100% because of missing input from some respondents, n = 220  All items measured using a 4-point Likert scale: 1 = not at all, 4 = a great deal Interviews The interview results are presented in two sections: (1) interviews with the 6 site coordinators, those directly responsible for administering the implementation of the 2P CCLC program activities at their school, and (2) interview results from the 6 principals whose schools were selected for the study. The responses of both site coordinators and principals are summarized below. Site Coordinators The 6 site coordinators interviewed for this evaluation had a range of experience in directing the 2L CCLC program at their school\nin one case, the coordinator had been responsible for program oversight only since January 2006, and in another case the coordinator had been the first and only director since the inception of the program at that school 4 years ago. In general, however, the researcher found the site coordinators to be seasoned education professionals (a number of whom had had much administrative experience at their current school and elsewhere) who were also quite knowledgeable about the CCLC as it operated at their school. Some of the site coordinators were also teachers at the school or held other positions. 2L CCLC Technical Report 42such as Title I facilitator, technology or reading specialist, or dual enrollment program administrator. Responsibilities. All of the coordinators reported that they performed basic administrative tasks to ensure the smooth operation of the program: hiring and assigning teachers for appropriate subject areas\ndeciding upon a schedule of activities\nkeeping a variety of records (student attendance, instructor, payroll)\nordering and providing snacks\nand securing transportation at the end of the day. Some respondents also regularly monitor the classrooms in which activities are taking place and address complaints or discipline problems as they arise. Other respondents noted that they were responsible for promoting and publicizing the CCLC program around the school as well as in the community. Goals of the CCLC at Their School. Most of the coordinators responded that the primary goal of the program was to provide students who were struggling academically (sometimes in a number of areas) with a safe environment in which to improve their skills. Some specifically mentioned that the program targeted students who were not performing at the proficient or advanced level on standardized achievement tests. However, any student attending the school was eligible to participate, and on occasion students from other schools who lived near a study school would attend. One coordinator observed that since the CCLC was designed as a community based program, she welcomed participants from the neighborhood. Typical 2T CCLC Student. Most commonly, coordinators described the typical participant as a student working at below grade level who needed extra help, and often a child without a structured learning environment in the home. One coordinator noted that the program provided a vital diversion for those students who were getting into trouble a lot, although no respondent characterized the CCLC as a haven for those with discipline problems. At the same 2 P' CCLC Technical Report 43 time, some respondents said that proficient or advanced students, particularly those who were self-motivated, would attend the CCLC as a secure and safe place to expand their skills and have ready access to technology (e.g., computer and printer) that may not have been available at home. At one school, such students would act as peer tutors, assisting their classmates in various academic areas. None of the site coordinators reported any significant differences in participation by students of various ethnicities in any of the 2P CCLC activities. Most said that they had observed approximately the same demographic makeup in the afterschool program as was evident in the school as a whole (predominantly Afiican American\nsee Table 1). Two coordinators noted that there had been some problems recruiting and retaining Hispanic students. which they attributed to language difficulties (nonnative English speakers) and also to heightened parental concern about their child being out after dark. In terms of gender, about half of the site coordinators felt that more females than males were attending afterschool, but the other half had observed no majority of girls. Student Recruitment and Retention. The site coordinators described a variety of ways of encouraging participation in the 21 CCLC at their school. Nearly all developed some sort of flyer or application for dissemination at student orientation meetings prior to the start of school. usually August. Some coordinators continued to promote the program throughout the year at student or parent events, such as an Open House or Parent-Teacher Association meetings\nothers made the program a constantly visible part of the school by putting up notices or posters about afterschool activities at various locations on campus\nmany would routinely make announcements at faculty meetings and/or provide teachers with 2L CCLC information in preparation for conferences with parents. The high school site coordinators seemed especially 21* CCLC Technical Report 44 involved in 2P CCLC promotion and recruitment. In addition to the strategies mentioned above, Hall maintained a website detailing activities in the program, and the coordinator sent out weekly emails to the entire student/parent email list. The coordinator at McClellan used a PhoneMate system that sends automated messages about the Center to parents\narranged for the local carwash to run an LCD display message about the Center\nand will be adding an announcement about after school activities to the new school marquee on the street. Several of the site coordinators stated that they targeted students who were performing below proficiency, on the basis of standardized test scores and/or teacher recommendations. In some cases, attendance was mandatory\nat Woodruff Elementary, for example, the site coordinator noted that any student who scores below grade level in reading and math is automatically put into the afterschool program, after the parent approves. At McClellan, any student who had a GPA below 2.0 and was involved in any competitive extracurricular activity (e.g., band, choir, athletics) was required to attend 100 minutes a week in a tutoring program. Attending the schools 21' CCLC program was the most common way of satisfying this requirement. Implementation. Most of the CCLC programs offered activities afterschool, although a few included a before-school component. For example, at the case study school Mabelvale, there was an hour of activity (7:30 a.m. - 8:30 a.m.) prior to the start of the regular school day. Students went to the environmental lab to do homework or other independent seatwork until about 8:10 a.m., when they left to eat breakfast in the cafetorium. Others could stay until 8:30 a.m. Some of the site coordinators observed that when they offered a beforeschool program, attendance was consistently too low to justify its continuation. Others noted 21' CCLC Technical Report 45st that their school already had a before-school program funded by sources other than the 21 CCLC grant. The majority of the CCLC after school activities began about 15 minutes after the conclusion of the regular school day, usually 3:30 or 4 and running until 5:30 or 6. As expected, there was variability in terms of which activities were done at what time, since it was a basic supposition of the 21 CCLC grant that the schools would design the program in ways that best met the needs of their students. For example, at Woodruff Elementary the afterschool program began with a half-hour of outside play, followed by a snack\nthe Homework Club met for an hour\nand the day concluded with various enrichment activities, such as violin, cello, piano, or Tae Kwon Do lessons\nexercise and nutrition classes\nchess and computer work\nor Boy Scout meetings. At Mabelvale Magnet Middle School, afterschool students were subdivided into grades (6-8) and then directed to individual classrooms for academic work during the first hour and enrichment (art or music, crafts) during the remaining 45 minutes to an hour, although there was variation depending on the schedule. The basic schedule (academic work followed by enrichment activities) was similar in the high schools, although Hall was more oriented toward the three primary areas (algebra, geometry, and literacy) of the Arkansas Comprehensive, Assessment, and Accountability Program (ACTAAP), whereas at McClellan students were subdivided by the specific area in which they needed improvement (e.g., computers, math. English, civics/history). In regard to the relationship between the school and its 2P CCLC, it was apparent that students and staff alike made little distinction between the regular school day and afterschool program activities. Site coordinators gave several reasons for this: frequently students were engaged in homework or other seatwork that built upon those literacy and math skills that were 2P CCLC Technical Report 46the focus of exercises during the regular school day. In addition, at all of the schools except the elementary school (Woodruff), members of the 2P CCLC staff were also teachers at the school. Also, although neighborhood children who did not attend the local school offering a 2P CCLC program were permitted to attend the afterschool activities, the vast majority of program participants were students at the school. Finally, there was little or no geographic separation. since no school reported having a distinct location for program activities\nfor example, in the case of Mabelvale (the case study school), students would meet in common central areas such as the library, cafetorium, or the computer lab. All of these aspects helped cement the relationship between the 2L CCLC and the school as continuous rather than simply contiguous. In some of the schools, arts enrichment was a regular feature of the 2L CCLC program. This was especially true of Woodruff Elementary, because in 2005-06 it became a member of the Arkansas A+ Schools Network, a consortium dedicated to comprehensive school reform. A+ schools combine interdisciplinary teaching with daily arts instruction, offering children opportunities to learn through multiple pathways (Arkansas A-Plus Network, 2006). Thus, the arts focus during the regular school day is just continued into afterschool activities, incorporating ballet, musical instruction (piano and strings), art, acting and drama, and also sports, such as Tae Kwon Do, tennis, and golf. Woodruff has initiated a number of partnerships with local cultural and recreational groups\nfor example, members of the Arkansas Symphony Orchestra were recruited to conduct violin and cello classes for the 2P CCLC students\nduring the first year, the musicians were paid, but they now do it for free. The principal noted that weve found that these arts classes help the kids in all areas of academics. Woodruff also regularly hosted Parents Nights, at which the children would perform for their families and friends (and on one 21 CCLC Technical Report 47 occasion, for Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee). These events helped build students self- esteem and also resulted in improved school behavior. St At Hall High School, in 2004-05 an arts enrichment component was added to the 21 CCLC program, in which students did crafts projects such as tie-dye and jewelry, and even a larger stained-glass mural depicting the school logo (a Native American peace pipe) for placement outside Halls main office. They also did more traditional arts like painting, although here too the students were encouraged to express their creativity. For example, the site coordinator at Hall showed the researcher a still life made entirely using various concentrations of coffee as paint. 2r CCLC Involvement with the Community. Every school in the study sought community involvement in their 2P CCLC programs by initiating partnerships with local organizations, businesses, civic and cultural centers, or universities and colleges. Nearly all the site coordinators reported an ongoing affiliation between their CCLC and Let Our Violence End (LOVE), a Little Rock-based nonprofit organization that uses peer volunteers to speak with students about the causes and implications of school and neighborhood violence. Aside from LOVE, however, the schools arranged CCLC extra-program activities derived from a variety of community partnerships. Woodruff Elementary has an active association with Big Brothers and Big Sisters, who help students in the before- and afterschool program with reading, math, and social science. Other schools partnered with groups such as the Audubon Society or with local colleges and universities to conduct classes or workshops in natural or biomedical science. For example, students at Remington College (Little Rock Campus) who were enrolled in a workstudy program helped Woodruffs 2L CCLC participants in areas related to their majors (education, pre-med, computers). At Henderson Middle School, afterschool students learned 21 CCLC Technical Report 48about water ecosystems and methods of conservation while working on a water sampling project at the University of Central Arkansas. Hall High School developed a partnership with Junior Achievement, a national organization that sponsors local business leaders to speak to students about business fundamentals. Development of students physical skills was also a feature of some of the afterschool programs. A parent of a student at Mabelvale offered karate classes, not (as the principal was quick to point out) to teach students how to fight but rather to learn basic self-defense techniques as a means to enhance their confidence and self-esteem. Every Thursday afternoon was drum day at Southwest, where a local percussionist taught the students using a variety of traditional African drums. Most Successful Aspects of the 2f CCLC. Nearly all of the site coordinators reported that one of the key strengths of the program was that it provided safe, secure environment for children at a time (after school was out and before parents arrived home) when they were most at risk. This was assumed to be especially true of this study population, since many students were from lower SES backgrounds, lived in transient housing, and were being raised by a single parent or parents with multiple jobs. Often the afterschool setting was the only structured environment to which the student would have access during that time. Having a quiet place to complete homework, with individualized assistance provided as needed, was very important, if not critical to addressing childrens academic deficits. Even those 2U CCLC students who were working at or above proficiency reaped the benefits of the secure setting as a place to develop their math and literacy skills. The second positive aspect of the afterschool program often mentioned by the site coordinators was the many opportunities (the community activities, access to technology, arts enrichment) afforded the students which they otherwise may not have had. Several stressed the 2 U'CCLC Technical Report 49 academic benefit of these activities, in that the experiential, hands-on nature of such projectbased learning developed skills and abilities in ways that traditional approaches such as direct classroom instruction or seatwork perhaps could not. At the same time, some of the site coordinators noted that it was these activitiesthe arts enrichment in particularthat tended to pull the students in and help keep attendance rates high. Those children who were struggling academically, particularly in the middle and high schools, were enticed by the prospect of learning in a fun way, rather than avoiding those subjects (math and reading) which had seemed daunting in the past. A third positive aspect cited by a number of the site coordinators concerned the psychological reward of simply having a program for the students, who were made more acutely aware that there was a group of adults, other than family, who were devoting their extra time and energies toward helping them achieve academic as well as social and behavioral success. As one site coordinator put it, you cant measure the importance to kids of knowing that someone cares. In this regard, most of the site coordinators had high praise for and satisfaction with the afterschool staff and all those affiliates who coordinated activities and projects for the 2P' CCLC at their school. Areas for Improvement in the 2f CCLC Program. Nearly all the site coordinators mentioned two areasstudent retention and attendance rates and parental involvementas ongoing challenges. Of all 6 schools in the study, only Woodruff Elementary reported no problems either attracting participants to the program or maintaining steady attendance (97% or above, each day). This might be expected, given the younger age of the Woodruff students (K-5). However, all other site coordinators said that while recruitment efforts at the start of the year generally were successful, and initial enrollment figures were quite high, maintaining 2L CCLC Technical Report 50regular attendance by participants was a challenge. In general, attendance rates tended to drop most in the spring semester as warmer weather returned and the days grew longer, but even in the late fall and winter parents were anxious about their children being out after dark. Problems with irregular or infrequent attendance were more associated with the older students (9*-12* grades), because as these children matured there were more demands on their time (sports, other clubs, friends and social life, or even a job) which likely interfered with their participation in activities associated with schoolwork and academic life. This is likely why the Hall and McClellan site coordinators were so active in year-round promotion of 2P CCLC activities at their high schools, as a hedge against declining attendance rates. Except for Woodruff Elementary and Southwest Middle School, parental involvement in 21\" CCLC activities was another area for improvement reported by the site coordinators. One estimated that approximately 65% of parents in his school could be described as having low engagement with the program and their child, another 25% medium engagement, and the remainder (10%) high engagement. Several mentioned various strategies they attempted to elicit greater parental involvement, such as Parents Nights, meetings on Saturdays, partnerships with the PTA, and so on, without much success. Still, most of the coordinators noted that gamering parents interest and participation in any of their preteens and teens school activities was difficult. Woodruff staff attributed the younger student ages and the schools arts focus as likely reasons for their more frequent parent involvement, and Southwest cited the field trips in which parents accompanied their children as an important factor in this regard. In addition, both site coordinators at these schools reported that any public performance by their child/ren in the 21\" CCLC program was guaranteed to bring out the parents. 21\" CCLC Technical Report 51Some of the site coordinators mentioned occasional problems not having enough teachers (especially in math and science). In addition, one felt that not the number but the commitment of instructors in the 2P' CCLC could be better, that occasionally staff was lax in their duties. At the same time, most site coordinators believed that students in the afterschool program became closer and more responsive to their teachers, since the student-teacher ratio was lower and students and staff alike tended to be more casual than during the regular school day. Two site coordinators wished that they could offer a greater variety of activities and experiences to the students, but felt constrained by both budget and available staff. School Principals In general, the principals interviewed for the evaluation tended be somewhat less familiar with the day-to-day operation and activities of the 2P CCLC at their school than the site coordinators, and this was particularly so if the site coordinator had been administering the afterschool program for more than a year. Also, some of the principals themselves were new to the school (in one case, hired in June 2006). Still, all of the principals had valuable insights to offer. having been employed in administrative or supervisory positions in LRSD and elsewhere. Responsibilities. Most of the principals had a supervisory role in the daily operation of the 21* CCLC centers, working with the site coordinator on the basic schedule\nhiring certified teachers in the core areas (which in the elementary school meant math and literacy, and in the middle and high schools English, science, and math)\ndeveloping programming appropriate to the centers goals\nand ensuring that the necessary supplies were available. Some of the principals took on other responsibilities, such as helping to write the initial grant and making sure that students were utilizing technology in the 21* CCLC classrooms. 21* CCLC Technical Report 52Goals of the CCLC at Their School. Principals identified a number of goals specific to the needs of their student population, but the purpose most commonly noted was enrichment and extension of those subjects taught during the regular school day. Elementary school children often lacked supervision and assistance with homework in the evenings, and as there was seldom a skilled adult reader at home, many of the Woodruff children had no opportunity to practice reading. We just needed the funds and materials to address the problem, said the Woodruff principal, and thats what the 21 CCLC [grant] does. At the middle and high school levels, focus on math and literacy skills was paramount, with an eye toward improving student achievement scores. However, a number of the principals noted that their program included enrichment activities in music, art, drama, science as well. One high school principal commented that their program also had a social/behavioral component, as it primarily served incoming 9* graders who often needed assistance making the transition from a middle to a high school environment. Typical 2f CCLC Student. The principals said that their program was primarily designed for students performing at or below proficiency, although it was open to all those desiring additional assistance. However, like the site coordinators, they described the typical attendee as a child academically on the bubble, who just needed an extra push, extra time, the one-on-one work, as one put it. They also echoed the coordinators view that the 2 CCLC offered students a supervised place to study, without distractions, as well as access to technology (computer and printer) and print resources not often available to them. One middle school principal commented that probably 20-25% of their students had a computer at home. Again several of the principals mentioned that the high-performing participants (who really didnt 2L' CCLC Technical Report 53need to be there) often acted as tutors, benefiting from the added responsibility and extra challenge of learning how to explain concepts to their peers. Student Recruitment and Retention. Like the site coordinators, principals at the middle and high schools noted that while initial recruitment was seldom a problem, maintaining steady. frequent attendance across the course of the school year was an ongoing challenge. When queried about the possible reasons for this, one middle school principal responded that parents are not knowledgeable about the importance of keeping their kid in the program, were not fully committed\nothers said that social activities and athletic events took precedence. Another middle school principal said that the shift to Daylight Savings Time in the fall caused attendance to decline across the winter months, because the parents of the younger students (6* and 7'* graders) did not want their children out after dark. One high school principal speculated that the increasing number of Hispanic students, many of whom were English language learners, were reluctant to participate in the 2P CCLC program because they feared problems in communication. At the same time, he felt that this could be addressed with special outreach to this community. Overall Strengths and Weaknesses of the CCLC Program. Most of the principals echoed the observations made by the site coordinators about the best aspects of the 2L CCLC program at their school: (1) the provision of safe, supervised setting for students at a time when they were perhaps most vulnerable\n(2) access to many opportunities (especially assistance with building literacy and math skills and the arts enrichment activities)\nand (3) the psychological benefits of knowing that there are caring adults who want to help them succeed, as one principal put it. One middle school principal cited the programs success in improving math skills via their Algebra Camp, which helped prepare 7* and 8* graders for the basic, required 21  CCLC Technical Report 54 algebra course in 9* grade (the first year of high school). Another thought that one of their programs best features was its facility in helping students make a transition from the behavioral and social norms of an elementary school to those of the middle school. One of the high school principals also mentioned that since their 2P CCLC served predominantly 9* graders, the program served the same useful function: students see middle school as a social place, versus the culture of a high school, which is academic, and potentially a place from which they will continue their studies, he noted. One respondent summarized the general tenor of the high school principals responses regarding the significant contribution made by the 2L CCLC to their educational objectives: [It is an] extremely valuable part of our school\nwe need opportunities to work with kids, specifically in smaller settings, but also where we can really target assistance. whether its in literacy, or whether its in algebra or geometry, or whether its some kind of social skill, whatever it is\nwe need those opportunities. There is oftentimes so much crammed into the normal school day, that if we didnt have the extended program, before and after school, we would not be able to meet all of our needs as effectively as we can now. With regard to areas for improvement, once again achieving steady and frequent attendance and fomenting parental involvement were most commonly mentioned. Only Woodruff reported few problems with these issues\nin fact, the principal identified as one challenge trying to get enough people [staff] to accommodate all the kids, [since] the payroll was full. But this response was atypical, and probably in some measure attributable to the fact that Woodruff, the only elementary school in the study, has a younger student population. The other principals noted that, in order to increase rates of participation, they had to confront the 21* CCLC Technical Report 55multiple concerns and distractions faced by the average middle and high school student. Even those who were academically well focused had some difficulty keeping on task after being in school all day. Gamering parents commitment, to make sure that their children were coming to the 2P' CCLC every day as well as engagement with advertised center activities, was an ongoing challenge. At one school, developing connections between the Parent-Teacher Association and the 2P CCLC to promote the centers activities and benefits helped improve parental involvement, and as noted above any public performance (e.g., involving music, drama) by their child/ren was certain to bring out the parents. Several of the principals lamented the loss of their summer bridge program, which in the main had been quite successful in helping students transition into a middle or high school and addressing the potential loss of skill development that often occurs over the summer months (described by one respondent as grade recovery camp). They hoped that it would be re-funded in the future, either by the 21* CCLC grant or via other sources. Mabelvale Case Study Classroom Observations The researcher observed three 2 CCLC sessions (two afternoon sessions and one morning session) on two separate days at the case study school, Mabelvale Magnet Middle School. In each of the two afternoon sessions, the researcher watched activities in three different classrooms, because students were divided by grade (6*, 7*, and 8*). Instructors were always present (all of whom were teachers at Mabelvale), but no parent was observed at any session. Monday, April 17. The researcher observed 6*-grade students working in a computer lab doing two activities: half the children used the interactive PLATO system on Playstations 2P CCLC Technical Report 56and half were working on PCs. Three adults were present, all teachers at Mabelvale, who were directing and supervising the students. The staff described the students activity as an extension of school day skills. There were 20 students in attendance, of whom 18 were African American, one Caucasian, and one biracial, and most were clustered into small groups of 2-4 students, who appeared to be friends. A few students (2-3) were isolated from their peers and worked alone. Most of the students were involved in the PLATO activity and computer work the majority of the time, and these activities appeared to be engaging for them most of the time. The students would choose which area (e.g., math, literacy, geography) to work on. Teachers provided individual attention when asked, and interacted in a friendly way with students, often joking with them. The researcher did not observe any significant conflicts among students\nany minor difficulties were quickly and amicably resolved. There was much intergroup discussion and a generally high level of positive energy in the lab, which reflected the students level of engagement with their work, and perhaps also the lab environmental conditions - it was very cold. On April 17, the researcher also observed the 7* grade CCLC session, which took place in the schools cafeto\nThis project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resoources.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\u003cdcterms_creator\u003eCenter for Research in Educational Policy, University of Memphis, Memphis, Tennessee\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_1758","title":"Brief regarding Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD), response to petition to de-annex territory from PCSSD, motion to enforce settlement agreement, motion and support for allied relief, Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) project management tool, and Office of Desegregation Management report.","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":["United States. District Court (Arkansas: Eastern District)"],"dc_date":["2003-07"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--21st Century","Education--Arkansas","School districts","Pulaski County Special School District","Arkansas. Department of Education","Project management","Office of Desegregation Monitoring (Little Rock, Ark.)","Elementary schools","Harris Elementary School (North Little Rock, Ark.)","Education--Finance","School integration","School enrollment","African Americans--Education","Education--Evaluation","Magnet schools","Teachers"],"dcterms_title":["Brief regarding Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD), response to petition to de-annex territory from PCSSD, motion to enforce settlement agreement, motion and support for allied relief, Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) project management tool, and Office of Desegregation Management report."],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/1758"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Available for use in research, teaching, and private study. Any other use requires permission from the Butler Center."],"dcterms_medium":["filing"],"dcterms_extent":["57 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\u003c?xml version=\"1.0\" encoding=\"utf-8\"?\u003e\n\u003citems type=\"array\"\u003e  \u003citem\u003e   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\u003cdcterms_description type=\"array\"\u003e   \n\n\u003cdcterms_description\u003eBefore the Arkansas State Board of Education, brief of the Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) in re: petition to de-annex territory from the Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD); District Court, fourth motion to enforce settlement agreement and for allied relief; District Court, memorandum brief in support of fourth motion to enforce settlement agreement and for allied relief; District Court, statement of material facts; District Court, notice of filing, Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) project management tool; District Court, notice of hearing; District Court, notice of filing, Office of Desegregation Management report, ''Update on the Redesign of Harris Elementary School and the Rezoning of Schools in the Sherwood Area of the Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD)''    This transcript was create using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.     I P. 03 RECEIVED BEFORE THE ARKANSAS STATE :SOARD OF EDUCATION JUL 1 O 2003 OFFICEOF DESEGREGATION MONITORING IN RE: PETITION TO DE-ANNEX TERRITORY FROM THE PCSSD BRIBf OF TiiE PCSSD Introduction Prior to tl1e hearing held on June 9, 2003, the PCSSD submjtted its \"Analysis\" of how the detachment, if approved, would negatively impact desegregation not only in the PCSSD but in tllc LRSD and the NLRSD as well. For -lbe _convenience of the Board another ~PY is included as Exhibit 1. The PCSSD asked ti1at 1hat document be made-part of the record and its cssenLial conclusions will only be briefly reiterated here . Although the PCS SD believes that its previously submitted Analysis is more than ample reason to deny Lhe petition for detachment, there is an even more fundamental reason why it should be turned down. SifI!Ply stated, the 1989 Settlement Agreement with the State, to which this -Board is a signatory i precJudes such a usurpation of the District's sovereignty and independence. 428241-vl The Settlement Agreement Provision Section II J of_the 1989 comprehensive Settlement Agreement states in its entirety: The State, Joshua and LRSD recognize that PCSSD and NLRSD are independent, sovereign desegregating school districts -operating pursuant to court orders and agreements and chat this agreement is both necessary and desirable to facilitate their desegregation activities as well as their cooperative desegregation .activities with the LRSD and others. [emphasis added] ----- - -- -- -- ~ Thi, language, whiCh remain, operative, was notsome idle boileiplaie.or filler. Indeed, as we will explain .further, it was not part of the original agreement between the State, LRSD and Joshua but was only negotiated after.the State had first reached .agreement with the LRSD and then turned its attention toward securing agreement from the PCSSD and the NLRSD. Further, thcr.e was a real and immediate specter of consolidation which prompted this _] negotiated language which, whHe it survived the legislative and judicial approval process, came I under attack from many legislators, commentators and in editorials. Indeed, for those who did not personally participate in or who do not clearly recall this historic process, a brief chronology might be useful. 1982 1985 1985 Late 1988 January 12, 1989 January 31, 1989 4?.8244-vl Not So Ancient History The LRSD sues the State, the PCSSD and the NLRSD successfully seeking consolidation of the three districts in Pulaski County. 9Zl F.2d 1371@ 1376. The Court of Appeals rejects consolidation but orders that the boundary between LRSD and PCSSD be adjusted. 921 F .2d 1371 @ 1377. This boundary adjusLinent caused PCSSD to lose sixteen schools and over one-third of its tax base_ Initial setLlerncntdiscussions are commenced among the State, the LRSD and the Joshua Intervenors. 921 F.2d 1371 @ 1376 . . Senator Jerry Jewell introduces Senate Bill 39 to consolidate the Little Rock, North Little Rock.and _P.ulaski County Special School District schools. Exhibit 2. The State Board, LRSD and Joshua Intervenors reach a proposed seulcment. The State's attorney reports that \"meetings to obtain-t11e agreement of the otl1er _parties are underway today between attorneys and representatives of the State Boar\u0026lt;l, PCSSD aml NLRSD.\" Exhibit 3. 2 i -I vUI.. I February 14, 1989 March 1989 March 3, 1989 March 7, 1989 March 11, 1989 March U, 1989 March 16, 1989 428244-vl The State hires t.lie national law furn of Hogan \u0026amp; Hartson which specialized in school desegregation to advise it concerning desegregation. Exhibit 4. Counsel .for the LRSD delivers a draft of Proposed Settlement Agreement to the State's attorney. This draft does not contain a Section II J. Exhibit 5. The settlement is agreed to by all of the parties. The final version contains Section 11 J. Exhibit 6. It is submined to the legislature for funding. In an editorial discussing the settlement, the. Arkansas Gazette note~: that: \"A key-provision is that the Little Rock, North Little Rock- and Pulaski County School Districts recognize that they remain  independent, sovereign desegregating' districts. This could -becon,e an impediment to a countywide consolidation in the future, and if so it is an unfortunate pr.ovision.\" Exhibit 7. The Atkansas Gazette reports that the county district's attorney told the county board that the settlement went through 27 revisions before being made publi~ because of the complexity of the issues. Exhibit 8. .In .explaining .the settlement to the Joint Budget Committee, the State's attorney noted that: \"This agreement. is so fragile that if it starts to unravel in any way, if there's any kind of modification to it, it'.s .going co fall apart and unravel in 100 djffcreht ways.\" In the same articfo, Senator Max Howell noted he djd not wanno vote Jor1he settlement if it meant forever prohibiting consolidation of the three county districts. \"I'm not antagonistic toward the dollars, but I am concerned that I .under.stand the small print.\" Exhibit 9. One starewide commentator, in characterizing Section II J, o.pined that: \"A brazen provision slipped into this settlement at the last minute guarantees there will be no consolidation of the school districts. Surprise!\" Exhibit 10. The Arkansas Senate approves the bill funding the settlement but .idds an amendmenr asking tbe Federal Courts to consider four changes in the seLtlcment including: \"Disapproval of language that would rctiin the autonomy of the three Pulaski County districts-.\" As Senator Max Howell stated: \"I would hope tbt: Court woulil be aware that we hl the Legislature feel the folks who caused this should not continue to be in control of the situation.\" Exhibit 11. 3  I l '  II March 18, 1989 March 24, 1989 March 31, 1989 December 11, 1989 December 12, 1990. The press reported that: \"Legislators have expressed concern that the provision would forever bar the State from merging the three districts, ancl the State Education Department's attorney told them Monday that McCutcheon (the _special Master) apparently shared that concern. n Exhibit 11. Press reports described II J as one of.the \"key\" provisions of the settlement. Exhibit 12. Mr. Herschel Friday writes the attorneys for the parties noting that: \"During the debate which preceded the v.ote to fund the settlement in this case, l was repeatedly questioned on whether changes requested by the legislature could be made in the settlement. A copy of the requested changes is enclosed for your ready reference. I agreed to follow through to see that the legislative requests were auly considered by .the .parties and to use my best efforts in this regard. . .. Will you please discuss these requests with your clients so that we can meet in the near future and address these matters .\" Exhibit 13. A copy of the requested changes, which included Section II J, is attached~ Exhibit 14 . Counsel for the AEA informs.Mr. Friday that they object to removing a.ny of the items from the settlement agreement. Exhibit 15. The District Court purports to approve the settlement agreement but only after imposing certain modifications. 726 F.Supp. 1544, 1549. The Court of Appeals reverses the District Court, ruling that the Settlement Agreement should hav.e been .approved as written by the parties. 971 F.2d 160 @ 164, 165. It should thus be clear that Section n J. was a key component of the settlement for which the PCSSD (as well as the NLRSO) separately negotiated. The reasons are clear, Not only was the PCSSD guarding against consolidation, but also any new usurpation of its territory. facilities and assets similar to the appropriation (albeit by judicial order) that occurred in the .early phases of the school case. While it is clear that many in the legislature 42$M4-vl 4  and those \"commentin_g on tbe scene\" opposed Section II J., the fact remains that it is an l integral part of the Settlement Agreement and retains full force and vitality today. In his June 4, 2003 letter, the Attorney General appropriately discussed the fact that while \"successor district\" language was included in the settlement agreement as respects the LRSD, it noted thar no such language is presented as regards the PCSSD or the NLRSD. As lhe Attorney General explained: All of this suggests that either (a) the parties simply did not anticipate that a \"successor\" district might be created from territory that was formerly within1he PCSSD, or (b) the parties specificaHy intended that there would not be any such \"successor\" district created under any circumstances, or that any successor district would not be a parcy to the Settlement Agreement. Subparagraph (b) of course is the correct outcome because of the presence of Section II J. On the san1e page and same footnote the Attorney General further noted that: Logic suggests, however, that a group of individual schools could not so easily extricate themselves from federal court supervision (and court-imposed obligations) in a desegregation case by merely \"detaching\" themselves from a schooJ district under supervision, at least not without the consem of all parties to the case and the Court overseeing the litigation. (Emphasis supplied). The Attorney General notes in his last footnote that: In this parcicular case, the parties with standing to object would be the Sr.ate it.o;clf, the three Pulaski County districts, and the 1osbua and Knight intervenors. The Potential For New Claims The principal motivation for the State to enter into and subsequently fund the Settlement Agreement was co minimize the dollar cost for its past constitutional violations and to obtain a release -of all claims for .all v.iolations which had occurred prior to execution of the Settlem~nt Agreement. While the State has been subjected to successful .claims by the school districts for 4282411-vl 5 ~ I I departures from the Settlement Agreement, it has, thus far, for over fourteen years, avoided a cbim or contention that .it has violated the constitution or enacted statutes which either prom~\u0026gt;tc segregation or hamper desegregation. 1 However, the statute at issue, by its own legislative language, sets up an interesting dynamic not otherwise present in ATkansas law. As counsel for the Pcpanment of Education and the Attorney General's office have repeatedly pointed out: \"the state board is proh~itcd by law from approving any petition fo1 detachment which hampers, delays or in any manner negative~y affects desegregation efforts of a school district or districts .in this state.\" Even if the Board makes a negative determination on this issue, it is virtually a foregone conclusion that one or another or more of the parties in the school case would contend in Federal Court that the detachment does \"hamper, delay or ... negatively affects  desegregation efforts ... \", would seek to hoist the State upon the petard of its own legislation, and, if successful, expose the State to new claims for millions of dollars, an exposure the S1ate avoic.Js if it .properly denies the petition. Indeed, it would appear that the legjsJature had the proscriptions of the Settlement Agreement in mind when it crafted this very narr.ow and rigorous test for detachment. The Settlement Agreement at page 10 states: \"The State will enact no legislation which has a substantial adverse impact on the ability of the [Pulaski] I  Districts to desegregate.\" 1 After each legisl:llive session, die ADE invites the PCSSD, as well as the olher Pulaski disu-icrs, to identify aew lc!gislation which the district believes will hamper or negatively affecc its desegregation efforts. The PCSSD duly noted by }ell.er dated April 26, 2002, thaUt believed tile detachment scaruce at issue would negatively -:tffoct it; desegregation efforts. 4282'14-vl 6 Thus, those who might pursue a new claim, where none currently exists, would likely si.multancously argue that the Settlement Agreement itself has been breached, a claim that carries with it not only the potential for new money damages .but substantial legal fees as well. The petitioners are correct that the racial balance tests for the -PCS SD accommodate a growing. black enrollment. However, the racial balance test is only a fraction of the issue involved. By ultimately approving a new school district, the State- will have participated in a process that artificially accelerates the evolution of the PCCSD to a majority black school district. When all three districts become majority black, then the State will argue that its oblig~tion to fund M-to.:M payments will suddenly and abruptly end. (Indeed, a cynic.might wonder if there are those in authority who may have already figured this out.) lf and when this day comes, the financial consequenct;S to the three current districts in this county would be crippling. Thus, to lhc extent that the State endorses steps to hasten and accelerate this day, then perhaps a new round of claims against the Slate would logically follow. The black student population of the PCSSD has grown on average between one-half percent and one percent per year. By accelerating tlle process by 6.5 -percentage points (sec further analysis) in 1hc year of detachment, the State will have \"gained\" approximately 7 .5 years toward the day when M-to-M funding might end. (See 15 years enrollment trend.) The Detachment Statute Constitutes Impermissible Special Local Legislation The Arkansas Constimtion succinctly provides that: \"The legislature shall not pass any local or-special Act\". (Arkansas Constitution Amendment 14). 428244vl 7 I'   l As the staff of -the ADE can verify, this statute, by its tcnns, can_only apply to the _PCSSD. No ot:h,er school district in the State meets the quaJifying characteristics of the legislation. Further, there is no plausible .argument that the statute could ever apply to any other school district in Arkansas -in the future. -Bottom line: It was carefully crafted to apply only to the Jacksonville area, cannot apply elsewhere, and as such is impermissible special, local legislation which should not be enforced. Not-All Of The Pai1ies Have Been Consulted_ The Attorney General's letter ofJime 4, 2003 (hereafter-the June 4 letter), strongly urges the Board to seek input from the three school districts in Pulaski as well as Joshua and the Knight Intervenors before determining whether or not .creation of the new district would \"hamper, delay, or in any manner affect 'desegregation efforts of a school district or distrkts in the State.\" While tht'. PCSSD has supplied information to the Board, the -PCSSD is unaware that the Knight Intcrvenors have been solicited for their input. The Focus Of The Petitioner's New Submissions Is Much Too Nan-ow As .the June 4 lctter explains (and even Mr. Fendley's letter quotes the same language), dest:grcgation includes much more than racial balance from school to school. Accordingly, the Board should look nor only at student assignments, but to every facet of school operations including faculty, staff, transportation, extl'acurricular activities and facilities. (June 4 letter at page 2). While the submissions of the petitioners do touch upon student assignment, faculty and somewhat upon transportation, there is no mention of staff (which is also unionized in the PCSSD) or extracurricular activities. This omission alone is sufficient for this Board to 428244-vl 8 I   1 conclude that insufficient information concerning desegregation in the area of staff and extracurricular activities has been presented. While .the supplemental submissions address current enrollments by school, enrolhnents before and after M-to-M and magnet transfers and deployment .of staff at schools, (all under cenain assumptions about which we will write later), the submission is otherwise largely devoid of analysis and specificity, particularly as it relates to specific matters set forth in the PCSSD's \"Analysis\" previously submitted to this Board. '\\, for instance, there is scant mention of the three specialty schools. in th~ southeast portion of Pulaski County, all of which contain programs which were specifically designed for aml gained Court approval for .desegregation. The supplemental filings simply do not contest the PCSSD calculation that approximately 200 students from the area proposed for detachment  attended those schools last year. These students are necessary for the continued vitality of these programs, all of which feed to Mills Uniyersity Studies High School, recently recognized as the 201 !, \"best\" high school in the country. }lewsweek, May 2003. (Exhibit 16). Does this Board really want to play a role in undermining one of the most shining success stories in Arkansas .education? el 1 Included as Exhibit 17 is a memor11ndum from Davis Hendricks, the.District Director of Talented and Gifted Programs, prepared the day after the Board's June 9 hearing. The memorandum explains at least two things. First, it shows the extensive array of AP courses currently available at both JacksonviJle High School and North Pulaski High School. It also explains in some detail how the detachment would negatively impact the College Station, .Fuller and Mills progl'ams. 428244-vJ 9 - I  While the supplemental submissions do purport to Cl!lculate enrollment in the / \u0026lt;letachment.schools if M-to-M and magnet transfers ended, Lhey singularly do not provide any analysis as to what affect the lack of such transfers would have not only upon the finances of the PCSSD but upon the schools and finances affected in the NLRSD.and .theLRSD. Although the June 4 letter was necessarily fairly general in most respects, it was quite ~pecific as regards certain areas. As the Allorney General opined: (a]ny detachment of a significant amount of territory from the PCSSD could almost certainly be expected to have an \"impact\" on the -PCSSD's ability to comply with its desegregation plan and have an impact on the operation of the Settlement Agreement, including the Agreement's provisjons concerning M.:M students and the Magnet schoolsjh the LRSD. Teacher Deployment As to teacher deployment, the petitioners stake out thena1ve position that the Federal  District Court could simply order all the teachers to stay where they are. This assumption ignores the realities of teacher unions, teacher contracts and previous admonitions from the United States Court of Appeals. For instance, the PCSSD successfully enjoined an on-goinJ teacher strike fo .1996. The union appealed to the Federal Court of A.ppeals arguing that the union negotiated contract beLwccn lhc PCSSD and .the Teachers' Union was none of the District Court's business. The Court of Appeals agreed, reversed the District Court ~d explained to the parties that the role of the District Court is to enforce the Settlement Agreement (which is silent as to the master contracts), but not to otherwise interfere with the rights of employees and organizations of employers. 112 F.3d 953 @ 955 . . Petitioners' position is completely silent regarding recognition of a new teacher organization for a new district . .Is this or js this not pan of their proposed calculus? As the.! 428244-vl 10 - - - - - --- -  PCSSD knows from prior difficult and n-ying circrunst\u0026gt;nccs, many teacliers prefer working in / a district which reco_gnizes a union. I I  e l J The PCSSD \"Analysis\" Revisited Petitioners claim u1at Exhibit 5 in their supplemental submission demonstrates that detachment will not have a negative impact upon the PCSSD. However, even though petitioners purport to have used data obtained from the PCSSD, the PCSSD cannot reconcik its data with chat presented by tne petitioncr.2 For instance, petitioners' Exhibit 5 predicts that the detached school district would have 3,345 elementary students of whom 34.1 % would bt! black. However, the PCSSD .calculates lhat the detached district would have 3,700 elementrtry srudents of wlmm only 32. 7% would be black. (Exhibit 18).. At the secondary level, the petitiom;:rs project 3,750 students of whom 36.6% would be black. While the total number calculated by the PCSSD is similar a.t 3,757, it calculates that ollly 32.4 % of those students would be black. (Exhibit 18). Since the petitioners calculate that the residual PCSSD would be 39 % black, there is a difference of six and one-half percentaie points. Also, while the petitioners project a .total .enrollment of 7,095 students, the PCSSD calculates that the new district would enrolt 7,457 srudents. (Exhibit 18), As for individual schools, the impact upon Clinton Elementary is profound. Detachmem would cause the loss of 124 sLudents and would push Clinton from 55 % black to 60% black. (Exhibit 18). It is required to be no more than 50% black. : The PCSSD once a.ga.iu 1ecommends that these discrepancies be .evaluated by the staff of the ADE. 4282M-vl 11 )  l' -! l e l I As we previously projected, 61 students would leave College-Station reducing its enrollment from 215 .to 159. (Exhibit 18) . This would artificially increase the black population at College Station from the current 55 % to 59 % black. The enrollment at Sylvan Hills Middle School would increase from 878 to 972, the African-American percentage would increase from 39 % to 45 % and the building capacity of 925 would be grossly exceed~d- (Exhibit 18). Court Orders While the petitioners seek to cast doubt upon the over capacity reported for the Sylvan Hills schools, they are either unaware of the fact or.have neglected to inform the Board that as recently as March 25, 2003, the District CoUit noted that: Fur.ther, the Court is jnformed that Sylvan Hills Middle School no Ionger has tho capacity .to .accommodate all 6111 _grade M-to-M students who attended Clintou Interdistrict School through the 5111 grade. Those students should be informed of their opportunity to attend the new middle school in Mawnelle. (Order, Exhibit 19, at page 2.) Accordingly, the PCSSD supplements its previous Analysis and reiterates its point that the displaced students, many of whom are black, who the petitioners submit can \"easily be accommodated at Sylvan Hills\" simply cannot be. Part of the detachment proposal flies in the face of another order entered by the District Court on January 28, 2003. In evaluating and approving the PCSSD plans for the redesign of Harris Elementary School, the Federal Court ruled that: 428244-vl African American students from Brushy Island will not be reassigned to Harris but will continue to attend Cato El~mentary. Cato Elementary student enrollment will.remain 75% Caucasian (white) and 25% African American (black). (Order, Exhibit 20 at page 2.) 12 \\ I  l Of course, the petitioners arc excluding the Brushy lsland students from Cato and are leaving them .to he assigned somewhere in the PCSSD. The petitioners say send them to Sylvan Hills but there is no room. The Court has .said they will not be reassigned to Harris. Where can they go? Another aspect of the Court's January order as respects Harris requires the PCSSD to vigorously recruit minority snidents (white) from north of the river for placement at Harris. The Director of Equity and Multicultural Education was ordered to direct this \"intensification\" of.eff 01t. Of course, if most of the PCSSD nonh of the river is allowed to detach, it will render the PCSSD substantially unable to comply with this order. Sylvan Hills Petitioners make some rather astonishing suggestions regarding Sylvan Hills High School. At page 6 of counsel's letter, the following statements are made: Moreover, even assuming a real capacity problem at Sylvan Hills High School, the District Court coo.ld address the problem in a number.of ways to avoid any negative affect on desegregation. One option may be to revise the attendance zones for all of PCSSD's high schools. The ODM reported that the PCSSD has .nor revised its attendance zones in \"many years\" and recommended that it do so. See ODM March 26, 2003, pp. 19 and 21. Another option may be to discontinue the school's specialty program that allows smdents residing outside the attendance zone to attend the school. This program was implemented to increase the African-American enrollment at the school at a tirnc when it was below the minimum of 20 percent. The African-American enrollment at the school in 2002-03 was 35 percent. This calls into question the continuing need for the program to increase African-American enrollment. A rhir4 option may be to build additional classrooms at Sylvan Hills High School. The PCSSD recently addcdnew classrooms at Robinson High.Sc;:hool to address overcrowding at that school. In short, a capacity problem at Sylvan Hills High School can easily be addressed without negatively affecting desegregation. 428244-vl 13 i  l I I J, e l As to revisingattendancezones or disestablishing a specialty program, a cardinal rule in desegre_gation is \"if it ain't broke, don't fix ic\". Any effort to disestablish a successful program would .immediately be attacked by Joshua. Moreover, ifthe PCSSD is compelled Lo build .additional classrooms because of the efforts of the pelitioners and the actions of the State, who is going to pay for this construction? The petitioners? The State'? The upshot of petitioners' suggestions is that the \"suggestions\" prove that the detachment would have a negative impact on desegregation in the PCSSD. Further, they ignore the fact lhat .much of the increase in black enroilment at Sylvan Hills is M-to-M students from- the LRSD. To discontinue or ecn diminish the specialty program, affects not only the; PCSSD but the LRSD as well. F..nrollmcnt The foasibility study at page 1 predicts the new district would contain 5,700 students. Alternative IV predicts 6,578. The supplemental submissions (Exhibit 5) predicts the new district will contain approx.imately 7,500 students if transfers cease. The numbers keep growing and growing. While the feasibility study forecasts that the PCSSD would remain .the .second largest district in the State, it is clear that a comparison of petitioners' Exhibit5 to its \"district size\" exhibit would relegate the PCSSD to only the sixth largest district in the State with fewer tban 10,500 students. (Before the Pulaski County school desegregation case was filed, the PCSSD boasted an enrollment of almost 33;000 students and was by far the largest school district h1 the State.) 42.SZ44-vl 14  I e l l ! Such a dramatic reduction in enrollment will undoubtedly require a reduction in force not only among teachers and staff but within the Central Office as well. Such dislocations, heartache and ,car.eer affecting decisions will be unnecessary if this Board finds the petition to be invalid. Further, lhe feasibility study points outthatdensity ofstudents per square mile would improve from 25 in. the current PCSSD to approximately 53 students per square mile- in 'the new dislrict. While the feasibility study boasts that this will irnprnve transportation in the new district, it singularly fails to point out that the current density of 25 students per square mile logically and .necessarily becomes far less in the residual PCSSD. This sets up the real potential for more and longer bus rides, less efficiency and an undoubted ne_gative impact upon desegregation and the district's ability to stem enrollment declines and to attract more students . The Stipulations The M~to-M stipulation and the magnet schools stipulation are just that: Stipulated agreements among all of the parties. Therefore, as a threshold matter, it would seem that the specific written consent of Joshua, the Knight Intervenors, the Norl.h Little Rock School District, the J,irtle Rock School District, the State and the PCSSD would be required before tllese \"agreements\" cm1ld be made operative as to a detaching district. Indeed, as w~ know from the Eig_hth Circuit, a District Coun cannot impose agreements but can only -accept or reject them. 921 .F.2d 1371@ 1388. Further. both stipulations are part of the 1989 Settlement Agreement. It seems log.ical that the Agreement would have to be renegotiated and rc--cxecuted by all of the parties to the case to include the new district. Query, would the re, negotiated agreement then have to be submitted to the next session of the legislature to 428244-vJ 15 . I  dctcnnine if !he legislature was Willing l-0 fund tl1i modified agreement? Again, as the Eighth Circuit has taught us, the District Court cannot impose an agreement upon the parties to this case unless they all consent. I  Federal-Court An emerging strategy of the petitioners seems to be to shift as muc~ of the process ar,d decision making as possible to the. Federal District Court often re-assuring this 'Board that the Federal Court can do whatever is necessary to 1mpose obligations, agreements and the like. We have previously explained that the District Court is not all powerful. It cannot, for instance, as we have explained, tell teachers where they are going to teach. It cannot create capacity in sehoolswhere11one exist. Indeed, the current jurisdiction of the District Court 'is \"only\" to enforce the -SettlemGnt Agreement (which it has done) and to monitor and enforce the desegregation plans (which it. continues to do). The detachment statute is, in effect, an effort by a State to confer jurisdiction upon a Federal Court. So far as the PCSSD knows, this effort is unprecedented. It is also highly suspect. However, to the extent that the petitioners ,can convince lhis Board that \"the Federal Court will fix it\", it can perhaps win the authorization for an election, presumably hay..c ,a successful election followed by a large street party and then show up onthe District Court's doorstep with a ten page laundry list of issue!i to be decided. This scenario is not likely to result in a very happy District Court judge. 428244-vl 16  I  I The PCSSD Would Have To Rezone In no shape, .form or fashion does the proposed detachment auempt to follow current Board member 'zoneboundarics. For instance, Zone 5,. from which Board Member Carol Burgett was elected last year, is largely eviscerated. The detachment would require the residual PCSSD. to constitute new zones some seven years in advance of the next census. Tliis would constitute an unnecessary and unwarranted ~xpense and disruption to the governance of the residual PCSSD. Conclusion For all of the foregoing reasons, this Board should determine that the petition is invalid and decline to aulhorize an e1ection. 428244-vl Respectfully submitted, WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026amp; JENNINGS LLP 200 West Capitol Avenue, .Suite 2.300 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3699 (501) 371-0808 FAX: (501) 376:..9442 -- By ----'-=;,.,,\u0026lt;e---.----:...=-r--f=--- cy Special School 17 EDWARD L. WRIGHT (1903-1977) ROBERT S. LINDSEY (1913-1991) WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026amp; JENNINGS LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW ISAAC A. SCOTT, JR. JOHN G. LILE GORDON S. RATHER , JR . ROGER A. GLASGOW C. DOUGLAS BUFORD , JR. PATRICK J. GOSS ALSTON JENNINGS , JR . JOHN R. TISDALE KATHLYN GRAVES M. SAMUEL JONES Ill JOHN WILLIAM SPIVEY 111 LEE J. MULDROW N.M. NORTON CHARLES C. PRICE CHARLEST. COLEMAN JAMES J. GLOVER EDWIN L. LOWTHER. JR . WALTER E. MAY GREGORY T. JONES H. KEITH MORRISON BETTINA E. BROWNSTEIN WALTER McSPADOEN JOHN 0 . DAVIS JJJOY SIMMONS HENRY VIA HAND DELIVERY The Honorable Wm. R. Wilson, Jr. U.S. District Courthouse 600 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 360 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 200 WEST CAPITOL AVENUE SUITE 2300 LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201-3699 (501) 371 -0808 FAX (501) 376-9442 www . wlj. com OF COUNSEL ALSTON JENNINGS RONALD A . MAY BRUCE R . LINDSEY JAMES R . VAN DOVER Writer's Direct Dial No . 501-212-1273 mjoncs@wlj .com July 25, 2003 R5ElYED JUL 2 8 2003 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING Re: Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District; et al. USDC Docket No.: 4:82CV00866WRW Dear Judge Wilson: KIMBERLY WOOD TUCKER RAY F. COX . JR . TROY A. PRICE PATRICIA SIEVERS HARRIS KATHRYN A . PRYOR J. MARX DAVIS CLAIRE SHOWS HANCOCK KEVIN W. KENNEDY JERRY J. SALLINGS WILLIAM STUART JACKSON MICHAEL 0 . BARNES STEPHEN R . LANCASTER JUDY ROBINSON WILBER KYLER . WILSON C . TAD BOHANNON KRISTI M. MOODY J. CHARLES DOUGHERTY M. SEAN HATCH J . ANDREW VINES JUSTIN T. ALLEN MICHELLE M. KAEMMERLING SCOTT ANDREW IRBY PATRICK 0 . WILSON REGINA A. SPAULDING Lia::Dsi=d IO pn,cti be\u0026amp;-e tbe UDilt/ Suta hlt:DI ud Tndt:mvt Olfice Enclosed is a courtesy copy of PCSSD's fourth motion to enforce settlement agreement and for allied relief, together with supporting memorandum brief and statement of material facts . The originals have been filed and the parties served. Thank you for your consideration in this matter. Cordially yours, WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026amp; JENNINGS LLP MSJ:ao Encls. cc/w/encls.: d,(__ \\ Honorable J. Thomas Ray All Counsel of Record Mr. Ray Simon Mr. Scott Smith Mr. Will Bond Mr. Timothy Gauger Mr. Mark Burnett IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V . NO. 4:82CV00866WRW . PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. RECEIVED )-c1.,f \\\u0026lt;J JY7uv{_ JUL 2 8 2003 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING FOURTH MOTION TO ENFORCE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND FOR ALLIED RELIEF PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS The PCSSD for its fourth motion to enforce Settlement Agreement, states: 1. This motion is brought both by the PCSSD and its Board of Directors. The individual directors are named defendants in this action. For purposes of this motion, Directors, Mildred Tatum, Pam Roberts, Don Baker, Jeff Shaneyfeld and Gwen Williams, are moving in both their official and individual capacities because of the equal rights issues asserted herein. 2. This motion is accompanied by a lengthy Statement of Material Facts. The movant respectfully suggests that the reader first examine this Statement for a full and complete context for this motion. 3. On July 14, 2003, the Arkansas State Board of Education purportedly acting - pursuant to Ark. Code Ann.  6-13-1501 , et seq., voted to order an election on September 434830-v1 - 16, 2003, for the purpose of allowing voters in the greater Jacksonville area to consider approval of a ballot measure to detach certain territory from the PCSSD and form a new school district. The statute does not provide for a vote by those residing in other areas of the PCS SD. 4. The statutory scheme, as well as the election which the State has authorized, violates the 1989 Settlement Agreement in this case. This Court has continuing jurisdiction over the State via the Arkansas Department of Education to enforce compliance with the Settlement Agreement. 5. The actions described above violate Section II.J of the Settlement Agreement which states in its entirety: 6. The State, Joshua and LRSD recognize that PCSSD and NLRSD are independent, sovereign desegregating school districts operating pursuant to court orders and agreements and that this agreement is both necessary and desirable to facilitate their desegregation activities as well as their cooperative desegregation activities with the LRSD and others. [emphasis added] The above-described actions also violate Section ILL of the Settlement Agreement which states in pertinent part that: The State will enact no legislation which has a substantial adverse impact on the ability of the Districts to desegregate. 7. As the PCSSD will demonstrate, the creation of a \"new\" district as agreed to by the State Board of Education will both \"substantially affect the ability of the district to desegregate\" and will violate Ark. Code Ann.  6-13-1504(b)(2)(b) since the detachment would \"hamper, delay or in any manner negatively affect desegregation efforts\" of the PCSSD. 434830-v1 2 8. The detachment, if successful in the State-authorized scheme, would call upon this Court to recognize a \"new defendant\" in this 20 year old case while the case is in its remedial phase, liability having been long ago established and subsequently settled in the 1989 Settlement Agreement. This Court should not and cannot embark upon such a slippery slope. Unless or until this case ends, the parties have been established, their liability adjudicated, their differences compromised and settled and a new and different entity should not be introduced to this litigation in the remedial phase. 9. The statute is also unconstitutional because it denies due process and equal protection to those patrons in the PCSSD who do not reside in the area proposed in the petition for detachment and therefore are not allowed to exercise their constitutional right to vote upon the issue. Specifically, Directors Tatum, Williams, Roberts, Shaneyfeld and Baker and all others similarly situated are being denied the opportunity to vote upon the detachment question even though each represents a zone of patrons and voters who will be directly and negatively affected if the detachment is successful. Further, each of them will be negatively affected individually if the detachment proves successful. 10. Discreet provisions of orders of this Court would be violated if the detachment proved successful. For instance, this Court noted on March 25, 2003, that: 434830-v1 Further, the Court is informed that Sylvan Hills Middle School no longer has the capacity to accommodate all 6th grade M-to-M students who attended Clinton Interdistrict School through the 5th grade. Those students should be informed of their opportunity to attend the new middle school in Maumelle. (Order, Exhibit 22 to Statement of Material Facts, at page 2.) 3 However, if the detachment proved successful, several hundred students who currently attend Cato and other schools in the area proposed for detachment would, in the eyes of the petitioners, be reassigned to the several Sylvan Hills schools. Simply stated, there is no room for these students, many of whom are black and no feasible alternative exists for reassignment that does not involve a significant bus ride. 11. The detachment, if successful, would also negatively impact this Court's order of January 28, 2003, which stated in pertinent part that: African American students from Brushy Island will not be reassigned to Harris but will continue to attend Cato Elementary. Cato Elementary student enrollment will remain 75 % Caucasian (white) and 25% African American (black). (Order, Exhibit 23 to Statement of Material Facts, at page 2.) The detachment would leave the Brushy Island students in the residual PCSSD but would take Cato from the PCSSD. The petitioners propose that these students be reassigned to Sylvan Hills as well. However, there is simply no room for these mainly black students and they would face a long bus ride somewhere. 12. Sylvan Hills has proven to be a popular destination for M-to-M students from Little Rock. Obviously, the detachment would place all of the Sylvan Hills schools well over capacity. Since the M-to-M stipulation specifies that M-to-M students can only be accepted on a space available basis, it is likely that all current M-to-M students would have to be evicted from Sylvan Hills if the detachment proved successful. 13. The detachment would artificially accelerate the evolution of the PCS SD to a majority black school district, facilitating the State's inevitable argument that, at such a point, 434830-v1 4 - M-to-M funding should end. The State should not be permitted to effect such an artificial change in enrollment percentages. 14. Mills University Studies High School was recently recognized by Newsweekas the twentieth \"best\" high school in the country. This is a remarkable achievement for any Arkansas school. However, if the detachment proves successful, approximately 200 students from the area proposed for detachment would no longer qualify for transfer to College Station, Fuller Middle and Mills. These three schools are among the centerpieces of Plan 2000 and previous desegregation plans and this Court should not tolerate an action that would likely wreck these successful desegregation programs. 15. If successful, the detachment would work a substantial negative impact upon the current employee force in the PCS SD. The PCS SD calculates it would have to undergo a reduction in force of approximately 475 employees. Since seniority controls such a reduction, the PCSSD would be left with an artificially senior teacher corps and with an artificially imposed salary schedule that would be top heavy in the highest paid teachers. Such an outcome would work a substantial financial hardship upon the PCSSD and interfere with its ability to desegregate. 16. Such a reduction in force would also artificially make the residual PCSSD teacher force whiter than it currently is since the PCSSD has been aggressive the past several years in hiring young minority teachers. These would be the first to be laid off in a reduction in force. 17. If the detachment were successful, Clinton Elementary would lose 124 students and would move from being 55 % black to 60 % black. 434830-v1 5 18. College Station would lose 61 students reducing its enrollment from 215 students to 159. This would also artificially increase the black population at College Station from the current 55 % to 59 % black. 19. The enrollment at Sylvan Hills Middle School would increase from 878 to 972. The building capacity is only 925. Even if they could be accommodated, this infusion of students would increase the enrollment from 39 % black to 45 % black. 20. The detachment, if successful, would reduce the student population in the PCSSD to only approximately 10,500 students. It would change it from the second largest district in the State to only the sixth largest district. With a reduction in enrollment of approximately 7,500 students, the PCSSD would be substantially reduced in its capability to send and receive M-to-M students and to send magnet students to the stipulation magnets. 21. The current student density per square mile in the PCSSD is 25 students per square mile. The detachers calculate that the new district would improve this density to 53 students per square mile in the new district. Logically, however, the current density of 25 students per square mile in the current PCSSD would be significantly reduced leading to longer and less efficient transportation of students in the residual PCSSD and likely imposing an artificial and unwarranted busing burden upon black students. 22. The State Board granted the petition and in its subsequent order for elections based its decision largely upon \"the petitioners' willingness to seek, accept, and comply fully with any and all additional orders and requirements that might be imposed by the Federal Court ... \". The PCSSD submits that that which petitioners seek is legally impossible, particularly as respects the agreements entered into in this case. For instance, the M-to-M 434830-v1 6 - stipulation, the magnet stipulation and the 1989 Settlement Agreement are just that. They are agreements entered among the current parties and this Court cannot \"impose\" those agreements upon a new entity. Rather, all of the parties would have to consent and presumably the legislature would have to concur. 23. As the Court of Appeals has explained, the current jurisdiction of this Court is to enforce the Settlement Agreement and to monitor and enforce the desegregation plans. The detachment statute is an effort by a State to confer jurisdiction upon a Federal Court. The PCSSD knows of no precedent for this effort. 24. This motion is brought now because the action of the State Board in authorizing the election has created a clear and current case or controversy. Since the effects of a detachment are palpable and provable, it is respectfully submitted that this Court should exercise its jurisdiction now to end an effort which violates the Settlement Agreement and would work a manifest injury upon the ability of the PCSSD to carry out its Court approved plans and obligations and would have significant adverse outcomes financially and enrollment wise upon the other parties to this case. WHEREFORE, for all of the foregoing reasons, this Court should enter its order finding that the Settlement Agreement has been violated or that the detachment would work an impermissible negative affect upon the PCSSD's efforts to desegregate and comply with Court orders and agreements entered into with the other parties. For all of these reasons, this Court should enter its order directing the State Board of Education to rescind its order of July 16, 2003, and cancel its authorization for an election. 434830-v1 7 Respectfully submitted, WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026amp; JENNINGS LLP 200 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 2300 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3699 (501) 371-0808 FAX: (501) 376-9442 Att Sc CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE On July 25, 2003, a copy of the foregoing was served via U.S. mail on each of the following: Mr. John W. Walker John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 2000 Regions Center 400 West Capitol Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Ms. Ann Brown Marshall ODM One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 434830-v1 8 Mr. Mark A. Hagemeier Assistant Attorney General Arkansas Attorney General's Office 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Richard Roach ell Roachell Law Firm Plaza West Building 415 N. McKinley, Suite 465 Little Rock, Arkansas 72205 Mr. Ray Simon Director of the Arkansas Department of Education 4 State Capitol Mall Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-1071 Mr. Will Bond 602 W. Main . Jacksonville, AR 72076 Mr. Mark Burnett 1010 W. Third Street Little Rock, AR 72201 434830-v1 9 Mr. Scott Smith General Counsel Arkansas Department of Edudation #4 Capitol Mall, Room 404-A Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Timothy Gauger Assistant Attorney General 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 J IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. NO. 4:82CV00866WRW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. MEMORANDUM BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF FOURTII MOTION TO ENFORCE SETILEMENT AGREEMENT AND FOR ALLIED RELIEF REf,1~0 JUL 2 8 2003 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS Simply stated, the 1989 Settlement Agreement with the State, to which the State Board of Education is a signatory, precludes any such usurpation of the District's sovereignty and independence, as would result from the detachment the State recently authorized. It is the law of the case that the Court retains jurisdiction to insure that the parties, including the State, comply with the terms of the Settlement Agreement as well as the settlement plans. (Order dated January 13, 1995, at page 2, Docket No. 2337). The Settlement Agreement Provision Section II J of the 1989 comprehensive Settlement Agreement states in its entirety: 435830-v1 The State, Joshua and LRSD recognize that PCSSD and NLRSD are independent, sovereign desegregating school districts operating pursuant to court orders and agreements and that this agreement is both necessary and desirable to facilitate their desegregation activities as well as their cooperative desegregation activities with the LRSD and others. [emphasis added] This language, which remains operative, was not some idle boilerplate or filler. Indeed, as we will explain further, it was not part of the original agreement between the State, LRSD and Joshua but was only negotiated after the State bad first reached agreement with the LRSD and  then turned its attention toward securing agreement from the PCSSD and the NLRSD. (Exhibit 2). Further, there was then a real and immediate specter of consolidation which prompted this negotiated language which, while it survived the legislative and judicial approval process, came under attack from many legislators, commentators and in editorials. (Exhibits 1, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12, and 14). It should thus be clear that Section II J. was a key component of the settlement for which the PCSSD (as well as the NLRSD) separately negotiated. The reasons are clear. Not only was the PCSSD guarding against consolidation, but also against any new usurpation of its territory, facilities and assets similar to the appropriation (albeit by judicial order) that occurred in the early phases of this case. Absent this promise by the State, it had no logical reason to join the settlement. Were it to be either consolidated or carved up into pieces, it would have no reason to settle. While it is clear that many in the legislature and those \"commenting on the scene\" opposed Section II J., the fact remains that it is an integral part of the Settlement Agreement and retains full force and vitality today. In his June 4, 2003 letter (Exhibit 16), generated as part of the proceedings before the State Board, the Attorney General appropriately discussed the fact that while \"successor district\" language was included in the settlement agreement as respects the LRSD, he noted 435830-v1 2 that no such language was presented as regards the PCS SD or the NLRSD. As the Attorney General explained: All of this suggests that either (a) the parties simply did not anticipate that a \"successor\" district might be created from territory that was formerly within the PCSSD, or (b) the parties specifically intended that there would not be any such \"successor\" district created under any circumstances, or that any successor district would not be a party to the Settlement Agreement. Subparagraph (b) of course is the correct analysis because of the presence of Section II J. On the same page and same footnote the Attorney General further noted that: Logic suggests, however, that a group of individual schools could not so easily extricate themselves from federal court supervision (and court-imposed obligations) in a desegregation case by merely \"detaching\" themselves from a school district under supervision, at least not without the consent of all parties to the case and the Court overseeing the litigation. (Emphasis supplied). The Attorney General notes in his last footnote that: In this particular case, the parties with standing to object would be the State itself, the three Pulaski County districts, and the Joshua and Knight intervenors. Section II L. The principal motivation for the State to enter into and subsequently fund the Settlement Agreement was to minimize the dollar cost for its past constitutional violations and to obtain a release of all claims for all violations which had occurred prior to execution of the Settlement Agreement. While the State has been subjected to successful claims by the school districts for departures from the Settlement Agreement, (Statement 1s 20, 21, 22 and 23) it has, thus far, for over fourteen years, avoided a claim or contention that it has violated the constitution or 435830-v1 3 enacted statutes which either promote segregation or hamper desegregation. 1 However, the statute at issue, by its own legislative language, sets up an interesting dynamic not otherwise present in Arkansas law. As counsel for the Department of Education and the Attorney General's office have repeatedly pointed out: \"the state board is prohibited by law from approving any petition for detachment which hampers, delays or in any manner negatively affects desegregation efforts of a school district or districts in this state.\" (Exhibit 16) Indeed, it would appear that the legislature had the proscriptions of the Settlement Agreement in mind when it crafted this very rigorous test for detachment. The Settlement Agreement at page 10 states: \"The State will enact no legislation which has a substantial adverse impact on the ability of the [Pulaski] Districts to desegregate.\" By ultimately approving a new school district, the State will have participated in a process that artificially accelerates the evolution of the PCCSD to a majority black school district. When all three districts become majority black, then the State will argue that its obligation to fund M-to-M payments will suddenly and abruptly end. (Indeed, a cynic might wonder if there are those in authority who may have already figured this out.) If and when this day comes, the financial consequences to the three current districts in this county would be crippling. 1 After each legislative session, the ADE invites the PCSSD, as well as the other Pulaski districts, to identify new legislation which the district believes will hamper or negatively affect its desegregation efforts. The PCSSD duly noted by letter dated April 26, 2002, that it believed the detachment statute at issue would negatively affect its desegregation efforts. 435830-v1 4 This Court has consistently reiterated the proposition that: \"A party may not unilaterally change the implementation or language of an agreement or order without the prior approval of the Court and/or the consent of the parties.\" (Order dated January 13, 1995, at page 10, Docket No. 2337). The State of Arkansas needs to focus on its obligation in the settlement to give the Pulaski County school districts special consideration to enable these districts to meet their numerous and burdensome obligations under the settlement. The Court reminds the State of the Eighth Circuit's specific findings about the State's complicated and lengthy history of promotion of unconstitutional racial segregation which has led to this interminable litigation. The swiftest and surest way out of the federal court is to abide by the terms and spirit of this Settlement Agreement, and this includes following proper procedures for modification of the settlement. (Emphasis in the original) (Order dated January 13, 1995, at pages 16, 17, Docket No. 2337). The Equal Protection Claim Under the new detachment statute, when part of a school district attempts to detach itself from the school district, and become its own entity, a majority vote of only the voters in the area to be detached is permitted. Ark. Code Ann.  6-13-1504(3)(C). This provision is clearly unconstitutional and denies equal protection of the laws to those voters remaining in the original school district who are not allowed to vote even though they will be materially affected by detachment. The United States Supreme Court has stated that if a state statute is challenged on the grounds that it grants the right to vote in a limited purpose election to some otherwise qualified voters, but denies it to others, then the court must be called upon to determine whether the exclusion from the election is necessary to promote a compelling state interest. Kramer v. 435830-v1 5 Union Free School District, 395 U.S. 621, 633 (1969); Cipriano v. City of Houma, 395 U.S. 701, 704 (1969). The Kramer court went further to point out, that when the State's sole justification for the statute is that the classification provides merely a reasonable basis upon which to determine which voters have a special interest in the outcome of the election, then the statute fails to meet the \"exacting standard of precision we require of statutes which selectively distribute the franchise .\" Kramer, 395 U.S. at 632. In determining whether there has been a violation of the equal protection clause, the court's attention should be focused on two inquiries: (1) whether there is a genuine difference in interests among the two groups that the State has created, and (2) if so, whether any resulting increase . in voting strength of one group over the other amounts to discrimination under the Equal Protection Clause. Town of Lockport, N. Y. v. Citizens for Cmty. Action At - the Local Level, Inc., 430 U.S. 259, 268 (1976). In several cases the Supreme Court has allowed the electorate of a special-purpose unit of government to be apportioned to give more weight to a certain sector which is found to be most affected by the government unit's functions. Id. at 266. But, as Kramer points out, the classification of voters into \"interested\" and \"non-interested\" groups must be reasonably precise, and the State must have a compelling state interest that the statute, and its classification of voters, furthers. Kramer, 395 U.S. at 633. Several United State Supreme Court cases demonstrate these principles. For example, in Kramer the court found it was unconstitutional and a violation of equal protection to restrict the voting in a school board election to either those people who paid property taxes or rented homes, or to those people who had children enrolled in the schools. Id. The court applied 435830-v1 6 - heightened scrutiny, and reasoned that this distinction among voters was not necessary to promote a compelling state interest. Id. The court did not afford the usual presumption of constitutionality to this election statute. Presumptions of constitutionality for statutes are based on the premise that the state governments are structured to fairly represent people. Id. at 628. But, when the challenge to the statute is basically a challenge of the basic premise, the premise can no longer serve as the basis for presuming constitutionality. Id. Additionally, the court in Kramer pointed out that the statute defining who could vote in school board elections was not narrowly tailored to serve a compelling state interest, because it was simultaneously too over inclusive both as well as too under inclusive. Id. at 632. The court stated that these election criteria excluded \"senior citizens and others living with children or relatives; military personnel, and others who live on tax exempt property; boarders and lodgers; parents who neither lease nor own qualifying property and whose children are too young to attend school; and parents who neither own nor lease property and whose children attend private school.\" Id. at 630. Further, the Supreme Court in Cipriano, decided that a Louisiana statute conferring the right to vote in bond issuance elections only to those people who paid property taxes was unconstitutional as denying equal protection. Cipriano, 395 U.S. at 704. Just as in Kramer, the Cipriano court pointed out that when the vote, in a special purpose election, is given to some people, but denied to others then the court must determine whether the exclusions are necessary to promote a compelling state interest. Id. The Cipriano court also noted that it is unconstitutional to deny the vote to some people because of the way the members of that group might vote. Id. at 705. 435830-v1 7 Similar to the voting classifications drawn in Kramer and Cipriano, the Arkansas statute which only allows voters in the area to be detached to vote in the detachment proceedings, and denies the vote to those in the remaining area is unconstitutional, because the statute offends the notion of \"one person, one vote.\" By denying interested and affected voters the right to vote, the state is ultimately denying equal protection of the laws to those who are not allowed to vote in this school district election. This distinction of the voters does not further a compelling state interest, and is therefore unconstitutional.2 First, as indicated by the Kramer court, this statute should not be given a presumption of constitutionality because the challenge to the statute is to the basic premise that the laws are created by a fair process. Because the process is being challenged in this case, the usual presumption of constitutionality cannot be afforded. Therefore, in analyzing whether there has been an equal protection violation the court must focus on whether there is a genuine difference of interests among the two groups the state has created, and if so whether the resulting increase in voter strength in one of the groups amounts to discrimination under the Equal Protection clause. Since the Arkansas statute allows only those people residing in the area to be detached the vote, one gets no further than the first step under this analysis. There 2 Indeed, the principal interest being endorsed by the State in this instance is to apply detachment only to the PCSSD. As we noted in our State Court complaint (Exhibit 20), the detachment provision applies by definition only to the PCSSD and to no other school district. Thus, is not even dealing with \"special purpose elections\" Statewide but only to one that is limited to the PCSSD. Stated another way, to the extent that others in other school districts might wish detachment, there is no statutory provision available to them to seek it. The detachment statutes apply neither to the largest district in the State, middle sized districts or the smallest. It applies only to the PCSSD. 435830-v1 8 is no real and distinct difference, and certainly not a compelling difference, in the interests between those in the Jacksonville area and those remaining in the Pulaski County Special School District. The state must have a compelling reason or justification for distinguishing between those wanting to be detached and those who would remain from the original school district. It is not enough to say that distinguishing them in this manner is for purposes of determining who is interested or affected by the election and who is not. The residents of the PCSSD who do not seek to be detached have a real and palpable interest in the matter of the detachment, yet they are being denied the right to vote in the election. If Jacksonville were to detach, this would have a definite and immediate impact on the processes and operations of the other schools that would remain in the PCSSD. School funding, transportation and busing, teacher school assignments, and student assignments would most certainly be affected. The school district would have to immediately reconfigure its processes, resources and operations. Therefore, as a result of the sudden impact the detachment would have on the entire PCS SD, it is disingenuous to claim that those residing in the area that would remain the PCSSD are not interested or affected by this vote. Further, this distinction the State has made is not so precise as to satisfy the exacting standard set forth in Kramer. Just as in Kramer, this election statute is not narrowly tailored to achieving the goal of franchising those people interested or affected by the vote. The statute is over inclusive in the sense that it allows people in Jacksonville to vote that have, at best, a remote or indirect interest and are not affected by the school detachment election whatsoever. For example, a senior citizen residing in Jacksonville with no children, and no more children 435830-v1 9 expected in their lifetime are allowed to vote in this school detachment election. A single airman with no children living in base housing during a two year assignment may vote. On the other hand the statute is under inclusive because it denies the right to vote to those people in the PCSSD who do not live in the Jacksonville area and who would be severely affected by the outcome of the election, such as those people with children currently attending a school in the PCSSD particularly schools such as College Station, Fuller and Mills whose very programs are threatened by the detachment. This distinction is not made with the precision necessary to safeguard equal protection of the law. Negative Impact Upon Desegregation Although the June 4 letter of the Attorney General was necessarily fairly general in most respects, it was quite specific as regards certain areas. As the Attorney General opined: [a]ny detachment of a significant amount of territory from the 435830-v1 PCSSD could almost certainly be expected to have an \"impact\" on the PCSSD's ability to comply with its desegregation plan and have an impact on the operation of the Settlement Agreement, including the Agreement's provisions concerning M-M students and the Magnet schools in the LRSD. The Court of Appeals has previously succinctly explained the M-to-M arrangement: M-to-M students are peculiar to the districts that are parties to the Settlement Agreement. They are students who are of the majority race in their home districts, and who voluntarily transfer to .another Pulaski County district where they are of the minority race. The State, by way of a funding formula contained in the Settlement Agreement, compensates both the home district and the receiving district for each M-to-M student. The home, or sending, district receives one-half of the state aid that it would have received if the student had remained in the district, while the receiving, or host, district receives the full cots of educating the student. (United States Court of Appeals, No. 95-1481EA, Docket No. 2718, Opinion filed May 15, 1996). 10 The three specialty schools in the southeast portion of Pulaski County all contain programs which were specifically designed for and gained Court approval for desegregation. The PCSSD calculates that approximately 200 students from the area proposed for detachment attended those schools last year. These students are necessary for the continued vitality of these programs, all of which feed to Mills University Studies High School, recently recognized as the 20th \"best\" high school in the country. Newsweek, May 2003. Included as Exhibit 17 is a memorandum from Davis Hendricks, the District Director of Talented and Gifted Programs, prepared the day after the Board's June 9 hearing. The memorandum explains at least two things. First, it shows the extensive array of AP courses currently available at both Jacksonville High School and North Pulaski High School. It also explains in some detail how the detachment would negatively impact the College Station, Fuller and Mills programs. The PCS SD calculates that the detached district would have 3, 700 elementary students of whom only 32.7% would be black. At the secondary level, the PCSSD calculates an enrollment of 3,757 and that only 32.4% of those students would be black. Since the petitioners calculated that the residual PCSSD would be 39 % black, there is a difference of six and one-half percentage points. The PCSSD calculates that the new district would enroll 7,457 students. Individual Schools As for individual schools, the impact upon Clinton Elementary is profound. Detachment would cause the loss of 124 students and would push Clinton from 55 % black to 60 % black. It is required to be no more than 50 % black. 435830-v1 11 Clinton is an inter-district school. The Court of Appeals has specifically stated that one of the elements of the Settlement Agreement it considers to be crucial, and with respect to which no retreat should be approved, is the operation of the agreed number of inter-district schools according to the agreed timetable. (Appeal of Little Rock School District, 949 F .2d 253,256 (8th Cir. 1991)). The PCSSD projects that 61 students would leave College Station reducing its enrollment from 215 to 159. This would artificially increase the black population at College Station from the current 55 % to 59 % black. The enrollment at Sylvan Hills Middle School would increase from 878 to 972, the African-American percentage would increase from 39% to 45 % and the building capacity of 925 would be grossly exceeded. Court Orders As recently as March 25, 2003, this Court noted that: Further, the Court is informed that Sylvan Hills Middle School no longer has the capacity to accommodate all 6th grade M-to-M students who attended Clinton Interdistrict School through the 5th grade. Those students should be informed of their opportunity to attend the new middle school in Maumelle. (Order, March 25, 2003) Accordingly, the PCSSD reiterates its point that the displaced students, many of whom are black, who the petitioners submit can \"easily be accommodated at Sylvan Hills\" simply cannot be. 435830-v1 12 Part of the detachment proposal flies in the face of another order entered by the District Court on January 28, 2003. In evaluating and approving the PCSSD plans for the redesign of Harris Elementary School, this Court ruled that: African American students from Brushy Island will not be reassigned to Harris but will continue to attend Cato Elementary. Cato Elementary student enrollment will remain 75 % Caucasian (white) and 25% African American (black). (Order, January 28, 2003). However, the petitioners are excluding the Brushy Island students from Cato and are leaving them to be assigned somewhere in the PCS SD. The petitioners say send them to Sylvan Hills but there is no room. The Court has said they will not be reassigned to Harris. Where can they go? Another aspect of the Court's January order as respects Harris requires the PCSSD to vigorously recruit minority students (white) from north of the river for placement at Harris. The Director of Equity and Multicultural Education was ordered to direct this \"intensification\" of effort. Of course, if most of the PCSSD north of the river is allowed to detach, it will render the PCSSD substantially unable to comply with this order. Sylvan Hills Petitioners make some rather astonishing suggestions regarding Sylvan Hills High School. At page 6 of counsel's letter (Exhibit 17), the following statements are made: 435830-v1 Moreover, even assuming a real capacity problem at Sylvan Hills High School, the District Court could address the problem in a number of ways to avoid any negative affect on desegregation. One option may be to revise the attendance zones for all of PCSSD's high schools. The ODM reported that the PCSSD has not revised its attendance zones in \"many years\" and recommended that it do so. See ODM March 26, 2003, pp. 19 13 and 21. Another option may be to discontinue the school's specialty program that allows students residing outside the attendance zone to attend the school. This program was implemented to increase the African-American enrollment at the school at a time when it was below the minimum of 20 percent. The African-American enrollment at the school in 2002-03 was 35 percent. This calls into question the continuing need for the program to increase African-American enrollment. A third option may be to build additional classrooms at Sylvan Hills High School. The PCSSD recently added new classrooms at Robinson High School to address overcrowding at that school. In short, a capacity problem at Sylvan Hills High School can easily be addressed without negatively affecting desegregation. As to revising attendance zones or disestablishing a specialty program, a cardinal rule in desegregation is \"if it ain't broke, don't fix it\". Any effort to disestablish a successful program would immediately be attacked by Joshua. Moreover, if the PCS SD is compelled to build additional classrooms because of the - efforts of the petitioners and the actions of the State, who is going to pay for this construction? The petitioners? The State? The upshot of petitioners' suggestions is that the \"suggestions\" prove that the detachment would have a negative impact on desegregation in the PCSSD. Further, they ignore the fact that much of the increase in black enrollment at Sylvan Hills is M-to-M students from the LRSD. To discontinue or even diminish the specialty program, affects not only the PCSSD but the LRSD as well. Enrollment While the feasibility study forecasts that the PCSSD would remain the second largest district in the State, the PCSSD calculates it would be relegated to only the sixth largest district in the State with fewer than 10,500 students. (Before the Pulaski County school desegregation 435830-v1 14 case was filed, the PCSSD boasted an enrollment of almost 33,000 students and was by far the largest school district in the State.) Such a dramatic reduction in enrollment will undoubtedly require a reduction in force not only among teachers and staff but within the Central Office as well. Such dislocations, heartache and career affecting decisions are simply unnecessary. Further, the feasibility study (Exhibit 15 at page 39) points out that density of students per square mile would improve from 25 in the current PCSSD to approximately 53 students per square mile in the new district. While the feasibility study boasts that this will improve transportation in the new district, it singularly fails to point out that the current density of 25 students per square mile logically and necessarily becomes far less in the residual PCSSD. This sets up the real potential for more and longer bus rides, less efficiency and an undoubted negative impact upon desegregation and the district's ability to stem enrollment declines and to attract more students. Strong Precedent Supports The PCSSD Position Many unsuccessful efforts to detach from districts operating pursuant to desegregation orders litter the legal landscape in this jurisprudence. The latest appears to be Lee vs. Chambers County Board of Education, 849 F.Supp. 1474, (M.D.Ala. 1994). The case is an outgrowth of Lee vs. Macon County Board of Education, 267 F.Supp. 458 (M.D.Ala.) (threejudge court), aff'd sub nom. Wallace v. United States, 389 U.S. 215, 88 S.Ct. 415, 19 L.Ed.2d 422 (1967). In that case, a three-judge district court ordered Alabama's local school districts, including Chambers County and Lanett City, to disestablish their racially segregated - and discriminatory systems. 435830-v1 15 While the Lee case is procedurally and statutorily complicated, it does bear remarkable similarities to the case at bar. By 1990, the City of Valley, located within Chambers County, had become frustrated with the Chambers County Board of Education believing it had ignored requests to improve the schools in the City of Valley. Id. at 1478. The City of Valley attempted to form its own separate school district which was opposed by the county. Among the complaints of the City of Valley was that the county enrollment had been declining, that historically there had been a tension between the Valley area and the rest of the county, and that no new facilities had been built in the Valley area since the early 1980s. As part of its proposal to create its separate school system, Valley agreed to abide by any orders of the Court which orders are designed to assure that such a system will not impede the desegregation process in Chambers County. It also committed itself to operate a totally integrated system including utilizing existing attendance zones. Id. Valley considered at least three options for configuring the district but chose Option 1 because it would leave existing attendance zones intact, cause the least student disruption, allow children to attend schools they or their parents had historically attended and effect no changes in the remaining schools. Id. at 1485. Among the factors that were not considered by Valley was the affect upon children having special educational needs, the Court pointing out that these costs are not fully funded from State or Federal sources and that the local cost for these programs can be a substantial burden. 435830-v1 16 We note that Jacksonville has performed no such analysis in this case either, even though the PCSSD facilities for children with multi handicapping conditions are all located in schools proposed for detachment. As the Court noted in Lee. (Id. at 1490) If the court permits the Valley district to operate, the Chambers County district would have to equip and operate special education programs now offered only at schools in the Valley area, such as the pre-school handicapped student program at Fairfax Elementary School and the gifted student program at Fairfax Elementary School. After a long discussion of the facts and the law, the Court finally came down to the issue of \"Practicability\". Beginning at page 1498, the Court explained that: (Id. at 1498) (Id. at 1498) 435830-v1 The court must also consider whether Valley's proposal introduces a level of complexity to the desegregation process in Chambers County that is so great that it will itself be an impediment to the speedy and effective elimination of the remaining vestiges of the dual school system. Valley takes the position that the ongoing desegregation process in the Chambers County school district will not be affected adversely by its establishment and independent operation as a separate system because any issues that may arise can be negotiated between the school systems, resolved by the State Superintendent of Education, or be determined by this court. Thus, at a time when Chambers County school authorities should be devoting their energies and attention to implementing the recent Orders of this court and to devising and implementing the comprehensive blueprint for final constitutional compliance as agreed by the parties and that is required by the 1993 Agreed Order, if operation of a Valley district were permitted, they would instead be enmeshed in negotiations, state administrative 17 (Id. at 1499) - (Id. at 1499) (Id. at 1500) proceedings, and possible further appearances before this court to resolve disputed matters. If the City of Valley is permitted to operate a separate and independent system, these efforts-and the progress of the Chambers County public schools toward unitary status-will become far more complex. For example, each teacher assignment decision presently is affected by current assignments throughout the existing Chambers County school district. To the extent that full constitutional compliance has not been attained-and it currently has not been attained at the time a separate Valley district begins operations, both school systems will share in the responsibility for achieving the original goal of having racially non-identifiable faculties among all of other schools that either operates. If the districts operate independently, however, ensuring the realization of this goal will inevitably cause friction and ultimately involve this court in a level of detailed supervision and administration of local schools that would be unwieldy and unwise. The court finds that the introduction of an independent decisionmaking body (a new school district) in the midst of the desegregation process in Chambers County will greatly complicate planning and implementation of measures necessary for constitutional compliance, will increase the potential for conflict, will be likely to involve this court in an unnecessarily detailed level of supervision and administration (thus displacing local control), and ultimately will impede the County's progress toward a unitary system from which all vestiges of past discrimination have been eliminated. In its conclusions of law, the Court appropriately traced the cases from the United States Supreme Court which culminate in the lead decision: 435830-v1 Over 20 years ago, the Supreme Court firmly established the test which must be applied in situations such as this: 18 435830-v1 We have today held that any attempt by state of local officials to carve out a new school district from an existing district that is in the process of dismantling a dual school system \"must be judged according to whether it hinders or furthers the process of school desegregation. If the proposal would impede the dismantling of a dual system, then a district court, in the exercise of its remedial discretion, may enjoin it from being carried out.\" United States v. Scottland Neck Bd. of Educ., 401 U.S. 484, 489, 92 S.Ct. 2214, 2217, 33 L.Ed.2d 75 (1972) (citing Wright v. Council of City of Emporia, 401 U.S. 451 , 460, 92 S. Ct. 2196, 2202, 33 L.Ed.2d 51 (1972)). In Wright v. Council of City of Emporia, the city which wished to form and operate a splinter school district made much the same argument as that of Valley here: ... Emporia advances arguments that a separate system is necessary to achieve quality education for city residents, and that it is unfair in any event to force the city to continue to send its children to schools over which the city, because of the character of its arrangement with the county, has very little control. Id. at 467, 92 S.Ct. at 2205. The Supreme Court's answer to that argument must guide the court in its decision in the case at bar: The District Court, with its responsibility to provide an effective remedy for segregation in the entire city-county system could not property allow the city to make its part of that system more attractive where such a result would be accomplished at the expense of the children remaining in the county. Id. at 468, 92 S.Ct. at 2206. The year before, the Fifth Circuit had dealt with the issue of a splinter school district in a case involving Alabama splinters (Pleasant Grove, Vestavia, Midfield and Homewood) withdrawing from their parent (Jefferson County). Stout v. Jefferson County Board of Ed., 448 F .2d 403 (5th Cir., 1971 (\"Stout I\") [FN26] The court held: .. . [W]here the formulation of splinter school districts, albeit validly created under state law, have the effect of 19 435830-v1 thwarting the implementation of a unitary school system, the district court may not ... recognize their creation. Id. at 404 (footnote omitted). On remand, the district court ordered the splinter districts to accept a proper role in the desegregation of the county system. This was affirmed on appeal, Stout v. Jefferson County Board of Education, 466 F2d 1213 (5th Cir. 1972) (\"Stout II\"), cert. denied, sub nom., Stripling v. Jefferson County Bd. of Educ., 410 U.S. 928, 93 S.Ct. 1361, 35 L.Ed.2d 589 (1973), with the Fifth Circuit holding that legally created splinter school districts could be disregarded if their existence thwarted implementation of a unitary school system in the county as a whole. The court went on to say that courts should not remove local control indefinitely and that sovereignty should be returned to a splinter district when the splinter demonstrates \"by clear and convincing evidence\" that it is able and intends to comply with the court's orders concerning its role in the desegregation of the county school district. Id. at 1215. Valley argues that the latter holding in Stout II should cause this court to authorize it to operate a separate school system because it has pledged to the court that it would follow any order which the court might issue as to the role which the Valley district should play in assisting to complete desegregation of the schools in Chambers County. Valley also emphasizes its commitment to operate an integrated system, even hopefully a \"model\" system, within its new district for the benefit of children of all races. While the court accepts the sincerity of Valley's officer, accepts Valley's assurance that it intends to operate a fully integrated school system that would be eligible to be adjudged a unitary system if judged along, and accepts Valley's commitment that it has no intention to impede the progress of desegregation in the county system, this begs the real issue. As the Supreme Court has stated, \"[t]he existence of a permissible purpose cannot sustain any action that has an impermissible effect.\" Wright, 407 U.S. at 462, 92 S.Ct. at 2203. The issue here is not whether Valley could create a fully integrated unitary system for itself, or whether Valley is willing to accept a role in desegregating the county system. The basic issue before the court is whether a separate Valley system can be operated at this time, even accepting whatever role the court might assign it, in a way which does not impede the final dismantling of a dual school system in Chambers County. (Id. at 1500, 1501). 20 (Id. at 1502) (Id. at 1503) (Id. at 1503) The court has carefully considered Valley's proposals. Although it has expressed preferences, Valley has suggested several alternatives designed to address the various Green factors, all of which it is willing to accept. And, while the burden of proof is properly on Valley, the court has struggled with Valley's request that it \"mandate a desegregation plan that incorporates, recognizes and accommodates the existence of and in turn operation of a city school system by the Valley City Board of Education.\" (Brief in Support of Amended Petition to Intervene on Behalf of the Valley City Board of Education and the City of Valley, Alabama.). The court has concluded that it cannot be done at this time. What we must all seek -- the parties, the lawyers, and the court -is to finally remedy the constitutional violations created by the old state-imposed system of segregated schools to the end that the federal courts no longer have to supervise the operation of the public schools of Chambers County, not to adopt a patchwork approach which depends on continued court involvement to make it work. The facts in this case impel the court to the inevitable conclusion that this ultimate objective for the Chambers County schools would be impeded by the operation of a Valley school system at this time. Accordingly, the court will deny Valley's request to operate as a separate school district. Teacher Deployment As to teacher deployment, the petitioners stake out the naive position that the Federal District Court could simply order all the teachers to stay where they are. (Exhibit 17 at 8). This assumption ignores the realities of teacher unions, teacher contracts and previous admonitions from the United States Court of Appeals. For instance, the PCSSD successfully 435830-v1 21 enjoined an on-going teacher strike in 1996. The union appealed to the Federal Court of Appeals arguing that the union negotiated contract between the PCSSD and the Teachers' Union was none of the District Court's business. The Court of Appeals agreed, reversed the District Court and explained to the parties that the role of the District Court is to enforce the Settlement Agreement (which is silent as to the master contracts), but not to otherwise interfere with the rights of employees and organizations of employers. 112 F.3d 953@ 955. Petitioners' position is completely silent regarding recognition of a new teacher organization for a new district. Is this or is this not part of their proposed calculus? As the PCSSD knows from prior difficult and trying circumstances, many teachers prefer working in a district which recognizes a union. The Stipulations The M-to-M stipulation and the magnet schools stipulation are just that: Stipulated agreements among all of the parties. Therefore, as a threshold matter, it would seem that the specific written consent of Joshua, the Knight Intervenors, the North Little Rock School District, the Little Rock School District, the State and the PCSSD would be required before these \"agreements\" could be made operative in a detaching district. Indeed, as we know from the Eighth Circuit, a District Court cannot impose agreements but can only accept or reject them. 921 F.2d 1371@ 1388. Further, both stipulations are part of the 1989 Settlement Agreement. It seems logical that the Agreement would have to be renegotiated and reexecuted by all of the parties to the case to include the new district. Query, would the renegotiated agreement then have to be submitted to the next session of the legislature to determine if the legislature was willing to fund this modified agreement? Again, as the Eighth 435830-v1 22 Circuit has taught us, the District Court cannot impose an agreement upon the parties to this case unless they all consent. The PCSSD Would Have To Rezone Zones 4 and 5 would be completely removed from the PCSSD. The detachment would require the residual PCSSD to constitute new zones some seven years in advance of the next census. This would constitute an unnecessary and unwarranted expense and disruption to the governance of the residual PCS SD. Time has yet to permit an analysis as to the effect such rezoning would have upon those protected by the Voting Rights Act if detachment was successful. Federal Court The strategy of the petitioners seems to be to shift as much of the process and decision - making as possible to the Federal District Court often re-assuring the State Board that the Federal Court can do whatever is necessary to impose obligations, agreements and the like. We have previously explained that the District Court is not all powerful. It cannot, for instance, as we have explained, tell teachers where they are going to teach. It cannot create capacity in schools where none exist. Indeed, the current jurisdiction of the District Court is \"only\" to enforce the Settlement Agreement (which it has done) and to monitor and enforce the desegregation plans (which it continues to do). The detachment statute is, in effect, an effort by a State to confer jurisdiction upon a Federal Court. So far as the PCSSD knows, this effort is unprecedented. It is also highly suspect. 435830-v1 23 However, petitioners successfully convinced the Board that \"the Federal Court will fix it\" , and won authorization for the election. Presuming a successful election followed by a large street party, the new district would then show up on the District Court's doorstep with a ten page laundry list of issues to be decided. This scenario is not calculated to advance the ultimate resolution of the case and should be ended now. Conclusion For all of the foregoing reasons, this Court should determine that the statutes violate the Settlement Agreement, are an unconstitutional denial of equal protection, and will negatively impact desegregation and the ultimate resolution of this case. 435830-v1 Respectfully submitted, WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026amp; JENNINGS LLP 200 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 2300 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3699 (501) 371-0808 FAX: (501) 376-9442 By '-y)7 ' ?~ ~0~ M. _Srunuel Jones III (769 0) A-ifurneys 'or Pulaski c6un Special School strict 24 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE On July ;25, 2003, a copy of the foregoing was served via U.S. mail on each of the following: Mr. John W. Walker John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway . Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 2000 Regions Center 400 West Capitol Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Ms. Ann Brown Marshall ODM One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Ray Simon Director of the Arkansas Department of Education 4 State Capitol Mall Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-1071 Mr. Will Bond 602 W. Main Jacksonville, AR 72076 Mr. Mark Burnette 1010 W. Third Street Little Rock, AR 72201 435830-v1 Mr. Mark A. Hagemeier Assistant Attorney General Arkansas Attorney General's Office 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell Law Firm Plaza West Building 415 N. McKinley, Suite 465 Little Rock, Arkansas 72205 Mr. Scott Smith General Counsel Arkansas Department of Edudation #4 Capitol Mall, Room 404-A Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Timothy Gauger Assistant Attorney General 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 M.S~nesII( 25 .. I  II II II II II  I I I I I I I .. I IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. NO. 4:82CV00866WRW  PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS History of the Settlement Agreement RE?L~D JUL 2 8 2003 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS  INTERVENORS INTERVENORS 1. 1982. The LRSD sues the State, the PCSSD and the NLRSD successfully seeking consolidation of the three districts in Pulaski County. 921 F.2d 1371@ 1376. 2. 1985. The Court of Appeals rejects consolidation but orders that the boundary between LRSD and PCSSD be adjusted. 921 F.2d 1371@ 1377. 3. 1985. This boundary adjustment caused PCSSD to lose fourteen schools and over one-third of its tax base. 4. Late 1988. Initial settlement discussions are commenced among the State, the LRSD and the Joshua Intervenors. 921 F.2d 1371 @ 1376. 5. January 12, 1989. Senator Jerry Jewell introduces Senate Bill 39 to consolidate the Little Rock, North Little Rock and Pulaski County Special School District schools . (Exhibit 1) 434696-v1 I   I 1:  .- 1  I I I I .. I I 6. January 31, 1989. The State Board, LRSD and Joshua Intervenors reach a proposed settlement. The State's attorney reports that \"meetings to obtain the agreement of the other parties are underway today between attorneys and representatives of the State Board, PCSSD and NLRSD.\" (Exhibit 2) 7. February 9, 1989. The State hires the national law firm of Hogan \u0026amp; Hartson which specialized in school desegregation to advise it concerning desegregation. (Exhibit 3) 8. February 14, 1989. Counsel for the LRSD delivers a draft of Proposed Settlement Agreement to the State's attorney. This draft does not contain a Section II J . (Exhibit 4) 9. March 1989. The settlement is agreed to by all of the parties. The final version contains Section II J. (Exhibit 5) It is submitted to the legislature for funding . 10. March 3, 1989. In an editorial discussing the settlement, the Arkansas Gazette notes that: \"A key provision is that the Little Rock, North Little Rock and Pulaski County School Districts recognize that they remain 'independent, sovereign desegregating' districts. This could become an impediment to a countywide consolidation in the future, and if so it is an unfortunate provision.\" (Exhibit 6) 11. March 7, 1989. The Arkansas Gazette reports that the county district's attorney told the county board that the settlement went through 27 revisions before being made public because of the complexity of the issues. (Exhibit 7) 12. March 11, 1989. In explaining the settlement to the Joint Budget Committee, the State's attorney noted that: \"This agreement is so fragile that if it starts to unravel in any way, if there's any kind of modification to it, it's going to fall apart and unravel in 100 434696-v1 2 I   I I I  I I I I I I -~ I different ways.\" In the same article, Senator Max Howell noted he did not want to vote for the settlement if it meant forever prohibiting consolidation of the three county districts. \"I'm not antagonistic toward the dollars, but I am concerned that I understand the small print.\" (Exhibit 8) 13. March 12, 1989. One statewide commentator, in characterizing Section II J, opined that: \"A brazen provision slipped into this settlement at the last minute guarantees there will be no consolidation of the school districts. Surprise!\" (Exhibit 9) 14. March 16, 1989. The Arkansas Senate approves the bill funding the settlement but adds an amendment asking the Federal Courts to consider four changes in the settlement including: \"Disapproval of language that would retain the autonomy of the three Pulaski County districts.\" As Senator Max Howell stated: \"I would hope the Court would be aware that we in the Legislature feel the folks who caused this should not continue to be in control of the situation.\" (Exhibit 10) The press reported that: \"Legislators have expressed concern that the provision would forever bar the State from merging the three districts, and the State Education Department's attorney told them Monday that McCutcheon (the Special Master) apparently shared that concern.\" (Exhibit 10) 15. March 18, 1989. Press reports described II J as one of the \"key\" provisions of the settlement. (Exhibit 11) 16. March 24, 1989. Mr. Herschel Friday writes the attorneys for the parties noting that: \"During the debate which preceded the vote to fund the settlement in this case, I was repeatedly questioned on whether changes requested by the legislature could be made in the settlement. A copy of the requested changes is enclosed for your 434696-v1 3       I I I . I  I ready reference. I agreed to follow through to see that the legislative requests were duly considered by the parties and to use my best efforts in this regard. . . . Will you please discuss these requests with your clients so that we can meet in the near future and address these matters.\" (Exhibit 12) A copy of the requested changes, which included Section II J, is attached as (Exhibit 13) . 17. March 31, 1989. Counsel for the AEA informs Mr. Friday that they object to removing any of the items from the settlement agreement. (Exhibit 14) 18. December 11 , 1989. The District Court purports to approve the settlement agreement but only after imposing certain modifications. 726 F.Supp. 1544, 1549 . 19. December 12, 1990. The Court of Appeals reverses the District Court, ruling that the Settlement Agreement should have been approved as written by the parties. 971 F.2d 160@ 164, 165 . Previous Efforts To Enforce Violations Of The Settlement Agreement 20. At least three times during the decade of the 1990s, the Pulaski districts were forced to sue the State to enforce the Settlement Agreement. 21. On January 13, 1995, the District Court ruled that the State had violated the Settlement Agreement as respects Workers' Compensation payments due the three Pulaski districts. (Docket No. 2337). This order was affirmed on appeal. 22. On January 13, 1995, the District Court ruled that the State had violated the Settlement Agreement as respects \"loss funding\" for M-to-M students (Docket No. 2337) and the financial award was affirmed on appeal. 23. Later, the District Court rules that the State has violated the Settlement Agreement as respects reimbursement for teacher retirement and health insurance benefits due 434696-v1 4 I  I I I I I I II I  l _i I . I . I le I the three Pulaski districts. This matter was subsequently settled and the three districts continue to receive these payments to this day. The Detachment Effort 24. 2001. The General Assembly enacts ACA 6-13-1501, et seq. Representatives of the PCSSD testify against the measure. The statute permits detachment under specified circumstances but only for districts with an average membership of at least 15,000 students but not more than 20,000 students. The PCSSD is the only district in the State of Arkansas which fits this criterion. 25. November 21, 2002. A so-called feasibility study for forming an independent school district in Northeast Pulaski County detached from The Pulaski County Special School District is completed. (Exhibit 15) 26. The study examines three alternative areas for detachment and concludes at page 39 that Alternative I be selected. (Exhibit 15) 27. February 25, 2003. An \"Addendum\" to the feasibility study is completed and is inserted in the back of the November 21, 2002, study behind page 89, the concluding page of the November study. (Exhibit 15) 28. March, 2003. A petition drive is commenced, subsequently concluded and petitions are delivered on May 19, 2003, to the Arkansas Department of Education. 29. April 15, 2003. The Legislature approves an amendment to ACA 6-13-1501, et seq. adding a criterion allowing detachment from school districts which encompass a total area of 700 square miles or more. The Pulaski district, at 726 square miles, is the only district which meets this criterion. 434696-v1 5        ,      le I I 30. May 30, 2003 . Carolyn Staley certifies that the petition has sufficient signatures. 31. June 4, 2003. The Attorney General's office, as required by this statutory scheme, renders an opinion but states he is unable to clearly opine as to whether or not the statutory requirements have been met because of the lack of information in the feasibility study. (Exhibit 16) 32. June 9, 2003. The State Board of Education conducts a hearing on the detachment petition but delays action. It instructs the petitioners to \"answer the questions\" raised by the Attorney General and to submit that information to the Attorney General's office so that the Attorney General may issue a \"definitive\" opinion on the issue. 33 . June 27, 2003 . The petitioners deliver their supplemental materials to the State Board and to the Attorney General's office including an opinion from an attorney regarding the affects or lack thereof upon desegregation. (Exhibit 17) 34. July 11, 2003. The Attorney General issues a new opinion which, while still highly qualified in many respects, opines that the petition could be granted if certain findings are made. (Exhibit 18) 35. July 11, 2003 . The State Board of Education, in the afternoon, gives notice that it has scheduled a hearing to take up this matter again on July 14, 2003. 36. The PCSSD objects to the timing of the meeting and the lack of notice. (Exhibit 19) 37. July 14, 2003 . The State Board of Education conducts another hearing and votes unanimously to authorize an election on the detachment issue. 434696-v1 6 I le I I I I I I I -I I I I I I  I I 38. 39. July 16, 2003. The State Board issues its \"Order for Election\". (Exhibit 20) July 24, 2003 . The PCSSD files suit in Pulaski County Circuit Court arguing that the Detachment Statute is unconstitutional and that the petition is invalid. (Exhibit 21) 434696-v1 Respectfully submitted, WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026amp; JENNINGS LLP 200 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 2300 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3699 (501) 371-0808 FAX: (501) 376-9442 7 I I I I I I I I - I I I I I I I  I CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE On July J.(io03 , a copy of the foregoing was served via U.S. mail on each of the following : Mr. John W. Walker John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 2000 Regions Center 400 West Capitol Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Ms. Ann Brown Marshall ODM One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Ray Simon Director of the Arkansas Department of Education 4 State Capitol Mall Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-1071 Mr. Will Bond 602 W. Main Jacksonville, AR 72076 Mr. Timothy Gauger Assistant Attorney General 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, AR 72201 434696-v1 8 Mr. Mark A. Hagemeier Assistant Attorney General Arkansas Attorney General's Office 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell Law Firm Plaza West Building 415 N. McKinley, Suite 465 Little Rock, Arkansas 72205 Mr. Scott Smith General Counsel Arkansas Department of Edudation #4 Capitol Mall, Room 404-A Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Mark Burnette 1010 W. Third Street Little Rock, AR 72201 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE II On July.2~003, a copy of the foregoing was served via U.S. mail on each of the  following :  II   I I I  I I Mr. John W. Walker John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway  Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 2000 Regions Center 400 West Capitol Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Ms. Ann Brown Marshall ODM One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Ray Simon Director of the Arkansas Department of Education 4 State Capitol Mall Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-1071 Mr. Will Bond 602 W. Main Jacksonville, AR 72076 Mr. Timothy Gauger Assistant Attorney General 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, AR 72201 434696-v1 8 Mr. Mark A. Hagemeier Assistant Attorney General Arkansas Attorney General's Office 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell Law Firm Plaza West Building 415 N. McKinley, Suite 465 Little Rock, Arkansas 72205 Mr. Scott Smith General Counsel Arkansas Department of Edudation #4 Capitol Mall, Room 404-A Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Mark Burnette 1010 W. Third Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Raymond Simon Director State Board of Eaucation JoNell Caldwell, Chair Little Rock Shelby Hillman, Vice Chair Carlisle Luke Gordy Van Buren Robert Hackler Mountain Home Calvin King Marianna Randy Lawson Bentonville Ma~- Rebick u;7:'ffock Diane Tatum Pine Bluff Jeanna Westmoreland Arkadelphia REl, ... .-vED JUL 2 9 2003 OFFICE OF Arkansas D EGREGATIOH MONITORING Department of Education #4 Capitol Mall, Little Rock, AR 72201-1071 501-682-4475 July 28, 2003 Mr. M. Samuel Jones, III Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 200 West Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. John W. Walker John Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Mark Burnette Mitchell, Blackstock, Barnes, Wagoner, Ivers \u0026amp; Sneddon P. 0. Box 1510 Little Rock, AR 72203-1510 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 400 West Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 Mr. Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones 425 West Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Ann Marshall One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 http:/ /arkedu.state.ar.us RE: Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District, et al. U.S. District Court No. 4:82-CV-866 Dear Gentlemen and Ms. Marshall: Per an agreement with the Attorney General's Office, I am filing the Arkansas Department of Education's Project Management Tool for the month ofJuly 2003 in the above-referenced case. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at your convenience. ia~ General Counsel Arkansas Department of Education SS:law cc: Mark Hagemeier RECEIVED UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUL 2 9 2003 EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DNISION OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAlNTIFF V. No. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al DEFENDANTS NOTICE OF FILING In accordance with the Court's Order of December 10, 1993, the Arkansas Department of Education hereby gives notice of the filing of the ADE's Project Management Tool for July 2003. Respectfully Submitted, ~ Attorney, Arkansas Department of Education #4 Capitol Mall, Room 404-A Little Rock, AR 72201 501-682-4227 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Scott Smith, certify that on July __ , 2003, I caused the foregoing document to be served by depositing a copy in the United States mail, postage prepaid, addressed to each of the following: Mr. M. Samuel Jones, III Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 200 West Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. John W. Walker John Walker, P.A. 1 723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Mark Burnette Mitchell, Blackstock, Barnes Wagoner, Ivers \u0026amp; Sneddon P. 0. Box 1510 Little Rock, AR 72203-1510 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 400 West Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 Mr. Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones 425 West Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Ann Marshall One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 j.1aL~ Smit IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION RECEIVED JUL 2 9 2003 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL OFFICE OF PLAINTIF~SEGREGATION MONITORING V. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENORS KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS ADE'S PROJECT MANAGEMENT TOOL In compliance with the Court's Order of December 10, 1993, the Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) submits the following Project Management Tool to the parties and the Court. This document describes the progress the ADE has made since March 15, 1994, in complying with provisions of the Implementation Plan and itemizes the ADE's progress against timelines presented in the Plan. - IMPLEMENTATION PHASE ACTIVITY I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS A. Us_!:! the previous year's three quarter average daily membership to calculate MFPA (State Equalization) for the current school year. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of July 31 , 2003 l@b.!iiij1w:~b.~ffii:;~~ii!ir~B~Jli~f.~'2'-i9.ailii!li!l:ifYt.~t~d.\\ffi~ B. Include all Magnet students in the resident District's average daily membership for calculation. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. - ---- - - I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) B. Include all Magnet students in the resident District's average daily membership for calculation. (Continued) 2. Actual as of July 31, 2003 ~lt.\\i;ie~iil~i~tlll\u0026amp;.i:1ir\u0026amp;liifi4nif;.$.QJ~i\u0026gt;.O~;Iif.i~:.A:t.li;\\~I~.a:r~:i~:tj_fq,r.;;fX C. Process and distribute State MFPA. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of July 31, 2003 ~1i~~~-~~91i::g91t~E~t~.td~.Yti9'0:;2.f~~I~;:~!J~.!\\~~'tr2.t\\.\"'E;~nfffri:ef1.9.f.~.6X:q?/.9~-w.~re D. Determine the number of Magnet students residing in each District and attending a Magnet School. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of July 31, 2003 ~1'9\\1~ Bi~~{~!~flilj~;i~f \u0026amp;iliklr40g:9.?lti'.ai~c(a(::JlJH~::3.0}~'bo~.f.off.Y E. Desegregation Staff Attorney reports the Magnet Operational Charge to the Fiscal Services Office. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing, as ordered by the Court. 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT Little Rock Division Eastern District of Arkansas JUL 3 0 2003 NOTICE JAMES W. McCORMACK, CLERK .By: ______ __,,=~- DEP CLERK LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, Plaintiff vs. Case No.: 4:82CV00866-WRW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, et al, Defendant ******************************************************************* Type of Case: CIVIL ** ****** ***************************** *** *************************** TAKE NOTICE that a proceeding in this case has been set for the place, date and time set forth below: ******************************************************************* Place: U. S . Courthouse 600 West Capitol Little Rock, AR Ave., Room 431 72201 Date: MONDAY, AUGUST 18, 2003 Time: 10:00 A.M. *- **************************************************************** Type of Proceeding: MOTION TO ENFORCE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT HEARING ******************************************************************* Presiding Judge : BILL WILSON ******************************************************************* Instructions: ******************************************************************* James W. McCormack, Clerk of Court r By: JOHNSON Deput c9 Counsel of Record Dated: 07/30/03 RECEIVED JUL 3 1 2003 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING Fit1: ~-- tAsr~1:it g\\SiR1cr P STR1cr A2!J~, '\"\"NSAs JUL 3 0 20u3 JAMES W By:  McCORMACK - , CLERK UPDATE ON THE REDESIGN OF HARRIS ELEMENTARY SCHOOL AND THEEPCLERi,; REZONING OF SCHOOLS IN THE SHERWOOD AREA OF THE Ann S. Marshall Federal Monitor PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT July 30, 2003 Office of Desegregation Monitoring United States District Court Little Rock, Arkansas Horace R. Smith Associate Monitor    This project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resources.\u003c/dcterms_description\u003e\n   \n\n\u003c/dcterms_description\u003e   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\u003c/item\u003e\n\u003c/items\u003e"},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_458","title":"Program Evaluations for the Comprehensive Partnerships for Mathematics and Science Achievement (CPMSA), 1998-99, 1999-2000, 2000-01, and 2001-02","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":["Little Rock School District"],"dc_date":["2002-12-19"],"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","Educational statistics"],"dcterms_title":["Program Evaluations for the Comprehensive Partnerships for Mathematics and Science Achievement (CPMSA), 1998-99, 1999-2000, 2000-01, and 2001-02"],"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/458"],"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":["121 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\nProgram Evaluations for the received DEC 1 1 2002 desegregation monitoring Comprehensive Partnerships for Mathematics and Science Achievement (CPMSA) 1998-99,1999-2000, 2000-01, and 2001-02 Funded by the National Science Foundation Presented to the Board of Education for Approval December 19, 2002 Division of Instruction Little Rock School District 3001 S. Pulaski Little Rock, AR 72206 www.lrsd.org 501/447-3320Table of Contents CPMSA Strategic Plan for 1998-1999 CPMSA Program Evaluation for 1998-1999 May 20,1999, Feedback from NSF Site Visit Team July 16,1999, Presentation Handouts for Reverse Site Visit to NSF 1999-2000 CPMSA Strategic Plan CPMSA Program Evaluation for 1999-2000 January 24,2000, Feedback from NSF Site Visit Team September 2000February 2002 CPMSA Strategic Plan CPMSA Program Evaluation for 2000-2001 January 16, 2001 Feedback from NSF Site Visit Team March 15, 2001 Feedback from Mid-Point Review (Reverse Site Visit to NSF) April 11, 2001 Revised CPMSA Strategic Plan September 1,2001February 28, 2002, CMPSA Strategic Plan CPMSA Program Evaluation for 2001-2002 May 7, 2002, Feedback from Reverse Site Visit to NSF September 2002August 2003 Strategic PlanLITTLE ROCK PARTNERSHIPS FOR MATHEMATICS AND SCIENCE (LRPMSA) Management Plan Year One 1998-99 Strategy 1. Implement a plan to improve the achievement of all students Action Step 1. Form vertical teams involving all 5 high schools, all 8 junior high schools and representative elementary schools Drivers 6 C y Indicators List of team members Timeline September, 1998 Responsibility' Vanessa Cleaver Principals 2. Send representatives to College Board Vertical Teams (VT) Conference List of conference participants February, 1999 3. Train representative to facilitate group meeting Phyllis Caruth participated in College Boards train the trainer workshop Februry, 1999 Vanessa Cleaver Phyllis Caruth 4. VT to meet on a quarterly level Agenda and sign-in sheets Spring, 1999 Ongoing 12. Ensure the developed policies for mathematics and science education for all students will continue to be implemented 3. Add policies to strengthen the course offerings for mathematics and science 1. 2. 3. 1. Include matli/science improvement component in individual school improvement plans (SIP) Assess progress of schools in following or meeting their plan Review and revise middle and high school Curriculum Catalog Develop K-12 talent development plan to improve G/T, honors, and AP student enrollment and success 2 2 sips submitted and reviewed Annual principal evaluation conference Published High School Curriculum Catalog, 1999- 2000 K-12 Talent Development Committee established Eliminated the honors/enriched layer of courses between the regular level and the Pre-AP/AP level at grades 6-12 for 1999-2000 school year October, 1998 Spring, 1999 December, 1998 November, 1998 Sadie Mitchell Frances Cawihon Marian I acey Dennis Glasgow Sadie Mitchell Frances CawtF.on Marian Lacey Dr. Bonnie Lesley Dr. Bonnie Lesley Talent Development Committee Dr. Lesley I 22. Construct curriculum maps ofLRSD standards/benchm arks with Arkansas standards, SAT9 testing objectives (plus other tests as appropriate), and instructional materials K-12 Curriculum maps for science and mathematics January, 1999 Dennis Glasgow Vanessa Cleaver Project Staff 4. Implement a standards-based curriculum 1. Pilot standards- based programs at District schools, monitor schools to determine level of implementation 1 List of schools/teachers who are piloting programs Spring, 1998 Dennis Glasgow Vanessa Cleaver Project Staff Principals 2. Provide training for teachers who pilot programs Training dates, agendas and participants Fall, 1997 3. Provide training for 6\"' grade mathematics teachers who implement Connected Mathematics__ Training dates, agendas, participants Spring, 1999 Ongoing (4 34. 5. 6. J 7. Project (CMP) Provide training for 9\"' grade teachers who will implement Active Physics Provide training for 6\"' grade science teachers who will implement Science and Technology for Children (STC) Provide training for 4'' and 5' th grade teachers who will implement Investigations in Number, Data and Space Implement STC U Classroom observation Spring, 1999 (6 66 August, 1999 Dennis Glasgow Vanessa Cleaver Project Staff Dennis Glasgow Vanessa Cleaver Project Staff 4Principals 8. Implement CMP 4 Classroom observation August, 1999 9. Implement Investigations 10. Implement Active Physics Classroom observation Classroom observation August, 1999 August, 1999 5. Increase level of support for science and math education among all relevant stakeholders 6. Ensure all relevant stakeholders understand systemic change as a strategy for improving mathematics and science education 1. 1. 2. 3. Implement Family Math and Science program in six schools Present to Christian Ministerial Alliance Present to Volunteers in Public Schools (VIPS) Board Present to the Little Rock Parent 4 5 Schedule and participants Agenda Agenda Agenda Spring, 1999 November, 1998 March, 1999 April, 1999 Principals Family Math and Science Coordinators Vanessa Cleaver Vanessa Cleaver Vanessa Cleaver 5Jeacher Association Council 4. Design a dissemination brochure for key stakeholders about the LRPMSA 5 Brochure June, 1999 Vanessa Cleaver Suellen Vann 7. Develop plan to improve students interest in pursuing mathematics, science and engineering 8. Develop a plan to assure success tor all students in Algebra 1 1. Expand VITAI. LINK to include more businesses that have careers with math/science focus 2. Expand and monitor SECME programs 1. Coordinate the establishment of a two-week, halfday Algebra 1 program - Summer Mathematics Advanced 3 1 Math/science additions to VITAL LINK Phase-in schedule for SECME at District schools Schedule for SMART April, 1999 Spring, 1999 August, 1999 Vanessa Cleaver Debbie Milam Vanessa Cleaver Jo Evelyn Elston Vanessa Clea\\ er SMART Committee 6Readiness Ifaining (SMART) 99 9. Io increase the coordination among existing funding sources in support of sj stemic reform in mathematics and science 10. Plan professional development 1. Develop plan to fund (Title I, NSF) the new positions of lead teachers for mathematics and science standards-based curriculum implementation 3 Lead teachers hired August, 1999 Dr. Bonnie Leslej Dennis Glasgow Leon Adams Vanessa Cleaver 1. Provide ongoing training for new and first year secondary mathematics and science teachers 1 Agendas for inservices for new/first-year teachers Fall, 1998 Ongoing Vanessa Cleaver Dennis Glasgow Project Staff Principals ! i ___ I 7J I L I I I I I / r Little Rock Comprehensive Partnerships for il I I ! i i i Mathematics and Science Achievement Haas. # / 'V i ! I II I I Aimual Progress Report 1998-1999 1 i % I ) I  LITTLE ROCK COMPREHENSIVE PARTNERSHIPS FOR MATHEMATICS AND SCIENCE ACHIEVEMENT (LR CPMSA) The Little Rock Comprehensive Partnerships for Mathematics and Science Achievement (LR CPMSA) is a major effort to promote a higher standard of learning and performance in mathematics and science in all students in the Little Rock School District (LRSD). OVERVIEW OF THE SYSTEM There are fifty-one schools in the LRSD, serving approximately 25, 000 students: TOTAL 35 8 5 1 1 L 51 elementary schools middle schools high schools vocational technical school Alternative Learning Center Accelerated Learning Center (high school) There are 919 K-12 mathematics and science teachers in the LRSD. More specifically, 735 are elementary teachers, 94 secondary science teachers, and 90 secondary mathematics teachers. The following list describes the District's student demographics by race/ethnicity: Afidcan American 67% Hispanic, Asian, and other minorities 3%, White 30% The LR CPMSA is a comprehensive program designed to focus on all K-12 mathematics and science programs through a variety of components addressing the needs of students, educators, and parents. The primary program components include: 1. 2. 3. 4. Implementation of standards-based curricula Development of district-wide policy and practice changes Resource convergence Paitnerships Small scale implementation of some of the curricula occurred during the 1998-1999 school year, the first year of planning/implementation of the LR CPMSA, for the purpose of developing training and trainers for the programs and reforming the curriculum. A very comprehensive professional 1998-1999 Annual ReportT development program was then launched to prepare nearly 800 mathematics and science teachers for the first phase of implementing high quality standards-based curricula, effective instructional practices, and effective student assessment. Professional development occurred during the first year in preparation for implementation of standards-based curricula for all students in the following grade and subject levels during the 1999-2000 school year:  4* and 5* grade mathematics teachers  6* grade mathematics teachers  6* grade science teachers  9* grade science teachers  1 -5* grade science teachers (1 kit) SI INFLUENCE ON THE SYSTEM I Standards-Based Curricula/Instruction The mathematics and science curricula that are being phased-in over a period of four years are national curricula that were developed with fimding from the National Science Foundation: Mathematics Investigations in Number, Data, and Space Connected Mathematics Project (CMP) Elementary (K-5) Middle School (6-8) Heath McDougal-Littell High School (11-12) I Pacesetter Pre-calculus Through Modeling High School Science Science and Technology for Children (STC) Elementary - 6* grade Science and Life Issues (SALI) grade Science Education for Public Understanding Project (SEPUP) 8* grade Active Physics 9* grade Mathematics and science vertical teams were formed to align local mathematics and science standards and benchmarks to the national standards. These standards and benchmarks were used to I' 1998-1999 Annual Report 2 I I Ihelp select McDougal-Littel for the high school mathematics courses because it is well aligned with the national standards. Standards-based textbook programs are currently used as resources for biology, chemistry, and earth science. The textbook-based programs are used to support the districts science standards and frameworks that are based on the national standards in science. Additional resources are used by teachers as necessary to flesh-out the standards-based program. The implementation schedule for the standards-based curricula is detailed in the following chart- Standards-Based Mathematics and Science Implementation Schedule Grade Level Kindergarten r* Grade 2 Grade 3 Grade 4*^ Grade 5 Grade 6'\" Grade 7 Grade 8 Grade 9\" Grade 10-12' Grades IB\" 1999-00 2000-01 \u0026gt; 1 STC kit \u0026gt; 1 STC kit \u0026gt; 1 STC kit \u0026gt; 1 STC kit \u0026gt; All 4 modules of INV \u0026gt; 1 STC kit \u0026gt; All 4 modules of INV \u0026gt; All 5 modules of CMP \u0026gt; All 4 STC kits \u0026gt; 2 modules of CMP \u0026gt; 2 modules of CMP \u0026gt; All Active Physics modules \u0026gt; Continue 1 STC kit \u0026gt; Continue 1 STC kit \u0026gt; All 4 modules of INV \u0026gt; Continue 1 STC kit \u0026gt; All 4 modules of INV \u0026gt; All 4 STC kits 2001-02 \u0026gt; All 4 modules of INV \u0026gt; All 4 modules of INV \u0026gt; All 4 STC kits \u0026gt; All 4 STC kits \u0026gt; All 4 STC kits 2002-03 \u0026gt; All 4 STC kits \u0026gt; All 5 modules of CMP \u0026gt; All SALI kits \u0026gt; 3 modules of CMP \u0026gt; All 5 modules of CMP \u0026gt; All SEPUP Modules Secondary mathematics and science curricula will align with National Standards and textbooks will be used along with supplementary resources to support those standards. Pacesetter Pre-Calculus will be available at the high school level. INV - Investigations (Grades K-5 Math) CMP - Connected Math Project (Grades 6-8 Math) STC - Science and Technology for Children (Grades 1-6 Science) SALI - Science and Life Issues (Grade 7 Science) SEPUP - Science Education for Public Understanding Project (Grade 8 Science) Active Physics - (Grade 9 physics) All students in the identified grade-levels in grades K-8 will participate in the standards-based curricula according to the schedule. In grades 9-12 all students will be taught a curriculum that 1998-1999 Annual Report 3Tl aligns with the national standards. Not all students, however, will participate in the same program. Ninth grade physics students, for example, may take Active Physics or Pre-AP Physics, a theorybased course. Also, Pre-calculus Through Modeling is an elective course for students. Students may elect trigonometry as their pre-calculus course. I Assessment System (1998-1999) The assessment program consists of a menu of assessments that included the following: Standford Achievement Test (SAT-9) Arkansas Benchmark Exams EXPLORE and PLAN (Pre-ACT tests) Local Criterion-Referenced Test (CRT) ACT (optional) Advanced Placement Exams (optional) Grades 3,5, 7, 8,10 (mathematics and science) Grades 4, 8 (Literacy and math) Grades 8, 10 (math and science reasoning) Grades 2-6 (math and literacy) High school (math and science reasoning) AP students (math and science) These assessments are aligned with the curriculum. The closest alignment is obtained through the state benchmark exams and local CRTs. The EXPLORE, PLAN, ACT and AP exams are also closely aligned with the curriculum. The SAT-9, EXPLORE, PLAN, state benchmark exams and local CRTs were used with all (some exemptions allowed for special education and Limited English Proficiency (LEP) students) students at the identified grade levels. The ACT and AP exams were elected by a smaller group of students. 1998-1999 Annual Report 4 I I I,Professional Development Extensive professional development was provided for the standards-based curricula being implemented by the district. The professional development for the 1998-99 school year was as follows: STANDARDS-BASED PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT (List each activity conducted during the 98-99 project year.) Activity 12/10/98 03/10/99 03/11/99 03/24/99 03/16/99 03/17/99 04/06/99 04/07/99 04/08/99 04/17/99 04/20/99 04/22/99 04/27/99 04/28/99 04/29/99 05/04/99 05/05/99 1 Year Math/Science Teacher Training 1' Year Math/Science Teacher Training 1' Year Math/Science Teacher Training Extended Year Algebra I Planning 4* Grade STC Training 4' Grade STC Training s' Grade CMP Training S*** Grade CMP Training s' Grade CMP Training 6' Grade CMP Training 4* Grade STC Training 4 Grade STC Training 5 Grade TERC Training 5*' Grade TERC Training s' Grade TERC Training 5*' Grade TERC Training s Grade TERC Training 05/06/99 5* Grade TERC Training 05/11/99 s Grade TERC Training 05/12/99 s' Grade TERC Training 05/13/99 S* Grade TERC Training 05/13/99 Math Vertical Teams 05/18/99 STC Training of Trainers 05/18/99 Math Vertical Tearns 05/19/99 STC Training of Trainers 05/19/99 S* Grade STC Training 06/02/99 Kindergarten UMS Math Training 06/02/99 4' Grade TERC Training 06/02/99 1'Grade STC Training 06/02/99 3\"* Grade STC Training 06/03/99 1' Grade UMS Math Training 06/03/99 4\"'Grade TERC Training 06/03/99 2* Grade STC Training 06/03/99 5' Grade STC Training 06/04/99 2\"^ Grade UMS Math Training 06/04/99 4\"' Grade TERC Training 06/02/99 - 06/15/99 Active Physics Training 06/15/99 SMART Training (Algebra) 06/28/99 - 07/02/99 Math Solutions Training 07/06/99 - 07/16/99 Conceptual Physics Training 07/12/99 - 07/30/99 Summer Science Institute 08/12/99 9-12 Grade Math Training 08/12/99 9-12 Grade Science Vertical Tearns 08/12/99 Geology and Space Science Training 1998-1999 Annual Report Number of Participants For Mathematics Elem M/S 5 5 4 3 15 16 16 16 Sec. 1 1 1 4 Number of Participants For Science Elem. M/S 12 12 12 Sec. 3 4 3 16 17 21 23 Number of Hours Trained 22 22 22 24 24 24 27 29 29 2 1 5 9 6 13 6 22 105 121 120 121 111 121 19 3 6 2 54 135 132 128 98 18 19 10 46 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 1 6 1 6 6 3 6 6 6 3 6 6 6 6 6 60 3 30 60 105 6 6 6(List each activity conducted during the 98-99 project year.) Number of Participants For Mathematics Number of Participants For Science Number of Hours Trained Activity 08/13/99 9-12 Grade Math Training 08/13/99 - 08/13/99 08/13/99 08/13/99 08/16/99 08/16/99 08/16/99 08/16/99 08/16/99 08/16/99 08/16/99 08/16/99 08/16/99 08/16/99 08/16/99 08/16/99 08/17/99 08/17/99 08/17/99 09/01/99 09/01/99 09/02/99 09/02/99 09/08/99 09/08/99 09/10/99 09/14/99 09/20/99 09/21/99 09/21/99 09/22/99 09/23/99 09/24/99 09/28/99 09/29/99 09/30/99 Physics Training Earth Science Training Chemistry - SEPUP Training Biology - Project Life Training 3\"* Grade TERC Training 5**' Grade TERC Training 6'*' Grade CMP Training T'W Grade Math Training 8\" Grade Algebra Training 9-12 Grade Math Training 6*\" Grade Project Life Training 7'\" Grade Project Life Training Grade SEPUP Training Physics Training Chemistry Training Biology - Project Life Training 3^ Grade TERC Training 5' Grade TERC Training 6* Grade CMP Training 4* Grade STC Training s' Grade STC Training 5'*' Grade STC Training 6*^ Grade STC Training 4* Grade TERC Training 5\"' Grade TERC Training s' Grade TERC Training 4* Grade TERC Training 1' Grade STC Training Math Vertical Teams 2\"^ Grade STC Training 3^ Grade STC Training 4\" Grade TERC Training 4\" Grade TERC Training 6*\" Grade CMP Training Physics Training Physics Training 1998-1999 Annual Report Elem M/S Sec. 51 Elem M/S Sec. 104 89 20 6 10 17 96 89 21 33 31 21 30 29 6 19 25 11 16 4 16 51 14 37 19 13 12 6 17 19 15 4 7 17 10 20 19 19 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 1 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 I I I I 1': jiThe total number of teachers and administrators who participated in professional development during the 1998-99 school year is as follows: Professional Development Totals List the total number of participants in each of the following categories: (non-duplicate count) A. Teachers B. Preservice teachers C. Administrators/Supervisors 40 D. Other school staff 13L Total W List the number of participants who were: A. Male 131 B. Female 838 List the number of participants who were: A. White, non-Hispanic B. Black, non-Hispanic C. Hispanic D. Asian, Pacific Islander 333 2 1 E. American Indian/Alaskan Native Most of the professional development undertaken during the 1998-99 school year was initial formal training on the standards-based curriculum that the teachers were targeted to implement. All teachers who are implementing standards-based curricula are provided professional development. Principals, counselors, and lead teachers are also provided with professional development to assist 1998-1999 Annual Report 7them in understanding the standards-based curricula and the systemic change initiative being undertaken in the Little Rock School District. Once implementation began in the 1999-2000 school year, follow-up training has occuned, both at a district level and at the individual classroom level. Lead teachers in math/science provide individual teachers with in-classroom coaching, demonstration lessons, team teaching, and technical assistance. Policy Changes The policies for mathematics and science education are part of the systemic reform in all core curriculum areas in the Little Rock School District. For the past year, the District has been involved in a comprehensive process to review and revise the Board of Educations policy manual, resulting in an almost totally new set of policies in the section on Instruction. Those most relevant to Driver 2 are listed in the table below: The policies that \"indicate a coherent vision that encompasses all students \" are as follows: NEPNCode Ta IQ, IG-R IGA IGBA IGE, IGE-RI IHBB IHBEA. IHBEA-R IHCC IKE __________________Title_____________ Academic Content Standards/Benchmarks Curriculum Development, Adoption, and Review Curriculum Program Alignment and Coherence Grant-funded Projects Purpose Establishes academic content standards/benchmarks that high school graduates will possess Requires that all curricula be standards-based Curriculum Guides Gifted and Talented Education English as a Second Language Pre-Advanced Placement and Advanced Placement Courses General Education Graduation Requirements, Effective For the Graduating Class of2002 Requires that all special curricula and programs be aligned with the District's Strategic Plan Requires that grant-funded programs be tightly aligned with the District's Strategic Plan Requires that curriculum guides be aligned with state and national standards Establishes definition of giftedness and requires that all students have an opportunity to participate in gifted programs Requires that appropriate and equitable programs and services be provided for ESL students to ensure achievement of the standards and benchmarks Provides for pre-AP and AP courses in grades 6-12 and ensures that there are no barriers to participate in these programs Establishes graduation requirements that include 3 units of math to include Algebra I, Algebra II and Geometry and 3 units of science to include physics, biology and chemistry The Little Rock School District is committed to standards-based educational programs that ensure i! jl that all students will be appropriately challenged. The policies listed above address the components of a standards-based curriculum and ensure that all students are enrolled in high quality and I I 1 I i i I N I I I 3 I 1998-1999 Annual Report 8 111rigorous programs. By policy, all Little Rock School District students must enroll in and successfully complete Algebra I-II and Geometry and Physics I, Biology I, and Chemistry Ias minimums. The Recommended Curriculum includes a fourth year in both mathematics and science and a second year of technology applications. Recruiting high quality mathematics and science teachers is one of the priorities of the Little Rock School District. We continually work in partnerships with area colleges and universities to identify potential teachers in these priority areas, and we are currently working on a grant application with the University of Arkansas at Little Rock (UALR) on a preservice program related to mathematics and science. The issue of providing adequate time for ongoing professional development of mathematics and science teachers has been a challenging one in the Little Rock School District due to our emphasis on keeping teachers in the classroom for the highest possible quality of instruction and on the shortage of qualified substitutes that would free teachers for professional development activities. A Cabinet-level retreat will be held to initiate a plan for a total infrastructure in support of a high quality professional development program for the District. Alignment The following policies and regulations address the requirement of a tight alignment among curriculum, instruction, assessment, and professional development: IG-R: IGA: IGBA: IGE: IGE-RI: Curriculum Development, Adoption, and Review Curriculum Program Alignment and Coherence Grant-Funded Projects Curriculum Guides Curriculum Guide Development Policies on professional development alignment are still under development. Currently, policies addressing assurance of adequate financial and administrative support for the ongoing professional development of mathematics and science teachers are still under development. However, the current practice is to support the development of mathematics and science teachers through as many funding sources as are available - such as the local budget. 1998-1999 Annual Report 9'r I Eisenhower funds, Class-size reduction funds, other grants, etc. (See Resource Convergence for further details). Six elementary math/science teachers, one middle school science teacher, one middle school math teacher, and one high school math teacher currently serve as teacher leaders in the implementation of new standards-based curriculum and instruction. These teachers were selected based on the demonstration of outstanding work in implementing standards-based instruction in the classroom. They serve as professional developers, coaches/mentors, and role models for other teachers in the District. Their new roles are one of the ways that the District recognizes and rewards our outstanding teachers. Teachers are encouraged to participate in all national, regional, and state recognition programs, and Little Rock mathematics and science teachers are frequently among the winners in such recognition programs. The Districts accountability system includes rewards and recognition for schools that meet the challenging trend and improvement goals established by the State and by the District. Each school is then encouraged to recognize and reward its outstanding teachers and students. Dr. Leslie Gamine, superintendent of the Little Rock School District, serves as principal investigator of the LR CPMSA. Dr. Camine has provided support and guidance for the LR CPMSA since his arrival in 1998. Dr. Camine has provided visibility for the LR CPMSA with the School Board, community members, administrators, and teachers in the district. An Advisory Committee was identified and met monthly to review the CPMSA project activities and to focus discussion on the progress in meeting the objectives. Members of the Advisory Committee include representatives from the programs primary partners and the six senior LRSD personnel. Additional committee members include school administrators, counselors. teachers, parents, business and community leaders, and professionals in areas of mathematics and science. Another layer of support, during the 1998-1999 school year, was the Management Team. The Management Team consists of senior administrators including the superintendent, associate and I 1998-1999 Annual Report 10 Iassistant superintendents. The following list identifies the departments of the other district personnel represented on the management team: \u0026gt; \u0026gt; \u0026gt; \u0026gt; \u0026gt; \u0026gt; \u0026gt; \u0026gt; \u0026gt; Mathematics and Science Planning, Research and Evaluation Gifted and Talented Staff Development Early Childhood Pupil Services Volunteers in Public Schools/Partners In Education Communications Business Office The management team met monthly to identify and address issues that impacted or impeded the progress of the CPMSA. Such issues include the following: \u0026gt; Current district policies/practices   a  Attendance Grades G/T - Talent Development Graduation \u0026gt; Endorsement of proj ect activities The Little Rock School District instituted a policy to establish campus leadership teams at each school to improve performance of all student populations in support of the Districts commitment of sustained school improvement. The campus team consists of school administrators, staff (both school and central office), students, parents, and business/community patrons. The work of the campus teams is organized around the basic components of the Little Rock School District Student Success Model: \u0026gt; \u0026gt; \u0026gt; \u0026gt; \u0026gt; \u0026gt; Skills and Knowledge Continuum Personalized Education Programs Staff Development Community Support Assessment Communication 1998-1999 Annual Report 11Resource Convergence There are four main funding sources that are leveraged in support of improving mathematics and science education: Dwight D. Eisenhower Fund, State Textbook (Math) Fund, Local District .f Budget and the Districts Title I Fund. During the 1998-99 school year, approximately 93% of the Eisenhower budget was used to support mathematics and science education in the Little Rock School District. More specifically, approximately $98,000 was used to fimd the positions of two teacher specialists who, collectively, provide demonstration lessons, team teaching, joint plaiming, school level and district-wide inservice directed at hands-on math and science instruction and the integration of social studies and language arts with science and mathematics. In addition. approximately $58,000 of the Eisenhower Funds were used for training on new mathematics and science standards-based programs as well as other professional development opportunities for mathematics and science teachers (workshops, conferences, consultant fees, materials, etc.). Approximately 95% of the local district budget for mathematics and science were leveraged for inkind services provided by the co-principal investigator, an elementary mathematics specialist and a middle school science specialist. In addition, the local budget (for mathematics and science) was I used to purchase curriculum materials, equipment and office supplies. Other uses of the local budget for mathematics and science include training expenses, and local travel (mileage). The local I district budget was used to match one-half of the Program Evaluators salary and for in-kind services provided by the principal investigator. Lead teachers were hired to help facilitate the implementation of standards-based mathematics and science curricula in the classroom. The lead teachers are funded in the following maimer: 2 - Class-Size Reduction Allocation 1 - Title VI Funds 4 - LR CPMSA 2 - District budget A key resource during the 1998-99 school year was provided by the district budget after securing a waiver from the Arkansas Department of Education to provide three paid days of 1998-1999 Annual Report 12 'Iadditional training for teachers in the implementation of new standards-based curricula and campus leadership planning. The Little Rock Center of Excellence for Research, Teaching and Learning (CERTL) is designed to provide standards-based teacher training and student laboratory experiences in math and science in support of the LR CPMSA. The Little Rock CERTL operates through area institutions of higher education. The University of Arkansas at Little Rock (UALR) and Philander Smith College (PSC) serve as sponsoring institutions for CERTL. UALR and PSC provided the following services for CERTL: Lab School for Teachers/Summer Institute for Students UALR Training provided for pre-service and inservice teachers one week prior to the two- week institute for rising 5''' and 6'^ grade students. Once the institute began, master teachers mentored participating teachers as they applied their learning in a real-life environment by instructing students using standards-basedpedagogy. Summer Algebra Readiness Training PSC A summer institute designed to prepare a group of capable but underachieving rising 9^ grade students for success in Algebra I. The institute was led by a PSC faculty site facilitator and master middle/high school mathematics teachers who were assisted by undergraduate PSC students who served as mentors. Active Physics LRSD Resources provided to pay consultant fees for Active Physics professor from Wisconsin. Eighteen teachers completed coursework that qualified them to receive four hours of graduate physics credit. Leveraging of resources made this training possible for teachers. The Eisenhower Professional Development grant paid stipends to teachers for participating in the course\nthe District provided tuition reimbursement for teachers and supplies/materials for the course\nand, UALR provided the mechanism for teachers to get college credit for training. Additional funding resources were provided by the Arkansas Statewide Systemic Initiative (AS SI) to provide mini-grants to two LRSD schools for implementation of the Family Math/Science Program. State funds provided under the Advanced Placement Incentive Program, Act 929 of 1997 were allocated for teachers to attend one-day and/or two-day conferences (registration fees only) for Pre-Advanced Placement and Advanced Placement teachers. During 1998-99, thirty-one (31) mathematics teachers, grades 6-12, attended College Boards two-day Mathematics Vertical Teams Conference in Little Rock. In addition, twenty-six (26) science teachers, grades 6-12, attended 1998-1999 Annual Repon 13UALRs Vertical Teams Conference for science teachers. A total of $9,525 in state funds was allocated for LRSD mathematics and science teachers. 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. SECMEs goal, which is tightly aligned with the LR CPMSA goals, 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 School District 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. LR CPMSA funds were used to support the SECME program in five additional schools. The use of technology and telecommunications is expanding in the District with the programs and opportunities available: 1. 2. 3. Compressed Video - Available at three schools (two elementary schools and one middle school). The compressed video is the virtual classroom project that connects the sites with each other and with the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences (UAMS). Professors from UAMS will provide learning experiences for students that will promote their competency in biology and other sciences. EAST (Environmental and Spatial Technology) Labs - Located at Central High and McClellan High Schools. Students have access to a project-based curriculum that integrates advanced software applications ranging form architectural and design engineering systems to global positioning systems and geographical information system software. The focus of this program is on the integration of the tools as aids to the learning process. Cisco Academy - Available at Hall High School. This program prepares students for jobs in network administration. The program involves a partnership with Cisco Systems as well as Pulaski Technical College, a Cisco regional academy that will provide teacher training and program monitoring. I I I In addition to the aforementioned programs, all school sites have access to the Internet. Most I J ' access areas are presently in the media centers although many schools are adding computers to the classroom as funds permit the purchases of the equipment. Internet is being used in a variety of I ways: using the web for searching local and distant libraries, databases, educational sites. I collaborating on projects and creating web sites. 1998-1999 Annual Report 14 aPartnerships During the 1998-99 school year, the initial year of the LR CPMSA, presentations about the goals of the LR CPMSA were developed and delivered to the following organizations: 1. 2. 3. 4. Little Rock PTA Council Volunteers in Public Schools Board Christian Ministerial Alliance Vital Link Business Partners In addition, a dissemination brochure was developed to describe the goals and objectives of the Little Rock CPMSA. During 1998, the District entered into a partnership with the Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development (ASCD) called the Urban Professional Development Initiative. This initiative enabled District staff to develop an improved plan for delivering professional development to support implementation of new initiatives including those in mathematics and science. A partnership with the Arkansas Statewide Systemic Initiative (ASSI) provided Family Math and Science Programs in five additional elementary and middle schools. Currently, 58% of the Districts elementary and middle schools have implemented the Family Math and Science Program (up from 46.5%). An effort to promote understanding and acceptance among stakeholders about the systematic change necessary for improving mathematics and science education was through the Vital Link partnership. Vital Link is a system that is designed to give middle school students a behind-the- scenes look at the world of work. Seventy-three (73) businesses hosted nearly 400 rising 7* grade students for one week providing first-hand knowledge of the connection between skills learned in the classroom and those needed for success in the workplace. During the Vital Link Business Orientation, business representatives received an overview of the Little Rock CPMSA goals and objectives. The businesses along with the participating teachers were asked to provide more experiences in the work place that would allow students to see and understand the relationship between school and the work place. Of the nearly 400 students who went through the program. 1998-1999 Annual Report 15 J 42% indicated an interest in mathematics and 48% indicated an interest in science. Students participating in Vital Link recorded their experiences daily in a journal. Outputs and Outcomes of the System via SI Influence The following chart presents an itemized summary of the stated goals for the LR CPMSA project as of the 1998-1999 school year. Additionally, imder the heading entitled, Key Performance Indicators, is information indicating the extent to which each of the goals has been achieved. Three codes are used in the colunm entitled. Status: TARGET MET (target has been fully met)\nON TARGET (work is progressing as scheduled towards target)\nand NOT YET (indicating that work is not progressing as district expects and is thus identified for review by the CPMSA project staff). Note: August, 1999 - The LRSD board of directors adopted a comprehensive assessment program (for students in grades 3-11) that would allow student growth to he measured from the beginning of the year to the end of the year through CRTs aligned with the curriculum standards. Utemized Summary of Project Goal/Outcomes Key Performance Indicators Baseline 1997-1998 to 1998-1999 Status 1. To enact policies and practices that will result in an increase by 2% the composite scores of underrepresented minority students in grades 2-11 on the Stanford Achievement Test\nI a. SA T-9 complete battery for all students Decrease in the percent of 5 grade students scoring above the 50' percentile from 40% during the 1997- 1998 school year to 37% during the 1998-1999 school year\nNOT YET Decrease in the percent of 7'* grade students scoring above the 50' percentile from 40% during the 1997- 1998 school year to 37% during the 1998-1999 school year\nI Increase in the percent of 10'* grade students scoring above the 50\"' percentile from 37% during the 1997- 1998 school year to 39% during the 1998-1999 school year\nNOT YET ON TARGET I I I j b. SA 1-9 complete battery for underrepresented minority students Decrease in the percent of S* grade students scoring above the 50'' percentile from 25% during the 1997- 1998 school year to 23% during the 1998-1999 school year\nNOT YET I I 1 I I I I 1998-1999 Annual Report 16 I I I k ilc. Project Goal/Outcomes Key Performance Indicators Baseiine 1997-1998 to 1998-1999 Decrease in the percent of 7* grade students scoring above the 50* percentile from 26% during the 1997- 1998 school year to 24% during the 1998-1999 school year\nDecrease in the percent of 10* grade students scoring above the 50* percentile from 25% during the 1997- 1998 school year to 23% during the 1998-1999 school year Status NOT YET NOT YET SAT-9 mathematics sub-test for all students grades 5, 7, 10 Decrease in the percent of 5* grade students scoring above the 50th percentile on the SAT-9 (mathematics) from 33% to 31% during the 1998-1999 school year\nNOT YET No change in the percent of 7* grade students scoring above the 50* percentile on the SAT-9 (mathematics) - 35% (1997-1998 and 1998-1999) NOT YET Decrease in the percent of 10* grade students scoring above the 50th percentile on the SAT-9 (mathematics) from 42% during the 1997-1998 school year to 41% during the 1998-1999 school year\nNOT YET d. SAT-9 mathematics sub-test for underrepresented minority students Decrease in the percent of 5* grade students scoring above the 50* percentile from 20% during the 1997- 1998 school year to 24% during the 1998-1999 school year\nNOT YET Increase in the percent of 7* grade students scoring above the 50* percentile from 18% during the 1997- 1998 school year to 21% during the 1998-1999 school year\nON TARGET Decrease in the percent of 10* grade students scoring above the 50* percentile from 30% during the 1997- 1998 school year to 27% during the 1998-1999 school year NOT YET e. SA T-9 science sub-test for all students grades 5, 7, 10 Decrease in the percent of 5* grade students scoring above the 50* percentile from 38% during the 1997- 1998 school year to 33% during the 1998-1999 school year\nNOT YET / SA T-9 science sub-test for underrepresented minority students 1998-1999 Annual Report Decrease in the number of 7* grade students scoring above the 50* percentile from 40% during the 1997- 1998 school year to 39% during the 1998-1999 school year\nDecrease in the percent of 10* grade students scoring above the 50th percentile from 42% dining the 1997- 1998 school year to 40% during the 1998-1999 school year\nDecrease in the percent of 5* grade students scoring above the 50* percentile from 22% during the 1997- 1998 school year to 19% during the 1998-1999 school year\n17 NOT YET NOT YET NOT YET JProject Goal/Outcomes Key Performance Indicators Baseline 1997-1998 to 1998-1999 Status 1998-1999 Annual Report Decrease in the percent of 7* grade students scoring above the 50\"' percentile from 27% during the 1997- 1998 school year to 26% during the 1998-1999 school year\nDecrease in the percent of lO\"' grade students scoring above the 50'*' percentile from 29% during the 1997- 1998 school year to 25% during the 1998-1999 school year State Benchmark Exam Decrease in the number of 4* grade students scoring at the Proficient and Advanced Proficient levels on the mathematics exam from 26.3% during the 1997-1998 school year to 22.1/% during the 1998-1999 school year. A decrease of 4.2%\nGrade 8 EXPLORE EXPLORE is acts 8^ grade program that assesses students academic progress and helps students begin to explore and plan for the wide range of educational and career options open to them. Increase in the local mean score on the EXPLORE (mathematics) for S* grade students from 11.9 during the 1997-1998 school year to 14.6 during the 1998-1999 school year - 23% increase. The mean score for African American students increased from 11.7 during the 1997-1998 school year to 13 during the 1998-1999 school year on the EXPLORE (mathematics) - 11% increase. Increase in the local mean score on the science portion of the EXPLORE for all 8\" grade students from 11.3 during the 1997-1998 school year to 13.7 during the 1998-1999 school year - 21% increase. Increase in the local mean score for African American students on the science portion of the EXPLORE increased from 11.2 during the 1997-1998 school year to 12.1 during the 1998-1999 school year - 8% increase. PLAN PLAN is acts 1 (f'' grade program that provides a midpoint review of students progress toward their educational and career goals. Increase in the local mean score for 10*^ grade students on the math portion of the PLAN from 14.9 during the 1997-1998 school year to 15.6 during the 1998-1999 school year - 5% increase. A slight decrease in the mean score for African American students on the math portion of the PLAN from 13.8 during thel997-1998 school year to 13.7 18 NOT YET NOT YET NOT YET ON TARGET ON TARGET ON TARGET ON TARGET ON TARGET ON TARGET I I I I I I I' 1 J2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. Project To implement policies and practices that will enroll all district 8^ and/or 9\"' graders in Algebra I by 2003\nTo increase the algebra success rates for all students by 2%\nTo increase the number of students who eruoll in geometry and trigonometry by 2%\nTo increase the student success rates in geometry and trigonometry by 2%\nTo increase the student success rates in biology by 2%\nTo increase the student success rates in chemistry from 62% in Year 1 to 75% in year V of the agreement\nTo increase the enrollment in physics from 17% to 30% by year V\n1998-1999 Annual Report Key Performance Indicators Baseline 1997-1998 to 1998-1999 during the 1998-1999 school year - ,7% decrease. Increase in the local mean score for 10'*' grade students on the science reasoning portion of the PLAN from 16.2 during the 1997-1998 school year to 16.7 during the 1998-1999 school year - 3% increase. An increase in the mean score for African American students on the science reasoning portion of the PLAN from 15.4 during the 1997-1998 school year to 15.5 during the 1998-1999 school year - .7% increase. LRSD Quality Indicator - 90% of a middle school's student will be enrolled in Algebra I by grade 8 - practice implemented during the 1998-1999 school year. Increase in the number of students who were successful in Algebra I from 57% during the 1997-1998 school year to 59% during the 1998-1999 school year. Increase in the number of students who enrolled in trigonometry from 497 during the 1997-1998 school year to 548 during the 1998-1999 school year resulting in a 10% increase\nA decrease in the number of students who enrolled in geometry from 1843 during the 1997-1998 school year to 1442 during the 1998-1999 school year- 22% decrease. An increase in the number of students who successfully completed geometry from 44% during the 1997-1998 school year to 57% during the 1998-1999 school year - 13% increase A decrease in the number of students successfully completing trigonometry from 80% during the 1997- 1998 school year to 75% during the 1998-1999 school year - 4% decrease An increase in the number of students who successfully completed biology from 56% during the 1997-1998 school year to 60% during the 1998-1999 school year - 4% increase. An increase in the number of students successfully completing chemistry from 66% during the 1997-1998 school year to 76% during the 1998-1999 school year. Increase in the number of students enrolling in physics from 136 during the 1997-1998 school year to 151 19 Status ON TARGET ON TARGET ON TARGET TARGET MET TARGET MET NOT YET TARGET MET NOT YET ON TARGET ON TARGET ON TARGET JProject Goal/Outcomes Key Performance Indicators Baseline 1997-1998 to 1998-1999 Status during the 1998-1999 school year - A 11% increase. 9. The CPMSA school district shall implement an articulated, standards- based curriculum, instructional, and assessment program that has been field tested by NSF or recommended by entities such as professional science educational organizations, and/or jurisdictions like the state where the CPMSA school district is located. The CPMSA school district shall also design and implement standards-based professional development for teachers, staff development for counselors and administrators, and student enrichment activities that support this articulated, standards-based program. Professional development began for implementation of standards-based mathematics and science program for all teachers at identified grade levels\nProfessional development also provided for principals and counselors during the 1998-1999 school year ON TARGET Summary Nearly 700 professional development hours were designated to prepare teachers to implement high- quality standards-based mathematics and science curricula. The LR CPMSA is moving in the right directions towards achieving its outcomes and goals. In August 1999, the Little Rock Board of Directors adopted a comprehensive assessment program for students in grades 3-11. This program will allow student growth to be measured from beginning of the year to the end of the year through criterion-referenced tests that are tightly aligned with curriculum standards. Results of these assessments will provide a catalyst for determining professional development and student academic enrichment needs in mathematics and science. Services provided by institutions of higher learning and other partners, for teachers and/or students. will also be driven by student achievement data. Modifications will be made in the following areas to further address student achievement in mathematics and science: 1 1998-1999 Annual Report 20 I I I, !Science curriculum A need exists to accelerate the science curriculum along with mathematics to ensure that all students receive high-quality standards-based instruction. The project staff is working closely with the superintendent to modify this program. High School Plan Standards and benchmarks aligned with national standards were developed for K-12 mathematics and science. Vertical teams will continue to be utilized to ensure a smooth transition in mathematics and science for all students through grade 12. The project staff will review high school models (for mathematics and science) that will provide a comprehensive high-quality education. Partners The primary partners, University of Arkansas at Little Rock, Philander Smith College, University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, and the Museum of Discovery, continue to provide professional development for teachers and enrichment programs for students that are aligned with the goals of the LR CPMSA. These programs include the Summer Science Institute, Summer Mathematics Advanced Readiness Training, Summer Algebra Readiness Program, and the After-School Science Clubs. These programs, which provide important support, will be scaled up to reach more students and teachers. 1998-1999 Annual Report 21 I' NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION 4201 WILSON BOULEVARD ARLINGTON, VIRGINIA 22230 May 20,1999 Dr. Leslie Carnine Superintendent Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Dr. Carnine: On behalf of the National Science Foundations (NSF), Division of Educational System Reform, 1 wish to express our gratefulness to the Little Rock School D/sfricf personnel, including teachers, principals, and students for their effective participation and warm hospitality during the site visit held on April 27-29 1999 _ The purpose of this site visit was to assess the progress made by the Little Rock Comprehensive Partnerships for Mathematics and Science Achievement Program (LRCPMSA) to date. One of the key findings of the site visit was the notable progress made by the Little Rock School District in some of the areas relative to K-12 systemic reform in mathematics and science education. Piloting and implementing standards- based curriculum programs is, unequivocally, a Year 1 accomplishment w ic will lead the Initiative to further progress in this critical area. Likewise the establishment of new policies and measures, particularly programmatic is definitely an aspect of the District that favors the achievement of the Initiative s vision. While working with educational systems in the transformation and renewal of K- 12 mathematics and science education using systemic reform as a strategy, it this multifactorial enterprise, standards-based becomes apparent that among this multifactorial enterprise, curriculum implementation, professional development, an p measured bv reliable standards-based assessment systems are the three most S and cVrSequential elements. Therefore, the LRCPMSA is encouraged to ensure the quality of these essential variables, their alignment correspondence through effective, research-baset^ strategies^h patolar, the LRCPMSA is urged to revisit its profess,ona development com^ne make it consistent with the Initiatives purpose and concern to NSF-in order to make it consisteni wnn me - scope of work. Professional development is, consequent y. to be prioritized in the immediate future. fDr. Lelslie Camine 2. The major concern raised, as a direct result of this visit was the lack of substantive evidence to support the value added of the CPMSA Program in Little Rock to the Districts reform agenda in science and mathematics. The absence of an action plan to guide the work in Year 1 and the fact that approximately 62% of NSF funds are still unused are some of the factors contributing to this situation. There are fundamental areas that the LRCPMSA needs to focus in the immediate future. These areas include: (1) Convergence of the usage of all resources that are designed for or that reasonably could be used to support science and mathematics education fiscal, 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. (2) Broad-based support from parents, policymakers, institutions of higher education, business and industry, foundations, and other segments of the community for the goals and collective values of the program, based on rich presentations of the ideas behind the program. (3) Accumulation of a broad and deep array of evidence that the program is enhancing all students 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). (4) Improvement in the achievement of all students, including those historically underserved. The LRCPMSA is requested to attend a reverse site visit at NSF in July 1999. The purpose of this visit is to assess the progress made by the initiative in its first year of implementation and the specific plans for the immediate future, particularly Year 2. Furthermore, assessment of the impact and value added of the CPMSA Program to the Districts science and mathematics education agenda will be the primary focus of the reverse site visit. The evaluation of the progress made by the CPMSA in Little Rock conveyed during this reverse site visit, including a detailed analysis of the 1997 and 1998 mathematics and science student performance data by grade level, will be used by NSF to determine the level of funding for the LRCPMSAs second year of funding. It is important to underscore that per the extant cooperative agreement,Dr. Leslie Carnine 3. the level of continued NSF support will depend upon an annual review of achievement, the level of support from other sources, and the availability of funds. Likewise, the LRCPMSA is reminded that based on this annual progress report, the Foundation will determine whether full support to the CPMSA will continue or if funding to phase-out this effort will occur. The following set of dates are suggested for this purpose: July 9,16, or 23, 1999. The LRCPMSA is expected to select one of these dates or suggest a different option to NSF. The Initiatives key leadership should attend the reverse site visit, including the Principal Investigator, the co-Principal Investigators, and the Project Director. Attached is a copy of the site visit report. It includes major findings, concerns, and recommendations. Please share it with the LRCPMSAs staff and Districts representatives. Please call me at (703) 306-1685, extension 5836, should you have questions or comments regarding the content of this report. May I wish you success in achieving high standards of excellence in science and mathematics education for all students in the Little Rock Independent School District. Sincerely, I JuHo E. Ldpez-Ferrao Program Director Division of Educational System Reform cc: Luther S. Williams Dennis Glasgow Vanessa Cleaver National Science Foundation Directorate for Education and Human Resources Division of Educational System Reform Urban Systemic Program Little Rock Comprehensive Partnerships for Mathematics and Science Achievement (LRCPMSA) Program Site Visit Report April 27-29,1999 Introduction The Comprehensive Partnerships for Mathematics and Science Achievement (CPMSA) Program The Comprehensive Partnerships for Mathematics and Science Achievement (CPMSA) Program strives to improve the quality and quantity of science and mathematics education delivered by entire school districts or systems. Recognizing that currently only a small percentage of precollege students ultimately pursue undergraduate studies in science and mathematics fields, the National Science Foundation (NSF) has encouraged the development of activities that focus on students who have not previously shown much interest in science, but who might become involved and successful if properly motivated to do so. Thus, the primary goal of the CPMSA Program is to develop systemic approaches to increase the number of students enrolling in and successfully completing precollege courses which will prepare them to pursue undergraduate programs in the sciences, engineering, and mathematics. Building on NSFs strategy of forging alliances and partnerships for systemic reform, eligible city school systems were required to link to institutions of higher education, business and industry, professional organizations, community-based organizations, and other educational organizations to facilitate the attainment of the following objectives:  Develop or revise courses and other enrichment activities in the elementary and secondary schools with a substantial number of students enrolled to improve the quality of precollege science and mathematics education.  Develop and strengthen the capacity to deliver standards-based quality instruction in school science and mathematics education for students that will result in a significant increase in the number of them becoming high school graduates who are academically prepared to enter college and major in the sciences, mathematics, or engineering. Develop and sustain district-wide policies that will significantly increase student enrollments and successful completion of gatekeeping courses, such as algebra in the eighth and ninth grades.  Substantially decrease or eliminate academic tracking, improve academic counseling, and facilitate the successful transitions of students from elementary to middle school, from middle school to high school, and from high school into undergraduate programs in science, mathematics, engineering, and technology.  Stimulate efforts among secondary schools and colleges and universities, as well as relevant informal science organizations (e.g., museums, aquaria, etc.) in the region to develop summer enrichment activities.  Stimulate efforts among professional organizations, business and industry to become involved in mentorship programs for precollege students to motivate them to succeed in challenging science and mathematics courses\nand coordinate the partners involved in the various NSF-supported programs, as well as precollege programs supported by other Federal agencies and private sector organizations, to avoid duplication, and to share resources to maximize the available funding.  Develop outreach programs to involve parents and guardians of students, especially those students who are not currently high achievers in the system.  Function in a complementary and collaborative way with other related NSF-funded educational activities within the region, such as the Statewide Systemic Initiatives (SSI) and the Alliances for Minority Participation (AMP). Effective FY 1999, the CPMSA Program, along with the Urban Systemic Initiative (USI) Program, were merged into the new Urban Systemic Programa K-12- based program through which NSF seeks to stimulate interest, increase participation, improve achievement, and accelerate career advancement and success of all students of the participating school districts. The Little Rock School District The Little Rock School District serves a total of 24,886 students for the 1998-99 school year. The District operates 50 school buildings, including 35 elementary schools, 8 junior-high schools, 5 senior-high schools, one vocational-technical- high school, and one alternative school. Since 1982, a federal court order and the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals have guided Districts efforts for the 2desegregation of schools. School assignment is based on attendance zones, and predominantly minority neighborhoods are served by schools with high minority student enrollment. Minority students comprise 71% of the total student body: 67% African American\n29% White\nand 4% Hispanic, Asian, and other minorities. There are 2,191 teachers of whom 919 teach science and mathematics: 735 science and mathematics elementary teachers, 94 secondary science teachers, and 90 secondary mathematics teachers. The CPMSA Program in Little Rock keystaff includes a Director of Mathematics and Science, a Project Director, a Science Specialist, a Mathematics Specialist, and two Science and Mathematics Specialists. The Little Rock Comprehensive Partnerships for Mathematics and Science Achievement (LRCPMSA) Program The Little Rock Comprehensive Partnerships for Mathematics and Science Achievement (LRCPMSA) Program is a collaborative effort for systemic reform of public education aimed at impacting all students. Its overall mission is to develop educational systemic change approaches to produce significant increases in the number of students who are prepared to pursue undergraduate study in science, mathematics, engineering, and technology. The LRCPMSA goals include: (i) Prepare 100% of graduates to successfully complete Algebra\n(ii) Increase the number of students who successfully complete upper-level mathematics and science courses\n(iii) Adopt a Board policy to require that students in Advanced Placement (AP) courses take the AP examination\n(iv) Revise the mathematics curriculum to limit the number of topics for each grade level and subject and to increase the depth at which each topic is taught\n(v) Implement standards-based pedagogy in all classrooms\n(vi) Provide support programs for students in upper level mathematics and science courses\n(vi) Increase the knowledge and involvement of parents in the mathematics and science programs\nand (vii) Provide targeted staff development to assist staff in facilitating the above stated objectives. To accomplish these goals, the Little Rock School District plans to build a partnership effort among leading institutions in the central Arkansas area, including higher education institutions (e.g., the University of Arkansas at Little Rock, Philander Smith College, and the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences: the Arkansas Museum of Science and History\nmunicipal agencies, such as the City of Little Rock and the Little Rock Housing Authority\nthe Central Arkansas Library System\nand the Little Rock Alliance for Our Public Schools. LRCPMSAs monitoring and oversight will be done by the Governing Board\nthe Districts Mathematics and Science Director, the Project Director, and the Science and Mathematics Specialists. 3The NSFs Site Visit Julio E. Lopez-Ferrao, cognizant NSF Program Director, visited the LRCPMSA, on April 27-29,1999. The purpose of the visit was to assess the progress made by the CPMSA Program in Little Rock to date. The visit consisted of an introductory meeting on April 27 with the Superintendent, Assistant Superintendent for Curriculum and Instruction, the Director of Mathematics and Science, the Project Director, the Mathematics and Science Specialists, teachers and other Districts representatives in which an overview of the District and the Initiative was provided. A meeting on April 28 with key project-related personnel who are contributing to the achievement of the CPMSA goals and objectives followed this activity. Information on curriculum, professional development, assessment, policies, tracking, partnerships, student support programs, and finance was provided. School visits were made on April 28 and 29 to Romaine Elementary School, Forest Heights Junior High School, and Central High School. Findings, Concerns, and Recommendations Curriculum: The Little Rock School District currently requires three units of science and three units in mathematics for graduation. It has developed K-12 standards and benchmarks for science and mathematics correlated with the state frameworks, the state assessment system {Stanford Achievement Test, 9 Edition or SAT 9), local assessments, and textbooks and instructional materials. A new K-12 curriculum scope and sequence for science encompasses the use of Science and Technology for Children (STC) from first through seventh grade\nScience Education for Public Understanding (SEPUP) at the eighth grade\nActive Physics for the ninth grade\nBiologyA Community Context for the 10 grade\nand ChemCom for the 11* grade, followed by one year for an elective course. The mathematics sequence includes Investigations in Number, Data, and Space from Kindergarten through fifth grade\nthe Connected Mathematics Project for sixth through eighth grade\nMath Connections for ninth and tenth grades, and two years of elective courses. The District has initiated the implementation of mathematics and science standards-based curriculum at different levels by piloting various instructional materials with approximately 3.3% of its mathematics and science teachers to date. This activity is viewed as an advance in this area, since it is evident that the Little Rock School District has decided what to be taught and how to teach it by establishing the new standards and benchmarks. Furthermore, it has begun to assist teachers in the appropriate use of effective mathernatics and science curricula. Nevertheless, it needs to be underscored that while the new curriculum sequence for mathematics is being piloted/implemented through the 4use of full and complete instructional programs with a larger number of teachers and classrooms, the science approach to the implementation of standards-based curricula has been through the use of a limited number of kits, units or modules in a reduced number of schools, which appears to be a slower pace approach. In addition, the official K-12 curriculum sequence pursued by the District is still unclear, since the information provided during the site visit does not identify the entire curriculum continuum being currently considered and promoted (e.g.. How do AP and Pre-AP courses fit into the promoted curriculum K-12 sequences for both science and mathematics?). The CPMSA leadership is encouraged to clarify urgently this important component of its science and mathematics reform agenda. Overall, the District appears to have made some progress in the implementation of standards-based curriculum. However, a major concern and an unacceptable condition to NSF remains regarding the pace of the K-12 science standards- based implementation process and results and the lack of a scale-up strategy to be used in order to ensure the participation of a significant number of schools by the end of the five-year implementation process. Likewise, the role of the four existing science and mathematics specialists in this process seems to be ambiguous. Thus, it is recommended that the LRCPMSA consider the use of additional human resources (e.g., lead teachers by regions) districtwide in the immediate future to address this critical aspect of systemic reform as well as the development and implementation of a comprehensive scale-up plan. Professional Development: It is apparent that the Little Rock School District has made efforts to implement standards-based science and mathematics curricula through professional development activities. Similarly, it seems that the CPMSA Program has provided professional development experiences for first year mathematics and science teachers, vertical teams, counselors, and school principals. New and first-year secondary mathematics and science teachers participated in a series of four workshops related to implementation of the mathematics and science curriculum, classroom management, learning styles, use of manipulative materials, cooperative learning, and the use of technology. Inservice programs have begun for all 4*', 5*, and 6' grade mathematics and science teachers for the fall 1999 implementation of new standards-based programs. Analysis of the information provided on mathematics and science inservice programs through August, 1999 indicates that the average duration of the experiences offered to teachers is 2.2 days and that they are essentially focused at assisting teachers with the implementation of new programs, such as STC, Investigations, and Active Physics. Nonetheless, these efforts seem to be fragmented and insufficient that will not lead the Initiative to the districtwide effective implementation of K-12 high-quality curricula as explicitly stated by one of the Initiatives goals. Therefore, the LRCPMSA is encouraged to design a research-based K-12 mathematics and science professional development master 5program for its 919 science and mathematics teachers to be implemented throughout the duration of the project. This program should be aimed at helping the Districts teachers to use high-quality, standards-based curricula at every grade level. Student Performance Assessment: Analysis of the information on student performance assessment (comparison between second semester 1997-1998 and first semester 1998-1999) provided during the site visit reflects an increase in the percent of students graded C or above in courses such as Algebra 1 (+5 /o). Algebra 11 (+6%), Geometry (+3%), Chemistry (+12%), Statistics (+14%), PreCalculus (+7%), AP Calculus (+4%), AP Physics (+1%), and AP Chemistry (+10%). Decreases are shown in Physics (-1%). Biology (-2%), Trigonometry (-1%), and AP Environmental Science (-10%). The Little Rock School District administers the SAT 9 since it is a state mandated test. However, data on this test's results were not provided during the visit. It is recommended that the CPMSA Program in Little Rock design a strategy to gather, interpret, and use student achievement data in order to effectively inform its programmatic decisions in the immediate future. Policies: The Little Rock School District has established a significant number of policies and measures that influence and support K-12 science and mathematics education. Some of these policies include the following\n Establishment of K-12 academic content standards and benchmarks in mathematics and science.  Promotion of mathematics and science standards-based curricula.  Increase in graduation requirements in 1998 (three units of science and three units of science are required currently). A recommended common core and career focus. Class of 2003, includes four units o science and four units of mathematics.  Use of three additional days for professional development through a state waiver.  Elimination of low-level courses effective FY 1999.  Various measures and regulations related to AP courses. The Little Rock School District has, unequivocally, a comprehensive set of policies in place that will benefit and advance the CPMSA Programs expectations in the future. 6Elimination of Tracking: It appears that the Little Rock School District has made particular efforts to meet the individual needs of the student population. The elimination of all lower-level courses constitutes evidence in support of the eradication of academic tracking, which is one of the CPMSAs objectives. Similarly, the inclusion of advanced courses and the various curriculum measures will probably contribute to the successful transition of students from one level to another. Summer Enrichment Activities: The LRCPMSA plans to provide summer enrichment activities for students and teachers through the Southeastern Consortium for Minorities in Engineering (SECME), Joint Recruiting and Teaching for Effecting Aspiring Minorities in Science (J-R TEAMS), and VITAL LINK. SECME is a program offered through a consortium of southeastern universities that motivates minorities to excel in mathematics and science through a club format that includes local and national competitions. JR-TEAMS is a two-week multidisciplinary pre-college science and engineering program that will be offered through a partnership with the University of Arkansas at Little Rock aimed at increasing the number of minority students pursuing degrees in science and engineering. VITAL LINK is a summer work site experience that acquaints students with job requirements and responsibilities in a variety of careers. Furthermore, the Extended Year Algebra I Programa two-week summer institute to serve rising 9^* graders who need additional assistance to be successful in Algebra Iwill be implemented as well. Although the CPMSA Program in Little Rock has clear plans to provide student support through summer experiences, it needs to ensure that each of the programs to be implemented represent an extended learning experience for the students that enhances their classroom learning. A thorough evaluation of the outcomes of the upcoming summer programs is highly recommended. Mentorship Programs for Precollege Students: The University of Arkansas at Little Rock will offer Saturday research for students from 7\"11*** grades who will receive assistance in selecting appropriate research topics, setting up a research design, and carrying on the research. Likewise, the Philander Smith College will offer the Summer Algebra Readiness Institute for 9^-grade students who will enroll in Algebra I during the 1999-2000 school year. The program will target students from Central High School located in the surroundings of Philander Smith College. This innovative program will include a follow-up component through which college students will mentor participating students eight times during the school year. The LRCPMSA is encouraged to increase the number of mentorship programs in partnership with local and state organizations and higher education institutions. Parents and Community: The LRCPMSAs parent and community component includes the use of Family Science and Family Math as the main program. Five 7principals identified two teachers per school to participate in a training program designed to guide the implementation of Family Math and Family Science nights. Each school received small grants to hold three night events. Besides, the LRCPMSA plans to inform parents about standards-based mathematics and science via parent-teachers associations meetings, publications, and media coverage. Presentation have been made before the Volunteers in Public Schools Board and the Little Rock Parent and Teacher Association Council to provide information about the Initiative and changes that will take place. Although still in its first year of implementation, the Initiatives activities related to community outreach and parent involvement seem to be exceedingly restricted. The CPMSA Program in Little Rock is urged to design and implement an aggressive community involvement plan to ensure the effective participation of parents, industry, business, and the private sector in general. Building community support, as clearly expressed by the 1998-99 Work Plan forLRSD Priorities is, indeed, an area to which the LRCPMSA can make a significant contribution. As part of the recommended plan, the LRCPMSA is suggested the production of a brochure aimed at communicating to the public is objectives and main accomplishments. Collaboration with Other Related NSF-funded Educational Activities: It is evident that the Arkansas Statewide Systemic Initiative (AR SSI) has influenced the trajectory of the Little Rock School District, particularly in programmatic areas, such as standards-based curriculum implementation and professional development. Currently, the University of Arkansas at Little Rock is engaged in several partnerships with the District, including SECME, and the implementation of the AR SSI K-4, Math and Science Crusades. Likewise, the Museum of Discovery will implement a system of science clubs to be located at various community centers and after-school programs in Little Rock. Additional Findings Related to the Objective of the Site Visit Cooperative Agreement The analysis of Cooperative Agreement No. HRD-9801615 between NSF and the Little Rock School District (September 1,1998 through August 31,2003) revealed the following major issues and concerns:  Deliverables: The LRCPMSA showed no significant data or evidenced a process in place to collect the data needed to document each one of the agreed upon deliverables specified under Section 111 A 7, CPMSA Participant and Systemic Change Goals, pages 4-5 of the cooperative agreement. The Initiative does not seem to have a mechanism to gather the information needed and make it available to teachers, principals at. Furthermore, there does not seem to be a strategy by which the CPMSA leadership become aware of the current 8programmatic problems and situations that may be impeding the achievement of the aforementioned targets. Increasing K-12 science and mathematics student achievement and enrollment, as stated in the cooperative agreement, demands specific programmatic actions as well as a specific data collection system in placenone of which were evident during the site visit.  Governing Board: Section III A9, page 9, reads as follows: The CPMSA shall have a governing board as specified in the proposal. The board shall have sanctioned authority and responsibility for oversight of the programmatic components of the CPMSA. The governing board is expected to oversee the development of the goals, the implementation of the activities and the assessment of the outcomes. The board, in concert with the Principal Investigator, shall recommend to the school district the achievement of project goals and objectives. No evidence was presented during the site visit of the governing boards membership or its intervention in the Initiatives operation. Thus, the role of the aforementioned governing board is unclear at this moment.  Funding and Funding Schedule: Section III B, FUNDING AND FUNDING SCHEDULE, page 6 of the cooperative agreement, reads as follows: 1. It is the intent of the Foundation to provide up to $3,228,022 to support the CPMSA over the next 5 years. Funds in the amount of $960, 578 are hereby provided to support the CPMSA for the period September 1, 1999 to August 31, 2000, in accordance with the revised budget dated April 9, 1998. 2. The level of continued NSF support will be negotiated with the Awardee annually and will depend upon an annual review of achievement, the level of support from other sources, and the availability of funds. 3. The Foundation will evaluate annually the CPMSA to determine whether the Foundation will continue to support full activities, or will provide decreased funding to phase out Foundation support of the CPMSA. There was a misinterpretation about NSFs approved budgets for Years 1 and 2. In order to ensure an adequate understanding and the appropriate 9use of NSFs funds, the following amounts reflected in two separate (signed) budgets, were identified as those officially approved: Year 1 Year 2 $198,533 $752,045 The CPMSAs leadership was encouraged to submit a certified financial report of Year 1 expenditures and obligations. Similarly, the leadership was suggested to rebudget Year 1 in order to address some of the major needs identified during the site visit. Year 2 funds will be negotiated after the completion of Year 1. For this purpose, the LRCPMSA leadership will make a presentation of the Initiatives major accomplishments in Year 1 during a reverse site visit to be held by July 31,1999 at the Foundations headquarters.  Evaluation: Section III A, item 12, page 6 of the cooperative agreement reads as follows: The Awardee shall use the evaluation component found in the proposal ora modified version approved by NSF. There was no evidence of an evaluation plan being used by the LRCPMSA during the site visit. Thus, the Initiative is not in compliance with this inherent component of the agreed statement of work. It is urged to revisit its evaluation strategy and develop a comprehensive evaluation plan that: (i) specifies the strategies to gather, interpret, and use relevant data, (ii) addresses each of the Initiatives components, and (iii) informs the CPMSA leadership in its decision-making process and allows it to readjust plans. Summary One of the key findings of the April 27-29,1999 site visit was the notable progress made by the Little Rock School District in some of the areas relative to K-12 systemic reform in mathematics and science education. Piloting and implementing standards-based curriculum programs is, unequivocally, a Year 1 accomplishment, which will lead the Initiative to further progress in this critica area. Likewise, the establishment of new policies and measures, particular y programmatic policies, is definitely an aspect of the District that favors the achievement of the Initiatives vision. While working with educational systems in the transformation and renewal of K- itiiiiv vir\\iiiy vvivii uvwuwi i-\u0026gt; x x *. 12 mathematics and science education using systemic reform as a strategy, it becomes apparent that among this multifactorial enterprise, standards-based curriculum implementation, professional development, and student performance 10 measured by reliable, standards-based assessment systems are the three most critical and consequential elements. Therefore, the LRCPMSA is encouraged to ensure the quality of these essential variables and their alignment and correspondence through effective, research-based strategies. In particular, the LRCPMSA is urged to revisit its professional development componenta concern to NSFin order to make it consistent with the Initiatives purpose and scope of work. Professional development is, consequently, a domain that needs to be prioritized in the immediate future. The major concern raised, as a direct result of this visit was the lack of substantive evidence to support the value added of the CPMSA Program in Little Rock to the Districts reform agenda in science and mathematics. The absence of an action plan to guide the work in Year 1 and the fact that approximately 62 /o of NSF funds are still unused are some of the factors contributing to this situation. There are fundamental areas of concern that the LRCPMSA needs to address in the immediate future. These areas include: (1) Convergence of the usage of all resources that are designed for or that reasonably could be used to support science and mathematics education fiscal, 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. (2) Broad-based support from parents, policymakers, institutions of higher education, business and industry, foundations, and other segments of the community for the goals and collective values of the program, based on rich presentations of the ideas behind the program. (3) Accumulation of a broad and deep array of evidence that the program is enhancing all students 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). (4) Improvement in the achievement of all students, including those historically underserved. Reverse Site Visit The LRCPMSA is requested to attend a reverse site visit at NSF in July 1999. The purpose of this visit is to assess the progress made by the Initiative in its first year of implementation and the specific plans for the immediate future, particularly Year 2. Furthermore, assessment of the impact and value added of 11 the CPMSA Program to the Districts science and mathematics education agenda will be the primary focus of the reverse site visit. The evaluation of the progress made by the CPMSA in Little Rock conveyed during this reverse site visit, including a detailed analysis by grade level of the 1997 and 1998 mathematics and science student performance data, will be used by NSF to determine the level of funding for the LRCPMSA second year of funding. It is important to underscore that per the extant cooperative agreement, the level of continued NSF support will depend upon an annual review of achievement, the level of support from other sources, and the availability of funds. Likewise, the LRCPMSA is reminded that based on this annual progress report, the Foundation will determine whether full support to the CPMSA will continue or if funding to phase-out this effort will occur. The following set of dates are suggested for this purpose\nJuly 9,16, or 23, 1999. The LRCPMSA is expected to select one of these or suggest a different option to NSF. The Initiatives key leadership should attend the reverse site visit, including the Principal Investigator, the co-Principal Investigators, and the Project Director. 12Reverse Site Visit NSF Friday, July 16,1999 Presentation \u0026gt; Value added by CPMSA \u0026gt; Year One Accomplishments \u0026gt; Data \u0026gt; Year Two Plan \u0026gt; Question and Answer SessionVALUE ADDED BY CPMSA Plan and Process Alignment for improved Student Achievement Little Rock School District Process Data Analysis Campus Plan Process Interventions Professional Development Standards Assessment Accountability Parent Involvement SP X X X X X X RDEP X X X X X X Title I X X X X X X X X ACSIP X X X X X X X X ACTAAP X X X X X X UPDI X X X X X NSF X X X X X X CLP X X X X X X X X SP RDEP Title I ACSIP ACTAAP UPDI NSF CLP strategic Plan Revised Desergregation and Education Plan Title I Arkansas Comprehensive School Improvement Planning Arkansas Comprehensive Testing, Assessment, and Accountability Program Urban Professional Development Initiative National Science Foundation Campus Leadership PlanRelationship of CPMSA Goals and LRSD Quality Indicators _____________________ CPMSA Goals_________________________ (a) LRSD agrees to enact policies and practices that will result in an increase by 2% after Year I of the agreement the composite scores of underrepresented minority students in grades 2-11 on the SAT9. For each subsequent year of the agreement, the LRSD agrees to enact policies and practices that will result in a 5% increase of the composite scores of underrepresented minority students on the SAT9. Nofe: LRSD will no longer administer the SAT9 at grades 2-1 J. Rather, students in grades 2-11 will take each semester a new District-adopted CRT that is aligned with the currictdum standards and benchmarks. LRSD Quality Indicators 65% of a schools students in every sub-group of race and gender at grades 5, 7, and 10 shall perform at or above the 50* percentile in SAT9 mathematics. The percent of students in every sub-woup of race and gender at grades 5, 7, and 10 performing at or above the 50 percentile in SAT9 mathematics will meet or exceed the trend or improvement goals each year. 100% of a schools students in grades 4, 6, and 8 shall perform at or above the proficient level in mathematics on the Arkansas criterion-referenced test The percent of students performing at or above the proficient level in mathematics on the grades 4, 6, and 8 Arkansas criterion-referenced tests will meet or exceed the trend and improvement goals each year. 90% of a schools students shall perform at or above the proficient level in mathematics each semester on the District CRT. The percent of students performing at or above the proficient level in mathematics will meet or exceed the trend and improvement goals each semester on the District CRT. The percent of students demonstrating gains from the pre-test to the post-test will meet or exceed the improvement goal each year on the District CRT. (b) The LRSD agrees to implement policies and practices that will enroll all district eighth and/or ninth grade students in Algebra I by the Year 2003. 90% of a middle schools students will be enrolled in Algebra I by grade 8. The percent of students enrolled in Algebra I by grade 8 will meet or exceed the trend goal each year._____________________________________________________________________CPMSA Goals________________ (c) The LRSD agrees to increase the algebra success rates for all district students by 2% after Year I of the agreement\n5% after Year II of the agreement\n5% after Year III of the agreement\n5% after Year IV of the agreement\nand 5% after Year V of the agreement. (d) The LRSD agrees to increase the numbers of students who enroll in geometry and trigonometry by 2% in Year 1 of the agreement\n5% in Year II of the agreement\n5% in Year III of the agreement\n5% in Year IV of the agreement, and 5% in Year V of the agreement.___________________________ (e) The LRSD agrees to increase the student success rates in geometry and trigonometry by 2% after Year I of the agreement\n5% after Year II of the agreement\n5% after Year III of the agreement\n5% after Year IV of the agreement\nand 5% in Year V of the agreement. (f) The LRSD agrees to increase the student enrollment rates and student success rates in biology by 2% in Year I of the agreement\n5% in Year II of the agreement\n5% in Year III of the agreement\n5% in Year IV of the agreement\nand 5% in Year V of the agreement.____________________________________ (g) The LRSD agrees to increase the student success rates in biology by 2% after Year I of the agreement\n5% after Year II of the agreement\n5% after Year III of the agreement\n5% after Year IV of the agreement\nand 5% after Year V of the agreement.____________________________________________________ (h) The LRSD agrees to increase the student success rates in chemistry from 62% in Year I of the agreement to 75% in Year V of the agreement.__________ (i) The LRSD agrees to increase the student enrollment in physics from 17% to 30% by Year V of the agreement. LRSD Quality Indicators 100% of a schools secondary students shall perform at or above the proficient level in Algebra I. The percent of secondary students performing at or above the proficient level in Algebra I will meet or exceed the trend goal each year. Note: The success rate will also be determined by grades. Note: Geometry is required of all LRSD students for graduation. 100% of a schools secondary students shall perform at or above the proficient level in Geometry. The percent of secondary students performing at or above the proficient level in Geometry will meet or exceed the trend goal each year. Note: The success rates in Geometry and Trigonometry will also be determined by grades._________________________________________ Note: All LRSD students are required to take Biology Ifor graduation. Note: The success rate in Biology I will be determined by grades Note: The success rate in Chemistry I will be determined by grades. Note: Effective fall 1999, all LRSD students must take Physics I in order to graduate.CPMSA Goals LRSP Quality Indicators (j) The LRSD agrees to increase the numbers of students who graduate with SEM proficiency from 40% to 70% by Year V of the agreement. 65% of middle and high school students will be enrolled in at least one Pre-AP or AP course each year. The percent of students enrolled in at least one Pre-AP or AP course will meet or exceed the trend and improvement goals each year. 90% of a high schools students who take the ACT will earn a score of at least 19. The percent of students earning a score of 19 or above will meet or exceed the trend goal each year. 65% of a high schools students will complete the requirements to earn the Honors Seal on their diplomas. Note: Four years of mathematics and science are required. The percent of students completing the requirements for the Honors Seal will meet or exceed the trend goal each year. (k) The CPMSA school district shall implement an articulated, standards- based curriculum, instructional, and assessment program that has been field tested by NSF or recommended by entities such as professional science educational organizations, and/or jurisdictions like the state where the CPMSA school district is located. The CPMSA school district shall also design and implement standards-based professional development for teachers, staff development for counselors and administrators, and student enrichment activities that support this articulated, standards-based program. _________ (I) The LRSD shall implement practices to recruit qualified minority science and mathematics professionals with the goal of increasing minority faculty by 10% by Year V of the agreement. ________________________________ (m) The CPMSA school district shall submit a written program management plan to the cognizant NSF program officer, annually, no later than two months after notification of the award (in year 1) and after notification of continuation of the award in years 2, 3, 4, and 5. ----------------------------------------------------- See Year Two Plan. Success will be determined by numbers of newly certified science and mathematics teachers. See annual Management Plan.CPMSA Goals :h (n) The following quantitative goals for student enrollment and successful completion rates for specific award year are minimal and should be exceeded: \u0026amp;e data report LRSD Qoality Indicators 1998-99 1999-2000 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 10% of the projected increase from the baseline 30% of the projected increase from the baseline 50% of the projected increase from the baseline 70% of the projected increase from the baseline 100% of the projected increase from the baselineLRCPMSA YEAR ONE ACCOMPLISHMENTS 1992^-1999 POLICY #1 - Standards-Based Curriculum, instruction, and Assessment  Developed content standards and benchmarks in mathematics and science for grades K-12  Developed curriculum maps that correlate standards/benchmarks to SAT-9 test, State Mathematics and Science Frameworks, local resources, and assessment strategies  SMART 99 (Summer Mathematics Advanced Readiness Training), an extended year Algebra I program, July 26-August 6, 1999 - Program designed to serve 60 ninth grade students. This program will focus on strengthening skills needed before entering Algebra I by providing opportunities for students to solve real life problems by reasoning, modeling, verbalizing and generalizing patterns and relationships. The graphing calculator will be one of the many tools that students will have access to at all times.  SARP (Summer Algebra Readiness Program), a CERTL activity provided by Philander Smith College, designed to serve 75 ninth grade students beginning July 19, 1999 and concluding August 6, 1999. (Focus of this program is the same as SMART 99).  Summer Science Institute - A CERTL activity provided by UALR, designed to serve 135 fourth and fifth grade students, July 19-30, 1999. The program will focus on hands-on science learning experiences for students that support the newly adopted LRSD Science Curriculum Standards.  Piloted Investigations in two schools:  Romine Elementary School - AH teachers(K-5) in all classrooms implemented  Jefferson Elementary School - All 4** grade teachers in all classrooms implemented  Piloted Science and Technology for Children (STC) in 4 schools\n Chicot Elementary School - All 4 kits in all 5** grade classrooms  Rockefeller Elementary School - 2 kits in all 1* 2\", and 3^^ grade classrooms  Wakefield Elementary School - 2 kits in all 2\", 4* and S* grade classrooms  Franklin Elementary School - 2 kits in all 1-5 grade classrooms  Piloted one module of Connected Mathematics Project (CMP) in all 6 and 7* grade classrooms.  Proposal submitted, pending approval, by UALR for GEAR-UP grant to implement AVID for all 7*^ grade students in 4 middle schoolsDRIVER #2 - Policies and Procedures The Division of Curriculum, Instruction and Assessment (CIA) developed a work plan that identified 52 priorities including the activities of the CPMSA for the 1998-99 school year. One of the major tasks of the work plan was to review and recommend revisions of the Boards Instruction policies. Policies submitted to the Board addressed the following:  Increase in graduation requirements  Requirements for Pre-AP/AP Courses  Recommendation to eliminate low level courses  All students required to take Physics  Quality Index for Schools to improve students achievement  Increase the number of students who are successful in upper level courses  Increase the number of students who are enrolled in upper level courses Plan for 1999-2000  Review and revise grading policy  Review and revise attendance policyDRIVER #3 - District Leadership, Governance and Management  Developed and operationalized Campus Leadership Teams  Management team met monthly to address administrative or policy issues effecting the CPMSA  Governing Board (Advisory Committee) met monthly to review data, program implementation schedules, and to address any corrections needed  Proposal submitted to improve infrastructure for mathematics and scienceDRIVER #4 - Convergence of Resources  Teacher training/research provided by UALR  Local district funds. Eisenhower funds, Title VI, Class Size Reduction funds leveraged with NSF funds to improve infrastructure for mathematics and science  Mini grants provided by Arkansas SSI to two LRSD schools for Family Math and Science Program  Local district budget used to help achieve CPMSA objectives  Stipend for SMART mentors  Stipend for SECME participants  Training for Active Physics  Professional development for math and science specialist - National conferences I t  state textbook funds used for standards based curriculum materials  State funds allocated for teachers to attend AP/Pre-AP training (Science \u0026amp; Mathematics Vertical Teams Workshop)DRIVER #5 - Professional Development  Principals and other building administrators participated in hands-on activities in mathematics and science. Discussed the differences between standards- based instruction and traditional instruction  New and first year secondary mathematics and science teachers participated in a series of four workshops related to the implementation of the mathematics or science curriculum, classroom management, learning styles, use of manipulative materials, cooperative learning and use of technology  Training provided to teachers for the Fall, 1999 implementation of new standards-based programs\n Investigations - All 4* and 5* grade teachers in all schools (full implementation)  STC - All 6* grade science teachers in all schools  CMP - All 6** grade mathematics teachers in all schools  Active Physics -17 science teachers representing all five high schools  Junior High School Mathematics Vertical Teams met monthly Sept. 98- Jan. 99 teachers grades 6-12 attended College Boards  31 mathematics Mathematics Vertical Teams (MVT) Conference in Little Rock - Feb. 99  MVT Steering committee formed and met twice (following MVT Conference) to set short and long term goals for the LRSD\nexplored ways to involve more teachers  26 science teachers grades 6-12 attended UALRs Vertical Teams Conference for science teachersDRIVER #6 - Partnerships, Parental Involvement, Public Awareness  Expanded Family Math and Science program to 5 new schools. Currently 25/43 elementary and middle schools have participated in the Family Math and Science Program  CPMSA Presentation made to the following organizations:  Little Rock PTA Council  Volunteers in Public Schools (VIPS)  Chrisitan Ministerial Alliance  Vital Link Business Partners  Presented an annual update to the LRSD Board of Directors  Designed dissemination brochure (draft)  SMART 99 parent meetingAssessment Practices and Data Utilization  Administered quarterly CRTs to all students in grades 2-6  Administered SAT-9 to grades 5, 7. and 10 as mandated by the Arkansas State Dept, of Education (ADE)  Administered State Benchmark Exams to all students in grades 4, 8, and 11  Data gathered quarterly (and by semester) to determine number of students who are successfully completing the mathematics and science courses listed below: Algebra I Chemistry Pre-Calculus AP Biology AP Physics Algebra 11 Geometry Statistics AP Calculus AP Statistics Biology Physics T rigonometry AP Environmental Science AP Chemistry  Data gathered quarterly (and by semester) to determine number of students who are enrolled in the courses listed below: Geometry Physics Trigonometry Biology  All data disagregated by race, gender and schoolI I I i i I I LRPMSA YEAR ONE DATA 1998^-1999 I Ii SAT-9 Scaled Scores Test Date: September 14, 1998 Test Date for End of Year 1 is September 15, 1999 Five Year Goal: 22% increase First Year Goal: 2% increase Black Students Problem Math Solving Procedures Total Math Science 5th Grade Male Female Total 612 616 615 609 618 613 611 616 614 610 613 612 7th Grade Male Female Total 641 641 641 639 644 641 640 642 641 635 635 635 10th Grade Male Female Total n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 676 678 677 663 666 665 12nd Success Rates of Students in Math and Science Courses Five Year Goal: 22% increase First Year Goal\n2% increase Number Percent of 2nd Number Percent of Semester with 'C or 97-98 Miove \"C or Above Semester with 'C or 98-99 Above 'C' or Above Black Male Black Male Algebra I Algebra II AP Biology AP Calculus AP Chemistry AP Environmental AP Physics AP Statistics Biology Chemistry Geometry Physics Pre-Calculus Statistics Trigonometry 569 409 15 17 3 1 2 3 618 338 595 16 10 19 109 244 154 13 13 1 1 1 2 249 177 166 8 9 10 74 43% 38% 87% 76% 33% 100% 50% 67% 40% 52% 28% 50% 90% 53% 68% 572 398 19 21 10 6 0 3 485 297 451 31 20 11 120 259 183 14 17 8 3 0 2 230 199 192 19 14 9 72 45% 46% 74% 81% 80% 50% 0% 67% 47% 67% 43% 61% 70% 82% 60% % Change 2% 8% -13% 4% 47% -50% -50% 0% 7% 15% 15% 11% -20% 29% -8% 1Success Rates of Students in Math and Science Courses Five Year Goal: 22% increase First Year Goal\n2% increase Number Percent of 2ncl Semester with 'C or 97-98 Above \"C or Above 2nd Semester 98-99 Number Percent of with 'C or Above \"C or Above Black Female Black Female 1 Algebra I Algebra II AP Biology AP Calculus AP Chemistry AP Environmental AP Physics AP Statistics Biology Chemistry Geometry Physics Pre-Calculus Statistics Trigonometry 591 526 37 38 10 1 0 5 654 455 666 29 12 22 134 343 277 34 28 8 1 0 4 386 303 262 21 12 21 86 58% 53% 92% 74% 80% 100% 0% 80% 59% 67% 39% 72% 100% 95% 64% % 588 494 31 34 11 9 0 7 579 393 522 32 17 27 173 335 286 23 27 10 5 0 7 341 307 273 22 14 24 129 57% 58% 74% 79% 91% 56% 0% 100% 59% 78% 52% 69% 82% 89% 75% Change -1% 5% -18% 6% 11% -44% 0% 20% 0% 12% 13% -4% -18% -7% 10% 22nd Success Rates of Students in Math and Science Courses Five Year Goal\n22% increase First Year Goal\n2% increase Number Percent of 2nc/ Number Percent of Semester with 'C or 97-98 Maove \"C or Above Semester with 'C or 98-99 Above \"C or Above Total Black Total Black % Change Algebra I Algebra II AP Biology AP Calculus AP Chemistry AP Environmental AP Physics AP Statistics Biology Chemistry Geometry Physics Pre-Calculus Statistics Trigonometry 1160 935 52 55 13 2 2 8 1272 793 1261 45 22 41 243 587 431 47 41 9 2 1 6 635 480 428 29 21 31 160 51% 46% 90% 75% 69% 100% 50% 75% 50% 61% 34% 64% 95% 76% 66% 1160 892 50 55 21 15 0 10 1064 690 973 63 37 38 293 594 469 37 44 18 8 0 9 571 506 465 41 28 33 201 51% 53% 74% 80% 86% 53% 0% 51% 54% 73% 48% 65% 76% 87% 69% 1% 6% -16% 5% 16% -47% -50% -24% 4% 13% 14% 1% -20% 11% 3% 32nd Success Rates of Students in Math and Science Courses Five Year Goal: 22% increase First Year Goal\n2% increase Number Percent of Semester with 'C or 97-98 Above \"C or Above 2nd Semester 98-99 Number Percent of with 'C or Above \"C or Above Non-Black Male Non-Black Male % Change Algebra I Algebra II AP Biology AP Calculus AP Chemistry AP Environmental AP Physics AP Statistics Biology Chemistry Geometry Physics Pre-Calculus Statistics Trigonometry 274 240 31 75 23 4 24 18 252 198 249 50 6 7 110 163 156 31 64 20 3 22 18 160 139 142 41 5 2 101 59% 65% 100% 85% 87% 75% 92% 100% 63% 70% 57% 82% 83% 29% 92% 270 228 35 47 29 19 10 17 238 163 215 49 9 10 109 197 160 29 38 26 16 10 17 159 128 147 42 7 9 89 73% 70% 83% 81% 90% 84% 100% 100% 67% 79% 68% 86% 78% 90% 82% 13% 5% -17% -4% 3% 9% 8% 0% 3% 8% 11% 4% -6% 61% -10% 42nd Success Rates of Students in Math and Science Courses Five Year Goal\n22% increase First Year Goal: 2% increase Number Percent of Semester with 'C or 97-98 Above \"C or Above 2nc/ Semster 99 Number Percent of 98 with 'C or Above \"C or Above Non-Black Female Non-Black Female % Change Algebra I Algebra II AP Biology AP Calculus AP Chemistry AP Environmental AP Physics AP Statistics Biology Chemistry Geometry Physics Pre-Calculus Statistics Trigonometry 275 287 42 61 27 3 11 32 292 249 333 41 5 14 144 224 213 34 54 24 3 11 31 225 196 245 36 5 13 135 81% 74% 81% 89% 89% 100% 100% 97% 77% 79% 74% 88% 100% 93% 94% 271 305 46 57 24 24 9 27 297 217 254 39 9 9 146 213 245 40 49 24 20 7 26 234 182 212 36 8 7 122 79% 80% 87% 86% 100% 83% 78% 96% 79% 84% 83% 92% 89% 78% 84% -3% 6% 6% -3% 11% -17% -22% -1% 2% 5% 10% 5% -11% -15% -10% 52nd Success Rates of Students in Math and Science Courses Five Year Goal: 22% increase First Year Goal: 2% increase Number Percent of Semester with 'C or 97-98 Above \"C or Above 2nd Semester 99 Number Percent of 98 with 'C or Above \"C or Above Total Non-Black Total Non-Black % Change Algebra I Algebra II AP Biology AP Calculus AP Chemistry AP Environmental AP Physics AP Statistics Biology Chemistry Geometry Physics Pre-Calculus Statistics Trigonometry 549 527 73 136 50 7 35 50 544 447 582 91 11 21 254 387 369 65 118 44 6 33 49 385 335 387 77 10 15 236 70% 70% 89% 87% 88% 86% 94% 98% 71% 75% 66% 85% 91% 71% 93% 541 533 81 104 53 43 19 44 535 380 469 88 18 19 255 410 405 69 87 50 36 17 43 393 310 359 78 15 16 211 76% 76% 85% 84% 94% 84% 89% 98% 73% 82% 77% 89% 83% 84% 83% 5% 6% -4% -3% 6% -2% -5% 0% s3% '7% 10% 4% -8% 13% -10% Algebra I Algebra II AP Biology AP Calculus AP Chemistry AP Environme*' AP Physics AP Statistics Biology Chemistry Geometry Physics Pre-CalcL. I noo-  6Success Rates of Students in Math and Science Courses Five Year Goal\n22% increase First Year Goal: 2% increase 2nd Semester 97 98 Number Percent of with 'C or Above \"C or Above 2nd Semester 98 99 Number with 'C or Above Percent of \"C or Above All Students All Students % Change Algebra I Algebra II AP Biology AP Calculus AP Chemistry AP Environmental AP Physics AP Statistics Biology Chemistry Geometry Physics Pre-Calculus Statistics Trigonometry 1709 1462 125 191 63 9 37 58 1816 1240 1843 136 33 62 497 974 800 112 159 53 8 34 55 1020 815 815 106 31 46 396 57% 55% 90% 83% 84% 89% 92% 95% 56% 66% 44% 78% 94% 74% 80% 1701 1425 131 159 74 58 19 54 1599 1070 1442 151 55 57 548 1004 874 106 131 68 44 17 52 964 816 824 119 43 49 412 59% 61% 81% 82% 92% 76% 89% 96% 60% 76% 57% 79% 78% 86% 75% 2% 7% -9% -1% 8% -13% -2% 1% 4% 11% 13% 1% -16% 12% -4% 7District Enrollment by Grade Percent 1997-1998 1998-1999 Change 7th 8th 9th 10th 11th 12th 1800 1783 1742 1923 1738 1477 1755 1763 1676 1913 1681 1492 -3% -1% -4% -1% -3% 1% Total 10463 10280 -2% Proportion of Students Enrolled to Total District Enrollment, Grades 7th - 12th Algebra I Algebra II AP Biology AP Calculus AP Chemistry AP Environmental AP Physics AP Statistics Biology Chemistry Geometry Physics Pre-Calculus Statistics Trigonometry Number enrolled in 1997-98 1709 1462 125 191 63 9 37 58 1816 1240 1843 136 33 62 497 1998 16.33% 13.97% 1.19% 1.83% 0.60% 0.09% 0.35% 0.55% 17.36% 11.85% 17.61% 1.30% 0.32% 0.59% 4.75% Number enrolled in 1998-99 1701 1425 131 159 74 58 19 54 1599 1070 1442 151 55 57 548 1999 16.55% 13.86% 1.27% 1.55% 0.72% 0.56% 0.18% 0.53% 15.55% 10.41% 14.03% 1.47% 0.54% 0.55% 5.33% Difference Between 97 \u0026amp; 98 0.21% -0.11% 0.08% -0.28% 0.12% 0.48% -0.17% -0.03% -1.80% -1.44% -3.59% 0.17% 0.22% -0.04% 0.58% 1student Enrollment in Math and Science Courses Five Year Goal\n22% increase First Year Goal\n2% increase 2nd Semester 97-98 2nd Semester 98-99 2nd Semester 97-98 2nd Semester 98-99 2nd Semester 97-98 2nd Semester 98-99 Black Male Black Female Total Black Algebra I Algebra II AP Biology AP Calculus AP Chemistry AP Environmental AP Physics AP Statistics Biology Chemistry Geometry Physics Pre-Calculus Statistics Trigonometry 569 409 15 17 3 1 2 3 618 338 595 16 10 19 109 572 398 19 21 10 6 0 3 485 297 451 31 20 11 120 % Change 1% -3% 27% 24% 233% 500% -100% 0% -22% -12% -24% 94% 100% -42% 10% 591 526 37 38 10 1 0 5 654 455 666 29 12 22 134 588 494 31 34 11 9 0 7 579 393 522 32 17 27 173 % Change -1% -6% -16% -11% 10% 800% 0% 40% -11% -14% -22% 10% 42% 23% 29% 1160 935 52 55 13 2 2 8 1272 793 1261 45 22 41 243 1160 892 50 55 21 15 0 10 1064 690 973 63 37 38 293 % Change 0% -5% -4% 0% 62% 650% -100% 25% -16% -13% -23% 40% 68% -7% 21% 1student Enrollment in Math and Science Courses Five Year Goal: 22% increase First Year Goal: 2% increase 2nd Semester 97-98 2nd Semester 98-99 2nd Semester 97-98 2nd Semester 98-99 2nd Semester 97-98 2nd Semester 98-99 Non-Black Male Non-Black Female Total NonBlack Algebra I Algebra II AP Biology AP Calculus AP Chemistry AP Environmental AP Physics AP Statistics Biology Chemistry Geometry Physics Pre-Calculus Statistics Trigonometry 274 240 31 75 23 4 24 18 252 198 249 50 6 7 110 270 228 35 47 29 19 10 17 238 163 215 49 9 10 109 % Change -1% -5% 13% -37% 26% 375% -58% -6% -6% -18% -14% -2% 50% 43% -1% 275 287 42 61 27 3 11 32 292 249 333 41 5 14 144 271 305 46 57 24 24 9 27 297 217 254 39 9 9 146 % Change ^i% 6% 10% -7% -11% 700% -18% -16% 2% -13% -24% -5% 80% -36% 1% 549 527 73 136 50 7 35 50 544 447 582 91 11 21 254 541 533 81 104 53 43 19 44 535 380 469 88 18 19 255 % Change -1% 1% 11% -24% 6% 514% -46% -12% -2% -15% -19% -3% 64% -10% 0% 22nd student Enrollment in Math and Science Courses Five Year Goal: 22% increase First Year Goal\n2% increase 2nd Semester Semester 97-98 98-99 All Students Algebra I Algebra II AP Biology AP Calculus AP Chemistry AP Environmental AP Physics AP Statistics Biology Chemistry Geometry Physics Pre-Calculus Statistics Trigonometry 1709 1462 125 191 63 9 37 58 1816 1240 1843 136 33 62 497 1701 1425 131 159 74 58 19 54 1599 1070 1442 151 55 57 548 % Change 0% -3% 5% -17% 17% 544% -49% -7% -12% -14% -22% 11% 67% -8% 10% 3 JLRPMSA YEAR TWO PLAN 1999-2000 LITTLE ROCK CPMSA YEAR TWO ACTIVITIES 1999-2000 PERSONNEL  The Project Director remains on full time status. BUDGET: $51,000  A full time secretary will be continued to manage office activities and perform clerical duties. BUDGET: $18,360 a The Program Evaluator will move from 25% FTE to 100% FTE with approximately one half salary provided by NSF and one half by the district: BUDGET: $24,000  Ten lead teachers will be utilized to improve the infrastructure for mathematics and science in the districts 50 schools. These lead teachers will provide professional development and classroom level support for the mathematics and science teachers in their cluster. NSF will fund the salaries of four of those lead teachers. BUDGET: $160,000  A full time Instructional Aide will be employed to assist with the implementation of standards based curriculum modules and materials. BUDGET: $10,000 TRAVEL a Travel to NSF Meetings. BUDGET: $5,000 STANDARDS BASED CURRICULA      a Implement Investigations in grades 4 and 5 with all teachers in all schools Implement Science and Technology for Children (STC) in grade 6 with all teachers in all schools Implement 1 STC kit in grades 1-5 with all teachers in all schools Implement Connected Mathematics Project (CMP) in 6** grade with all teachers in all middle schools Implement 2 modules of CMP in 7^ and 8* grade with all teachers in all schools Implement Active Physics in all high schools for o\" grade students PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT  a a New secondary mathematics and science teachers will attend 4 workshops per year. Substitutes will be provided and paid approximately $44/day. BUDGET: 24 substitutes x 4 days x $44/day = $4224 Inservice on new curriculum standards provided for all science and mathematics teachers Training to begin Spring, 2000 for the following teachers\nInvestigations - all 2\"^ and 3' grade teachers in all schools - all 4 modules 1    STC - all K-5 teachers in all schools - 2\" kit CMP - All 7^ grade teachers in all schools - all CMP modules All teachers implementing new standards based curriculum programs in mathematics and science will receive approximately 20 hours of follow-up that includes classroom visits and support by a lead teacher, and district-level follow-up training. Approximately 50% of districts 919 K-12 mathematics and science teachers will receive training on alternative assessment Mathematics and science vertical teams to meet monthly Subcontract with UALR to provide Laboratory School for Teacher Enhancement ACADEMIC SUPPORT PROGRAMS   a   a  a    Conduct 8 follow-up sessions during the school year for 135 summer extended year Algebra I participants. Twelve high school mentors plus 10 college student mentors will conduct sessions. Dr. Frank James, Philander Smith College will facilitate (CERTL). BUDGET: $25/day x 8 days x 12 mentors = $2400 Conduct Summer Mathematics Advanced Readiness Training (SMART) for 240 rising 9* grade students. BUDGET: $100/suppiies x 240 students = $24,000 1 site facilitator x $102/day x 12 days = $1,224 16 teachers x $82/day x 12 days = $15,744 48 student mentors x $40 day x 10 days = $19,200 TOTAL BUDGET $38,568 Continue to Provide tutoring for students in advanced mathematics and science courses Conduct extended year program in science - SUBCONTRACT WITH UALR BUDGET: $50,220 Implement SECME program in 5 new schools during the 1999-2000 school year Continue to increase SECME program with the addition of 9 new schools for the 2000-2001 school year. Two teachers per school to attend summer institute for SECME training (Summer, 2000). BUDGET: $2200 (includes registration, meals, lodging, graduate tuition, and airfare) x 18 teachers = $39,600 Continue to expand VITAL LINK by increasing the number of students participating who are underrepresented and underserved. BUDGET: $6,300 Subcontract with UALR to provide JR-TEAMS Program BUDGET: $24,670 Subcontract with Museum of Discovery to provide Community Based Science Clubs. BUDGET: $40,000 Train students to use the technology component that is embedded in adopted curriculum Train students to use the internet for research purposes and exchange of information 2PARENT/FAMILY/COMIVIUNiTY INVOLVEMENT a    Increase the number of schools participating in the Family Math \u0026amp; Science program. BUDGET: $2,916 Print and disseminate brochure about CPMSA. BUDGET: $1,200 Develop presentation about standards based curricula for Campus Leadership teams, PTA meetings, churches, businesses (brown bag lunch sessions) Develop and produce a video to be aired on LRSD Access Channel about the CPMSA GOVERNANCE a  a  Plan a r/2 -day retreat for the CPMSA Governing Board. A consultant will be obtained to guide the group through team building activities and strategic planning. The governing board will form subgroups that will concentrate on certain aspects of the CPMSA. BUDGET: $1,000 Governing board will meet quarterly to review data and discuss mid-term corrections - subcommittees will meet monthly. Management team will meet quarterly to assist with administrative matters concerning the implementation of the project activities. Project Staff will meet weekly to provide feedback on CPMSA activities ASSESSMENT PRACTICES \u0026amp; DATA UTILIZATION a a a Administer quarterly CRTs in grades 3-11 Administer SAT-9 to grades 5, 7, and 10 as mandated by the State Administer State Benchmark exams to grades 4, 6, 8 and end-of-course (Algebra I and Geometry) TOTAL ESTIMATED BUDGET FOR YEAR TWO - $479,458 (Not including fringe benefits) 3 ILITTLE ROCK PARTNERSHIPS FOR MATHEMATICS AND SCIENCE ACHIEVEMENT (LRPMSA) Strategic Plan, 1999-00 Strategies Action Steps Person(s) Responsible Timeline Measurable Outcomes Driver 1: Implementation of comprehensive, standards-based curricula and/or instructional materials that are aligned with instruction and assessment available to every student served by the system and its partners. 1.1 Provide appropriate interventions for students who are at risk of not meeting or exceeding the mathematics and science standards 1.2 Implement a standards-based curriculum 1.1.1 1.1.2 1.1.3 1.2.1 1.2.2 1.2.3 1.2.4 1.2.5 Conduct extended year Algebra I programs Provide tutoring for students in advanced mathematics and science courses Conduct extended year programs in science ELEMENTARY MATHEMATICS 1.2.11 Implement Investigations in Number, Data, \u0026amp; Space in grades 4 and 5 at all schools and with all teachers MIDDLE SCHOOL MATHEMATICS 1.2.21 Implement Connected Math Project (CMP) in 6' grade in all schools with all teachers 1.2.22 Implement 2 modules of CMP in 7th gth gj.2(Jgg jjj 3JI schools with all teachers HIGH SCHOOL MATHEMATICS 1.2.31 Use content standards and benchmarks to provide standards- based instruction ELEMENTARY SCIENCE 1.2.41 Implement STC Kit in grades 1-5 in all schools with all teachers MIDDLE SCHOOL SCIENCE Vanessa Cleaver Principals Vanessa Cleaver Dennis Glasgow Vanessa Cleaver Dennis Glasgow Vanessa Cleaver Project Staff Principals August, 2000 September, 1999 August, 2000 Fall, 1999 Fall, 1999 Implementation of SMART '00 List of participants Assessment of Pre/Post test Tutoring plans of participating high schools Number of students participating Classroom observations Feedback/analysis given ongoing in grade level, campus, math dept. It n tlj .2.51 Implement all 4 kits of STC in 6*' I grade in all schools with all teachers 1.2.6 HIGH SCHOOL SCIENCE Fall, 1999 1.3 Implement alternative assessment methods that allow teachers to determine a students actual functioning level in math and science so as to provide appropriate programming and to eliminate ability tracking______ 1.4 Train students to use cunent technology to access, evaluate, and apply information and to increase competencies in problem solving, specific content areas and critical thinking skills 1.3.1 1.4.1 1.2.61 Implement Active Physics in all high schools for 9 grade students 1.2.62 Utilize content standards and benchmarks to implement standards-based instruction______ Provide training for mathematics and science teachers on alternative assessment 1.3.11 Implement alternative assessment Train students to use technology component that is embedded in adopted curriculum 1.4.2 Train students to use the Internet for research purposes and exchange of information Dennis Glasgow Marion Woods Vanessa Cleaver Teachers December, 1999 1999-00 Ongoing Classroom observations feedback/analysis given ongoing in grade level, campus, math department 50% of all mathematics and science teachers receive and implement training samples ol alternative assessments Number of students trained H 21.5 Establish an infrastructure to support systemic change in mathematics and science 1.6 Implement vertical teams in mathematics and science 1.5.1 1.5.2 1.5.3 1.6.1 Hire lead teachers Divide elementary schools into 6 clusters and create a middle school cluster, assign a math/science lead teacher for each of the elementary clusters and a math and a science lead teacher for both the middle schools and high schools clusters Provide training for lead teachers Form and implement science vertical teams 1.6.11 1.6.12 Generate list of skills students need before entering next course Meet regularly to develop consistency among science teachers at the middle school and high school levels 1.6.2 Implement math vertical teams 1.6.21 1.6.22 1.6.23 Continue to train teachers to use vertical teams toolkit Meet in horizontal teams to outline lesson plans for the year Develop quarterly assessments for secondary math courses Dennis Glasgow Dennis Glasgow Vanessa Cleaver Dennis Glasgow Vanessa Cleaver Dennis Glasgow Rene' Carson Vanessa Cleaver Vanessa Cleaver Phyllis Caruth Teachers hired List of Clusters Ongoing September, 1999 September, 1999 September, 1999 Ongoing August, 1999 Ongoing August, 1999 August, 1999 Sign-in sheet, agenda List of participants Sign-in sheets List of skills Meeting dates Agendas Sign-in sheets Training/meeting dates Lesson plan outlines Assessment instruments 3j 1.7 Plan professional development rm Conduct needs assessment for mathematics and science teachers I Vanessa Cleaver Dennis Glasgow I September, 1999 Needs assessment evaluated and analyzed 1.7.2 Implement professional development plan Project Staff Ongoing Number of teachers participating in professional development 1.7.3 1.7.4 Provide math \u0026amp; science staff with opportunity to pursue educational endeavors that will promote high educational standards within the District Provide follow-up training for teachers using standard-based curricula Dennis Glasgow Project Staff Dennis Glasgow Vanessa Cleaver Lead teachers 1.7.5 1.7.6 Train principals, assistant principals, and central administrative staff on the systemic reform in math and science Provide training for \"Brokers\" of each school on math and science reform Vanessa Cleaver Sadie Mitchell October, 1999 August, 1999 Ongoing July, 1999 Number of teachers selected to participate in educational endeavors All teachers using standards- based curricula will receive at least 20 hours of follow-up training Dates of training Sign-in sheets 4r DTh^FITD^oTmcnT^f a coherent, consistent set of policies that snpVorts provisions of broad-based reform in mathematics and science at the K-12 level. 2.1 Implement pro- grams, policies and/or procedures designed to ensure that the district hires, assigns, utilizes and promotes qualified African Americans in a fair and equitable manner in such a way to maintain a teaching staff which is approximately third African American one- 2.2 Implement Administrative regulations to support a Board Policy that requires the development of a coherent, articulated set of K-12 academic standards and benchmarks in 2.1.1 Implement LRSD Minority Recruitment Plan 2.1.2 Provide tuition reimbursement to 2.1.3 support teachers, especially minority teachers, to gain certification endorsement in critical math or science areas Support teachers on a district level with a stipend to participate in 8 graduate hours of physics to obtain physics certification endorsement 2.2.1 Train principals, and teachers about the academic content standards 2.2.2 Develop a brochure that informs parents about the standards Robert Robinson Principals Richard Hurley Principals Dennis Glasgow Dennis Glasgow Vanessa Cleaver Math/Science Staff Bonnie Lesley September, 1999 Ongoing September, 1999 Ongoing September, 1999 September, 1999 September, 1999 Number of African American teachers hired Percentage of African American teachers by school, by district, and by subject Number of newly certified math and science teachers by race, gender, and subject area Number of teachers supported by tuition reimbursement by race, gender and subject area Number of teachers paid a stipend to complete graduate physics hours Published standards and benchmarks in math and science, K-12 Number of principals and teachers who received training Completed brochure for parents 5mathematics and science 2.3 Implement administrative regulations to support a Board Policy that all curricula be standards-based and to define what students should know or be able to do at the conclusion of each grade level or course 2.4 Implement administrative regulations to support a Board Policy that guarantees that all students have an opportunity to participate in gifted programs, pre-AP and AP programs 2.2.3 2.2.4 2.2.5 Develop delivery standards to complement the content standards Approve a Board Policy that requires that the curriculum at all levels reflects the academic standards Ensure by policy that all special curriculum and instruction programs be aligned with the Strategic Plan, the revised desegregation plan and the regular education program 2.3.1 Develop administrative regulations to ensure that all curricula are standards- based 2.3.2 Develop benchmarks for each grade level and course that will move students toward the standards 2.4.1 Develop administrative regulations to help guarantee that all children have an opportunity to participate in gifted, pre- Ap and AP programs 2.4.2 Provide training for teachers and counselors about strategies for increasing the rate of participation and success of Bonnie Lesley Bonnie Lesley Bonnie Lesley Bonnie Lesley Bonnie Lesley Mable Donaldson Vanessa Cleaver Dennis Glasgow January, 2000 September, 1999 September, 1999 September, 1999 September, 1999 September, 1999 January, 1999 Completed and approved delivery standards Board policy approved including this language Board policy approved including this language Written and approved administrative regulations to support the Board Policy 100% of curriculum documents referenced to th\nThis project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resoources.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\u003cdcterms_creator\u003eLittle Rock School District\u003c/dcterms_creator\u003e\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_35","title":"Arkansas Department of Education's (ADE's) Project Management Tool","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118"],"dcterms_creator":["Arkansas. Department of Education"],"dc_date":["2002-04/2002-05"],"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":["Education--Arkansas","Office of Desegregation Monitoring (Little Rock, Ark.)","School integration--Arkansas","Arkansas. Department of Education","Project management"],"dcterms_title":["Arkansas Department of Education's (ADE's) Project Management Tool"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/35"],"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":["263 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, plaintiff vs. Pulaski County Special School District, defendant.\n\\ IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION RECEIVED APR 3 o 2002 OFACEOF DESEGREGATION MONITORING LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF v. No. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al. DEFENDANTS NOTICE OF FILING In accordance with the Court's Order of December 10, 1993, the Arkansas Department of Education hereby gives notice of the filing of AD E's Project Management Tool for April, 2002. Respectfully Submitted, MARK.PRYOR Attorney General -y{\\~~~ ~--~~ MARK A. HAGEME~ #94127 Assistant Attorney Gen~ 11 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 682-3643 Attorney for Arkansas Department of Education CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Mark A. Hagemeier, certify that on April 29, 2002, I caused a copy of the foregoing document to be served by U.S. mail, postage prepaid, on the following person(s) at the address(es) indicated: M. SamuelJones,ill Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 2000 NationsBank Bldg. 200 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 John W. Walker John Walker, P.A. 1 723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Richard Roachell P.O. Box 17388 Little Rock, AR 72222-7388 Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 2000 Regions Center 400 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Ann Marshall One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mark A. Hagemeier c IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL PLAINTIFFS V. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENORS KA THERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS ADE'S PROJECT MANAGEMENT TOOL In compliance with the Court's Order of December 10, 1993, the Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) submits the following Project Management Tool to the parties and the Court. This document describes the progress the ADE has made since March 15, 1994, in complying with provisions of the Implementation Plan and itemizes the ADE's progress against timelines presented in the Plan. IMPLEMENTATION PHASE ACTIVITY I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS A. Use the previous year's three quarter average daily membership to calculate MFPA (State Equalization) for the current school year. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of April 30, 2002 Based on the. infqrm~tlpr,je'~y~\\labi'~ ifM~r~IiI~:i:ilJliii'Q~\n::lhi':A.. q~!ctila{~:~\ntR\nJ Equalization Funding fo'fFY 01/02, sLibjecftq][~ijpdic~djustrn:i3ht:: B. Include all Magnet students in the resident District's average daily membership for calculation. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) 8 . Include all Magnet students in the resident District's average daily membership for calculation (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 2002 \u0026amp;f,~~~ii,ai~~l~ll~1~~@:~:,vct1~ifli~~~arch'3JJ'~ma.2J'JR~:'6.:B~~aI~Ja'm8JgffEX C. Process and distribute State MFPA 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of April 30, 2002 Qh fy1afchf C:ibci2, disttibutior116f$iate EqU~fi~jfBh f'D/\\dihg fq[FX'.oJ.%02:w\nr~ as.t611ows: LR.SD '~ $38,318,228 NLRS6\\ $20.~69,908 pcssD \u0026lt;$39,767,42b LRSD - $52, 189,~57 NLRSD - $28,093\n868 PCSSD - $54}!08:571 D. Determine the number of Magnet students residing in each District and attending a Magnet School. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of April 30, 2002 Based on the information available, the ADE calculated at March31\n2a02 for FY 61102, subject to periodic adjustmellts. E. Desegregation Staff Attorney reports the Magnet Operational Charge to the Fiscal Services Office 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing, as ordered by the Court. 2 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) E. Desegregation Staff Attorney reports the Magnet Operational Charge to the Fiscal Services Office. (Continued) 2 Actual as of March 29, 2002 ~Ji~\n~~lf it:ft:.~lt\\~ii~~}~tl!~t~r01\n~~~c~~ati: ~~~~~\n/~-~~~~:iir~1 Magnet Review Committee is reporting this information instead of the staff attorney as indicated in the Implementation Plan. F. Calculate state aid due the LRSD based upon the Magnet Operational Charge. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of April 30, 2002 Bas~d on t'Re informiitiori avalfable, the A.DE calculated at March 31,-2002 for FY 01/02, subject to periqdic adjustments. . G. Process and distribute state aid for Magnet Operational Charge. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of April 30, 2002 Distributions for FY 01/02 at March 31, 2002, totaled $8,136,297. Allotment calculated for FY 01/02 was $11,204,681 subject to periodic adjustments. H. Calculate the amount of M-to-M incentive money to which each school district is entitled. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of April 30, 2002 Calculated for FY 01/02, subject to periodic adjustments. I. Process and distribute M-to-M incentive checks. 1 Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, September - June. 3 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) I. Process and distribute M-to-M incentive checks. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 2002 ois1r1ptvQHt'r8t:Rx::1t1zo2t~t M.~l~rt:~J\nr2002~~tet t,B:::~\n:i?.::rz:~g ,, NLRSD%$1403 839 ss6.::*I\nJs:1It'\n:ij12\nt~'iiWl{~\n~~~j1{m~ia:18? ~x=:6':rza:r~tMarar :f1\n-2602 .=su BJecIt o pehbd12 J. Districts submit an estimated Magnet and M-to-M transportation budget to ADE. 1. Projected Ending Date 2. Ongoing, December of each year. Actual as of April 30, 2002 In September 2001 , the Magnet and M-to-M transportation budgets for FY 01 /02 were submitted to the ADE by the Districts. K. The Coordinator of School Transportation notifies General Finance to pay districts for the Districts' proposed budget. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing, annually. 2. Actual as of April 30, 2002 In September 2001 , General Finance was notified to pay the last one-third payment for FY 00/01 to the Districts. It should be noted that the Transportation Coordinator is currently performing this function instead of Reginald Wilson as indicated in the Implementation Plan. L. ADE pays districts three equal installments of their proposed budget. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing, annually. 4 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) L. ADE pays districts three equal installments of their proposed budget. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 2002 \u0026amp;~~~--\"~,,,1tlll~~~11!!W~ A.tM~i~tt:i\n{J:n,go,02tlb\"~Lfq!Jow.16.H1~am@~bJ~:a@ .r 6fi_fi.,X:,.QJ102_,rni lillll M. ADE verifies actual expenditures submitted by Districts and reviews each bill with each District's transportation coordinator. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing, annually. 2. Actual as of April 30, 2002 In August 1997, the ADE transportation coordinator reviewed each district's Magnet and M-to-M transportation costs for FY 96/97. In July 1998, each district was asked to submit an estimated budget for the 98/99 school year. In September 1998, paperwork was generated for the first payment in the 98/99 school year for the Magnet and M-to-M transportation program. School districts should receive payment by October 1, 1998 In July 1999, each district submitted an estimated budget for the 99/00 school year. In September 1999, paperwork was generated for the first payment in the 99/00 school year for the Magnet and M-to-M transportation program . In September 2000, paperwork was generated for the first payment in the 00/01 school year for the Magnet and M-to-M transportation program . In September 2001 , paperwork was generated for the first payment in the 01 /02 school year for the Magnet and M-to-M transportation program 5 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) N. Purchase buses for the Districts to replace existing Magnet and M-to-M fleets and to provide a larger fleet for the Districts' Magnet and M-to-M Transportation needs. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing, as stated in Exhibit A of the Implementation Plan. 2. Actual as of April 30, 2002 In FY 94/95, the State purchased 52 buses at a cost of $1,799,431 which were added to or replaced existing Magnet and M-to-M buses in the Districts. The buses were distributed to the Districts as follows: LRSD - 32\nNLRSD - 6\nand PCSSD - 14. The ADE purchased 64 Magnet and M-to-M buses at a cost of $2,334,800 in FY 95/96. The buses were distributed accordingly: LRSD - 45\nNLRSD - 7\nand PCSSD - 12. In May 1997, the ADE purchased 16 Magnet and M-to-M buses at a cost of $646,400. In July 1997, the ADE purchased 16 Magnet and M-to-M buses at a cost of $624,879. In July 1998, the ADE purchased 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses at a cost of $695,235. The buses were distributed accordingly: LRSD - 8\nNLRSD - 2\nand PCSSD - 6. Specifications for 16 school buses have been forwarded to state purchasing for bidding in January, 1999 for delivery in July, 1999. The ADE accepted a bid on 16 buses for the Magnet and M/M transportation program. The buses will be delivered after July 1, 1999 and before August 1, 1999. The buses will be distributed accordingly: LRSD - 8\nNLRSD - 2\nPCSSD - 6. In July 1999, the ADE purchased 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses at a cost of $718,355. The buses were distributed accordingly: LRSD - 8\nNLRSD - 2\nand PCSSD- 6. In July 2000, the ADE purchased 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses at a cost of $724,165. The buses were distributed accordingly: LRSD - 8\nNLRSD - 2\nand PCSSD - 6. 6 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) N. Purchase buses for the Districts to replace existing Magnet and M-to-M fleets and to provide a larger fleet for the Districts' Magnet and M-to-M Transportation needs. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 2002 The bid for 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses was let by State Purchasing on February 22, 2001 . The contract was awarded to Ward Transportation Services, Inc. The buses to be purchased include two type C 47 passenger buses and fourteen type C 65 passenger buses. Prices on these units are $43,426.00 each on the 47 passenger buses, and $44,289.00 each on the 65 passenger buses. The buses will be distributed accordingly: LRSD - 8 of the 65 passenger\nNLRSD - 2 of the 65 passenger\nPCSSD - 2 of the 47 passenger and 4 of the 65 passenger buses. On August 2, 2001 , the ADE took possession of 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses. The total amount paid was $706,898. 0 . Process and distribute compensatory education payments to LRSD as required by page 23 of the Settlement Agreement. 1. 2. Projected Ending Date July 1 and January 1, of each school year through January 1, 1999. Actual as of April 30, 2002 Obligation fulfilled in FY 96/97. P. Process and distribute additional payments in lieu of formula to LRSD as required by page 24 of the Settlement Agreement. 1. Projected Ending Date Payment due date and ending July 1, 1995. 2. Actual as of April 30, 2002 Obligation fulfilled in FY 95/96. 7 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) Q. Process and distribute payments to PCSSD as required by Page 28 of the Settlement Agreement. 1. Projected Ending Date Payment due date and ending July 1, 1994. 2. Actual as of April 30, 2002 Final payment was distributed July 1994. R. Upon loan request by LRSD accompanied by a promissory note, the ADE makes loans to LRSD. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing through July 1, 1999. See Settlement Agreement page 24. 2. Actual as of April 30, 2002 The LRSD received $3,000,000 on September 10, 1998. As of this reporting date, the LRSD has received $20,000,000 in loan proceeds. S. Process and distribute payments in lieu of formula to PCSSD required by page 29 of the Settlement Agreement. 1. Projected Ending Date Payment due date and ending July 1, 1995. 2. Actual as of April 30, 2002 Obligation fulfilled in FY 95/96. T. Process and distribute compensatory education payments to NLRSD as required by page 31 of the Settlement Agreement. 1. Projected Ending Date July 1 of each school year through June 30, 1996. 2. Actual as of April 30, 2002 Obligation fulfilled in FY 95/96. 8 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) U. V. Process and distribute check to Magnet Review Committee. 1. Projected Ending Date Payment due date and ending July 1, 1995. 2. Actual as of April 30, 2002 Distribution in July 1997 for FY 97/98 was $75,000. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 97/98. Distribution in July 1998 for FY 98/99 was $75,000. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 98/99. Distribution in July 1999 for FY 99/00 was $92,500. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 99/00. Distribution in July 2000 for FY 00/01 was $92,500. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 00/01 . Distribution in August 2001 for FY 01 /02 was $92,500. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 01/02. Process and distribute payments for Office of Desegregation Monitoring. 1. Projected Ending Date Not applicable. 2. Actual as of April 30, 2002 Distribution in July 1997 for FY 97/98 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 97/98. Distribution in July 1998 for FY 98/99 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 98/99. Distribution in July 1999 for FY 99/00 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 99/00. Distribution in July 2000 for FY 00/01 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 00/01. Distribution in August 2001 for FY 01/02 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 01/02. 9 II. MONITORING COM PENSA TORY EDUCATION A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. 1. Projected Ending Date January 15, 1995 2. Actual as of April 30, 2002 In May 1995, monitors completed the unannounced visits of schools in Pulaski County. The monitoring process involved a qualitative process of document reviews, interviews, and observations. The monitoring focused on progress made since the announced monitoring visits. In June 1995, monitoring data from unannounced visits was included in the July Semiannual Report. Twenty-five per cent of all classrooms were visited, and all of the schools in Pulaski County were monitored. All principals were interviewed to determine any additional progress since the announced visits. The July 1995 Monitoring Report was reviewed by the ADE administrative team, the Arkansas State Board of Education, and the Districts and filed with the Court. The report was formatted in accordance with the Allen Letter. In October 1995, a common terminology was developed by principals from the Districts and the Lead Planning and Desegregation staff to facilitate the monitoring process . The announced monitoring visits began on November 14, 1995 and were completed on January 26, 1996. Copies of the preliminary Semiannual Monitoring Report and its executive summary were provided to the ADE administrative team and the State Board of Education in January 1996. A report on the current status of the Cycle 5 schools in the ECOE process and their school improvement plans was filed with the Court on February 1, 1996. The unannounced monitoring visits began in February 1996 and ended on May 10, 1996. In June 1996, all announced and unannounced monitoring visits were completed, and the data was analyzed using descriptive statistics. The Districts provided data on enrollment in compensatory education programs. The Districts and the ADE Desegregation Monitoring staff developed a definition for instructional programs. 10 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 2002 (Continued) The Semiannual Monitoring Report was completed and filed with the Court on July 15, 1996 with copies distributed to the parties Announced monitoring visits of the Cycle 1 schools began on October 28, 1996 and concluded in December 1996. In January 1997, presentations were made to the State Board of Education, the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee, and the parties to review the draft Semiannual Monitoring Report. The monitoring instrument and process were evaluated for their usefulness in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on achievement disparities. In February 1997, the Semiannual Monitoring Report was filed. Unannounced monitoring visits began on February 3, 1997 and concluded in May 1997. In March 1997, letters were sent to the Districts regarding data requirements for the July 1997 Semiannual Monitoring Report and the additional discipline data element that was requested by the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee. Desegregation data collection workshops were conducted in the Districts from March 28, 1997 to April 7, 1997. A meeting was conducted on April 3, 1997 to finalize plans for the July 15, 1997 Semiannual Monitoring Report. Onsite visits were made to Cycle 1 schools who did not submit accurate and timely data on discipline, M-to-M transfers, and policy. The July 15, 1997 Semiannual Monitoring Report and its executive summary were finalized in June 1997. In July 1997, the Semiannual Monitoring Report and its executive summary were filed with the court, and the ADE sponsored a School Improvement Conference. On July 10, 1997, copies of the Semiannual Monitoring Report and its executive summary were made available to the Districts for their review prior to filing it with the Court. In August 1997, procedures and schedules were organized for the monitoring of the Cycle 2 schools in FY 97/98. 11 IL MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 2002 (Continued) A Desegregation Monitoring and School Improvement Workshop for the Districts was held on September 10, 1997 to discuss monitoring expectations, instruments, data collection and school improvement visits. On October 9, 1997, a planning meeting was held with the desegregation monitoring staff to discuss deadlines, responsibilities, and strategic planning issues regarding the Semiannual Monitoring Report. Reminder letters were sent to the Cycle 2 principals outlining the data collection deadlines and availability of technical assistance. In October and November 1997, technical assistance visits were conducted, and announced monitoring visits of the Cycle 2 schools were completed. In December 1997 and January 1998, technical assistance visits were conducted regarding team visits, technical review recommendations, and consensus building. Copies of the infusion document and perceptual surveys were provided to schools in the ECOE process. The February 1998 Semiannual Monitoring Report was submitted for review and approval to the State Board of Education, the Director, the Administrative Team, the Attorney General's Office, and the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee. Unannounced monitoring visits began in February 1998, and technical assistance was provided on the school improvement process , external team visits and finalizing school improvement plans. On February 18, 1998, the representatives of all parties met to discuss possible revisions to the ADE's monitoring plan and monitoring reports. Additional meetings will be scheduled . Unannounced monitoring visits were conducted in March 1998, and technical assistance was provided on the school improvement process and external team visits. In April 1998, unannounced monitoring visits were conducted, and technical assistance was provided on the school improvement process. 12 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 2002 (Continued) In May 1998, unannounced monitoring visits were completed, and technical assistance was provided on the school improvement process. On May 18, 1998, the Court granted the ADE relief from its obligation to file the July 1998 Semiannual Monitoring Report to develop proposed modifications to ADE's monitoring and reporting obligations. In June 1998, monitoring information previously submitted by the districts in the Spring of 1998 was reviewed and prepared for historical files and presentation to the Arkansas State Board. Also, in June the following occurred: a) The Extended COE Team Visit Reports were completed, b) the Semiannual Monitoring COE Data Report was completed, c) progress reports were submitted from previous cycles, and d.) staff development on assessment (SAT-9) and curriculum alignment was conducted with three supervisors. In July, the Lead Planner provided the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Committee with (1) a review of the court Order relieving ADE of its obligation to file a July Semiannual Monitoring Report, and (2) an update of ADE's progress toward work with the parties and ODM to develop proposed revisions to ADE's monitoring and reporting obligations. The Committee encouraged ODM, the parties and the ADE to continue to work toward revision of the monitoring and reporting process. In August 1998, the ADE Implementation Phase Working group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. The Assistant Attorney General, the Assistant Director for Accountability and the Education Lead Planner updated the group on all relevant desegregation legal issues and proposed revisions to monitoring and reporting activities during the quarter. In September 1998, tentative monitoring dates were established and they will be finalized once proposed revisions to the Desegregation Monitoring Plan are finalized and approved. In September/October 1998, progress was being made on the proposed revisions to the monitoring process by committee representatives of all the Parties in the Pulaski County Settlement Agreement. While the revised monitoring plan is finalized and approved, the ADE monitoring staff will continue to provide technical assistance to schools upon request. 13 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 2002 (Continued) In December 1998, requests were received from schools in PCSSD regarding test score analysis and staff Development. Oak Grove is scheduled for January 21 , 1999 and Lawson Elementary is also tentatively scheduled in January. Staff development regarding test score analysis for Oak Grove and Lawson Elementary in the PCSSD has been rescheduled for April 2000. Staff development regarding test score analysis for Oak Grove and Lawson Elementary in the PCSSD was conducted on May 5, 2000 and May 9, 2000 respectively. Staff development regarding classroom management was provided to the Franklin Elementary School in LRSD on November 8, 2000. Staff development regarding ways to improve academic achievement was presented to College Station Elementary in PCSSD on November 22, 2000. On November 1, 2000, the ADE Implementation Phase Working group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. The Assistant Director for Accountability updated the group on all relevant desegregation legal issues and discussed revisions to monitoring and reporting activities during the quarter. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for February 27, 2001 in room 201-A at the ADE. The Implementation Phase Working Group meeting that was scheduled for February 27 had to be postponed. It will be rescheduled as soon as possible. The quarterly Implementation Phase Working Group meeting is scheduled for June 27, 2001 . The quarterly Implementation Phase Working Group meeting was rescheduled from June 27. It will take place on July 26, 2001 in room 201-A at 1 :30 p.m. at the ADE. 14 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 2002 (Continued) On July 26, 2001 , the ADE Implementation Phase Working group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Mr. Mark Hagemeier, Assistant Attorney General, and Mr. Scott Smith, ADE Staff Attorney, discussed the court case involving the LRSD seeking unitary status. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for October 11 , 2001 in room 201-A at the ADE. On October 11 , 2001 , the ADE Implementation Phase Working group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Mr. Scott Smith, ADE Staff Attorney, discussed the ADE's intent to take a proactive role in Desegregation Monitoring. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for January 10, 2002 in room 201-A at the ADE. The Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting that was scheduled for January 10 was postponed. It has been rescheduled for February 14, 2002 in room 201-A at the ADE. On February 12, 2002, the ADE Implementation Phase Working group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Mr. Mark Hagemeier, Assistant Attorney General, discussed the court case involving the LRSD seeking unitary status. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for April 11, 2002 in room 201-A at the ADE. On April 11, 2002, the ADE Implementation Phase Working group met to review the Implementation Phase activities fo'r the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Mr. Mark Hagemeier, Assistant Attorney General, discussed the court case involving the LRSD seeking unitary status. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for July 11, 2002 in room 201-A at the ADE. 15 Ill. A PETITION FOR ELECTION FOR LRSD WILL BE SUPPORTED SHOULD A MILLAGE BE REQUIRED A. Monitor court pleadings to determine if LRSD has petitioned the Court for a special election. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing. 2. Actual as of April 30, 2002 Ongoing All Court pleadings are monitored monthly. B. Draft and file appropriate pleadings if LRSD petitions the Court for a special election. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of April 30, 2002 To date, no action has been taken by the LRSD. 16 IV. REPEAL STATUTES AND REGULATIONS THAT IMPEDE DESEGREGATION A. Using a collaborative approach, immediately identify those laws and regulations that appear to impede desegregation. 1. Projected Ending Date December, 1994 2. Actual as of April 30, 2002 The information for this item is detailed under Section IV.E. of this report. B. Conduct a review within ADE of existing legislation and regulations that appear to impede desegregation. 1. Projected Ending Date November, 1994 2. Actual as of April 30, 2002 The information for this item is detailed under Section IV.E. of this report. C. Request of the other parties to the Settlement Agreement that they identify laws and regulations that appear to impede desegregation. 1. Projected Ending Date November, 1994 2. Actual as of April 30, 2002 The information for this item is detailed under Section IV.E. of this report. D. Submit proposals to the State Board of Education for repeal of those regulations that are confirmed to be impediments to desegregation 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of April 30, 2002 The information for this item is detailed under Section IV.E of this report. 17 IV. REPEAL STATUTES AND REGULATIONS THAT IMPEDE DESEGREGATION (Continued) E. Submit proposals to the Legislature for repeal of those laws that appear to be impediments to desegregation. 2. Actual as of April 30, 2002 A committee within the ADE was formed in May 1995 to review and collect data on existing legislation and regulations identified by the parties as impediments to desegregation. The committee researched the Districts' concerns to determine if any of the rules, regulations, or legislation cited impede desegregation. The legislation cited by the Districts regarding loss funding and worker's compensation were not reviewed because they had already been litigated. In September 1995, the committee reviewed the following statutes , acts, and regulations: Act 113 of 1993\nADE Director's Communication 93-205\nAct 145 of 1989\nADE Director's Memo 91-67\nADE Program Standards Eligibility Criteria for Special Education\nArkansas Codes 6-18-206, 6-20-307, 6-20-319, and 6-17- 1506. In October 1995, the individual reports prepared by committee members in their areas of expertise and the data used to support their conclusions were submitted to the ADE administrative team for their review. A report was prepared and submitted to the State Board of Education in July 1996. The report concluded that none of the items reviewed impeded desegregation. As of February 3, 1997, no laws or regulations have been determined to impede desegregation efforts. Any new education laws enacted during the Arkansas 81 st Legislative Session will be reviewed at the close of the legislative session to ensure that they do not impede desegregation. In April 1997, copies of all laws passed during the 1997 Regular Session of the 81 st General Assembly were requested from the office of the ADE Liaison to the Legislature for distribution to the Districts for their input and review of possible impediments to their desegregation efforts. In August 1997, a meeting to review the statutes passed in the prior legislative session was scheduled for September 9, 1997. 18 IV. REPEAL STATUTES AND REGULATIONS THAT IMPEDE DESEGREGATION (Continued) E. Submit proposals to the Legislature for repeal of those laws that appear to be impediments to desegregation. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 2002 (Continued) On September 9, 1997, a meeting was held to discuss the review of the statutes passed in the prior legislative session and new ADE regulations. The Districts will be contacted in writing for their input regarding any new laws or regulations that they feel may impede desegregation. Additionally, the Districts will be asked to review their regulations to ensure that they do not impede their desegregation efforts. The committee will convene on December 1, 1997 to review their findings and finalize their report to the Administrative Team and the State Board of Education. In October 1997, the Districts were asked to review new regulations and statutes for impediments to their desegregation efforts, and advise the ADE, in writing , if they feel a regulation or statute may impede their desegregation efforts. In October 1997, the Districts were requested to advise the ADE, in writing, no later than November 1, 1997 of any new law that might impede their desegregation efforts. As of November 12, 1997, no written responses were received from the Districts. The ADE concludes that the Districts do not feel that any new law negatively impacts their desegregation efforts. The committee met on December 1, 1997 to discuss their findings regarding statutes and regulations that may impede the desegregation efforts of the Districts. The committee concluded that there were no laws or regulations that impede the desegregation efforts of the Districts. It was decided that the committee chair would prepare a report of the committee's findings for the Administrative Team and the State Board of Education. The committee to review statutes and regulations that impede desegregation is now reviewing proposed bills and regulations, as well as laws that are being signed in, for the current 1999 legislative session. They will continue to do so until the session is over. The committee to review statutes and regulations that impede desegregation will meet on April 26, 1999 at the ADE. The committee met on April 26, 1999 at the ADE. The purpose of the meeting was to identify rules and regulations that might impede desegregation, and review within the existing legislation any regulations that might result in an impediment to desegregation. This is a standing committee that is ongoing and a report will be submitted to the State Board of Education once the process is completed. 19 IV. REPEAL STATUTES AND REGULATIONS THAT IMPEDE DESEGREGATION (Continued) E. Submit proposals to the Legislature for repeal of those laws that appear to be impediments to desegregation. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 2002 (Continued) The committee met on May 24, 1999 at the ADE. The committee was asked to review within the existing legislation any regulations that might result in an impediment to desegregation. The committee determined that Mr. Ray Lumpkin would contact the Pulaski County districts to request written response to any rules, regulations or laws that might impede desegregation. The committee would also collect information and data to prepare a report for the State Board. This will be a standing committee. This data gathering will be ongoing until the final report is given to the State Board. On July 26, 1999, the committee met at the ADE. The committee did not report any laws or regulations that they currently thought would impede desegregation, and are still waiting for a response from the three districts in Pulaski County. The committee met on August 30, 1999 at the ADE to review rules and regulations that might impede desegregation. At that time, there were no laws under review that appeared to impede desegregation. In November, the three districts sent letters to the ADE stating that they have reviewed the laws passed by the 82nd legislative session as well as current rules \u0026amp; regulations and district policies to ensure that they have no ill effect on desegregation efforts. There was some concern from PCSSD concerning a charter school proposal in the Maumelle area. The work of the committee is on-going each month depending on the information that comes before the committee. Any rules, laws or regulations that would impede desegregation will be discussed and reported to the State Board of Education. On October 4, 2000, the ADE presented staff development for assistant superintendents in LRSD, NLRSD and PCSSD regarding school laws of Arkansas. The ADE is in the process of forming a committee to review all Rules and Regulations from the ADE and State Laws that might impede desegregation. The ADE Committee on Statutes and Regulations will review all new laws that might impede desegregation once the 83rd General Assembly has completed this session. The ADE Committee on Statutes and Regulations will meet for the first time on June 11, 2001 at 9:00 a.m. in room 204-A at the ADE. The committee will review all new laws that might impede desegregation that were passed during the 2001 Legislative Session. 20 IV. REPEAL STATUTES AND REGULATIONS THAT IMPEDE DESEGREGATION (Continued) E. Submit proposals to the Legislature for repeal of those laws that appear to be impediments to desegregation. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 2002 (Continued) The ADE Committee on Statutes and Regulations rescheduled the meeting that was planned for June 11 , in order to review new regulations proposed to the State Board of Education. The meeting will take place on July 16, 2001 at 9:00 a.m. at the ADE. The ADE Committee to Repeal Statutes and Regulations that Impede Desegregation met on July 16, 2001 at the ADE. The following Items were discussed: (1) Review of 2001 state laws which appear to impede desegregation. (2) Review of existing ADE regulations which appear to impede desegregation. (3) Report any laws or regulations found to impede desegregation to the Arkansas State Legislature, the ADE and the Pulaski County school districts. The next meeting will take place on August 27, 2001 at 9 00 a.m. at the ADE. The ADE Committee to Repeal Statutes and Regulations that Impede Desegregation met on August 27, 2001 at the ADE. The Committee is reviewing all relevant laws or regulations produced by the Arkansas State Legislature, the ADE and the Pulaski County school districts in FY 2000/2001 to determine if they may impede desegregation. The next meeting will take place on September 10, 2001 in Conference Room 204-B at 2:00 p.m. at the ADE. The ADE Committee to Repeal Statutes and Regulations that Impede Desegregation met on September 10, 2001 at the ADE. The Committee is reviewing all relevant laws or regulations produced by the Arkansas State Legislature, the ADE and the Pulaski County school districts in FY 2000/2001 to determine if they may impede desegregation. The next meeting will take place on October 24, 2001 in Conference Room 204-B at 2 00 p.m. at the ADE. The ADE Committee to Repeal Statutes and Regulations that Impede Desegregation met on October 24, 2001 at the ADE. The Committee is reviewing all relevant laws or regulations produced by the Arkansas State Legislature, the ADE and the Pulaski County school districts in FY 2000/2001 to determine if they may impede desegregation. On December 17, 2001 , the ADE Committee to Repeal Statutes and Regulations that Impede Desegregation composed letters that will be sent to the school districts in Pulaski County. The letters ask for input regarding any new laws or regulations that may impede desegregation. Laws to review include those of the 83rd General Assembly, ADE regulations, and regulations of the Districts. 21 IV. REPEAL STATUTES AND REGULATIONS THAT IMPEDE DESEGREGATION (Continued) E. Submit proposals to the Legislature for repeal of those laws that appear to be impediments to desegregation. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 2002 (Continued) On January 10, 2002, the ADE Committee to Repeal Statutes and Regulations that Impede Desegregation sent letters to the school districts in Pulaski County. The letters ask for input regarding any new laws or regulations that may impede desegregation. The districts were asked to respond by March 8, 2002. On March 5, 2002, A letter was sent from the LRSD which mentioned Act 1748 and Act 1667 passed during the 83rd Legislative Session which may impede desegregation. These laws will be researched to determine if changes need to be made. A letter was sent from the NLRSD on March 19, noting that the district did not find any laws which impede desegregation. 22 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES A. Through a preamble to the Implementation Plan, the Board of Education will reaffirm its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement and outcomes of programs intended to apply those principles. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of April 30, 2002 The preamble was contained in the Implementation Plan filed with the Court on March 15, 1994. B. Through execution of the Implementation Plan, the Board of Education will continue to reaffirm its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement and outcomes of programs intended to apply those principles. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of April 30, 2002 Ongoing C Through execution of the Implementation Plan, the Board of Education will continue to reaffirm its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement by actions taken by ADE in response to monitoring results. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of April 30, 2002 Ongoing D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 23 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 2002 At each regular monthly meeting of the State Board of Education, the Board is provided copies of the most recent Project Management Tool (PMT) and an executive summary of the PMT for their review and approval. Only activities that are in addition to the Board's monthly review of the PMT are detailed below. In May 1995, the State Board of Education was informed of the total number of schools visited during the monitoring phase and the data collection process. Suggestions were presented to the State Board of Education on how recommendations could be presented in the monitoring reports. In June 1995, an update on the status of the pending Semiannual Monitoring Report was provided to the State Board of Education. In July 1995, the July Semiannual Monitoring Report was reviewed by the State Board of Education. On August 14, 1995, the State Board of Education was informed of the need to increase minority participation in the teacher scholarship program and provided tentative monitoring dates to facilitate reporting requests by the ADE administrative team and the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee. In September 1995, the State Board of Education was advised of a change in the PMT from a table format to a narrative format. The Board was also briefed about a meeting with the Office of Desegregation Monitoring regarding the PMT. In October 1995, the State Board of Education was updated on monitoring timelines. The Board was also informed of a meeting with the parties regarding a review of the Semiannual Monitoring Report and the monitoring process, and the progress of the test validation study. In November 1995, a report was made to the State Board of Education regarding the monitoring schedule and a meeting with the parties concerning the development of a common terminology for monitoring purposes. In December 1995, the State Board of Education was updated regarding announced monitoring visits. In January 1996, copies of the draft February Semiannual Monitoring Report and its executive summary were provided to the State Board of Education. 2 4 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool , and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 2002 (Continued) During the months of February 1996 through May 1996, the PMT report was the only item on the agenda regarding the status of the implementation of the Monitoring Plan. In June 1996, the State Board of Education was updated on the status of the bias review study. In July 1996, the Semiannual Monitoring Report was provided to the Court, the parties, ODM, the State Board of Education, and the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee. In August 1996, the State Board of Education and the ADE administrative team were provided with copies of the test validation study prepared by Dr. Paul Williams. During the months of September 1996 through December 1996, the PMT was the only item on the agenda regarding the status of the implementation of the Monitoring Plan. On January 13, 1997, a presentation was made to the State Board of Education regarding the February 1997 Semiannual Monitoring Report, and copies of the report and its executive summary were distributed to all Board members. The Project Management Tool and its executive summary were addressed at the February 10, 1997 State Board of Education meeting regarding the ADE's progress in fulfilling their obligations as set forth in the Implementation Plan. In March 1997, the State Board of Education was notified that historical information in the PMT had been summarized at the direction of the Assistant Attorney General in order to reduce the size and increase the clarity of the report. The Board was updated on the Pulaski County Desegregation Case and reviewed the Memorandum Opinion and Order issued by the Court on February 18, 1997 in response to the Districts' motion for summary judgment on the issue of state funding for teacher retirement matching contributions During the months of April 1997 through June 1997, the PMT was the only item on the agenda regarding the status of the implementation of the Monitoring Plan. The State Board of Education received copies of the July 15, 1997 Semiannual Monitoring Report and executive summary at the July Board meeting. 25 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 2002 (Continued) The Implementation Phase Working Group held its quarterly meeting on August 4, 1997 to discuss the progress made in attaining the goals set forth in the Implementation Plan and the critical areas for the current quarter. A special report regarding a historical review of the Pulaski County Settlement Agreement and the ADE's role and monitoring obligations were presented to the State Board of Education on September 8, 1997. Additionally, the July 15, 1997 Semiannual Monitoring Report was presented to the Board for their review. In October 1997, a special draft report regarding disparity in achievement was submitted to the State Board Chairman and the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee. In November 1997, the State Board of Education was provided copies of the monthly PMT and its executive summary. The Implementation Phase Working Group held its quarterly meeting on November 3, 1997 to discuss the progress made in attaining the goals set forth in the Implementation Plan and the critical areas for the current quarter. In December 1997, the State Board of Education was provided copies of the monthly PMT and its executive summary In January 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and discussed ODM's report on the AD E's monitoring activities and instructed the Director to meet with the parties to discuss revisions to the ADE's monitoring plan and monitoring reports . In February 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and discussed the February 1998 Semiannual Monitoring Report. In March 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary and was provided an update regarding proposed revisions to the monitoring process. In April 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary. In May 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary. 26 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 2002 (Continued) In June 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary. The State Board of Education also reviewed how the ADE would report progress in the PMT concerning revisions in AD E's Monitoring Plan. In July 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary. The State Board of Education also received an update on Test Validation, the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Committee Meeting, and revisions in ADE's Monitoring Plan. In August 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary. The Board also received an update on the five discussion points regarding the proposed revisions to the monitoring and reporting process. The Board also reviewed the basic goal of the Minority Recruitment Committee. In September 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed the proposed modifications to the Monitoring plans by reviewing the common core of written response received from the districts. The primary commonalities were (1) Staff Development, (2) Achievement Disparity and (3) Disciplinary Disparity. A meeting of the parties is scheduled to be conducted on Thursday, September 17, 1998. The Board encouraged the Department to identify a deadline for Standardized Test Validation and Test Selection. In October 1998, the Board received the progress report on Proposed Revisions to the Desegregation Monitoring and Reporting Process (see XVIII). The Board also reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary. In November, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board also received an update on the proposed revisions in the Desegregation monitoring Process and the update on Test validation and Test Selection provisions of the Settlement Agreement. The Board was also notified that the Implementation Plan Working Committee held its quarterly meeting to review progress and identify quarterly priorities. In December, the State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board also received an update on the joint motion by the ADE, the LRSD, NLRSD, and the PCSSD, to relieve the Department of its obligation to file a February Semiannual Monitoring Report. The Board was also notified that the Joshua lntervenors filed a motion opposing the joint motion. The Board was informed that the ADE was waiting on a response from Court. 27 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project ManagementTool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 2002 (Continued) In January, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board also received an update on the joint motion of the ADE, LRSD, PCSSD, and NLRSD for an order relieving the ADE of filing a February 1999 Monitoring Report. The motion was granted subject to the following three conditions: (1) notify the Joshua intervenors of all meetings between the parties to discuss proposed changes, (2) file with the Court on or before February 1, 1999, a report detailing the progress made in developing proposed changes and (3) identify ways in which ADE might assist districts in their efforts to improve academic achievement. In February, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board was informed that the three conditions: (1) notify the Joshua lntervenors of all meetings between the parties to discuss proposed changes, (2) file with the Court on or before February 1, 1999, a report detailing the progress made in developing proposed changes and (3) identify ways in which ADE might assist districts in their efforts to improve academic achievement had been satisfied. The Joshua lntervenors were invited again to attend the meeting of the parties and they attended on January 13, and January 28, 1999. They are also scheduled to attend on February 17, 1998. The report of progress, a collaborative effort from all parties was presented to court on February 1, 1999. The Board was also informed that additional items were received for inclusion in the revised report, after the deadline for the submission of the progress report and the ADE would: (1) check them for feasibility, and fiscal impact if any, and (2) include the items in future drafts of the report. In March , the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board also received and reviewed the Desegregation Monitoring and Assistance Progress Report submitted to Court on February 1, 1999. On April 12, and May 10, 1999, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board also was notified that once the financial section of the proposed plan was completed, the revised plan would be submitted to the board for approval. On June 14, 1999, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board also was notified that once the financial section of the proposed plan was completed, the re vised plan would be submitted to the board for approval. 28 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 2002 (Continued) On July 12, 1999, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board also was notified that once the financial section of the proposed plan was completed, the revised plan would be submitted to the board for approval. On August 9, 1999, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board was also notified that the new Desegregation Monitoring and Assistance Plan would be ready to submit to the Board for their review \u0026amp; approval as soon as plans were finalized. On September 13, 1999, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board was also notified that the new Desegregation Monitoring and Assistance Plan would be ready to submit to the Board for their review \u0026amp; approval as soon as plans were finalized. On October 12, 1999, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board was notified that on September 21 , 1999 that the Office of Education Lead Planning and Desegregation Monitoring meet before the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee and presented them with the draft version of the new Desegregation Monitoring and Assistance Plan. The State Board was notified that the plan would be submitted for Board review and approval when finalized. On November 8, 1999, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of October. On December 13, 1999, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of November. On January 10, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of December. On February 14, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of January. On March 13, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of February. On April 10, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of March. 29 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 2002 (Continued) On May 8, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of April. On June 12, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of May. On July 10, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of June. On August 14, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of July. On September 11 , 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of August. On October 9, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of September. On November 13, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of October. On December 11, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of November. On January 8, 2001 , the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of December. On February 12, 2001 , the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of January. On March 12, 2001 , the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of February. On April 9, 2001 , the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of March. On May 14, 2001 , the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of April. On June 11 , 2001 , the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of May 30 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project ManagementTool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 2002 (Continued) On July 9, 2001 , the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of June. On August 13, 2001 , the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of July. On September 10, 2001 , the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of August. On October 8, 2001 , the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of September. On November 19, 2001 , the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of October. On December 10, 2001, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of November. On January 14, 2002, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of December. On February 11, 2002, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of January. On March 11 , 2002, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of February. On April 8, 2002, the Arkans.a$State soafa.of EdlJciltlBB'l ~vlewed and approveid\"the PMT and its executive sunWnary forthe inOr\\tti.of r,,AafcK\n31 VI. REMEDIATION A. Through the Extended COE process, the needs for technical assistance by District, by School, and by desegregation compensatory education programs will be identified. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of April 30, 2002 During May 1995, team visits to Cycle 4 schools were conducted, and plans were developed for reviewing the Cycle 5 schools. In June 1995, the current Extended COE packet was reviewed, and enhancements to the Extended COE packet were prepared. In July 1995, year end reports were finalized by the Pulaski County field service specialists, and plans were finalized for reviewing the draft improvement plans of the Cycle 5 schools. In August 1995, Phase I - Cycle 5 school improvement plans were reviewed. Plans were developed for meeting with the Districts to discuss plans for Phase II - Cycle 1 schools of Extended COE, and a school improvement conference was conducted in Hot Springs The technical review visits for the FY 95/96 year and the documentation process were also discussed. In October 1995, two computer programs, the Effective Schools Planner and the Effective Schools Research Assistant, were ordered for review, and the first draft of a monitoring checklist for Extended COE was developed. Through the Extended COE process, the field service representatives provided technical assistance based on the needs identified within the Districts from the data gathered. In November 1995, ADE personnel discussed and planned for the FY 95/96 monitoring, and onsite visits were conducted to prepare schools for the FY 95/96 team visits. Technical review visits continued in the Districts. In December 1995, announced monitoring and technical assistance visits were conducted in the Districts. At December 31, 1995, approximately 59% of the schools in the Districts had been monitored. Technical review visits were conducted during January 1996. In February 1996, announced monitoring visits and midyear monitoring reports were completed, and the field service specialists prepared for the spring NCA/COE peer team visits. 32 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) A. Through the Extended COE process, the needs for technical assistance by District, by School, and by desegregation compensatory education programs will be identified. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 2002 (Continued) In March 1996, unannounced monitoring visits of Cycle 5 schools commenced, and two-day peer team visits of Cycle 5 schools were conducted. Two-day team visit materials, team lists and reports were prepared. Technical assistance was provided to schools in final preparation for team visits and to schools needing any school improvement information. In April and May 1996, the unannounced monitoring visits were completed. The unannounced monitoring forms were reviewed and included in the July monitoring report. The two-day peer team visits were completed, and annual COE monitoring reports were prepared. In June 1996, all announced and unannounced monitoring visits of the Cycle 5 schools were completed, and the data was analyzed. The Districts identified enrollment in compensatory education programs. The Semiannual Monitoring Report was completed and filed with the Court on July 15, 1996, and copies were distributed to the parties . During August 1996, meetings were held with the Districts to discuss the monitoring requirements. Technical assistance meetings with Cycle 1 schools were planned for 96/97. The Districts were requested to record discipline data in accordance with the Allen Letter. In September 1996, recommendations regarding the ADE monitoring schedule for Cycle 1 schools and content layouts of the semiannual report were submitted to the ADE administrative team for their review. Training materials were developed and schedules outlined for Cycle 1 schools In October 1996, technical assistance needs were identified and addressed to prepare each school for their team visits. Announced monitoring visits of the Cycle 1 schools began on October 28, 1996. In December 1996, the announced monitoring visits of the Cycle 1 schools were completed, and technical assistance needs were identified from school site visits. In January 1997, the ECOE monitoring section identified technical assistance needs of the Cycle 1 schools, and the data was reviewed when the draft February Semiannual Monitoring Report was presented to the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee, the State Board of Education, and the parties. 33 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) A. Through the Extended COE process, the needs for technical assistance by District, by School, and by desegregation compensatory education programs will be identified. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 2002 (Continued) In February 1997, field service specialists prepared for the peer team visits of the Cycle 1 schools. NCA accreditation reports were presented to the NCA Committee, and NCA reports were prepared for presentation at the April NCA meeting in Chicago. From March to May 1997, 111 visits were made to schools or central offices to work with principals, ECOE steering committees, and designated district personnel concerning school improvement planning . A workshop was conducted on Learning Styles for Geyer Springs Elementary School. A School Improvement Conference was held in Hot Springs on July 15-17, 1997. The conference included information on the process of continuous school improvement, results of the first five years of COE, connecting the mission with the school improvement plan , and improving academic performance. Technical assistance needs were evaluated for the FY 97 /98 school year in August 1997. From October 1997 to February 1998, technical reviews of the ECOE process were conducted by the field service representatives. Technical assistance was provided to the Districts through meetings with the ECOE steering committees , assistance in analyzing perceptual surveys, and by providing samples of school improvement plans, Gold File catalogs, and web site addresses to schools visited. Additional technical assistance was provided to the Districts through discussions with the ECOE committees and chairs about the process. In November 1997, technical reviews of the ECOE process were conducted by the field service representatives in conjunction with the announced monitoring visits. Workshops on brainstorming and consensus building and asking strategic questions were held in January and February 1998. In March 1998, the field service representatives conducted ECOE team visits and prepared materials for the NCA workshop. Technical assistance was provided in workshops on the ECOE process and team visits. In April 1998, technical assistance was provided on the ECOE process and academically distressed schools. In May 1998, technical assistance was provided on the ECOE process, and team visits were conducted . 34 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) A. Through the Extended COE process, the needs for technical assistance by District, by School, and by desegregation compensatory education programs will be identified. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 2002 (Continued) In June 1998, the Extended COE Team Visit Reports were completed. A School Improvement Conference was held in Hot Springs on July 13-15, 1998. Major conference topics included information on the process of continuous school improvement, curriculum alignment, \"Smart Start,\" Distance Learning, using data to improve academic performance, educational technology, and multicultural education. All school districts in Arkansas were invited and representatives from Pulaski County attended. In September 1998, requests for technical assistance were received, visitation schedules were established , and assistance teams began visiting the Districts. Assistance was provided by telephone and on-site visits. The ADE provided inservice training on \"Using Data to Sharpen the Focus on Student Achievement\" at Gibbs Magnet Elementary school on October 5, 1998 at their request. The staff was taught how to increase test scores through data disaggregation, analysis, alignment, longitudinal achievement review, and use of individualized test data by student, teacher, class and content area. Information was also provided regarding the \"Smart Start\" and the \"Academic Distress\" initiatives. On October 20, 1998, ECOE technical assistance was provided to Southwest Jr. High School. B. Identify available resources for providing technical assistance for the specific condition, or circumstances of need, considering resources within ADE and the Districts, and also resources available from outside sources and experts. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of April 30, 2002 The information for this item is detailed under Section VI.F. of this report. C. Through the ERIC system, conduct a literature search for research evaluating compensatory education programs. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 35 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) C. D. Through the ERIC system, conduct a literature search for research evaluating compensatory education programs. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 2002 An updated ERIC Search was conducted on May 15, 1995 to locate research on evaluating compensatory education programs. The ADE received the updated ERIC disc that covered material through March 1995. An ERIC search was conducted in September 30, 1996 to identify current research dealing with the evaluation of compensatory education programs, and the articles were reviewed. An ERIC search was conducted in April 1997 to identify current research on compensatory education programs and sent to the Cycle 1 principals and the field service specialists for their use. An Eric search was conducted in October 1998 on the topic of Compensatory Education and related descriptors. The search included articles with publication dates from 1997 through July 1998. Identify and research technical resources available to ADE and the Districts through programs and organizations such as the Desegregation Assistance Center in San Antonio, Texas. 1. Projected Ending Date Summer 1994 2. Actual as of April 30, 2002 The information for this item is detailed under Section VI. F. of this report. E. Solicit, obtain, and use available resources for technical assistance. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of April 30, 2002 The information for this item is detailed under Section VI F. of this report. 36 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2 Actual as of April 30, 2002 From March 1995 through July 1995, technical assistance and resources were obtained from the following sources: the Southwest Regional Cooperative\nUALR regarding training for monitors\nODM on a project management software\nADHE regarding data review and display\nand Phi Delta Kappa , the Desegregation Assistance Center and the Dawson Cooperative regarding perceptual surveys. Technical assistance was received on the Microsoft Project software in November 1995, and a draft of the PMT report using the new software package was presented to the ADE administrative team for review. In December 1995, a data manager was hired permanently to provide technical assistance with computer software and hardware. In October 1996, the field service specialists conducted workshops in the Districts to address their technical assistance needs and provided assistance for upcoming team visits. In November and December 1996, the field service specialists addressed technical assistance needs of the schools in the Districts as they were identified and continued to provide technical assistance for the upcoming team visits. In January 1997, a draft of the February 1997 Semiannual Monitoring Report was presented to the State Board of Education, the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee, and the parties. The ECOE monitoring section of the report included information that identified technical assistance needs and resources available to the Cycle 1 schools. Technical assistance was provided during the January 29-31 , 1997 Title I MidWinter Conference. The conference emphasized creating a learning community by building capacity schools to better serve all children and empowering parents to acquire additional skills and knowledge to better support the education of their children. In February 1997, three ADE employees attended the Southeast Regional Conference on Educating Black Children. Participants received training from national experts who outlined specific steps that promote and improve the education of black children. 37 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 2002 (Continued) On March 6-9, 1997, three members of the ADE's Technical Assistance Section attended the National Committee for School Desegregation Conference. The participants received training in strategies for Excellence and Equity: Empowerment and Training for the Future. Specific information was received regarding the current status of court-ordered desegregation, unitary status, and resegregation and distributed to the Districts and ADE personnel. The field service specialists attended workshops in March on ACT testing and school improvement to identify technical assistance resources available to the Districts and the ADE that will facilitate desegregation efforts. ADE personnel attended the Eighth Annual Conference on Middle Level Education in Arkansas presented by the Arkansas Association of Middle Level Education on April 6-8, 1997. The theme of the conference was Sailing Toward New Horizons. In May 1997, the field service specialists attended the NCA annual conference and an inservice session with Mutiu Fagbayi. An Implementation Oversight Committee member participated in the Consolidated COE Plan inservice training. In June and July 1997, field service staff attended an SAT-9 testing workshop and participated in the three-day School Improvement Conference held in Hot Springs. The conference provided the Districts with information on the COE school improvement process, technical assistance on monitoring and assessing achievement, availability of technology for the classroom teacher, and teaching strategies for successful student achievement. In August 1997, field service personnel attended the ASCD Statewide Conference and the AAEA Administrators Conference. On August 18, 1997, the bi-monthly Team V meeting was held and presentations were made on the Early Literacy Learning in Arkansas (ELLA) program and the Schools of the 21st Century program. In September 1997, technical assistance was provided to the Cycle 2 principals on data collection for onsite and offsite monitoring. ADE personnel attended the Region VI Desegregation Conference in October 1997. Current desegregation and educational equity cases and unitary status issues were the primary focus of the conference. On October 14, 1997, the bi-monthly Team V meeting was held in Paragould to enable members to observe a 21st Century school and a school that incorporates traditional and multi-age classes in its curriculum. 38 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 2002 (Continued) In November 1997, the field service representatives attended the Governor's Partnership Workshop to discuss how to tie the committee's activities with the ECOE process. In March 1998, the field service representatives attended a school improvement conference and conducted workshops on team building and ECOE team visits. Staff development seminars on Using Data to Sharpen the Focus on Student Achievement are scheduled for March 23, 1998 and March 27, 1998 for the Districts. In April 1998, the Districts participated in an ADE seminar to aid them in evaluating and improving student achievement. In August 1998, the Field Service Staff attended inservice to provide further assistance to schools, ie , Title I Summer Planning Session, ADE session on Smart Start, and the School Improvement Workshops. All schools and districts in Pulaski County were invited to attend the \"Smart Start\" Summit November 9, 10, and 11 to learn more about strategies to increase student performance. \"Smart Start\" is a standards-driven educational initiative which emphasizes the articulation of clear standards for student achievement and accurate measures of progress against those standards through assessments, staff development and individual school accountability. The Smart Start Initiative focused on improving reading and mathematics achievement for all students in Grades K-4. Representatives from all three districts attended. On January 21 , 1998, the ADE provided staff development for the staff at Oak Grove Elementary School designed to assist them with their efforts to improve student achievement. Using achievement data from Oak Grove, educators reviewed trends in achievement data, identified areas of greatest need, and reviewed seven steps for improving student performance. On February 24, 1999, the ADE provided staff development for the administrative staff at Clinton Elementary School regarding analysis of achievement data. On February 15, 1999, staff development was rescheduled for Lawson Elementary School. The staff development program was designed to assist them with their efforts to improve student achievement using achievement data from Lawson, educators reviewed the components of the Arkansas Smart Initiative, trends in achievement data, identified areas of greatest need, and reviewed seven steps for improving student performance. Student Achievement Workshops were rescheduled for Southwest Jr. High in the Little Rock School District, and the Oak Grove Elementary School in the Pulaski County School District. 39 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 2002 (Continued) On April 30, 1999, a Student Achievement Workshop was conducted for Oak Grove Elementary School in PCSSD. The Student Achievement Workshop for Southwest Jr. High in LRSD has been rescheduled. On June 8, 1999, a workshop was presented to representatives from each of the Arkansas Education Service Cooperatives and representatives from each of the three districts in Pulaski County. The workshop detailed the Arkansas Comprehensive Testing, Assessment and Accountability Program (ACTAAP). On June 18, 1999, a workshop was presented to administrators of the NLRSD. The workshop detailed the Arkansas Comprehensive Testing , Assessment and Accountability Program (ACTAAP) . On August 16, 1999, professional development on ways to increase student achievement and the components of the new ACTAAP program was presented during the preschool staff development activities for teaching assistant in the LRSD. On August 20, 1999, professional development on ways to increase student achievement and the components of the new ACT AAP program was presented during the preschool staff development activities for the Accelerated Learning Center in the LRSD. On September 13, 1999, professional development on ways to increase student achievement and the components of the new ACTAAP program were presented to the staff at Booker T. Washington Magnet Elementary School. On September 27, 1999, professional development on ways to increase student achievement was presented to the Middle and High School staffs of the NLRSD. The workshop also covered the components of the new ACT AAP program, and ACT 999 of 1999. On October 26, 1999, professional development on ways to increase student achievement was presented to LRSD personnel through a staff development training class. The workshop also covered the components of the new ACT AAP program, and ACT 999 of 1999. On December 7, 1999, professional development on ways to increase student achievement was scheduled for Southwest Middle School in the LRSD. The workshop was also set to cover the components of the new ACTAAP program, and ACT 999 of 1999. However, Southwest Middle School administrators had a need to reschedule, therefore the workshop will be rescheduled . 4 0 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 2002 (Continued) On January 10, 2000, professional development on ways to increase student achievement was conducted for both Dr. Martin Luther King Magnet Elementary School \u0026amp; Little Rock Central High School. The workshops also covered the components of the new ACTAAP program , and ACT 999 of 1999. On March 1, 2000, professional development on ways to increase student achievement was conducted for all principals and district level administrators in the PCSSD. The workshop also covered the components of the new ACTAAP program, and ACT 999 of 1999. On April 12, 2000, professional development on ways to increase student achievement was conducted for the LRSD. The workshop also covered the components of the new ACTAAP program, and ACT 999 of 1999. Targeted staffs from the middle and junior high schools in the three districts in Pulaski County attended the Smart Step Summit on May 1 and May 2. Training was provided regarding the overview of the \"Smart Step\" initiative , \"Standard and Accountability in Action ,\" and \"Creating Learning Environments Through Leadership Teams.\" The ADE provided training on the development of alternative assessment September 12-13, 2000. Information was provided regarding the assessment of Special Education and LEP students. Representatives from each district were provided the opportunity to select a team of educators from each school within the district to participate in professional development regarding Integrating Curriculum and Assessment K-12. The professional development activity was directed by the national consultant, Dr. Heidi Hays Jacobs, on September 14 and 15, 2000 The ADE provided professional development workshops from October 2 through October 13, 2000 regarding, \"The Write Stuff: Curriculum Frameworks, Content Standards and Item Development.\" Experts from the Data Recognition Corporation provided the training. Representatives from each district were provided the opportunity to select a team of educators from each school within the district to participate. The ADE provided training on Alternative Assessment Portfolio Systems by video conference for Special Education and LEP Teachers on November 17, 2000. Also, Alternative Assessment Portfolio System Training was provided for testing coordinators through teleconference broadcast on November 27, 2000. 41 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 2002 (Continued) On December 12, 2000, the ADE provided training for Test Coordinators on end of course assessments in Geometry and Algebra I Pilot examination. Experts from the Data Recognition Corporation conducted the professional development at the Arkansas Teacher Retirement Building. The ADE presented a one-day training session with Dr. Cecil Reynolds on the Behavior Assessment for Children (BASC). This took place on December 7, 2000 at the NLRSD Administrative Annex. Dr. Reynolds is a practicing clinical psychologist. He is also a professor at Texas A \u0026amp; M University and a nationally known author. In the training, Dr. Reynolds addressed the following: 1) how to use and interpret information obtained on the direct observation form, 2) how to use this information for programming , 3) when to use the BASC, 4) when to refer for more or additional testing or evaluation, 5) who should complete the forms and when, (i .e., parents, teachers, students) , 6) how to correctly interpret scores . This training was intended to especially benefit School Psychology Specialists, psychologists, psychological examiners, educational examiners and counselors. During January 22-26, 2001 the ADE presented the ACTAAP Intermediate (Grade 6) Benchmark Professional Development Workshop on Item Writing. Experts from the Data Recognition Corporation provided the training. Representatives from each district were invited to attend. On January 12, 2001 the ADE presented test administrators training for mid-year End of Course (Pilot) Algebra I and Geometry exams. This was provided for schools with block scheduling. On January 13, 2001 the ADE presented SmartScience Lessons and worked with teachers to produce curriculum . This was shared with eight Master Teachers. The SmartScience Lessons were developed by the Arkansas Science Teachers Association in conjunction with the Wilbur Mills Educational Cooperative under an Eisenhower grant provided by the ADE. The purpose of SmartScience is to provide K-6 teachers with activity-oriented science lessons that incorporate reading, writing, and mathematics skills. The following training has been provided for educators in the three districts in Pulaski County by the Division of Special Education at the ADE since January 2000: On January 6, 2000, training was conducted for the Shannon Hills Pre-school Program, entitled \"Things you can do at home to support your child 's learning.\" This was presented by Don Boyd - ASERC and Shelley Weir. The school's director and seven parents attended. 42 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 2002 (Continued) On March 8, 2000, training was conducted for the Southwest Middle School in Little Rock, on ADD. Six people attended the training. There was follow-up training on Learning and Reading Styles on March 26. This was presented by Don Boyd - ASERC and Shelley Weir. On September 7, 2000, Autism and Classroom Accommodations for the LRSD at Chicot Elementary School was presented. Bryan Ayres and Shelley Weir were presenters. The participants were: Karen Sabo, Kindergarten Teacher\nMelissa Gleason, Paraprofessional\nCurtis Mayfield, P.E. Teacher\nLisa Poteet, Speech Language Pathologist\nJane Harkey, Principal\nKathy Penn-Norman, Special Education Coordinator\nAlice Phillips, Occupational Therapist. On September 15, 2000, the Governor's Developmental Disability Coalition Conference presented Assistive Technology Devices \u0026amp; Services. This was held at the Arlington Hotel in Hot Springs. Bryan Ayres was the presenter. On September 19, 2000, Autism and Classroom Accommodations for the LRSD at Jefferson Elementary School was presented. Bryan Ayres and Shelley Weir were presenters. The participants were: Melissa Chaney, Special Education Teacher\nBarbara Barnes, Special Education Coordinator\na Principal, a Counselor, a Librarian, and a Paraprofessional. On October 6, 2000, Integrating Assistive Technology Into Curriculum was presented at a conference in the Hot Springs Convention Center. Presenters were: Bryan Ayers and Aleecia Starkey. Speech Language Pathologists from LRSD and NLRSD attended. On October 24, 2000, Consideration and Assessment of Assistive Technology was presented through Compressed Video-Teleconference at the ADE facility in West Little Rock. Bryan Ayres was the presenter. On October 25 and 26, 2000, Alternate Assessment for Students with Severe Disabilities for the LRSD at J. A. Fair High School was presented. Bryan Ayres was the presenter. The participants were: Susan Chapman, Special Education Coordinator\nMary Steele, Special Education Teacher\nDenise Nesbit, Speech Language Pathologist\nand three Paraprofessionals. On November 14, 2000, Consideration and Assessment of Assistive Technology was presented through Compressed Video-Teleconference at the ADE facility in West Little Rock. Bryan Ayres was the presenter. On November 17, 2000, training was conducted on Autism for the LRSD at the Instructional Resource Center. Bryan Ayres and Shelley Weir were presenters. 43 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 2002 (Continued) On December 5, 2000, Access to the Curriculum Via the use of Assistive Technology Computer Lab was presented. Bryan Ayres was the presenter of this teleconference. The participants were: Tim Fisk, Speech Language Pathologist from Arch Ford Education Service Cooperative at Plumerville and Patsy Lewis, Special Education Teacher from Mabelvale Middle School in the LRSD. On January 9, 2001, Consideration and Assessment of Assistive Technology was presented through Compressed Video-Teleconference at the ADE facility in West Little Rock. Bryan Ayres was the presenter. Kathy Brown, a vision consultant from the LRSD, was a participant. On January 23, 2001, Autism and Classroom Modifications for the LRSD at Brady Elementary School was presented. Bryan Ayres and Shelley Weir were presenters. The participants were: Beverly Cook, Special Education Teacher\nAmy Littrell, Speech Language Pathologist\nJan Feurig , Occupational Therapist\nCarolyn James, Paraprofessional\nCindy Kackly, Paraprofessional\nand Rita Deloney, Paraprofessional. The ADE provided training on Alternative Assessment Portfolio Systems for Special Education and Limited English Proficient students through teleconference broadcast on February 5, 2001 . Presenters were: Charlotte Marvel, ADE\nDr. Gayle Potter, ADE\nMarcia Harding, ADE\nLynn Springfield, ASERC\nMary Steele, J. A. Fair High School, LRSD\nBryan Ayres, Easter Seals Outreach. This was provided for Special Education teachers and supervisors in the morning, and Limited English Proficient teachers and supervisors in the afternoon. The Special Education session was attended by 29 teachers/administrators and provided answers to specific questions about the alternate assessment portfolio system and the scoring rubric and points on the rubric to be used to score the portfolios. The LEP session was attended by 16 teachers/administrators and disseminated the common tasks to be included in the portfolios: one each in mathematics, writing and reading. On February 12-23, 2001 , the ADE and Data Recognition Corporation personnel trained Test Coordinators in the administration of the spring Criterion-Referenced Test. This was provided in 20 sessions at 10 regional sites. Testing protocol, released items, and other testing materials were presented and discussed. The sessions provided training for Primary, Intermediate, and Middle Level Benchmark Exams as well as End of Course Literacy, Algebra and Geometry Pilot Tests. The LRSD had 2 in attendance for the End of Course session and 2 for the Benchmark session. The NLRSD had 1 in attendance for the End of Course session and 1 for the Benchmark session . The PCSSD had 1 in attendance for the End of Course session and 1 for the Benchmark session. 44 VI REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 2002 (Continued) On March 15, 2001 , there was a meeting at the ADE to plan professional development for staff who work with Limited English Proficiency (LEP) students. A $30,000 grant has been created to provide LEP training at Chicot Elementary for a year, starting in April 2001. A $40,000 grant was created to provide a Summer English as Second Language (ESL) Academy for the LRSD from June 18 through 29, 2001 . Andre Guerrero from the ADE Accountability section met with Karen Broadnax, ESL Coordinator at LRSD, Pat Price, Early Childhood Curriculum Supervisor at LRSD, and Jane Harkey, Principal of Chicot Elementary. On March 1-2 and 8-29, 2001, ADE staff performed the following activities: processed registration for April 2 and 3 Alternate Portfolio Assessment video conference quarterly meeting\nanswered questions about Individualized Educational Plan (IEP) and LEP Alternate Portfolio Assessment by phone from schools and Education Service Cooperatives\nand signed up students for alternate portfolio assessment from school districts. On March 6, 2001 , ADE staff attended a Smart Step Technology Leadership Conference at the State House Convention Center. On March 7, 2001 , ADE staff attended a National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) Regional Math Framework Meeting about the Consensus Project 2004. On March 8, 2001 , there was a one-on-one conference with Carole Villarreal from Pulaski County at the ADE about the LEP students with portfolios. She was given pertinent data, including all the materials that have been given out at the video conferences. The conference lasted for at least an hour. On March 14, 2001 , a Test Administrator's Training Session was presented specifically to LRSD Test Coordinators and Principals. About 60 LRSD personnel attended. The following meetings have been conducted with educators in the three districts in Pulaski County since July 2000. On July 10-13, 2000 the ADE provided Smart Step training . The sessions covered Standards-based classroom practices. 45 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 2002 (Continued) On July 19-21 , 2000 the ADE held the Math/Science Leadership Conference at UCA. This provided services for Arkansas math and science teachers to support systemic reform in math/science and training for 8th grade Benchmark. There were 200 teachers from across the state in attendance. On August 14-31 , 2000 the ADE presented Science Smart Start Lessons and worked with teachers to produce curriculum. This will provide K-6 teachers with activity-oriented science lessons that incorporate reading, writing , and mathematics skills. On September 5, 2000 the ADE held an Eisenhower Informational meeting with Teacher Center Coordinators. The purpose of the Eisenhower Professional Development Program is to prepare teachers, school staff, and administrators to help all students meet challenging standards in the core academic subjects. A summary of the program was presented at the meeting. On November 2-3, 2000 the ADE held the Arkansas Conference on Teaching. This presented curriculum and activity workshops. More than 1200 attended the conference. On November 6, 2000 there was a review of Science Benchmarks and sample model curriculum . A committee of 6 reviewed and revised a drafted document. The committee was made up of ADE and K-8 teachers. On November 7-10, 2000 the ADE held a meeting of the Benchmark and End of Course Mathematics Content Area Committee. Classroom teachers reviewed items for grades 4, 6, 8 and EOC mathematics assessment. There were 60 participants. On December 4-8, 2000 the ADE conducted grades 4 and 8 Benchmark Scoring for Writing Assessment. This professional development was attended by approximately 750 teachers. On December 8, 2000 the ADE conducted Rubric development for Special Education Portfolio scoring. This was a meeting with special education supervisors to revise rubric and plan for scoring in June. On December 8, 2000 the ADE presented the Transition Mathematics Pilot Training Workshop. This provided follow-up training and activities for fourth-year mathematics professional development. On December 12, 2000 the ADE presented test administrators training for midyear End of Course (Pilot) Algebra I and Geometry exams. This was provided for schools with block scheduling 46 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 2002 (Continued) The ADE provided training on Alternative Assessment Portfolio Systems for Special Education and Limited English Proficient students through teleconference broadcasts on April 2-3, 2001 . Administration of the Primary, Intermediate, and Middle Level Benchmark Exams as well as End of Course Literacy took place on April 23-27, 2001 . Administration of the End of Course Algebra and Geometry Exams took place on May 2-3, 2001 . Over 1,100 Arkansas educators attended the Smart Step Growing Smarter Conference on July 10 and 11 , 2001 , at the Little Rock Statehouse Convention Center. Smart Step focuses on improving student achievement for Grades 5-8. The Smart Step effort seeks to provide intense professional development for teachers and administrc\n3tors at the middle school level, as well as additional materials and assistance to the state's middle school teachers. The event began with opening remarks by Ray Simon, Director of the ADE. Carl Boyd, a longtime educator and staff consultant for Learning 24-7, presented the first keynote address on \"The Character-Centered Teacher\". Debra Pickering, an education consultant from Denver, Colorado, presented the second keynote address on \"Characteristics of Middle Level Education\". Throughout the Smart Step conference, educators attended breakout sessions that were grade-specific and curriculum area-specific. Pat Davenport, an education consultant from Houston, Texas, delivered two addresses . She spoke on \"A Blueprint for Raising Student Achievement\". Representatives from all three districts in Pulaski County attended. Over 1,200 Arkansas teachers and administrators attended the Smart Start Conference on July 12, 2001 , at the Little Rock Statehouse Convention Center. Smart Start is a standards-driven educational initiative which emphasizes the articulation of clear standards for student achievement and accurate measures of progress against those standards through assessments, staff development and individual school accountability. The Smart Start Initiative focused on improving reading and mathematics achievement for all students in Grades K-4. The event began with opening remarks by Ray Simon, Director of the ADE. Carl Boyd, a longtime educator and staff consultant for Learning 24-7, presented the keynote address The day featured a series of 15 breakout sessions on best classroom practices. Representatives from all three districts in Pulaski County attended. On July 18-20, 2001 , the ADE held the Math/Science Leadership Conference at UCA. This provided services for Arkansas math and science teachers to support systemic reform in math/science and training for 8th grade Benchmark. There were approximately 300 teachers from across the state in attendance. 47 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 2002 (Continued) The ADE and Harcourt Educational Measurement conducted Stanford 9 test administrator training from August 1-9, 2001 . The training was held at Little Rock, Jonesboro, Fort Smith, Forrest City, Springdale, Mountain Home, Prescott, and Monticello. Another session was held at the ADE on August 30, for those who were unable to attend August 1-9. The ADE conducted the Smart Start quarterly meeting by video conference at the Education Service Cooperatives and at the ADE from 9:00 a.m. until 11 :30 a.m. on September 5, 2001 . The ADE released the performance of all schools on the Primary and Middle Level Benchmark Exams on September 5, 2001 . The ADE conducted Transition Core Teacher In-Service training for Central in the LRSD on September 6, 2001 . The ADE conducted Transition Checklist training for Hall in the LRSD on September 7, 2001. The ADE conducted Transition Checklist training for McClellan in the LRSD on September 13, 2001 . The ADE conducted Basic Co-teaching training for the LRSD on October 9, 2001. The ADE conducted training on autism spectrum disorder for the PCSSD on October 15, 2001. Professional Development workshops (1 day in length) in scoring End of Course assessments in algebra, geometry and reading were provided for all districts in the state. Each school was invited to send three representatives (one for each of the sessions). LRSD, NLRSD, and PCSSD participated. Information and training materials pertaining to the Alternate Portfolio Assessment were provided to all districts in the state and were supplied as requested to LRSD, PCSSD and David 0 . Dodd Elementary. On November 1-2, 2001 the ADE held the Arkansas Conference on Teaching at the Excelsior Hotel \u0026amp; Statehouse Convention Center. This presented sessions, workshops and short courses to promote exceptional teaching and learning. Educators could become involved in integrated math, science, English \u0026amp; language arts and social studies learning The ADE received from the schools selected to participate in the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), a list of students who will take the test. 48 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 2002 (Continued) On December3-7, 2001 the ADE conducted grade 6 Benchmark scoring training for reading and math. Each school district was invited to send a math and a reading specialist. The training was held at the Holiday Inn Airport in Little Rock. On December 4 and 6, 2001 the ADE conducted Mid-Year Test Administrator Training for Algebra and Geometry. This was held at the Arkansas Activities Association's conference room in North Little Rock. On January 24, 2002, the ADE conducted the Smart Start quarterly meeting by ADE compressed video with Fred Jones presenting . On January 31, 2002, the ADE conducted the Smart Step quarterly meeting by NSCI satellite with Fred Jones presenting. On February 7, 2002, the ADE Smart Step co-sponsored the AR Association of Middle Level Principal's/ADE curriculum, assessment and instruction workshop with Bena Kallick presenting. On February 11-21, 2002, the ADE provided training for Test Administrators on the Primary, Intermediate, and Middle Level Benchmark Exams as well as End of Course Literacy, Algebra and Geometry Exams. The sessions took place at Forrest City, Jonesboro, Mountain Home, Springdale, Fort Smith, Monticello, Prescott, Arkadelphia and Little Rock. A make-up training broadcast was given at 15 Educational Cooperative Video sites on February 22. During February 2002, the LRSD had two attendees for the Benchmark Exam training and one attendee for the End of Course Exam training The NLRSD and PCSSD each had one attendee at the Benchmark Exam training and one attendee for the End of Course Exam training. 49 VII. TEST VALIDATION A. Using a collaborative approach, the ADE will select and contract with an independent bias review service or expert to evaluate the Stanford 8, or other monitoring instruments used to measure disparities in academic achievement between black students and white students. 1. Projected Ending Date March, 1995 2. Actual as of April 30, 2002 On March 29, 1995, letters were sent to four national experts about conducting a test bias validation of the Stanford Achievement Test, Eighth Edition, Form K (SAT-8). Dr. Paul Williams, Deputy Director of Educational Testing Service (ETS), contacted the ADE in April of 1995 concerning the proposal for validating the SAT-8 test. The ADE requested that Dr. Williams conduct a validity study of test items used in the SAT-8. Dr. Williams submitted a final proposal for his services. The ADE Bias Review Test Committee met Friday, July 7, 1995, and approved Dr. William's contract proposal. The final contract was forwarded to Dr. Williams for his signature. The contract was signed in August 1995, thereby, completing this goal. B. By April 1994, establish a bias review committee to oversee the bias review process, and invite representatives of the Districts and parties to meet with the bias review committee. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of April 30, 2002 Complete. ADE established a Bias Review Committee in April 1994. In accordance with the Implementation Plan , representatives from the Districts and the parties were invited to attend and participate in this and all meetings of the Bias Review Committee. C. Upon completion of test validation procedures by the bias review service or expert, the ADE will adopt and use a val idated test as a monitoring instrument. 1. Projected Ending Date March 1995 and ongoing 50 VII. TEST VALIDATION (Continued) C. Upon completion of test validation procedures by the bias review service or expert, the ADE will adopt and use a validated test as a monitoring instrument. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 2002 Dr. Paul Williams met with the staff of the Psychological Corporation to review their methods and procedures. In August 1995, he met with the staff at Georgia State University to review the statistical methods that would be used in the analysis. Dr. Williams reported difficulty with the bias-review study in receiving the names of the bias panel and the complete SA T-8 data set from the Psychological Corporation. Dr. Williams submitted an invoice totaling $8,961 for Task I activities of the SA T-8 validity study for partial fulfillment of the test validation study. On December 6, 1995, a contract extension for Dr. Williams was reviewed by the Legislative Council. In January 1996, he indicated that he was in the final stages of the test validation, and the ADE was presented a draft report in March 1996. In May 1996, Dr. Williams stated that the wrong data sets were sent to him by the Psychological Corporation resulting in Task 3 having to be redone. A new draft of the final report was received by the ADE in July 1996. In August 1996, copies of the test validation report were provided to the State Board of Education and the ADE administrative team for their review. On September 10, 1996, the LRSD notified the ADE that they had reviewed the test validation report and would like to meet with the ADE to discuss the report. The ADE Director indicated that he would schedule a meeting with the LRSD to discuss the report. In October 1996, historical files and data were provided to the ADE Director, the ADE Assistant Director for Technical Services, and the ADE Assistant Director for Planning and Curriculum for their review in preparation for a meeting with the LRSD regarding the validity study. Test validation procedures by the expert have been completed. A recommendation was drafted proposing the use of the SA T-8 by the ADE as the validated test for monitoring. The ADE is presently working to arrange a meeting with the Administration of the LRSD to discuss the test validation study. Effective September 22, 1997, the State Board of Education hired a new Director of the General Education Division, which should allow the ADE to move forward in this matter. 51 VII. TEST VALIDATION (Continued) C. Upon completion of test validation procedures by the bias review service or expert, the ADE will adopt and use a validated test as a monitoring instrument. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 2002 (Continued) In October 1997, the GED Director was updated on the history of the test validation process to provide the Director with background information in preparation for a meeting with the LRSD. In February 1998, ADE staff met with senior staff members to discuss the test validation and appropriate test scores for consideration by the LRSD. The ADE Director met with the Superintendent of the LRSD to discuss test validation issues. In June 1998, the ADE Director directed the Assistant Director for Accountability to recommend staff to discuss how the ADE would measure LRSD's progress toward meeting the loan forgiveness thresholds of the Settlement Agreement. Plans were made to meet with the staff Tuesday, June 30, 1998. The Test Validation Committee met on June 30, 1998, and discussed the following: 1. The appropriateness of the use of scaled scores on the SAT-8 test as the metric for assessing LRSD compliance with the loan forgiveness provisions of the Settlement Agreement\nand 2. The need for an independent analysis of LRSD students' test scores to determine compliance or noncompliance with loan forgiveness standard, and who would bear the cost of such an independent analysis. The Test Validation Committee met on September 10, 1998, to review recent correspondence from LRSD and to further discuss issues related to the loan forgiveness provisions of the Settlement Agreement. A follow-up administrative meeting was held on October 13, 1998, to discuss issues related to the test validation process. Participants included Tim Gauger, Assistant Attorney General, Dr. Charity Smith, Lead Planner for Desegregation, and Frank Anthony, Assistant Director for Accountability. A meeting was scheduled with Dr. Les Carnine, LRSD Superintendent and Mr. Ray Simon, ADE Director, regarding Test Validation and loan forgiveness provisions of the Settlement Agreement on May 12, 1999. 52 VII. TEST VALIDATION (Continued) C. Upon completion of test validation procedures by the bias review service or expert, the ADE will adopt and use a validated test as a monitoring instrument. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 2002 (Continued) On June 14, 1999, the State Board of Education was briefed on the status of LRSD's refusal to make principal and interest payments into escrow as required by the loan provisions of the Settlement Agreement and related documents. The Board requested that a draft motion to enforce the Settlement Agreement be prepared and submitted to the Board for review and discussion at the Board's next regularly scheduled meeting On July 12, 1999, the State Board of Education authorized the filing of a motion to compel LRSD to make interest and principal payments into escrow pursuant to the loan provisions of the Settlement Agreement. The State Board of Education instructed the Attorney General's Office to file a motion by March 1, 2000 if a determination is made that the LRSD is not in compliance with Section 6 B of the Pulaski County Settlement Agreement regarding the establishment and funding of the escrow account in the loan provision section. On May 8, 2000, the Assistant Director of Accountability was directed by the Director of Education to contact Harcourt Brace Educational Measurement Company about the possibility of conducting a research study on the standardized test composite scores from 1990 through 1999 of LRSD (excluding special education students). The Test Selection Committee met on May 23, 2000, at the ADE and discussed ways to measure LRSD's progress toward meeting the loan forgiveness threshold of the Pulaski County Settlement Agreement. An update on the progress with Harcourt Brace was made at that time. Harcourt Brace has been contacted about conducting an initial research report on LRSD's progress toward meeting the loan forgiveness threshold of the settlement agreement. This report will review all composite scores since 1990 of LRSD's black and white students (excluding special education students). The purpose of the report is to determine if at any time from Spring 1990 to Fall 1999 did the composite scores of LRSD's black students (excluding special education students) reach 90% or greater of the composite scores of LRSD's white students (excluding special education students) on the State mandated norm-referenced test. Company representatives will advise the ADE of the cost and feasibility of producing the report by May 31 , 2000. If the report indicates that LRSD has not meet the loan forgiveness requirements of the Pulaski County Settlement Agreement, an additional analysis of the Fall 2000 standardized tests results will be made. 53 VII. TEST VALIDATION (Continued) C. Upon completion of test validation procedures by the bias review service or expert, the ADE will adopt and use a validated test as a monitoring instrument. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 2002 (Continued) Harcourt Brace indicated that they would be able to provide the data, but indicated that analysis of the data should be done by an independent consultant. The search for an independent consultant has been undertaken. On February 12, 2001 , the ADE Director provided the State Board of Education with a special update on desegregation activities. 54 VIII. IN-SERVICE TRAINING A. Through an interactive process with representatives of desegregating districts, identify in-service training needs. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of April 30, 2002 The information for this item is detailed under Section VIII.D. of this report. B. Develop in-service training programs to address in-service training needs of desegregating districts. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of April 30, 2002 The information for this item is detailed under Section VIII.D. of this report. C. Implement in-service training programs to address in-service training needs of desegregating districts. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of April 30, 2002 The information for this item is detailed under Section VIII.D. of this report. D. Evaluate in-service training programs developed and executed to address in-service training needs of desegregating districts. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of April 30, 2002 In April 1995, the Tri-District Staff Development Committee were provided an overview of the Scott Alternative Learning Center's operation and met with students and staff. In May 1995, the Districts were in the process of self-assessment and planning for fall staff development 55 VIII. IN-SERVICE TRAINING (Continued) D. Evaluate in-service training programs developed and executed to address in-service training needs of desegregating districts. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 2002 (Continued) The Districts worked on staff development to be incorporated into their fall 95/96 preschool calendars. The uniqueness of each district's needs and their schools was considered in the planning by utilizing the results of needs assessment instruments. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met on September 13, 1995 to plan for an ADE administered Classroom Management grant. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met on September 19, 1995 to finalize the Classroom Management grant proposal. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met on October 24, 1995 to discuss program and staff development evaluation models that might be available to the Districts. On November 15, 1995, the ADE met with an ODM representative to discuss the progress the ADE had made in attaining the objectives outlined in the Implementation Plan with regard to inservice training. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met on November 21, 1995 to discuss upcoming training events and various NLR programs that focus on non-academic needs. A new program consisting of placing a graduate student of social work, a field supervisor, and a OHS worker in the district at no cost to the district was discussed. Additionally, NLR provided an overview of their program for credit deficient students. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met on December 19, 1995 to discuss information dealing with ways to broaden the perspective of multicultural education. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met on January 17, 1996 to discuss proposed changes in the standards regarding media centers and NLRSD's staff development strategic planning committee. The committee reviewed a video on diversity produced by the Arkansas Elementary Principals Association. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met on February 21, 1996 to discuss the implications of budget cuts on staff development programs and PCSSD's request for unitary status for their staff development program. They also discussed the need for computer literacy, technology training, and acquisition of hardware and software by the Districts. 56 VIII. IN-SERVICE TRAINING (Continued) D. Evaluate in-service training programs developed and executed to address in-service training needs of desegregating districts. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 2002 (Continued) The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met on March 27, 1996 to discuss available resources concerning sexual harassment. ADE regulations in relation to staff members attending professional association conferences as well as the district staff development and potential sites for training seminars were also discussed. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met on April 30, 1996 to discuss the reconfiguring of Jacksonville Junior High, PCSSD professional development schedules, and APSCN on-line time lines. A tour of the Washington Magnet school was also conducted. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee received a demonstration of UALR's Baum Decision Support Center's capabilities regarding consensus and planning on May 29, 1996. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee did not meet during September, October, and November 1996 because of scheduling conflicts and the extended medical leave of the ADE liaison. On December 18, 1996, the Tri-District Staff Development Committee met to discuss the linkage between the Implementation Plan, staff development, and student achievement. On January 21, 1997, the Tri-District Staff Development Committee met and discussed sharing middle school strategies and the Districts' training catalogs. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met on February 25, 1997 to discuss their current staff development programs and an overview of the relationship of their current programs with their desegregation plans. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met on March 26, 1997 to observe the Great Expectations Program. The principal and mentor teachers provided information on the components and philosophy of the program, and students demonstrated selected components. The PCSSD may adopt the program for selected schools in their district. The committee was provided with an update of pertinent information on resources available to the Districts. The committee decided that the ADE liaison to the committee would gather documentation of completed staff development directly from the Districts, instead of the Districts providing this information at the committee meetings. 57 VIII. IN-SERVICE TRAINING (Continued) D. Evaluate in-service training programs developed and executed to address in-service training needs of desegregating districts. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 2002 (Continued) New information on teacher licensure and rules and regulations was shared with the Tri-District Staff Development Committee at their April 1997 meeting. A report was presented to the committee on information from the Arkansas Council for Social Studies about an October 1997 meeting on integrated curriculum. The Districts will provide principal retreats this summer as a part of their staff development. The PCSSD will sponsor a renowned speaker on strategies to serve at risk youth in August 1997 in which the committee is invited to attend. The LRSD shared survey results from a pilot administration to four teachers in each district. The survey found the sample to be strong in content but lacking in context and process. Plans to address these needs will be developed. In another survey to certified and non-certified LRSD staff, stress management was the major concern. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met on May 14, 1997 to participate in a teleconference with the five 1996 awardees of the National Awards Program for Model for Professional Development. The PCSSD shared their summer and fall staff development catalog with the members. The committee will reconvene in the fall of the 97/98 school year. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee is scheduled to meet on September 30, 1997 to discuss collaborative actions for FY 97 /98. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met on September 30 , 1997 to discuss their staff development for the 1997 /1998 school year. The PCSSD had a pre-school in-service for the faculty, and the LRSD conducted a Principals Academy with an expert on the math and science initiative which lasted several days. The NLRSD is providing staff development by satellite. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met on October 28, 1997. The LRSD and NLRSD shared some of their staff development course offerings with the committee, and the PCSSD discussed ways of optimizing opportunities for staff development with specific emphasis on the junior high school conflict resolution training. In November 1997, the Lead Planner provided technical assistance to Central High School staff regarding data disaggregation, test score analysis and ways to improve student achievement. 58 VIII. IN-SERVICE TRAINING (Continued) D. Evaluate in-service training programs developed and executed to address in-service training needs of desegregating districts. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 2002 (Continued) The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met on November 25, 1997 to discuss the Standards for Staff Development. The LRSD will begin providing technology training to their employees in January by utilizing business teachers. Additionally, they discussed a collaborative venture of the Districts involving a workshop from Chicago on a program called \"Great Expectations.\" The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met on December 16, 1997 to discuss technology plans, strategies for obtaining information currently being provided to the education cooperatives, scheduling of Arkansas history, and the development of a comprehensive list of locations available for staff development. Members agreed to bring information on available locations to the January meeting and have set a tentative completion date for the project of May 1998. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met on January 27, 1998 to share information for developing a comprehensive list of locations available for staff development. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met on February 24, 1998 to work on the development of the list of locations available for staff development. The committee also discussed the meeting on student achievement sponsored by the ADE for the Districts, principals' staff development in the Districts and emphasis on improving achievement as reflected on the SA T-9. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met on March 19, 1998 to discuss the math and science grant received by the LRSD, the Districts' inservice calendars for August, TESA and Student-Team Learning trainers, and team building for staff. The ADE Deputy Director is scheduled to discuss ways the committee can strengthen their relationship with the regional cooperatives at their May meeting. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met on April 27, 1998 to discuss their proposal for involvement with the regional cooperatives. The ADE Deputy Director is scheduled to discuss committee's concerns regarding their relationship with the regional cooperatives at their next meeting. 59 VIII. IN-SERVICE TRAINING (Continued) D. Evaluate in-service training programs developed and executed to address in-service training needs of desegregating districts. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 2002 (Continued) The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met Thursday, May 21, 1998, in the Instructional Resources Center at Little Rock School District. Dr. Woodrow Cummins, ADE Deputy Director, joined the group to discuss ways to develop a closer connection with the Education Service Cooperatives. He also discussed other issues concerning Tri-District Staff Development. Tentative plans were made to meet with the Teacher Center Coordinators at their next regular meeting. The next Central Office meeting will be at 9:00 a.m., Thursday, September 29, 1998, in the PCSSD. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee will attend the Educational Cooperative Teacher Center Coordinators' meeting September 1, 1998, in the ADE auditorium. The next regular meeting of the committee is tentatively set for 9 00 a.m , Thursday, September 29, 1998, in the PCSSD Central Office. The Tri-County Staff Development Committee met Monday, August 24, 1998, at PCSSD central office with four members present: Marion Woods, LRSD\nDoug Ask and Mary McClendon, PCSSD\nand Betty Gale Davis, ADE. Topics of discussion included the September 1 meeting scheduled with the regional cooperatives' teacher center coordinators\nthe staff development task force on which Marion Woods is serving\nthe property tax issue\nand various mathematics and reading programs being used in the districts. The committee met Tuesday, September 1, 1998, with the Teacher Center Coordinators, at which time Dr. Woody Cummins presented. Six Tri-District Staff Development Committee members were present: Marion Woods, LRSD\nDoug Ask and Mary McClendon, PCSSD\nDana Chadwick and Estelle Crawford, NLRSD\nBetty Gale Davis, ADE. The next committee meeting will be 9:00 a.m., Thursday, September 24, 1998, at the Little Rock District Instructional Resources Center. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met Thursday, September 24, 1998, at the Instructional Resources Center, Little Rock, with five present: Marion Woods and Dr. Bonnie Lesley, LRSD\nDoug Ask, PCSSD\nDana Chadwick, NLRSD\nand Dr. Betty Gale Davis, ADE. Topics of discussion included the meeting with the regional cooperatives' teacher center coordinators\nthe staff development task force on which Marion Woods is serving and the NSCI training\ntraining provided by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)\ntraining provided by Casio\nand the proposal of a Principals Academy. 60 VIII. IN-SERVICE TRAINING (Continued) D. Evaluate in-service training programs developed and executed to address in-service training needs of desegregating districts. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 2002 (Continued) Doug Ask will serve as representative to the October 6, 1998 meeting of the Teacher Center Coordinat\nThis project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resoources.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\u003cdcterms_creator\u003eArkansas. Department of Education\u003c/dcterms_creator\u003e\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_105","title":"Arkansas Department of Education's (ADE's) Project Management Tool","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118"],"dcterms_creator":["Arkansas. Department of Education"],"dc_date":["2001-07/2001-08"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Education--Arkansas","Office of Desegregation Monitoring (Little Rock, Ark.)","School integration--Arkansas","Arkansas. Department of Education","Project management"],"dcterms_title":["Arkansas Department of Education's (ADE's) Project Management Tool"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/105"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["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":["353 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, plaintiff vs. Pulaski County Special School District, defendant.\nIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DMSION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF v. No. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al. DEFENDANTS NOTICE OF FILING In accordance with the Court's Order of December 10, 1993, the Arkansas Department of Education hereby gives notice of the filing of ADE's Project Management Tool for July, 2001. EIVE JUL 3 0 2001 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION M0NITORIM~ Respectfully Submitted, MARK PRYOR Attorney General Assistant Attorney General 323 Center Street, Suite 20 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 682-3643 Attorney for Arkansas Department of Education CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Mark A Hagemeier, certify that on July 27, 2001, I caused a copy of the foregoing document to be served by U.S. mail, postage prepaid, on the following person(s) at the address( es) indicated: M. Samuel Jones, III Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 2000 NationsBank Bldg. 200 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 John W. Walker John Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 7220 I Richard Roachell P .O. Box 17388 Little Rock, AR 72222-7388 Timothy G. Gauger Mitchell, Williams, Selig, Gates \u0026amp; Woodyard 425 West Capitol Ave. Suite 1800 Little Rock, AR 72201-3525 Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 2000 Regions Center 400 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 7220 I Ann Marshall One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 7220 I ~a.N  MarAHagem~ IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL PLAINTIFFS V. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENORS KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS ADE'S PROJECT MANAGEMENT TOOL In compliance with the Court's Order of December 10, 1993, the Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) submits the following Project Management Tool to the parties and the Court. This document describes the progress the ADE has made since March 15, 1994, in complying with provisions of the Implementation Plan and itemizes the ADE's progress against timelines presented in the Plan. - IMPLEMENTATION PHASE ACTIVITY I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS A. Use the previous year's three quarter average daily membership to calculate MFPA (State Equalization) for the current school year. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of July 31, 2001 B. Include all Magnet students in the resident District's average daily membership for calculation. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) B. Include all Magnet students in the resident District's average daily membership for calculation. (Continued) 2. Actual as of July 31 , 2001 ~ased onJhe intonuatioJl availa~ at Jun~']o, i oo1 :=t12iADE\n,calculat~ f\u0026lt;\n\u0026gt;~ 00/01, subject to penodic ~ stmentsi C. Process and distribute State MFPA. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of July 31, 2001 On June 30, 2001, distributions of State Equalization Funding for FY 00/01 w~re as follows: LRSD - $52,788,081 NLRSD - $28, 176,324 PCSSD - $56,594,757 The allotments of State Equalization Funding caldllafed for FY 00/01 at June 30, 2001 , subject to periodic adjustments, were as follows: LRSD - $52,788,081 NLRSD - $28,176,324 PCSSO- $56,594,757 D. Determine the number of Magnet students residing in each District and attending a Magnet School. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of July 31 , 2001 Based on the information available, the ADE calculated at June 30, 2001 for FY 00/01, subject to periodic adjustments. E. Desegregation Staff Attorney reports the Magnet Operational Charge to the Fiscal Services Office. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing, as ordered by the Court. 2 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) E. Desegregation Staff Attorney reports the Magnet Operational Charge to the Fiscal Services Office. (Continued) 2. Actual as of July 31, 2001 ~~e inform~ avail 00/01i~ject to p~~ctic adjt1s ~ s. It should be noted that currently the Magnet Review Committee is reporting this information instead of the staff attorney as indicated in the Implementation Plan. F. Calculate state aid due the LRSD based upon the Magnet Operational Charge. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of July 31, 2001 Based on the information available, the ADE calculated at JunW~b. 2001 forfiY 00/01, subject to periodic adjustments. G. Process and distribute state aid for Magnet Operational Charge. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of July 31 , 2001 Distributions for FY 00/01 at June 30, 2001 , totaled $10,722,873. Allotment calculated for FY 00/01 was $10,722,873 subject to periodic adjustments. H. Calculate the amount of M-to-M incentive money to which each school district is entitled. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of July 31 , 2001 Calculated for FY 00/01 , subject to periodic adjustments. I. Process and distribute M-to-M incentive checks. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, September - June. 3 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) I. Process and distribute M-to-M incentive checks. (Continued) 2. Actual as of July 31 , 2001 E\u0026gt;fstfftJfflisfrJfoji, ~Y8rtWo1 ~t Jun~~o:w\n26o1 w~re? t h~ffiints ~alcul~ted for FY 00/01 at June 30, 2001, subject to peliod10 adJustifi~nts, were:  w $3,839,341 J,9so1~d~ $8,065,184 J. Districts submit an estimated Magnet and M-to-M transportation budget to ADE. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing, December of each year. 2. Actual as of July 31, 2001 In September 2000, the Magnet and M-to-M transportation budgets for FY 00/01 were submitted to the ADE by the Districts. K. The Coordinator of School Transportation notifies General Finance to pay districts for the Districts' proposed budget. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing, annually. 2. Actual as of July 31, 2001 In January 2001, General Finance was notified to pay the second one-third payment for FY 00/01 to the Districts. It should be noted that the Transportation Coordinator is currently performing this function instead of Reginald Wilson as indicated in the Implementation Plan. L. ADE pays districts three equal installments of their proposed budget. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing, annually. 4 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) L. ADE pays districts three equal installments of their proposed budget. (Continued) 2. Actual as of July 31, 2001 In January 2001, General Finance made the second one-third payment to the Districts for their FY 00/01 transportation budget. The budget is now paid out in three equal installments. At February 28, 2001, the following had been paid for FY 00/01: LRSD - $2,197,201.00 NLRSD - $437,233.34 PCSSD - $1,184,784.28 M. ADE verifies actual expenditures submitted by Districts and reviews each bill with each District's transportation coordinator. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing, annually. 2. Actual as of July 31, 2001 In August 1997, the ADE transportation coordinator reviewed each district's Magnet and M-to-M transportation costs for FY 96/97. In July 1998, each district was asked to submit an estimated budget for the 98/99 school year. In September 1998, paperwork was generated for the first payment in the 98/99 school year for the Magnet and M-to-M transportation program. School districts should receive payment by October 1, 1998 In July 1999, each district submitted an estimated budget for the 99/00 school year. In September 1999, paperwork was generated for the first payment in the 99/00 school year for the Magnet and M-to-M transportation program. In September 2000, paperwork was generated for the first payment in the 00/01 school year for the Magnet and M-to-M transportation program. 5 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) N. Purchase buses for the Districts to replace existing Magnet and M-to-M fleets and to provide a larger fleet for the Districts' Magnet and M-to-M Transportation needs. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing, as stated in Exhibit A of the Implementation Plan. 2. Actual as of July 31 , 2001 In FY 94/95, the State purchased 52 buses at a cost of $1 ,799,431 which were added to or replaced existing Magnet and M-to-M buses in the Districts. The buses were distributed to the Districts as follows: LRSD - 32\nNLRSD - 6\nand PCSSD - 14. The ADE purchased 64 Magnet and M-to-M buses at a cost of $2,334,800 in FY 95/96. The buses were distributed accordingly: LRSD - 45\nNLRSD - 7\nand PCSSD-12. In May 1997, the ADE purchased 16 Magnet and M-to-M buses at a cost of $646,400. In July 1997, the ADE purchased 16 Magnet and M-to-M buses at a cost of $624,879. In July 1998, the ADE purchased 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses at a cost of $695,235. The buses were distributed accordingly: LRSD - 8\nNLRSD - 2\nand PCSSD- 6. Specifications for 16 school buses have been forwarded to state purchasing for bidding in January, 1999 for delivery in July, 1999. The ADE accepted a bid on 16 buses for the Magnet and M/M transportation program. The buses will be delivered after July 1, 1999 and before August 1, 1999. The buses will be distributed accordingly: LRSD - 8\nNLRSD - 2\nPCSSD - 6. In July 1999, the ADE purchased 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses at a cost of $718,355. The buses were distributed accordingly: LRSD - 8\nNLRSD - 2\nand PCSSD- 6. In July 2000, the ADE purchased 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses at a cost of $724,165. The buses were distributed accordingly: LRSD - 8\nNLRSD - 2\nand PCSSD- 6. 6 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) N. Purchase buses for the Districts to replace existing Magnet and M-to-M fleets and to provide a larger fleet for the Districts' Magnet and M-to-M Transportation needs. (Continued) 2. Actual as of July 31 , 2001 The bid for 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses was let by State Purchasing on February 22, 2001 . The contract was awarded to Ward Transportation Services, Inc. The buses to be purchased include two type C 47 passenger buses and fourteen type C 65 passenger buses. Prices on these units are $43,426.00 each on the 47 passenger buses, and $44,289.00 each on the 65 passenger buses. The buses will be distributed accordingly: LRSD - 8 of the 65 passenger\nNLRSD - 2 of the 65 passenger\nPCSSD - 2 of the 47 passenger and 4 of the 65 passenger buses. 0. Process and distribute compensatory education payments to LRSD as required by page 23 of the Settlement Agreement. 1. Projected Ending Date 2. July 1 and January 1, of each school year through January 1, 1999. Actual as of July 31 , 2001 Obligation fulfilled in FY 96/97. P. Process and distribute additional payments in lieu of formula to LRSD as required by page 24 of the Settlement Agreement. 1. Projected Ending Date Payment due date and ending July 1, 1995. 2. Actual as of July 31, 2001 Obligation fulfilled in FY 95/96. Q . Process and distribute payments to PCSSD as required by Page 28 of the Settlement Agreement. 1. Projected Ending Date Payment due date and ending July 1, 1994. 2. Actual as of July 31, 2001 Final payment was distributed July 1994. 7 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) R. Upon loan request by LRSD accompanied by a promissory note, the ADE makes loans to LRSD. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing through July 1, 1999. See Settlement Agreement page 24. 2. Actual as of July 31, 2001 The LRSD received $3,000,000 on September 10, 1998. As of this reporting date, the LRSD has received $20,000,000 in loan proceeds. S. Process and distribute payments in lieu of formula to PCSSD required by page 29 of the Settlement Agreement. 1. Projected Ending Date Payment due date and ending July 1, 1995. 2. Actual as of July 31, 2001 Obligation fulfilled in FY 95/96. T. Process and distribute compensatory education payments to N LRSD as required by page 31 of the Settlement Agreement. 1. Projected Ending Date July 1 of each school year through June 30, 1996. 2. Actual as of July 31, 2001 Obligation fulfilled in FY 95/96. U. Process and distribute check to Magnet Review Committee. 1. Projected Ending Date Payment due date and ending July 1, 1995. 2. Actual as of July 31, 2001 Distribution in July 1997 for FY 97/98 was $75,000. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 97/98. Distribution in July 1998 for FY 98/99 was $75,000. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 98/99. 8 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) U. Process and distribute check to Magnet Review Committee. (Continued) 2. Actual as of July 31 , 2001 (Continued) Distribution in July 1999 for FY 99/00 was $92,500. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 99/00. Distribution in July 2000 for FY 00/01 was $92,500. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 00/01 . V. Process and distribute payments for Office of Desegregation Monitoring. 1. Projected Ending Date Not applicable. 2. Actual as of July 31, 2001 Distribution in July 1997 for FY 97/98 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 97 /98. Distribution in July 1998 for FY 98/99 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 98/99. Distribution in July 1999 for FY 99/00 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 99/00. Distribution in July 2000 for FY 00/01 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 00/01 . 9 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. 1. Projected Ending Date January 15, 1995 2. Actual as of July 31 , 2001 In May 1995, monitors completed the unannounced visits of schools in Pulaski County. The monitoring process involved a qualitative process of document reviews, interviews, and observations. The monitoring focused on progress made since the announced monitoring visits. In June 1995, monitoring data from unannounced visits was included in the July Semiannual Report. Twenty-five per cent of all classrooms were visited, and all of the schools in Pulaski County were monitored. All principals were interviewed to determine any additional progress since the announced visits. The July 1995 Monitoring Report was reviewed by the ADE administrative team, the Arkansas State Board of Education, and the Districts and filed with the Court. The report was formatted in accordance with the Allen Letter. In October 1995, a common terminology was developed by principals from the Districts and the Lead Planning and Desegregation staff to facilitate the monitoring process. The announced monitoring visits began on November 14, 1995 and were completed on January 26, 1996. Copies of the preliminary Semiannual Monitoring Report and its executive summary were provided to the ADE administrative team and the State Board of Education in January 1996. A report on the current status of the Cycle 5 schools in the ECOE process and their school improvement plans was filed with the Court on February 1, 1996. The unannounced monitoring visits began in February 1996 and ended on May 10, 1996. In June 1996, all announced and unannounced monitoring visits were completed, and the data was analyzed using descriptive statistics. The Districts provided data on enrollment in compensatory education programs. The Districts and the ADE Desegregation Monitoring staff developed a definition for instructional programs. 10 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of July 31, 2001 (Continued) The Semiannual Monitoring Report was completed and filed with the Court on July 15, 1996 with copies distributed to the parties. Announced monitoring visits of the Cycle 1 schools began on October 28, 1996 and concluded in December 1996. In January 1997, presentations were made to the State Board of Education, the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee, and the parties to review the draft Semiannual Monitoring Report. The monitoring instrument and process were evaluated for their usefulness in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on achievement disparities. In February 1997, the Semiannual Monitoring Report was filed. Unannounced monitoring visits began on February 3, 1997 and concluded in May 1997. In March 1997, letters were sent to the Districts regarding data requirements for the July 1997 Semiannual Monitoring Report and the additional discipline data element that was requested by the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee. Desegregation data collection workshops were conducted in the Districts from March 28, 1997 to April 7, 1997. A meeting was conducted on April 3, 1997 to finalize plans for the July 15, 1997 Semiannual Monitoring Report. Onsite visits were made to Cycle 1 schools who did not submit accurate and timely data on discipline, M-to-M transfers, and policy. The July 15, 1997 Semiannual Monitoring Report and its executive summary were finalized in June 1997. In July 1997, the Semiannual Monitoring Report and its executive summary were filed with the court, and the ADE sponsored a School Improvement Conference. On July 10, 1997, copies of the Semiannual Monitoring Report and its executive summary were made available to the Districts for their review prior to filing it with the Court. In August 1997, procedures and schedules were organized for the monitoring of the Cycle 2 schools in FY 97 /98. 11 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of July 31 , 2001 (Continued) A Desegregation Monitoring and School Improvement Workshop for the Districts was held on September 10, 1997 to discuss monitoring expectations, instruments, data collection and school improvement visits. On October 9, 1997, a planning meeting was held with the desegregation monitoring staff to discuss deadlines, responsibilities, and strategic planning issues regarding the Semiannual Monitoring Report. Reminder letters were sent to the Cycle 2 principals outlining the data collection deadlines and availability of technical assistance. In October and November 1997, technical assistance visits were conducted, and announced monitoring visits of the Cycle 2 schools were completed. In December 1997 and January 1998, technical assistance visits were conducted regarding team visits, technical review recommendations, and consensus building. Copies of the infusion document and perceptual surveys were provided to schools in the ECOE process. The February 1998 Semiannual Monitoring Report was submitted for review and approval to the State Board of Education, the Director, the Administrative Team, the Attorney General's Office, and the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee. Unannounced monitoring visits began in February 1998, and technical assistance was provided on the school improvement process, external team visits and finalizing school improvement plans. On February 18, 1998, the representatives of all parties met to discuss possible revisions to the ADE's monitoring plan and monitoring reports. Additional meetings will be scheduled. Unannounced monitoring visits were conducted in March 1998, and technical assistance was provided on the school improvement process and external team visits. In April 1998, unannounced monitoring visits were conducted, and technical assistance was provided on the school improvement process. 12 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of July 31 , 2001 (Continued) In May 1998, unannounced monitoring visits were completed, and technical assistance was provided on the school improvement process. On May 18, 1998, the Court granted the ADE relief from its obligation to file the July 1998 Semiannual Monitoring Report to develop proposed modifications to ADE's monitoring and reporting obligations. In June 1998, monitoring information previously submitted by the districts in the Spring of 1998 was reviewed and prepared for historical files and presentation to the Arkansas State Board. Also, in June the following occurred: a) The Extended COE Team Visit Reports were completed, b) the Semiannual Monitoring COE Data Report was completed, c) progress reports were submitted from previous cycles, and d.) staff development on assessment (SAT-9) and curriculum alignment was conducted with three supervisors. In July, the Lead Planner provided the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Committee with (1) a review of the court Order relieving ADE of its obligation to file a July Semiannual Monitoring Report, and (2) an update of ADE's progress toward work with the parties and ODM to develop proposed revisions to ADE's monitoring and reporting obligations. The Committee encouraged ODM, the parties and the ADE to continue to work toward revision of the monitoring and reporting process. In August 1998, the ADE Implementation Phase Working group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. The Assistant Attorney General, the Assistant Director for Accountability and the Education Lead Planner updated the group on all relevant desegregation legal issues and proposed revisions to monitoring and reporting activities during the quarter. In September 1998, tentative monitoring dates were established and they will be finalized once proposed revisions to the Desegregation Monitoring Plan are finalized and approved. In September/October 1998, progress was being made on the proposed revisions to the monitoring process by committee representatives of all the Parties in the Pulaski County Settlement Agreement. While the revised monitoring plan is finalized and approved, the ADE monitoring staff will continue to provide technical assistance to schools upon request. In December 1998, requests were received from schools in PCSSD regarding test score analysis and staff Development. Oak Grove is scheduled for January 21 , 1999 and Lawson Elementary is also tentatively scheduled in January. 13 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of July 31 , 2001 (Continued) Staff development regarding test score analysis for Oak Grove and Lawson Elementary in the PCSSD has been rescheduled for April 2000. Staff development regarding test score analysis for Oak Grove and Lawson Elementary in the PCSSD was conducted on May 5, 2000 and May 9, 2000 respectively. Staff development regarding classroom management was provided to the Franklin Elementary School in LRSD on November 8, 2000. Staff development regarding ways to improve academic achievement was presented to College Station Elementary in PCSSD on November 22, 2000. On November 1, 2000, the ADE Implementation Phase Working group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. The Assistant Director for Accountability updated the group on all relevant desegregation legal issues and discussed revisions to monitoring and reporting activities during the quarter. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for February 27, 2001 in room 201-A at the ADE. The Implementation Phase Working Group meeting that was scheduled for February 27 had to be postponed. It will be rescheduled as soon as possible. The quarterly Implementation Phase Working Group meeting is scheduled for June 27, 2001 . ~~ !1',lEfiltation ill~'ffil\u0026lt;epl~ 14 \"\" orking 26,\u0026gt;:s20 meetin - scheduled om,2 j o P~ t Ill. A PETITION FOR ELECTION FOR LRSD WILL BE SUPPORTED SHOULD A MILLAGE BE REQUIRED A. Monitor court pleadings to determine if LRSD has petitioned the Court for a special election. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing. 2. Actual as of July 31 , 2001 Ongoing. All Court pleadings are monitored monthly. 8. Draft and file appropriate pleadings if LRSD petitions the Court for a special election. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of July 31, 2001 To date, no action has been taken by the LRSD. 15 IV. REPEAL STATUTES AND REGULATIONS THAT IMPEDE DESEGREGATION A. Using a collaborative approach, immediately identify those laws and regulations that appear to impede desegregation. 1. Projected Ending Date December, 1994 2. Actual as of July 31, 2001 The information for this item is detailed under Section IV.E. of this report. B. Conduct a review within ADE of existing legislation and regulations that appear to impede desegregation. 1. Projected Ending Date November, 1994 2. Actual as of July 31, 2001 The information for this item is detailed under Section IV.E. of this report. C. Request of the other parties to the Settlement Agreement that they identify laws and regulations that appear to impede desegregation. 1. Projected Ending Date November, 1994 2. Actual as of July 31, 2001 The information for this item is detailed under Section IV. E. of this report. D. Submit proposals to the State Board of Education for repeal of those regulations that are confirmed to be impediments to desegregation. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of July 31 , 2001 The information for this item is detailed under Section IV. E. of this report. 16 IV. REPEAL STATUTES AND REGULATIONS THAT IMPEDE DESEGREGATION (Continued) E. Submit proposals to the Legislature for repeal of those laws that appear to be impediments to desegregation. 2. Actual as of July 31, 2001 A committee within the ADE was formed in May 1995 to review and collect data on existing legislation and regulations identified by the parties as impediments to desegregation. The committee researched the Districts' concerns to determine if any of the rules, regulations, or legislation cited impede desegregation. The legislation cited by the Districts regarding loss funding and worker's compensation were not reviewed because they had already been litigated. In September 1995, the committee reviewed the following statutes, acts, and regulations: Act 113 of 1993\nADE Director's Communication 93-205\nAct 145 of 1989\nADE Director's Memo 91-67\nADE Program Standards Eligibility Criteria for Special Education\nArkansas Codes 6-18-206, 6-20-307, 6-20-319, and 6-17- 1506. In October 1995, the individual reports prepared by committee members in their areas of expertise and the data used to support their conclusions were submitted to the ADE administrative team for their review. A report was prepared and submitted to the State Board of Education in July 1996. The report concluded that none of the items reviewed impeded desegregation. As of February 3, 1997, no laws or regulations have been determined to impede desegregation efforts. Any new education laws enacted during the Arkansas 81 st Legislative Session will be reviewed at the close of the legislative session to ensure that they do not impede desegregation. In April 1997, copies of all laws passed during the 1997 Regular Session of the 81 st General Assembly were requested from the office of the ADE Liaison to the Legislature for distribution to the Districts for their input and review of possible impediments to their desegregation efforts. In August 1997, a meeting to review the statutes passed in the prior legislative session was scheduled for September 9, 1997. 17 IV. REPEAL STATUTES AND REGULATIONS THAT IMPEDE DESEGREGATION (Continued) E. Submit proposals to the Legislature for repeal of those laws that appear to be impediments to desegregation. (Continued) 2. Actual as of July 31, 2001 (Continued) On September 9, 1997, a meeting was held to discuss the review of the statutes passed in the prior legislative session and new A DE regulations. The Districts will be contacted in writing for their input regarding any new laws or regulations that they feel may impede desegregation. Additionally, the Districts will be asked to review their regulations to ensure that they do not impede their desegregation efforts. The committee will convene on December 1, 1997 to review their findings and finalize their report to the Administrative Team and the State Board of Education. In October 1997, the Districts were asked to review new regulations and statutes for impediments to their desegregation efforts, and advise the ADE, in writing, if they feel a regulation or statute may impede their desegregation efforts. In October 1997, the Districts were requested to advise the ADE, in writing, no later than November 1, 1997 of any new law that might impede their desegregation efforts. As of November 12, 1997, no written responses were received from the Districts. The ADE concludes that the Districts do not feel that any new law negatively impacts their desegregation efforts. The committee met on December 1, 1997 to discuss their findings regarding statutes and regulations that may impede the desegregation efforts of the Districts. The committee concluded that there were no laws or regulations that impede the desegregation efforts of the Districts. It was decided that the committee chair would prepare a report of the committee's findings for the Administrative Team and the State Board of Education. The committee to review statutes and regulations that impede desegregation is now reviewing proposed bills and regulations, as well as laws that are being signed in, for the current 1999 legislative session. They will continue to do so until the session is over. The committee to review statutes and regulations that impede desegregation will meet on April 26, 1999 at the ADE. The committee met on April 26, 1999 at the ADE. The purpose of the meeting was to identify rules and regulations that might impede desegregation, and review within the existing legislation any regulations that might result in an impediment to desegregation. This is a standing committee that is ongoing and a report will be submitted to the State Board of Education once the process is completed. 18 IV. REPEAL STATUTES AND REGULATIONS THAT IMPEDE DESEGREGATION (Continued) E. Submit proposals to the Legislature for repeal of those laws that appear to be impediments to desegregation. (Continued) 2. Actual as of July 31 , 2001 (Continued) The committee met on May 24, 1999 at the ADE. The committee was asked to review within the existing legislation any regulations that might result in an impediment to desegregation. The committee determined that Mr. Ray Lumpkin would contact the Pulaski County districts to request written response to any rules, regulations or laws that might impede desegregation. The committee would also collect information and data to prepare a report for the State Board. This will be a standing committee. This data gathering will be ongoing until the final report is given to the State Board. On July 26, 1999, the committee met at the ADE. The committee did not report any laws or regulations that they currently thought would impede desegregation, and are still waiting for a response from the three districts in Pulaski County. The committee met on August 30, 1999 at the ADE to review rules and regulations that might impede desegregation. At that time, there were no laws under review that appeared to impede desegregation. In November, the three districts sent letters to the ADE stating that they have reviewed the laws passed by the 82nd legislative session as well as current rules \u0026amp; regulations and district policies to ensure that they have no ill effect on desegregation efforts. There was some concern from PCSSD concerning a charter school proposal in the Maumelle area. The work of the committee is on-going each month depending on the information that comes before the committee. Any rules, laws or regulations that would impede desegregation will be discussed and reported to the State Board of Education. On October 4, 2000, the ADE presented staff development for assistant superintendents in LRSD, NLRSD and PCSSD regarding school laws of Arkansas. The ADE is in the process of forming a committee to review all Rules and Regulations from the ADE and State Laws that might impede desegregation. The ADE Committee on Statutes and Regulations will review all new laws that might impede desegregation once the 83rd General Assembly has completed this session. The ADE Committee on Statutes and Regulations will meet for the first time on June 11 , 2001 at 9:00 a.m. in room 204-A at the ADE. The committee will review all new laws that might impede desegregation that were passed during the 2001 Legislative Session. 1 9 IV. REPEAL STATUTES AND REGULATIONS THAT IMPEDE DESEGREGATION (Continued) E. Submit proposals to the Legislature for repeal of those laws that appear to be impediments to desegregation. (Continued) 2. Actual as of July 31 , 2001 (Continued) The ADE Committee on Statutes and Regulations rescheduled the meeting that was planned for June 11, in order to review new regulations proposed to the State Board of Education. The meeting will take place on July 16, 2001 at 9:00 a.m. at the ADE. 20 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES A. Through a preamble to the Implementation Plan, the Board of Education will reaffinn its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement and outcomes of programs intended to apply those principles. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of July 31, 2001 The preamble was contained in the Implementation Plan filed with the Court on March 15, 1994. B. Through execution of the Implementation Plan, the Board of Education will continue to reaffinn its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement and outcomes of programs intended to apply those principles. C. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of July 31, 2001 Ongoing Through execution of the Implementation Plan, the Board of Education will continue to reaffinn its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement by actions taken by ADE in response to monitoring results. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of July 31 , 2001 Ongoing D. Through regularoversightofthe Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 21 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of July 31 , 2001 At each regular monthly meeting of the State Board of Education, the Board is provided copies of the most recent Project Management Tool (PMT) and an executive summary of the PMT for their review and approval. Only activities that are in addition to the Board's monthly review of the PMT are detailed below. In May 1995, the State Board of Education was informed of the total number of schools visited during the monitoring phase and the data collection process. Suggestions were presented to the State Board of Education on how recommendations could be presented in the monitoring reports. In June 1995, an update on the status of the pending Semiannual Monitoring Report was provided to the State Board of Education. In July 1995, the July Semiannual Monitoring Report was reviewed by the State Board of Education. On August 14, 1995, the State Board of Education was informed of the need to increase minority participation in the teacher scholarship program and provided tentative monitoring dates to facilitate reporting requests by the ADE administrative team and the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee. In September 1995, the State Board of Education was advised of a change in the PMT from a table format to a narrative format. The Board was also briefed about a meeting with the Office of Desegregation Monitoring regarding the PMT. In October 1995, the State Board of Education was updated on monitoring timelines. The Board was also informed of a meeting with the parties regarding a review of the Semiannual Monitoring Report and the monitoring process, and the progress of the test validation study. In November 1995, a report was made to the State Board of Education regarding the monitoring schedule and a meeting with the parties concerning the developm~nt of a common terminology for monitoring purposes. In December 1995, the State Board of Education was updated regarding announced monitoring visits. In January 1996, copies of the draft February Semiannual Monitoring Report and its executive summary were provided to the State Board of Education. 22 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's ProjectManagementTool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of July 31, 2001 (Continued) During the months of February 1996 through May 1996, the PMT report was the only item on the agenda regarding the status of the implementation of the Monitoring Plan. In June 1996, the State Board of Education was updated on the status of the bias review study. In July 1996, the Semiannual Monitoring Report was provided to the Court, the parties, ODM, the State Board of Education, and the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee. In August 1996, the State Board of Education and the ADE administrative team were provided with copies of the test validation study prepared by Dr. Paul Williams. During the months of September 1996 through December 1996, the PMT was the only item on the agenda regarding the status of the implementation of the Monitoring Plan. On January 13, 1997, a presentation was made to the State Board of Education regarding the February 1997 Semiannual Monitoring Report, and copies of the report and its executive summary were distributed to all Board members. The Project Management Tool and its executive summary were addressed at the February 10, 1997 State Board of Education meeting regarding the ADE's progress in fulfilling their obligations as set forth in the Implementation Plan. In March 1997, the State Board of Education was notified that historical information in the PMT had been summarized at the direction of the Assistant Attorney General in order to reduce the size and increase the clarity of the report. The Board was updated on the Pulaski County Desegregation Case and reviewed the Memorandum Opinion and Order issued by the Court on February 18, 1997 in response to the Districts' motion for summary judgment on the issue of state funding for teacher retirement matching contributions. During the months of April 1997 through June 1997, the PMT was the only item on the agenda regarding the status of the implementation of the Monitoring Plan. The State Board of Education received copies of the July 15, 1997 Semiannual Monitoring Report and executive summary at the July Board meeting. 23 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of July 31 , 2001 (Continued) The Implementation Phase Working Group held its quarterly meeting on August 4, 1997 to discuss the progress made in attaining the goals set forth in the Implementation Plan and the critical areas for the current quarter. A special report regarding a historical review of the Pulaski County Settlement Agreement and the ADE's role and monitoring obligations were presented to the State Board of Education on September 8, 1997. Additionally, the July 15, 1997 Semiannual Monitoring Report was presented to the Board for their review. In October 1997, a special draft report regarding disparity in achievement was submitted to the State Board Chairman and the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee. In November 1997, the State Board of Education was provided copies of the monthly PMT and its executive summary. The Implementation Phase Working Group held its quarterly meeting on November 3, 1997 to discuss the progress made in attaining the goals set forth in the Implementation Plan and the critical areas for the current quarter. In December 1997, the State Board of Education was provided copies of the monthly PMT and its executive summary. In January 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and discussed ODM's report on the ADE's monitoring activities and instructed the Director to meet with the parties to discuss revisions to the ADE's monitoring plan and monitoring reports. In February 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and discussed the February 1998 Semiannual Monitoring Report. In March 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary and was provided an update regarding proposed revisions to the monitoring process. In April 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary. In May 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary. 24 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of July 31 , 2001 (Continued) In June 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary. The State Board of Education also reviewed how the ADE would report progress in the PMT concerning revisions in ADE's Monitoring Plan. In July 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary. The State Board of Education also received an update on Test Validation, the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Committee Meeting, and revisions in ADE's Monitoring Plan. In August 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary. The Board also received an update on the five discussion points regarding the proposed revisions to the monitoring and reporting process. The Board also reviewed the basic goal of the Minority Recruitment Committee. In September 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed the proposed modifications to the Monitoring plans by reviewing the common core of written response received from the districts. The primary commonalities were (1) Staff Development, (2) Achievement Disparity and (3) Disciplinary Disparity. A meeting of the parties is scheduled to be conducted on Thursday, September 17, 1998. The Board encouraged the Department to identify a deadline for Standardized Test Validation and Test Selection. In October 1998, the Board received the progress report on Proposed Revisions to the Desegregation Monitoring and Reporting Process (see XVIII). The Board also reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary. In November, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board also received an update on the proposed revisions in the Desegregation monitoring Process and the update on Test validation and Test Selection provisions of the Settlement Agreement. The Board was also notified that the Implementation Plan Working Committee held its quarterly meeting to review progress and identify quarterly priorities. In December, the State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board also received an update on the joint motion by the ADE, the LRSD, NLRSD, and the PCSSD, to relieve the Department of its obligation to file a February Semiannual Monitoring Report. The Board was also notified that the Joshua lntervenors filed a motion opposing the joint motion. The Board was informed that the ADE was waiting on a response from Court. 25 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project ManagementTool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of July 31, 2001 (Continued) In January, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewea the PMT and its executive summary. The Board also received an update on the joint motion of the ADE, LRSD, PCSSD, and NLRSD for an order relieving the ADE of filing a February 1999 Monitoring Report. The motion was granted subject to the following three conditions: (1) notify the Joshua intervenors of all meetings between the parties to discuss proposed changes, (2) file with the Court on or before February 1, 1999, a report detailing the progress made in developing proposed changes and (3) identify ways in which ADE might assist districts in their efforts to improve academic achievement. In February, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board was informed that the three conditions: (1) notify the Joshua lntervenors of all meetings between the parties to discuss proposed changes, (2) file with the Court on or before February 1, 1999, a report detailing the progress made in developing proposed changes and (3) identify ways in which ADE might assist districts in their efforts to improve academic achievement had been satisfied. The Joshua lntervenors were invited again to attend the meeting of the parties and they attended on January 13, and January 28, 1999. They are also scheduled to attend on February 17, 1998. The report of progress, a collaborative effort from all parties was presented to court on February 1, 1999. The Board was also informed that additional items were received for inclusion in the revised report, after the deadline for the submission of the progress report and the ADE would: (1) check them for feasibility, and fiscal impact if any, and (2) include the items in future drafts of the report. In March, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board also received and reviewed the Desegregation Monitoring and Assistance Progress Report submitted to Court on February 1, 1999. On April 12, and May 10, 1999, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board also was notified that once the financial section of the proposed plan was completed, the revised plan would be submitted to the board for approval. On June 14, 1999, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board also was notified that once the financial section of the proposed plan was completed, the revised plan would be submitted to the board for approval. 26 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of July 31, 2001 (Continued) On July 12, 1999, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board also was notified that once the financial section of the proposed plan was completed, the revised plan would be submitted to the board for approval. On August 9, 1999, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board was also notified that the new Desegregation Monitoring and Assistance Plan would be ready to submit to the Board for their review \u0026amp; approval as soon as plans were finalized. On September 13, 1999, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board was also notified that the new Desegregation Monitoring and Assistance Plan would be ready to submit to the Board for their review \u0026amp; approval as soon as plans were finalized. On October 12, 1999, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board was notified that on September 21, 1999 that the Office of Education Lead Planning and Desegregation Monitoring meet before the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee and presented them with the draft version of the new Desegregation Monitoring and Assistance Plan. The State Board was notified that the plan would be submitted for Board review and approval when finalized. On November 8, 1999, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of October. On December 13, 1999, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of November. On January 10, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of December. On February 14, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of January. On March 13, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of February. On April 10, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of March. 27 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project ManagementTool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of July 31, 2001 (Continued) On May 8, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of April. On June 12, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of May. On July 10, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of June. On August 14, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of July. On September 11, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of August. On October 9, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of September. On November 13, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of October. On December 11, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of November. On January 8, 2001 , the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of December. On February 12, 2001, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of January. On March 12, 2001, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of February. On April 9, 2001, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of March. On May 14, 2001 , the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of April. On June 11, 2001, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of May. 28 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of July 31, 2001 (Continued) 29 VI. REMEDIATION A. Through the Extended COE process, the needs for technical assistance by District, by School, and by desegregation compensatory education programs will be identified. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of July 31 , 2001 During May 1995, team visits to Cycle 4 schools were conducted, and plans were developed for reviewing the Cycle 5 schools. In June 1995, the current Extended COE packet was reviewed, and enhancements to the Extended COE packet were prepared. In July 1995, year end reports were final ized by the Pulaski County field service specialists, and plans were finalized for reviewing the draft improvement plans of the Cycle 5 schools. In August 1995, Phase I - Cycle 5 school improvement plans were reviewed. Plans were developed for meeting with the Districts to discuss plans for Phase II - Cycle 1 schools of Extended COE, and a school improvement conference was conducted in Hot Springs. The technical review visits for the FY 95/96 year and the documentation process were also discussed. In October 1995, two computer programs, the Effective Schools Planner and the Effective Schools Research Assistant, were ordered for review, and the first draft of a monitoring checklist for Extended COE was developed. Through the Extended COE process, the field service representatives provided technical assistance based on the needs identified within the Districts from the data gathered. In November 1995, ADE personnel discussed and planned for the FY 95/96 monitoring, and onsite visits were conducted to prepare schools for the FY 95/96 team visits. Technical review visits continued in the Districts. In December 1995, announced monitoring and technical assistance visits were conducted in the Districts. At December 31 , 1995, approximately 59% of the schools in the Districts had been monitored. Technical review visits were conducted during January 1996. In February 1996, announced monitoring visits and midyear monitoring reports were completed, and the field service specialists prepared for the spring NCA/COE peer team visits. 30 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) A. Through the Extended COE process, the needs for technical assistance by District, by School, and by desegregation compensatory education programs will be identified. (Continued) 2. Actual as of July 31, 2001 (Continued) In March 1996, unannounced monitoring visits of Cycle 5 schools commenced, and two-day peer team visits of Cycle 5 schools were conducted. Two-day team visit materials, team lists and reports were prepared. Technical assistance was provided to schools in final preparation for team visits and to schools needing any school improvement information. In April and May 1996, the unannounced monitoring visits were completed. The unannounced monitoring forms were reviewed and included in the July monitoring report. The two-day peer team visits were completed, and annual COE monitoring reports were prepared. In June 1996, all announced and unannounced monitoring visits of the Cycle 5 schools were completed, and the data was analyzed. The Districts identified enrollment in compensatory education programs. The Semiannual Monitoring Report was completed and filed with the Court on July 15, 1996, and copies were distributed to the parties. During August 1996, meetings were held with the Districts to discuss the monitoring requirements. Technical assistance meetings with Cycle 1 schools were planned for 96/97. The Districts were requested to record discipline data in accordance with the Allen Letter. In September 1996, recommendations regarding the ADE monitoring schedule for Cycle 1 schools and content layouts of the semiannual report were submitted to the ADE administrative team for their review. Training materials were developed and schedules outlined for Cycle 1 schools. In October 1996, technical assistance needs were identified and addressed to prepare each school for their team visits. Announced monitoring visits of the Cycle 1 schools began on October 28, 1996. In December 1996, the announced monitoring visits of the Cycle 1 schools were completed, and technical assistance needs were identified from school site visits. In January 1997, the ECOE monitoring section identified technical assistance needs of the Cycle 1 schools, and the data was reviewed when the draft February Semiannual Monitoring Report was presented to the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee, the State Board of Education, and the parties. 31 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) A. Through the Extended COE process, the needs for technical assistance by District, by School, and by desegregation compensatory education programs will be identified. (Continued) 2. Actual as of July 31, 2001 (Continued) In February 1997, field service specialists prepared for the peer team visits of the Cycle 1 schools. NCA accreditation reports were presented to the NCA Committee, and NCA reports were prepared for presentation at the April NCA meeting in Chicago. From March to May 1997, 111 visits were made to schools or central offices to work with principals, ECOE steering committees, and designated district personnel concerning school improvement planning. A workshop was conducted on Leaming Styles for Geyer Springs Elementary School. A School Improvement Conference was held in Hot Springs on July 15-17, 1997. The conference included information on the process of continuous school improvement, results of the first five years of COE, connecting the mission with the school improvement plan, and improving academic performance. Technical assistance needs were evaluated for the FY 97/98 school year in August 1997. From October 1997 to February 1998, technical reviews of the ECOE process were conducted by the field service representatives. Technical assistance was provided to the Districts through meetings with the ECOE steering committees, assistance in analyzing perceptual surveys, and by providing samples of school improvement plans, Gold File catalogs, and web site addresses to schools visited. Additional technical assistance was provided to the Districts through discussions with the ECOE committees and chairs about the process. In November 1997, technical reviews of the ECOE process were conducted by the field service representatives in conjunction with the announced monitoring visits. Workshops on brainstorming and consensus building and asking strategic questions were held in January and February 1998. In March 1998, the field service representatives conducted ECOE team visits and prepared materials for the NCA workshop. Technical assistance was provided in workshops on the ECOE process and team visits. In April 1998, technical assistance was provided on the ECOE process and academically distressed schools. In May 1998, technical assistance was provided on the ECOE process, and team visits were conducted. 32 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) A. Through the Extended COE process, the needs for technical assistance by District, by School, and by desegregation compensatory education programs will be identified. (Continued) 2. Actual as of July 31, 2001 (Continued) In June 1998, the Extended COE Team Visit Reports were completed. A School Improvement Conference was held in Hot Springs on July 13-15, 1998. Major conference topics included information on the process of continuous school improvement, curriculum alignment, \"Smart Start,\" Distance Leaming, using data to improve academic performance, educational technology, and multicultural education. All school districts in Arkansas were invited and representatives from Pulaski County attended. In September 1998, requests for technical assistance were received, visitation schedules were established, and assistance teams began visiting the Districts. Assistance was provided by telephone and on-site visits. The ADE provided inservice training on \"Using Data to Sharpen the Focus on Student Achievement\" at Gibbs Magnet Elementary school on October 5, 1998 at their request. The staff was taught how to increase test scores through data disaggregation, analysis, alignment, longitudinal achievement review, and use of individualized test data by student, teacher, class and content area. Information was also provided regarding the \"Smart Start'' and the \"Academic Distress\" initiatives. On October 20, 1998, ECOE technical assistance was provided to Southwest Jr. High School. B. Identify available resources for providing technical assistance for the specific condition, or circumstances of need, considering resources within ADE and the Districts, and also resources available from outside sources and experts. 1 . Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of July 31, 2001 The information for this item is detailed under Section VI.F. of this report. C. Through the ERIC system, conduct a literature search for research evaluating compensatory education programs. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 33 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) C. Through the ERIC system, conduct a literature search for research evaluating compensatory education programs. (Continued) 2. Actual as of July 31, 2001 An updated ERIC Search was conducted on May 15, 1995 to locate research on evaluating compensatory education programs. The ADE received the updated ERIC disc that covered material through March 1995. An ERIC search was conducted in September 30, 1996 to identify current research dealing with the evaluation of compensatory education programs, and the articles were reviewed. An ERIC search was conducted in April 1997 to identify current research on compensatory education programs and sent to the Cycle 1 principals and the field service specialists for their use. An Eric search was conducted in October 1998 on the topic of Compensatory Education and related descriptors. The search included articles with publication dates from 1997 through July 1998. D. Identify and research technical resources available to ADE and the Districts through programs and organizations such as the Desegregation Assistance Center in San Antonio, Texas. 1. Projected Ending Date Summer 1994 2. Actual as of July 31 , 2001 The information for this item is detailed under Section VI.F. of this report. E. Solicit, obtain, and use available resources for technical assistance. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of July 31 , 2001 The information for this item is detailed under Section VI.F. of this report. F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 34 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of July 31 , 2001 From March 1995 through July 1995, technical assistance and resources were obtained from the following sources: the Southwest Regional Cooperative\nUALR regarding training for monitors\nODM on a project management software\nADHE regarding data review and display\nand Phi Delta Kappa, the Desegregation Assistance Center and the Dawson Cooperative regarding perceptual surveys. Technical assistance was received on the Microsoft Project software in November 1995, and a draft of the PMT report using the new software package was presented to the ADE administrative team for review. In December 1995, a data manager was hired permanently to provide technical assistance with computer software and hardware. In October 1996, the field service specialists conducted workshops in the Districts to address their technical assistance needs and provided assistance for upcoming team visits. In November and December 1996, the field service specialists addressed technical assistance needs of the schools in the Districts as they were identified and continued to provide technical assistance for the upcoming team visits. In January 1997, a draft of the February 1997 Semiannual Monitoring Report was presented to the State Board of Education, the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee, and the parties. The ECOE monitoring section of the report included information that identified technical assistance needs and resources available to the Cycle 1 schools. Technical assistance was provided during the January 29-31 , 1997 Title I MidWinter Conference. The conference emphasized creating a learning community by building capacity schools to better serve all children and empowering parents to acquire additional skills and knowledge to better support the education of their children. In February 1997, three ADE employees attended the Southeast Regional Conference on Educating Black Children. Participants received training from national experts who outlined specific steps that promote and improve the education of black children. On March 6-9, 1997, three members of the ADE's Technical Assistance Section attended the National Committee for School Desegregation Conference. The participants received training in strategies for Excellence and Equity: Empowerment and Training for the Future. Specific information was received regarding the current status of court-ordered desegregation, unitary status, and resegregation and distributed to the Districts and ADE personnel. 35 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of July 31, 2001 (Continued) The field service specialists attended workshops in March on ACT testing and school improvement to identify technical assistance resources available to the Districts and the ADE that will facilitate desegregation efforts. ADE personnel attended the Eighth Annual Conference on Middle Level Education in Arkansas presented by the Arkansas Association of Middle Level Education on April 6-8, 1997. The theme of the conference was Sailing Toward New Horizons. In May 1997, the field service specialists attended the NCA annual conference and an inservice session with Mutiu Fagbayi. An Implementation Oversight Committee member participated in the Consolidated COE Plan inservice training. In June and July 1997, field service staff attended an SAT-9 testing workshop and participated in the three-day School Improvement Conference held in Hot Springs. The conference provided the Districts with information on the COE school improvement process, technical assistance on monitoring and assessing achievement, availability of technology for the classroom teacher, and teaching strategies for successful student achievement. In August 1997, field service personnel attended the ASCD Statewide Conference and the AAEA Administrators Conference. On August 18, 1997, the bi-monthly Team V meeting was held and presentations were made on the Early Literacy Leaming in Arkansas (ELLA) program and the Schools of the 21st Century program. In September 1997, technical assistance was provided to the Cycle 2 principals on data collection for onsite and offsite monitoring. ADE personnel attended the Region VI Desegregation Conference in October 1997. Current desegregation and educational equity cases and unitary status issues were the primary focus of the conference. On October 14, 1997, the bi-monthly Team V meeting was held in Paragould to enable members to observe a 21st Century school and a school that incorporates traditional and multi-age classes in its curriculum. In November 1997, the field service representatives attended the Governor's Partnership Workshop to discuss how to tie the committee's activities with the ECOE process. 36 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of July 31, 2001 (Continued) In March 1998, the field service representatives attended a school improvement conference and conducted workshops on team building and ECOE team visits. Staff development seminars on Using Data to Sharpen the Focus on Student Achievement are scheduled for March 23, 1998 and March 27, 1998 for the Districts. In April 1998, the Districts participated in an ADE seminar to aid them in evaluating and improving student achievement. In August 1998, the Field Service Staff attended inservice to provide further assistance to schools, i.e., Title I Summer Planning Session, ADE session on Smart Start, and the School Improvement Workshops. All schools and districts in Pulaski County were invited to attend the \"Smart Start'' Summit November 9, 10, and 11 to learn more about strategies to increase student performance. \"Smart Start\" is a standards-driven educational initiative which emphasizes the articulation of clear standards for student achievement and accurate measures of progress against those standards through assessments, staff development and individual school accountability. The Smart Start Initiative focused on improving reading and mathematics achievement for all students in Grades K-4. Representatives from all three districts attended. On January 21, 1998, the ADE provided staff development for the staff at Oak Grove Elementary School designed to assist them with their efforts to improve student achievement. Using achievement data from Oak Grove, educators reviewed trends in achievement data, identified areas of greatest need, and reviewed seven steps for improving student performance. On February 24, 1999, the ADE provided staff development for the administrative staff at Clinton Elementary School regarding analysis of achievement data. On February 15, 1999, staff development was rescheduled for Lawson Elementary School. The staff development program was designed to assist them with their efforts to improve student achievement using achievement data from Lawson, educators reviewed the components of the Arkansas Smart Initiative, trends in achievement data, identified areas of greatest need, and reviewed seven steps for improving student performance. Student Achievement Workshops were rescheduled for Southwest Jr. High in the Little Rock School District, and the Oak Grove Elementary School in the Pulaski County School District. 37 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of July 31 , 2001 (Continued) On April 30, 1999, a Student Achievement Workshop was conducted for Oak Grove Elementary School in PCSSD. The Student Achievement Workshop for Southwest Jr. High in LRSD has been rescheduled. On June 8, 1999, a workshop was presented to representatives from each of the Arkansas Education Service Cooperatives and representatives from each of the three districts in Pulaski County. The workshop detailed the Arkansas Comprehensive Testing, Assessment and Accountability Program (ACTAAP). On June 18, 1999, a workshop was presented to administrators of the NLRSD. The workshop detailed the Arkansas Comprehensive Testing, Assessment and Accountability Program (ACTAAP). On August 16, 1999, professional development on ways to increase student achievement and the components of the new ACT AAP program was presented during the preschool staff development activities for teaching assistant in the LRSD. On August 20, 1999, professional development on ways to increase student achievement and the components of the new ACT AAP program was presented during the preschool staff development activities for the Accelerated Leaming Center in the LRSD. On September 13, 1999, professional development on ways to increase student achievement and the components of the new ACT AAP program were presented to the staff at Booker T. Washington Magnet Elementary School. On September 27, 1999, professional development on ways to increase student achievement was presented to the Middle and High School staffs of the NLRSD. The workshop also covered the components of the new ACTAAP program, and ACT 999 of 1999. On October 26, 1999, professional development on ways to increase student achievement was presented to LRSD personnel through a staff development training class. The workshop also covered the components of the new ACT AAP program, and ACT 999 of 1999. On December 7, 1999, professional development on ways to increase student achievement was scheduled for Southwest Middle School in the LRSD. The workshop was also set to cover the components of the new ACT AAP program, and ACT 999 of 1999. However, Southwest Middle School administrators had a need to reschedule, therefore the workshop will be rescheduled. On January 10, 2000, professional development on ways to increase student achievement was conducted for both Dr. Martin Luther King Magnet Elementary School \u0026amp; Little Rock Central High School. The workshops also covered the components of the new ACTAAP program, and ACT 999 of 1999. 38 VI. REM ED IA TION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of July 31 , 2001 (Continued) On March 1, 2000, professional development on ways to increase student achievement was conducted for all principals and district level administrators in the PCSSD. The workshop also covered the components of the new ACTAAP program, and ACT 999 of 1999. On April 12, 2000, professional development on ways to increase student achievement was conducted for the LRSD. The workshop also covered the components of the new ACTAAP program, and ACT 999 of 1999. Targeted staffs from the middle and junior high schools in the three districts in Pulaski County attended the Smart Step Summit on May 1 and May 2. Training was provided regarding the overview of the \"Smart Step\" initiative, \"Standard and Accountability in Action,\" and \"Creating Leaming Environments Through Leadership Teams.\" The ADE provided training on the development of alternative assessment September 12-13, 2000. Information was provided regarding the assessment of Special Education and LEP students. Representatives from each district were provided the opportunity to select a team of educators from each school within the district to participate in professional development regarding Integrating Curriculum and Assessment K-12. The professional development activity was directed by the national consultant, Dr. Heidi Hays Jacobs, on September 14 and 15, 2000. The ADE provided professional development workshops from October 2 through October 13, 2000 regarding, \"The Write Stuff: Curriculum Frameworks, Content Standards and Item Development.\" Experts from the Data Recognition Corporation provided the training. Representatives from each district were provided the opportunity to select a team of educators from each school within the district to participate. The ADE provided training on Alternative Assessment Portfolio Systems by video conference for Special Education and LEP Teachers on November 17, 2000. Also, Alternative Assessment Portfolio System Training was provided for testing coordinators through teleconference broadcast on November 27, 2000. On December 12, 2000, the ADE provided training for Test Coordinators on end of course assessments in Geometry and Algebra I Pilot examination. Experts from the Data Recognition Corporation conducted the professional development at the Arkansas Teacher Retirement Building. 39 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of July 31, 2001 (Continued) The ADE presented a one-day training session with Dr. Cecil Reynolds on the Behavior Assessment for Children (BASC). This took place on December 7, 2000 at the NLRSD Administrative Annex. Dr. Reynolds is a practicing clinical psychologist. He is also a professor at Texas A \u0026amp; M University and a nationally known author. In the training, Dr. Reynolds addressed the following: 1) how to use and interpret information obtained on the direct observation form, 2) how to use this information for programming, 3) when to use the BASC, 4) when to refer for more or additional testing or evaluation, 5) who should complete the forms and when, (i .e., parents, teachers, students), 6) how to correctly interpret scores. This training was intended to especially benefit School Psychology Specialists, psychologists, psychological examiners, educational examiners and counselors. During January 22-26, 2001 the ADE presented the ACTMP Intermediate (Grade 6) Benchmark Professional Development Workshop on Item Writing. Experts from the Data Recognition Corporation provided the training. Representatives from each district were invited to attend. On January 12, 2001 the ADE presented test administrators training for mid-year End of Course (Pilot) Algebra I and Geometry exams. This was provided for schools with block scheduling. On January 13, 2001 the ADE presented SmartScience Lessons and worked with teachers to produce curriculum. This was shared with eight Master Teachers. The SmartScience Lessons were developed by the Arkansas Science Teachers Association in conjunction with the Wilbur Mills Educational Cooperative under an Eisenhower grant provided by the ADE. The purpose of SmartScience is to provide K-6 teachers with activity-oriented science lessons that incorporate reading, writing, and mathematics skills. The following training has been provided for educators in the three districts in Pulaski County by the Division of Special Education at the ADE since January 2000: On January 6, 2000, training was conducted for the Shannon Hills Pre-school Program, entitled \"Things you can do at home to support your child's learning.\" This was presented by Don Boyd - ASERC and Shelley Weir. The school's director and seven parents attended. On March 8, 2000, training was conducted for the Southwest Middle School in Little Rock, on ADD. Six people attended the training. There was follow-up training on Leaming and Reading Styles on March 26. This was presented by Don Boyd - ASERC and Shelley Weir. 40 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of July 31 , 2001 (Continued) On September 7, 2000, Autism and Classroom Accommodations for the LRSD at Chicot Elementary School was presented. Bryan Ayres and Shelley Weirwere presenters. The participants were: Karen Sabo, Kindergarten Teacher\nMelissa Gleason, Paraprofessional\nCurtis Mayfield, P.E. Teacher\nLisa Poteet, Speech Language Pathologist\nJane Harkey, Principal\nKathy Penn-Norman, Special Education Coordinator\nAlice Phillips, Occupational Therapist. On September 15, 2000, the Governor's Developmental Disability Coalition Conference presented Assistive Technology Devices \u0026amp; Services. This was held at the Arlington Hotel in Hot Springs. Bryan Ayres was the presenter. On September 19, 2000, Autism and Classroom Accommodations for the LRSD at Jefferson Elementary School was presented. Bryan Ayres and Shelley Weir were presenters. The participants were: Melissa Chaney, Special Education Teacher\nBarbara Barnes, Special Education Coordinator\na Principal, a Counselor, a Librarian, and a Paraprofessional. On October 6, 2000, Integrating Assistive Technology Into Curriculum was presented at a conference in the Hot Springs Convention Center. Presenters were: Bryan Ayers and Aleecia Starkey. Speech Language Pathologists from LRSD and NLRSD attended. On October 24, 2000, Consideration and Assessment of Assistive Technology was presented through Compressed Video-Teleconference at the ADE facility in West Little Rock. Bryan Ayres was the presenter. On October 25 and 26, 2000, Alternate Assessment for Students with Severe Disabilities for the LRSD at J. A. Fair High School was presented. Bryan Ayres was the presenter. The participants were: Susan Chapman, Special Education Coordinator\nMary Steele, Special Education Teacher\nDenise Nesbit, Speech Language Pathologist\nand three Paraprofessionals. On November 14, 2000, Consideration and Assessment of Assistive Technology was presented through Compressed Video-Teleconference at the ADE facility in West Little Rock. Bryan Ayres was the presenter. On November 17, 2000, training was conducted on Autism for the LRSD at the Instructional Resource Center. Bryan Ayres and Shelley Weir were presenters. On December 5, 2000, Access to the Curriculum Via the use of Assistive Technology Computer Lab was presented. Bryan Ayres was the presenter of this teleconference. The participants were: Tim Fisk, Speech Language Pathologist from Arch Ford Education Service Cooperative at Plumerville and Patsy Lewis, Special Education Teacher from Mabelvale Middle School in the LRSD. 41 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of July 31 , 2001 (Continued) On January 9, 2001 , Consideration and Assessment of Assistive Technology was presented through Compressed Video-Teleconference at the ADE facility in West Little Rock. Bryan Ayres was the presenter. Kathy Brown, a vision consultant from the LRSD, was a participant. On January 23, 2001 , Autism and Classroom Modifications for the LRSD at Brady Elementary School was presented. Bryan Ayres and Shelley Weir were presenters. The participants were: Beverly Cook, Special Education Teacher\nAmy Littrell, Speech Language Pathologist\nJan Feurig, Occupational Therapist\nCarolyn James, Paraprofessional\nCindy Kackly, Paraprofessional\nand Rita Deloney, Paraprofessional. The ADE provided training on Alternative Assessment Portfolio Systems for Special Education and Limited English Proficient students through teleconference broadcast on February 5, 2001 . Presenters were: Charlotte Marvel, ADE\nDr. Gayle Potter, ADE\nMarcia Harding, ADE\nLynn Springfield, ASERC\nMary Steele, J. A. Fair High School, LRSD\nBryan Ayres, Easter Seals Outreach. This was provided for Special Education teachers and supervisors in the morning, and Limited English Proficient teachers and supervisors in the afternoon. The Special Education session was attended by 29 teachers/administrators and provided answers to specific questions about the alternate assessment portfolio system and the scoring rubric and points on the rubric to be used to score the portfolios. The LEP session was attended by 16 teachers/administrators and disseminated the common tasks to be included in the portfolios: one each in mathematics, writing and reading. On February 12-23, 2001 , the ADE and Data Recognition Corporation personnel trained Test Coordinators in the administration of the spring Criterion-Referenced Test. This was provided in 20 sessions at 10 regional sites. Testing protocol, released items, and other testing materials were presented and discussed. The sessions provided training for Primary, Intermediate, and Middle Level Benchmark Exams as well as End of Course Literacy, Algebra and Geometry Pilot Tests. The LRSD had 2 in attendance for the End of Course session and 2 for the Benchmark session. The NLRSD had 1 in attendance for the End of Course session and 1 for the Benchmark session. The PCSSD had 1 in attendance for the End of Course session and 1 for the Benchmark session. 4 2 VI. REM ED IA TION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of July 31 , 2001 (Continued) On March 15, 2001, there was a meeting at the ADE to plan professional development for staff who work with Limited English Proficiency (LEP) students. A $30,000 grant has been created to provide LEP training at Chicot Elementary for a year, starting in April 2001 . A $40,000 grant was created to provide a Summer English as Second Language (ESL) Academy for the LRSD from June 18 through 29, 2001 . Andre Guerrero from the ADE Accountability section met with Karen Broadnax, ESL Coordinator at LRSD, Pat Price, Early Childhood Curriculum Supervisor at LRSD, and Jane Harkey, Principal of Chicot Elementary. On March 1-2 and 8-29, 2001, ADE staff performed the following activities: processed registration for April 2 and 3 Alternate Portfolio Assessment video conference quarterly meeting\nanswered questions about Individualized Educational Plan (IEP) and LEP Alternate Portfolio Assessment by phone from schools and Education Service Cooperatives\nand signed up students for alternate portfolio assessment from school districts. On March 6, 2001 , ADE staff attended a Smart Step Technology Leadership Conference at the State House Convention Center. On March 7, 2001 , ADE staff attended a National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) Regional Math Framework Meeting about the Consensus Project 2004. On March 8, 2001 , there was a one-on-one conference with Carole Villarreal from Pulaski County at the ADE about the LEP students with portfolios. She was given pertinent data, including all the materials that have been given out at the video conferences. The conference lasted for at least an hour. On March 14, 2001 , a Test Administrator's Training Session was presented specifically to LRSD Test Coordinators and Principals. About60 LRSD personnel attended. The following meetings have been conducted with educators in the three districts in Pulaski County since July 2000. On July 10-13, 2000 the ADE provided Smart Step training. The sessions covered Standards-based classroom practices. 4 3 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of July 31, 2001 (Continued) On July 19-21, 2000 the ADE held the Math/Science Leadership Conference at UCA. This provided services for Arkansas math and science teachers to support systemic reform in math/science and training for 8th grade Benchmark. There were 200 teachers from across the state in attendance. On August 14-31, 2000 the ADE presented Science Smart Start Lessons and worked with teachers to produce curriculum. This will provide K-6 teachers with activity-oriented science lessons that incorporate reading, writing, and mathematics skills. On September 5, 2000 the ADE held an Eisenhower Informational meeting with Teacher Center Coordinators. The purpose of the Eisenhower Professional Development Program is to prepare teachers, school staff, and administrators to help all students meet challenging standards in the core academic subjects. A summary of the program was presented at the meeting. On November 2-3, 2000 the ADE held the Arkansas Conference on Teaching. This presented curriculum and activity workshops. More than 1200 attended the conference. On November 6, 2000 there was a review of Science Benchmarks and sample model curriculum. A committee of 6 reviewed and revised a drafted document. The committee was made up of ADE and K-8 teachers. On November 7-10, 2000 the ADE held a meeting of the Benchmark and End of Course Mathematics Content Area Committee. Classroom teachers reviewed items for grades 4, 6, 8 and EOC mathematics assessment. There were 60 participants. On December 4-8, 2000 the ADE conducted grades 4 and 8 Benchmark Scoring for Writing Assessment. This professional development was attended by approximately 750 teachers. On December 8, 2000 the ADE conducted Rubric development for Special Education Portfolio scoring. This was a meeting with special education supervisors to revise rubric and plan for scoring in June. On December 8, 2000 the ADE presented the Transition Mathematics Pilot Training Workshop. This provided follow-up training and activities for fourth-year mathematics professional development. On December 12, 2000 the ADE presented test administrators training for midyear End of Course (Pilot) Algebra I and Geometry exams. This was provided for schools with block scheduling. 44 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of July 31 , 2001 (Continued) The ADE provided training on Alternative Assessment Portfolio Systems for Special Education and Limited English Proficient students through teleconference broadcasts on April 2-3, 2001. Administration of the Primary, Intermediate, and Middle Level Benchmark Exams as well as End of Course Literacy took place on April 23-27, 2001 . Administration of the End of Course Algebra and Geometry Exams took place on May 2-3, 2001 . m ynote cation ss on t the Smart Step t were pecific atfd consultant from Houston, ~ xa~ Jivered two addresses. SP1 eon \"A Blueprint for Raising Stu~e2,t Achievement\"- Represent:tives from alf three aistricts in Pulaski Cot1hfy t ~ttended. Over 1,200 Arkansas teachers a'cfd administrators attended the Smart Start Conf Statehouse Cooventi   Sma ioffiative which . emp ~ . artic nt and accurate measures Sf P sme_nts, {itaft developmen t and tart Initiative focused on in:J'\u0026gt;rovihg . and ~ r all students in Graaes K-4. ~ e evenl: with: o . iyion, Dir ctor of. ~ ~AE'.\u0026gt;E. Catt Boyd a long me educa OF [earning 24-7,:, presented the 'eynoJ address. Toe 5 brea~out sessrop _ on best classl'oom pra~ ces. R e districts irt Pulaski Coo~ attended. 45 VII. TEST VALIDATION A. Using a collaborative approach, the ADE will select and contract with an independent bias review service or expert to evaluate the Stanford 8, or other monitoring instruments used to measure disparities in academic achievement between black students and white students. 1. Projected Ending Date March, 1995 2. Actual as of July 31 , 2001 On March 29, 1995, letters were sent to four national experts about conducting a test bias validation of the Stanford Achievement Test, Eighth Edition, Fonn K (SAT-8). Dr. Paul Williams, Deputy Director of Educational Testing Service (ETS), contacted the ADE in April of 1995 concerning the proposal for validating the SAT-8 test. The ADE requested that Dr. Williams conduct a validity study of test items used in the SAT-8. Dr. Williams submitted a final proposal for his services. The ADE Bias Review Test Committee met Friday, July 7, 1995, and approved Dr. William's contract proposal. The final contract was forwarded to Dr. Williams for his signature. The contract was signed in August 1995, thereby, completing this goal. B. By April 1994, establish a bias review committee to oversee the bias review process, and invite representatives of the Districts and parties to meet with the bias review committee. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of July 31, 2001 Complete. ADE established a Bias Review Committee in April 1994. In accordance with the Implementation Plan, representatives from the Districts and the parties were invited to attend and participate in this and all meetings of the Bias Review Committee. C. Upon completion of test validation procedures by the bias review service or expert, the ADE will adopt and use a validated test as a monitoring instrument. 1. Projected Ending Date March 1995 and ongoing 46 VII. TEST VALIDATION (Continued) C. Upon completion of test validation procedures by the bias review service or expert, the ADE will adopt and use a validated test as a monitoring instrument. (Continued) 2. Actual as of July 31 , 2001 Dr. Paul Williams met with the staff of the Psychological Corporation to review their methods and procedures. In August 1995, he met with the staff at Georgia State University to review the statistical methods that would be used in the analysis. Dr. Williams reported difficulty with the bias-review study in receiving the names of the bias panel and the complete SAT-8 data set from the Psychological Corporation. Dr. Williams submitted an invoice totaling $8,961 for Task I activities of the SAT-8 validity study for partial fulfillment of the test validation study. On December 6, 1995, a contract extension for Dr. Williams was reviewed by the Legislative Council. In January 1996, he indicated that he was in the final stages of the test validation, and the ADE was presented a draft report in March 1996. In May 1996, Dr. Williams stated that the wrong data sets were sent to him by the Psychological Corporation resulting in Task 3 having to be redone. A new draft of the final report was received by the ADE in July 1996. In August 1996, copies of the test validation report were provided to the State Board of Education and the ADE administrative team for their review. On September 10, 1996, the LRSD notified the ADE that they had reviewed the test validation report and would like to meet with the ADE to discuss the report. The ADE Director indicated that he would schedule a meeting with the LRSD to discuss the report. In October 1996, historical files and data were provided to the ADE Director, the ADE Assistant Director for Technical Services, and the ADE Assistant Director for Planning and Curriculum for their review in preparation for a meeting with the LRSD regarding the validity study. Test validation procedures by the expert have been completed. A recommendation was drafted proposing the use of the SA T-8 by the ADE as the validated test for monitoring. The ADE is presently working to arrange a meeting with the Administration of the LRSD to discuss the test validation study. Effective September 22, 1997, the State Board of Education hired a new Director of the General Education Division, which should allow the ADE to move forward in this matter. 47 VII. TEST VALIDATION (Continued) C. Upon completion of test validation procedures by the bias review service or expert, the ADE will adopt and use a validated test as a monitoring instrument. (Continued) 2. Actual as of July 31 , 2001 (Continued) In October 1997, the GED Director was updated on the history of the test validation process to provide the Director with background information in preparation for a meeting with the LRSD. In February 1998, ADE staff met with senior staff members to discuss the test validation and appropriate test scores for consideration by the LRSD. The ADE Director met with the Superintendent of the LRSD to discuss test validation issues. In June 1998, the ADE Director directed the Assistant Director for Accountability to recommend staff to discuss how the ADE would measure LRSD's progress toward meeting the loan forgiveness thresholds of the Settlement Agreement. Plans were made to meet with the staff Tuesday, June 30, 1998. The Test Validation Committee met on June 30, 1998, and discussed the following: 1. The appropriateness of the use of scaled scores on the SAT-8 test as the metric for assessing LRSD compliance with the loan forgiveness provisions of the Settlement Agreement\nand 2. The need for an independent analysis of LRSD students' test scores to determine compliance or noncompliance with loan forgiveness standard, and who would bear the cost of such an independent analysis. The Test Validation Committee met on September 10, 1998, to review recent correspondence from LRSD and to further discuss issues related to the loan forgiveness provisions of the Settlement Agreement. A follow-up administrative meeting was held on October 13, 1998, to discuss issues related to the test validation process. Participants included Tim Gauger, Assistant Attorney General, Dr. Charity Smith, Lead Planner for Desegregation, and Frank Anthony, Assistant Director for Accountability. A meeting was scheduled with Dr. Les Carnine, LRSD Superintendent and Mr. Ray Simon, ADE Director, regarding Test Validation and loan forgiveness provisions of the Settlement Agreement on May 12, 1999. 48 VII. TEST VALIDATION (Continued) C. Upon completion of test validation procedures by the bias review service or expert, the ADE will adopt and use a validated test as a monitoring instrument. (Continued) 2. Actual as of July 31 , 2001 (Continued) On June 14, 1999, the State Board of Education was briefed on the status of LRSD's refusal to make principal and interest payments into escrow as required by the loan provisions of the Settlement Agreement and related documents. The Board requested that a draft motion to enforce the Settlement Agreement be prepared and submitted to the Board for review and discussion at the Board's next regularly scheduled meeting. On July 12, 1999, the State Board of Education authorized the filing of a motion to compel LRSD to make interest and principal payments into escrow pursuant to the loan provisions of the Settlement Agreement. The State Board of Education instructed the Attorney General's Office to file a motion by March 1, 2000 if a determination is made that the LRSD is not in compliance with Section 6 B of the Pulaski County Settlement Agreement regarding the establishment and funding of the escrow account in the loan provision section. On May 8, 2000, the Assistant Director of Accountability was directed by the Director of Education to contact Harcourt Brace Educational Measurement Company about the possibility of conducting a research study on the standardized test composite scores from 1990 through 1999 of LRSD (excluding special education students). The Test Selection Committee met on May 23, 2000, at the ADE and discussed ways to measure LRSD's progress toward meeting the loan forgiveness threshold of the Pulaski County Settlement Agreement. An update on the progress with Harcourt Brace was made at that time. Harcourt Brace has been contacted about conducting an initial research report on LRSD's progress toward meeting the loan forgiveness threshold of the settlement agreement. This report will review all composite scores since 1990 of LRSD's black and white students (excluding special education students). The purpose of the report is to determine if at any time from Spring 1990 to Fall 1999 did the composite scores of LRSD's black students (excluding special education students) reach 90% or greater of the composite scores of LRSD's white students (excluding special education students) on the State mandated norm-referenced test. Company representatives will advise the ADE of the cost and feasibility of producing the report by May 31 , 2000. If the report indicates that LRSD has not meet the loan forgiveness requirements of the Pulaski County Settlement Agreement, an additional analysis of the Fall 2000 standardized tests results will be made. 49 VII. TEST VALIDATION (Continued) C. Upon completion of test validation procedures by the bias review service or expert, the ADE will adopt and use a validated test as a monitoring instrument. (Continued) 2. Actual as of July 31, 2001 (Continued) Harcourt Brace indicated that they would be able to provide the data, but indicated that analysis of the data should be done by an independent consultant. The search for an independent consultant has been undertaken. On February 12, 2001, the ADE Director provided the State Board of Education with a special update on desegregation activities. 50 VIII. IN-SERVICE TRAINING A. Through an interactive process with representatives of desegregating districts, identify in-service training needs. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of July 31, 2001 The information for this item is detailed under Section VIII.D. of this report. B. Develop in-service training programs to address in-service training needs of desegregating districts. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of July 31 , 2001 The information for this item is detailed under Section VIII.D. of this report. C. Implement in-service training programs to address in-service training needs of desegregating districts. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of July 31, 2001 The information for this item is detailed under Section VIII.D. of this report. D. Evaluate in-service training programs developed and executed to address in-service training needs of desegregating districts. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of July 31 , 2001 In April 1995, the Tri-District Staff Development Committee were provided an overview of the Scott Alternative Learning Center's operation and met with students and staff. In May 1995, the Districts were in the process of self-assessment and planning for fall staff development. 51 VIII. IN-SERVICE TRAINING (Continued) D. Evaluate in-service training programs developed and executed to address in-service training needs of desegregating districts. (Continued) 2. Actual as of July 31, 2001 (Continued) The Districts worked on staff development to be incorporated into their fall 95/96 preschool calendars. The uniqueness of each district's needs and their schools was considered in the planning by utilizing the results of needs assessment instruments. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met on September 13, 1995 to plan for an ADE administered Classroom Management grant. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met on September 19, 1995 to finalize the Classroom Management grant proposal. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met on October 24, 1995 to discuss program and staff development evaluation models that might be available to the Districts. On November 15, 1995, the ADE met with an ODM representative to discuss the progress the ADE had made in attaining the objectives outlined in the Implementation Plan with regard to inservice training. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met on November 21, 1995 to discuss upcoming training events and various NLR programs that focus on non-academic needs. A new program consisting of placing a graduate student of social work, a field supervisor, and a DHS worker in the district at no cost to the district was discussed. Additionally, NLR provided an overview of their program for credit deficient students. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met on December 19, 1995 to discuss information dealing with ways to broaden the perspective of multicultural education. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met on January 17, 1996 to discuss proposed changes in the standards regarding media centers and NLRSD's staff development strategic planning committee. The committee reviewed a video on diversity produced by the Arkansas Elementary Principals Association. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met on February 21 , 1996 to discuss the implications of budget cuts on staff development programs and PCSSD's request for unitary status for their staff development program. They also discussed the need for computer literacy, technology training, and acquisition of hardware and software by the Districts. 52 VIII. IN-SERVICE TRAINING (Continued) D. Evaluate in-service training programs developed and executed to address in-service training needs of desegregating districts. (Continued) 2. Actual as of July 31, 2001 (Continued) The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met on March 27, 1996 to discuss available resources concerning sexual harassment. ADE regulations in relation to staff members attending professional association conferences as well as the district staff development and potential sites for training seminars were also discussed. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met on April 30, 1996 to discuss the reconfiguring of Jacksonville Junior High, PCSSD professional development schedules, and APSCN on-line time lines. A tour of the Washington Magnet school was also conducted. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee received a demonstration of UALR's Baum Decision Support Center's capabilities regarding consensus and planning on May 29, 1996. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee did not meet during September, October, and November 1996 because of scheduling conflicts and the extended medical leave of the ADE liaison. On December 18, 1996, the Tri-District Staff Development Committee met to discuss the linkage between the Implementation Plan, staff development, and student achievement. On January 21 , 1997, the Tri-District Staff Development Committee met and discussed sharing middle school strategies and the Districts' training catalogs. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met on February 25, 1997 to discuss their current staff development programs and an overview of the relationship of their current programs with their desegregation plans. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met on March 26, 1997 to observe the Great Expectations Program. The principal and mentor teachers provided information on the components and philosophy of the program, and students demonstrated selected components. The PCSSD may adopt the program for selected schools in their district. The committee was provided with an update of pertinent information on resources available to the Districts. The committee decided that the ADE liaison to the committee would gather documentation of completed staff development directly from the Districts, instead of the Districts providing this information at the committee meetings. 53 VIII. IN-SERVICE TRAINING (Continued) D. Evaluate in-service training programs developed and executed to address in-service training needs of desegregating districts. (Continued) 2. Actual as of July 31, 2001 (Continued) New information on teacher licensure and rules and regulations was shared with the Tri-District Staff Development Committee at their April 1997 meeting. A report was presented to the committee on information from the Arkansas Council for Social Studies about an October 1997 meeting on integrated curriculum. The Districts will provide principal retreats this summer as a part of their staff development. The PCSSD will sponsor a renowned speaker on strategies to serve at risk youth in August 1997 in which the committee is invited to attend. The LRSD shared survey results from a pilot administration to four teachers in each district. The survey found the sample to be strong in content but lacking in context and process. Plans to address these needs will be developed. In another survey to certified and non-certified LRSD staff, stress management was the major concern. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met on May 14, 1997 to participate in a teleconference with the five 1996 awardees of the National Awards Program for Model for Professional Development. The PCSSD shared their summer and fall staff development catalog with the members. The committee will reconvene in the fall of the 97/98 school year. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee is scheduled to meet on September 30, 1997 to discuss collaborative actions for FY 97 /98. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met on September 30, 1997 to discuss their staff development for the 1997/1998 school year. The PCSSD had a pre-school in-service for the faculty, and the LRSD conducted a Principals Academy with an expert on the math and science initiative which lasted several days. The NLRSD is providing staff development by satellite. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met on October 28, 1997. The LRSD and NLRSD shared some of their staff development course offerings with the committee, and the PCSSD discussed ways of optimizing opportunities for staff development with specific emphasis on the junior high school conflict resolution training. In November 1997, the Lead Planner provided technical assistance to Central High School staff regarding data disaggregation, test score analysis and ways to improve student achievement. 54 VIII. IN-SERVICE TRAINING (Continued) D. Evaluate in-service training programs developed and executed to address in-service training needs of desegregating districts. (Continued) 2. Actual as of July 31, 2001 (Continued) The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met on November 25, 1997 to discuss the Standards for Staff Development. The LRSD will begin providing technology training to their employees in January by utilizing business teachers. Additionally, they discussed a collaborative venture of the Districts involving a workshop from Chicago on a program called \"Great Expectations.\" The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met on December 16, 1997 to discuss technology plans, strategies for obtaining information currently being provided to the education cooperatives, scheduling of Arkansas history, and the development of a comprehensive list of locations available for staff development. Members agreed to bring information on available locations to the January meeting and have set a tentative completion date for the project of May 1998. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met on January 27, 1998 to share information for developing a comprehensive list of locations available for staff development. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met on February 24, 1998 to work on the development of the list of locations available for staff development. The committee also discussed the meeting on student achievement sponsored by the ADE for the Districts, principals' staff development in the Districts and emphasis on improving achievement as reflected on the SAT-9. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met on March 19, 1998 to discuss the math and science grant received by the LRSD, the Districts' inservice calendars for August, TESA and Student-Team Leaming trainers, and team building for staff. The ADE Deputy Director is scheduled to discuss ways the committee can strengthen their relationship with the regional cooperatives at their May meeting. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met on April 27, 1998 to discuss their proposal for involvement with the regional cooperatives. The ADE Deputy Director is scheduled to discuss committee's concerns regarding their relationship with the regional cooperatives at their next meeting. 55 VIII. IN-SERVICE TRAINING (Continued) D. Evaluate in-service training programs developed and executed to address in-service training needs of desegregating districts. (Continued) 2. Actual as of July 31, 2001 (Continued) The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met Thursday, May 21 , 1998, in the Instructional Resources Center at Little Rock School District. Dr. Woodrow Cummins, ADE Deputy Director, joined the group to discuss ways to develop a closer connection with the Education Service Cooperatives. He also discussed other issues concerning Tri-District Staff Development. Tentative plans were made to meet with the Teacher Center Coordinators at their next regular meeting. The next Central Office meeting will be at 9:00 a.m., Thursday, September 29, 1998, in the PCSSD. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee will attend the Educational Cooperative Teacher Center Coordinators' meeting September 1, 1998, in the ADE auditorium. The next regular meeting of the committee is tentatively set for 9:00 a.m., Thursday, September 29, 1998, in the PCSSD Central Office. The Tri-County Staff Development Committee met Monday, August 24, 1998, at PCSSD central office with four members present: Marion Woods, LRSD\nDoug Ask and Mary McClendon, PCSSD\nand Betty Gale Davis, ADE. Topics of discussion included the September 1 meeting scheduled with the regional cooperatives' teacher center coordinators\nthe staff development task force on which Marion Woods is serving\nthe property tax issue\nand various mathematics and reading programs being used in the districts. The committee met Tuesday, September 1, 1998, with the Teacher Center Coordinators, at which time Dr. Woody Cummins presented. Six Tri-District Staff Development Committee members were present: Marion Woods, LRSD\nDoug Ask and Mary McClendon, PCSSD\nDana Chadwick and Estelle Crawford, NLRSD\nBetty Gale Davis, ADE. The next committee meeting will be 9:00 a.m., Thursday, September 24, 1998, at the Little Rock District Instructional Resources Center. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met Thursday, September 24, 1998, at the Instructional Resources Center, Little Rock, with five present: Marion Woods and Dr. Bonnie Lesley, LRSD\nDoug Ask, PCSSD\nDana Chadwick, NLRSD\nand Dr. Betty Gale Davis, ADE. Topics of discussion included the meeting with the regional cooperatives' teacher center coordinators\nthe staff development task force on which Marion Woods is serving and the NSCI training\ntraining provided by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)\ntraining provided by Casio\nand the proposal of a Principals Academy. 56 VIII. IN-SERVICE TRAINING (Continued) D. Evaluate in-service training programs developed and executed to address in-service training needs of desegregating districts. (Continued) 2. Actual as of July 31 , 2001 (Continued) Doug Ask will serve as representative to the October 6, 1998 meeting of the Teacher Center Coordinators. He will submit to Donna Harris, president of the group, a request for one other member of the Tri-County Committee (Dana Chadwick) to attend the meeting. Representatives for future meetings (second Tuesday of each month) will be: Marion Woods, November\nMary McClendon, December\nDana Chadwick, January. The next committee meeting will be 9:00 a.m., Tuesday, October 13, 1998, at the North Little Rock School District Central Office. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met on Tuesday, October 13, 1998, in the NLRSD Administration Building. Doug Ask represented the committee at the Teacher Center Coordinators' meeting in Fayetteville, October 6. He shared with the Tri-District Committee information regarding the upcoming NSCI/Smart Start Training. James Smith spoke with the group about Amendment 4. Members of the Tri-District Staff Development Committee also met with the Teacher Center Coordinators, Wednesday, October 28. Doug Ask, Marion Woods, and Esther Crawford were trained as facilitators, October 29, for the initial Smart Start Summit to be held November 9-12, 1998. Marion Woods will represent the committee at the next regular Teacher Center Coordinators' meeting, Tuesday, November 3, 10:00 a.m. at the ADE. The next Tri-District Committee meeting will be at 9:00 a.m., November 10, in the PCSSD Administration Building. Members of the Tri-District Staff Development Committee met several times with the Teacher Center Coordinators in preparation for the Smart Start Summit. During the Smart Start Summit, they served as facilitators. The meeting planned for November 10 was postponed due to the conflict with the Summit. Doug Ask, Marion Woods, and Esther Crawford met with the Teacher Center Coordinators on Tuesday, December 1, 1998, for the regular monthly meeting. Principal topics discussed were the Smart Start Initiative and Principals' Institute. The next meeting of the Teacher Center Coordinators is scheduled for January 6, 1999, 9:00 a.m., in the ADE Auditorium. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee will meet at 9:00 a.m., Tuesday, December 8, 1998, at the Little Rock School District Instructional Resources Center. 57 VIII. IN-SERVICE TRAINING (Continued) D. Evaluate in-service training programs developed and executed to address in-service training needs of desegregating districts. (Continued) 2. Actual as of July 31 , 2001 (Continued) Doug Ask, PCSSD\nMarion Woods, LRSD\nand Esther Crawford, NLRSD, met with the Teacher Center Coordinators on Tuesday, December 1, 1998, for the regular monthly meeting. Principal topics discussed were the Smart Start Initiative and Principals' Institute. The Teacher Center Coordinators held their monthly meeting on January 6, 1999, 9:00 a.m., in the ADE Auditorium, with Doug Ask, Marion Woods, and Esther Crawford in attendance. At the January meeting, the primary focus was on the Smart Start Initiative. Dates for the future committee meetings have been tentatively scheduled to coincide with meetings with the Teacher Center Coordinators. Due to the Tri-District Committee's involvement with the Smart Start Initiative, no formal meeting of the committee was held in January. Members of the TriDistrict Staff Development Committee met with Teacher Center Coordinators, January 6 and 25, 1999, preparing for and facilitating Smart Start activities. Dates for future meetings have been tentatively scheduled to coincide with meetings of Teacher Center Coordinators. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met Wednesday, February 17, 1999, at the Best Western lnntowne with four members in attendance. Most of the discussion centered on Smart Start and Character Centered Teaching. A March meeting date was not determined. Members of the Tri-District Staff Development Committee met with the Teacher Center Coordinators at their regular monthly meeting, April 6, 1999, at the ADE. Much of the meeting centered on the Smart Start Initiative and the Getting Smarter Summer Conference to be held in Hot Springs, July 28- 31 , 1999. The next meeting of the Tri-District Staff Development Committee will be May 11 , 1999, at the Northeast Arkansas Educational Cooperative, Walnut Ridge. Members of the Tri-District Staff Development Committee met with the Teacher Center Coordinators at their regular monthly meeting, Tuesday, May 11 , 1999, at the Northeast Arkansas Educational Cooperative, Walnut Ridge, with Mary McClendon, PCSSD, Marion Woods, LRSD, Esther Crawford, NLRSD, and Janinne Riggs, ADE, attending. Much of the meeting centered on the Smart Start Initiative. The next meeting was scheduled as a retreat, June 7-9, 1999, at Hot Springs. Members of the Tri-District Staff Development Committee met with the Teacher Center Coordinators for their annual retreat, June 7-9, 1999, at Hot Springs. The next regular meeting will be in September, the date and place to be announced later. Summer activities will include the Getting Smarter Conference. 5 8 VIII. IN-SERVICE TRAINING (Continued) D. Evaluate in-service training programs developed and executed to address in-service training needs of desegregating districts. (Continued) 2. Actual as of July 31, 2001 (Continued) Members of the Tri-District Staff Development Committee met during the Getting Smarter Conference, July 28-31, 1999, at Hot Springs. In collaboration with the Teacher Center Coordinators, those participating in the conference as facilitators were: Doug Ask, PCSSD\nEsther Crawford, NLRSD\nand Marion Woods, LRSD. The next regular meeting will be in September, the date and place to be announced later. Target, Teach, and Test for Student Success, a workshop aimed at improving interpretation of test data and applying that knowledge toward more effective lesson planning, was adapted for presentation in conjunction with the Multicultural Institute. Members of the Standards Assurance Unit (Dee Cox, Betty Gale Davis, Bob Maddox, and Lonzo Gatlin) presented an all-day workshop (Target, Teach, and Test for Student Success) for Pulaski County Special School District in connection with the Multicultural Institute, July 27, 1999. Members of the Tri-District Staff Development Committee met Tuesday, September 7, 1999, at the ADE, with five members in attendance: Doug Ask and Mary McClendon, PCSSD\nEsther Crawford, NLRSD\nMaron Woods, LRSD\nand Betty Gale Davis, ADE. Discussion included Smart Start activities and performance assessment. Following the meeting, the committee met with the Teacher Center Coordinators at their regular monthly meeting. The next meeting will be Tuesday, October 5, 1999, at the ADE. Members of the Tri-District Staff Development Committee met Tuesday, October 5, 1999 at the ADE. Discussion included middle level training (LRSD), inservice for administrators in retreat (PCSSD), and Smart Start activities. Following the meeting, the committee met with the Teacher Center Coordinators at their regular monthly meeting. The next meeting will be November 2, 1999 at the ADE. Members of the Tri-District Staff Development Committee met Tuesday, November 2, 1999 at the ADE. Following the meeting, the committee met with the Teacher Center Coordinators at their regular monthly meeting. The next meeting will be December 7, at the ADE. The December meeting was canceled due to conflicts in scheduling. The TriDistrict Staff Development Committee will hold its next meeting January 3, 2000 at the ADE. The Committee continues to work in cooperation with the Teacher Center Coordinators in the Smart Start Initiative. 59 VIII. IN-SERVICE TRAINING (Continued) D. Evaluate in-service training programs developed and executed to address in-service training needs of desegregating districts. (Continued) 2. Actual as of July 31, 2001 (Continued) The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met January 4, 2000 at the ADE. Major discussion included the upcoming three day meeting with Teacher Center Coordinators (January 4-6, 2000), benchmarks training (NLRSD), balance literacy training (PCSSD), alternative learning training (LRSD), and activities of the Smart Start Initiative. The next meeting will be February 3, 2000 at the ADE. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met Monday and Tuesday, February 7-8, 2000, at Ferncliff, with four members present: Doug Ask and Mary McClendon, PCSSD\nEsther Crawford, NLRSD\nand Marion Woods, LRSD. The meeting was held in conjunction with the Teacher Center Coordinators' retreat. Several presenters shared information on various topics, and the Getting Smarter summer conference was discussed. Plans were tentatively made to conduct the April meeting via distance learning. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met March 7, 2000, at the ADE. Following the meeting, the committee met with the Teacher Center Coordinators at their regular monthly meeting. Items discussed were: documentation of clock hours for professional development, Middle School training, and the use of staff development days. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met by Distance Leaming through the Sherwood School Site with the Teacher Center Coordinators for its April meeting. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met with the Teacher Center Coordinators, in conjunction with the Smart Step Summit, May 1-2, 2000, at the Convention Center. Three members participated: Doug Ask and Mary McClendon, PCSSD\nand Marion Woods, LRSD. A June meeting date has not been set. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met with the Teacher Center Coordinators at their annual summer conference in Hot Springs, June 5-7, 2000. Among the discussions were the formation of a chapter of the National Staff Development Council, the Pathwise Mentor program grant, Smart Start, and Smart Step. In lieu of a regular monthly meeting, the Tri-District Staff Development Committee met and worked with the Teacher Center Coordinators during the Smart Start/Smart Step conferences, July 10-13, 2000, at the Little Rock Convention Center. The next meeting date has not yet been set. 60 VIII. IN-SERVICE TRAINING (Continued) D. Evaluate in-service training programs developed and executed to address in-service training needs of desegregating districts. (Continued) 2. Actual as of July 31, 2001 (Continued) The Tri-District Staff Development Committee will reconvene in September, with no meeting during August. LRSD, NLRSD, and PCSSD applied for the Arkansas Pathwise Mentoring Pilot Model as a collaborative effort and were awarded $445,875 for the new teachers for the 2000-2001 school year - one of many collaborative successful ventures for the districts. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee has been working with Smart Start and Smart Step Initiatives in collaboration with the Teacher Center Coordinators throughout the month of August. No regular meeting is scheduled for September. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met Tuesday, October 3, 2000, at the Arkansas Department of Education, Room 3058, with three members present: Marion Woods, LRSD\nEsther Crawford, NLRSD\nand Dr. Betty Gale Davis, ADE. The procedures for dissemination of information within the respective districts were discussed. Members of cabinet level administrators from LRSD and PCSSD will be included in future meetings. Other topics of discussion were the Arkansas Pathwise Mentoring Program and topics of presentations for LRSD administrators. The next meeting will be Tuesday, November 7, 2000, in Room 303B, ADE. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met Tuesday, November 7, 2000, at the ADE, Room 3038, with seven members present: Doug Ask, John Mccraney, and Dr. Ruth Simmons Herts, PCSSD\nEsther Crawford, NLRSD\nDr. Bonnie Lesley and Marion Woods, LRSD\nand Dr. Betty Gale Davis, ADE. Dr. Herts and Dr. Lesley have been added to the committee in response to each district's request to include a member of the cabinet. Many of the recent staff development activities in each of the districts have been related to Smart Start and Smart Step. Other topics discussed included: the upcoming National Staff Development Council conference and the availability of math specialists and literacy specialists. The next meeting will be at 9:00 a.m., Tuesday, December 5, 2000, in Room 3038, ADE. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met Tuesday, December 5, 2000, at the ADE, Room 3038, with three members present: Esther Crawford, NLRSD\nSue Walls, LRSD\nand Dr. Betty Gale Davis, ADE. Many of the recent staff development activities in each of the districts have been related to Smart Start and Smart Step. Other topics discussed included: the ongoing Pathwise training of mentors, the writing training pro\nThis project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resoources.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\u003cdcterms_creator\u003eArkansas. Department of Education\u003c/dcterms_creator\u003e\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_27","title":"Arkansas Department of Education's (ADE's) Project Management Tool","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118"],"dcterms_creator":["Arkansas. Department of Education"],"dc_date":["2001-04/2001-06"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Education--Arkansas","Office of Desegregation Monitoring (Little Rock, Ark.)","School integration--Arkansas","Arkansas. Department of Education","Project management"],"dcterms_title":["Arkansas Department of Education's (ADE's) Project Management Tool"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/27"],"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":["393 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, plaintiff vs. Pulaski County Special School District, defendant.\nIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT \\ EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS ~ WESTERN DMSION ! RECEIVED \\t.\\~1 4 - 100\\ Qff\\ttOf lllfll6'1\\0ll tAQll{roR\\tlQ LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF v. No. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al. DEFENDANTS NOTICE OF FILING In accordance with the Court's Order of December 10, 1993, the Arkansas Department of Education hereby gives notice of the filing of ADE's Project Management Tool for April, 2001. Respectfully Submitted, MARK PRYOR Attorney General ~~T . HAGEMEIER # 127 Assistant Attorney =a1 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 682-3643 Attorney for Arkansas Department of Education CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Mark A Hagemeier, certify that on April 26, 2001, I caused a copy of the foregoing document to be served by U.S. mail, postage prepaid, on the following person(s) at the address(es) indicated: M. Samuel Jones, III Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 2000 ationsBank Bldg. 200 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 John W. Walker John Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Richard Roachell P.O. Box 17388 Little Rock, AR 72222-7388 - Timothy G. Gauger Mitchell, Williams, Selig, Gates \u0026amp; Woodyard 425 West Capitol Ave. Suite 1800 Little Rock, AR 72201-3525 Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 2000 Regions Center 400 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Ann Brown 201 E. Markham, Ste. 510 Little Rock, AR 72201 INTHE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL PLAINTIFFS V. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENORS KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS ADE'S PROJECT MANAGEMENT TOOL In compliance with the Court's Order of December 10, 1993, the Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) submits the following Project Management Tool to the parties and the Court. This document describes the progress the ADE has made since March 15, 1994, in complying with provisions of the Implementation Plan and itemizes the ADE's progress against timelines presented in the Plan. - IMPLEMENTATION PHASE ACTIVITY I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS A. Use the previous year's three quarter average daily membership to calculate MFPA (State Equalization) for the current school year. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of April 30, 2001 Based on the information available.at March 31, 2001, the ADE calculated the Equalization Funding for FY 00/01, subject to periodic adjustments. B. Include all Magnet students in the resident District's average daily membership for calculation. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) B. Include all Magnet students in the resident District's average daily membership for calculation. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 2001 Based on the information available at March 31, 2001, the ADE calculated for FY 00/01, subject to periodic adjustments. C. Process and distribute State MFPA. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of April 30, 2001 On March 31, 2001 , clistributions of State Equalization Funding for FY 00/01 were as follows: LRSD - $38,391,330 NLRSD - $20,491,872 PCSSD - $41,159,823 The allotments of State Equalization Funding calculated for FY 00/01 at March 31 , 2001, subject to periodic adjustments, were as follows: LRSD - $52,788,081 NLRSD - $28,176,324 PCSSD - $56,594,757 D. Determine the number of Magnet students residing in each District and attending a Magnet School. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of April 30, 2001 Based on the information available, the ADE calculated at March 31, 2001 for FY 00/01, subject to periodic adjustments. E. Desegregation Staff Attorney reports the Magnet Operational Charge to the Fiscal Services Office. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing, as ordered by the Court. 2 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) E. Desegregation Staff Attorney reports the Magnet Operational Charge to the Fiscal Services Office. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 2001 Basea on the information availa6Ie, the ADE calculated at March 31, 2001 for FY 00/01, subject to Rerioaic adjustments. It should be noted that currently the Magnet Review Committee is reporting this information instead of the staff attorney as indicated in the Implementation Plan. F. Calculate state aid due the LRSD based upon the Magnet Operational Charge. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of April 30, 2001 Based on the information available, the ADE calculated at March 31, 2001 for FY 00/01, subject to periodic adjustments. G. Process and distribute state aid for Magnet Operational Charge. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of April 30, 2001 Distributions for FY 00/01 at March 31, 2001, totaled $7,753,631. Allotment calculated for FY 00/01 was $10,763,339 subject to periodic adjustments. H. Calculate the amount of M-to-M incentive money to which each school district is entitled. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of April 30, 2001 Calculated for FY 00/01, subject to periodic adjustments. I. Process and distribute M-to-M incentive checks. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, September - June. 3 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) I. Process and distribute M-to-M incentive checks. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 2001 Distributions for FY 00701 at Marcli 31, 2001 were: LRSD - $2,620,338 NLRSD - $1,486,323 PCSSD -$5,190,668 Tfie allotments calculated for FY 00/01 at March 31, 2001, subject to periodic adjustments, were: LRSD - $3,816,614 NLRSD - $2,092,977 PCSSD - $7,301,748 J. Districts submit an estimated Magnet and M-to-M transportation budget to ADE. 1. Projected Ending Date 2. Ongoing, December of each year. Actual as of April 30, 2001 In September 2000, the Magnet and M-to-M transportation budgets for FY 00/01 were submitted to the ADE by the Districts. K. The Coordinator of School Transportation notifies General Finance to pay districts for the Districts' proposed budget. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing, annually. 2. Actual as of April 30, 2001 In January 2001, General Finance was notified to pay the second one-third payment for FY 00/01 to the Districts. It should be noted that the Transportation Coordinator is currently performing this function instead of Reginald Wilson as indicated in the Implementation Plan. L. ADE pays districts three equal installments of their proposed budget. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing, annually. 4 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) L. ADE pays districts three equal installments of their proposed budget. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 2001 In January 2001, General Finance made the second one-third payment to the Districts for their FY 00/01 transportation budget. The budget is now paid out in three equal installments. At February 28, 2001, the following had been paid for FY 00/01 : LRSD- $2,197,201.00 NLRSD - $437,233.34 PCSSD -$1,184,784.28 M. ADE verifies actual expenditures submitted by Districts and reviews each bill with each District's transportation coordinator. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing, annually. 2. Actual as of April 30, 2001 In August 1997, the ADE transportation coordinator reviewed each district's Magnet and M-to-M transportation costs for FY 96/97. In July 1998, each district was asked to submit an estimated budget for the 98/99 school year. In September 1998, paperwork was generated for the first payment in the 98/99 school year for the Magnet and M-to-M transportation program. School districts should receive payment by October 1, 1998 In July 1999, each district submitted an estimated budget for the 99/00 school year. In September 1999, paperwork was generated for the first payment in the 99/00 school year for the Magnet and M-to-M transportation program. In September 2000, paperwork was generated for the first payment in the 00/01 school year for the Magnet and M-to-M transportation program. 5 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) N. Purchase buses for the Districts to replace existing Magnet and M-to-M fleets and to provide a larger fleet for the Districts' Magnet and M-to-M Transportation needs. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing, as stated in Exhibit A of the Implementation Plan. 2. Actual as of April 30, 2001 In FY 94/95, the State purchased 52 buses at a cost of $1,799,431 which were added to or replaced existing Magnet and M-to-M buses in the Districts. The buses were distributed to the Districts as follows: LRSD - 32\nNLRSD - 6\nand PCSSD -14. The ADE purchased 64 Magnet and M-to-M buses at a cost of $2,334,800 in FY 95/96. The buses were distributed accordingly: LRSD - 45\nNLRSD - 7\nand PCSSD -12. In May 1997, the ADE purchased 16 Magnet and M-to-M buses at a cost of $646,400. In July 1997, the ADE purchased 16 Magnet and M-to-M buses at a cost of $624,879. In July 1998, the ADE purchased 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses at a cost of $695,235. The buses were distributed accordingly: LRSD - 8\nNLRSD - 2\nand PCSSD- 6. Specifications for 16 school buses have been forwarded to state purchasing for bidding in January, 1999 for delivery in July, 1999. The ADE accepted a bid on 16 buses for the Magnet and M/M transportation program. The buses will be delivered after July 1, 1999 and before August 1, 1999. The buses will be distributed accordingly: LRSD - 8\nNLRSD - 2\nPCSSD - 6. In July 1999, the ADE purchased 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses at a cost of $718,355. The buses were distributed accordingly: LRSD - 8\nNLRSD - 2\nand PCSSD - 6. In July 2000, the ADE purchased 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses at a cost of $724,165. The buses were distributed accordingly: LRSD - 8\nNLRSD - 2\nand PCSSD-6. 6 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) N. Purchase buses for the Districts to replace existing Magnet and M-to-M fleets and to provide a larger fleet for the Districts' Magnet and M-to-M Transportation needs. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 2001 The bid for 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses was let by State Purchasing on February 22, 2001 . The contract was awarded to Ward Transportation Services, Inc. The buses to be purchased include two type C 47 passenger buses and fourteen type C 65 passenger buses. Prices on these units are $43,426.00 each on the 47 passenger buses, and $44,289.00 each on the 65 passenger buses. The buses will be distributed accordingly: LRSD - 8 of the 65 passenger\nNLRSD - 2 of the 65 passenger\nPCSSD - 2 of the 47 passenger and 4 of the 65 passenger buses. 0 . Process and distribute compensatory education payments to LRSD as required by page 23 of the Settlement Agreement. 1. Projected Ending Date 2. July 1 and January 1, of each school year through January 1, 1999. Actual as of April 30, 2001 Obligation fulfilled in FY 96/97. P. Process and distribute additional payments in lieu of formula to LRSD as required by page 24 of the Settlement Agreement. 1. Projected Ending Date Payment due date and ending July 1, 1995. 2. Actual as of April 30, 2001 Obligation fulfilled in FY 95/96. Q. Process and distribute payments to PCSSD as required by Page 28 of the Settlement Agreement. 1. Projected Ending Date Payment due date and ending July 1, 1994. 2. Actual as of April 30, 2001 Final payment was distributed July 1994. 7 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) R. Upon loan request by LRSD accompanied by a promissory note, the ADE makes loans to LRSD. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing through July 1, 1999. See Settlement Agreement page 24. 2. Actual as of April 30, 2001 The LRSD received $3,000,000 on September 10, 1998. As of this reporting date, the LRSD has received $20,000,000 in loan proceeds. S. Process and distribute payments in lieu of formula to PCSSD required by page 29 of the Settlement Agreement. T. 1. Projected Ending Date Payment due date and ending July 1, 1995. 2. Actual as of April 30, 2001 Obligation fulfilled in FY 95/96. Process and distribute compensatory education payments to NLRSD as required by page 31 of the Settlement Agreement. 1. Projected Ending Date July 1 of each school year through June 30, 1996. 2. Actual as of April 30, 2001 Obligation fulfilled in FY 95/96. U. Process and distribute check to Magnet Review Committee. 1. Projected Ending Date Payment due date and ending July 1, 1995. 2. Actual as of April 30, 2001 Distribution in July 1997 for FY 97/98 was $75,000. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 97 /98. Distribution in July 1998 for FY 98/99 was $75,000. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 98/99. 8 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) U. Process and distribute check to Magnet Review Committee. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 2001 (Continued) Distribution in July 1999 for FY 99/00 was $92,500. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 99/00. Distribution in July 2000 for FY 00/01 was $92,500. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 00/01 . V. Process and distribute payments for Office of Desegregation Monitoring . 1. Projected Ending Date Not applicable. 2. Actual as of April 30, 2001 Distribution in July 1997 for FY 97/98 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 97/98. Distribution in July 1998 for FY 98/99 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 98/99. Distribution in July 1999 for FY 99/00 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 99/00. Distribution in July 2000 for FY 00/01 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 00/01 . 9 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. 1. Projected Ending Date January 15, 1995 2. Actual as of April 30, 2001 In May 1995, monitors completed the unannounced visits of schools in Pulaski County. The monitoring process involved a qualitative process of document reviews, interviews, and observations. The monitoring focused on progress made since the announced monitoring visits. In June 1995, monitoring data from unannounced visits was included in the July Semiannual Report. Twenty-five per cent of all classrooms were visited, and all of the schools in Pulaski County were monitored. All principals were interviewed to determine any additional progress since the announced visits. The July 1995 Monitoring Report was reviewed by the ADE administrative team, the Arkansas State Board of Education, and the Districts and filed with the Court. The report was formatted in accordance with the Allen Letter. In October 1995, a common terminology was developed by principals from the Districts and the Lead Planning and Desegregation staff to facilitate the monitoring process. The announced monitoring visits began on November 14, 1995 and were completed on January 26, 1996. Copies of the preliminary Semiannual Monitoring Report and its executive summary were provided to the ADE administrative team and the State Board of Education in January 1996. A report on the current status of the Cycle 5 schools in the ECOE process and their school improvement plans was filed with the Court on February 1, 1996. The unannounced monitoring visits began in February 1996 and ended on May 10, 1996. In June 1996, all announced and unannounced monitoring visits were completed, and the data was analyzed using descriptive statistics. The Districts provided data on enrollment in compensatory education programs. The Districts and the ADE Desegregation Monitoring staff developed a definition for instructional programs. 10 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 2001 (Continued) The Semiannual Monitoring Report was completed and filed with the Court on July 15, 1996 with copies distributed to the parties. Announced monitoring visits of the Cycle 1 schools began on October 28, 1996 and concluded in December 1996. In January 1997, presentations were made to the State Board of Education, the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee, and the parties to review the draft Semiannual Monitoring Report. The monitoring instrument and process were evaluated for their usefulness in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on achievement disparities. In February 1997, the Semiannual Monitoring Report was filed. Unannounced monitoring visits began on February 3, 1997 and concluded in May 1997. In March 1997, letters were sent to the Districts regarding data requirements for the July 1997 Semiannual Monitoring Report and the additional discipline data element that was requested by the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee. Desegregation data collection workshops were conducted in the Districts from March 28, 1997 to April 7, 1997. A meeting was conducted on April 3, 1997 to finalize plans for the July 15, 1997 Semiannual Monitoring Report. Onsite visits were made to Cycle 1 schools who did not submit accurate and timely data on discipline, M-to-M transfers, and policy. The July 15, 1997 Semiannual Monitoring Report and its executive summary were finalized in June 1997. In July 1997, the Semiannual Monitoring Report and its executive summary were filed with the court, and the ADE sponsored a School Improvement Conference. On July 10, 1997, copies of the Semiannual Monitoring Report and its executive summary were made available to the Districts for their review prior to filing it with the Court. In August 1997, procedures and schedules were organized for the monitoring of the Cycle 2 schools in FY 97 /98. 11 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 2001 (Continued) A Desegregation Monitoring and School Improvement Workshop for the Districts was held on September 10, 1997 to discuss monitoring expectations, instruments, data collection and school improvement visits. On October 9, 1997, a planning meeting was held with the desegregation monitoring staff to discuss deadlines, responsibilities, and strategic planning issues regarding the Semiannual Monitoring Report. Reminder letters were sent to the Cycle 2 principals outlining the data collection deadlines and availability of technical assistance. In October and November 1997, technical assistance visits were conducted, and announced monitoring visits of the Cycle 2 schools were completed. In December 1997 and January 1998, technical assistance visits were conducted regarding team visits, technical review recommendations, and consensus building. Copies of the infusion document and perceptual surveys were provided to schools in the ECOE process. The February 1998 Semiannual Monitoring Report was submitted for review and approval to the State Board of Education, the Director, the Administrative Team, the Attorney General's Office, and the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee. Unannounced monitoring visits began in February 1998, and technical assistance was provided on the school improvement process, external team visits and finalizing school improvement plans. On February 18, 1998, the representatives of all parties met to discuss possible revisions to the ADE's monitoring plan and monitoring reports. Additional meetings will be scheduled. Unannounced monitoring visits were conducted in March 1998, and technical assistance was provided on the school improvement process and external team visits. In April 1998, unannounced monitoring visits were conducted, and technical assistance was provided on the school improvement process. 12 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 2001 (Continued) In May 1998, unannounced monitoring visits were completed, and technical assistance was provided on the school improvement process. On May 18, 1998, the Court granted the ADE relief from its obligation to file the July 1998 Semiannual Monitoring Report to develop proposed modifications to ADE's monitoring and reporting obligations. In June 1998, monitoring information previously submitted by the districts in the Spring of 1998 was reviewed and prepared for historical files and presentation to the Arkansas State Board. Also, in June the following occurred: a) The Extended COE Team Visit Reports were completed, b) the Semiannual Monitoring COE Data Report was completed, c) progress reports were submitted from previous cycles, and d.) staff development on assessment (SAT-9) and curriculum alignment was conducted with three supervisors. In July, the Lead Planner provided the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Committee with (1) a review of the court Order relieving ADE of its obligation to file a July Semiannual Monitoring Report, and (2) an update of ADE's progress toward work with the parties and ODM to develop proposed revisions to ADE's monitoring and reporting obligations. The Committee encouraged ODM, the parties and the ADE to continue to work toward revision of the monitoring and reporting process. In August 1998, the ADE Implementation Phase Working group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. The Assistant Attorney General, the Assistant Director for Accountability and the Education Lead Planner updated the group on all relevant desegregation legal issues and proposed revisions to monitoring and reporting activities during the quarter. In September 1998, tentative monitoring dates were established and they will be finalized once proposed revisions to the Desegregation Monitoring Plan are finalized and approved. In September/October 1998, progress was being made on the proposed revisions to the monitoring process by committee representatives of all the Parties in the Pulaski County Settlement Agreement. While the revised monitoring plan is finalized and approved, the ADE monitoring staff will continue to provide technical assistance to schools upon request. In December 1998, requests were received from schools in PCSSD regarding test score analysis and staff Development. Oak Grove is scheduled for January 21, 1999 and Lawson Elementary is also tentatively scheduled in January. 13 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 2001 (Continued) Staff development regarding test score analysis for Oak Grove and Lawson Elementary in the PCSSD has been rescheduled for April 2000. Staff development regarding test score analysis for Oak Grove and Lawson Elementary in the PCSSD was conducted on May 5, 2000 and May 9, 2000 respectively. Staff development regarding classroom management was provided to the Franklin Elementary School in LRSD on November 8, 2000. Staff development regarding ways to improve academic achievement was presented to College Station Elementary in PCSSD on November 22, 2000. On November 1, 2000, the ADE Implementation Phase Working group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. The Assistant Director for Accountability updated the group on all relevant desegregation legal issues and discussed revisions to monitoring and reporting activities during the quarter. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for February 27, 2001 in room 201-A at the ADE. The Implementation Phase Working Group meeting that was scheduled for February 27 had to be postponed. It will be rescheduled as soon as possible. 14 Ill. A PETITION FOR ELECTION FOR LRSD WILL BE SUPPORTED SHOULD A MILLAGE BE REQUIRED A. Monitor court pleadings to determine if LRSD has petitioned the Court for a special election. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing. 2. Actual as of April 30, 2001 Ongoing. All Court pleadings are monitored monthly. B. Draft and file appropriate pleadings if LRSD petitions the Court for a special election. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of April 30, 2001 To date, no action has been taken by the LRSD. 15 IV. REPEAL STATUTES AND REGULATIONS THAT IMPEDE DESEGREGATION A. Using a collaborative approach, immediately identify those laws and regulations that appear to impede desegregation. 1. Projected Ending Date December, 1994 2. Actual as of April 30, 2001 The information for this item is detailed under Section IV. E. of this report. B. Conduct a review within ADE of existing legislation and regulations that appear to impede desegregation. C. 1. Projected Ending Date November, 1994 2. Actual as of April 30, 2001 The information for this item is detailed under Section IV.E. of this report. Request of the other parties to the Settlement Agreement that they identify laws and regulations that appear to impede desegregation. 1. Projected Ending Date November, 1994 2. Actual as of April 30, 2001 The information for this item is detailed under Section IV.E. of this report. D. Submit proposals to the State Board of Education for repeal of those regulations that are confirmed to be impediments to desegregation. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of April 30, 2001 The information for this item is detailed under Section IV.E. of this report. 16 IV. REPEAL STATUTES AND REGULATIONS THAT IMPEDE DESEGREGATION (Continued) E. Submit proposals to the Legislature for repeal of those laws that appear to be impediments to desegregation. 2. Actual as of April 30, 2001 A committee within the ADE was formed in May 1995 to review and collect data on existing legislation and regulations identified by the parties as impediments to desegregation. The committee researched the Districts' concerns to determine if any of the rules, regulations, or legislation cited impede desegregation. The legislation cited by the Districts regarding loss funding and worker's compensation were not reviewed because they had already been litigated. In September 1995, the committee reviewed the following statutes, acts, and regulations: Act 113 of 1993\nADE Director's Communication 93-205\nAct 145 of 1989\nADE Director's Memo 91-67\nADE Program Standards Eligibility Criteria for Special Education\nArkansas Codes 6-18-206, 6-20-307, 6-20-319, and 6-17- 1506. In October 1995, the individual reports prepared by committee members in their areas of expertise and the data used to support their conclusions were submitted to the ADE administrative team for their review. A report was prepared and submitted to the State Board of Education in July 1996. The report concluded that none of the items reviewed impeded desegregation. As of February 3, 1997, no laws or regulations have been determined to impede desegregation efforts. Any new education laws enacted during the Arkansas 81 st Legislative Session will be reviewed at the close of the legislative session to ensure that they do not impede desegregation. In April 1997, copies of all laws passed during the 1997 Regular Session of the 81 st General Assembly were requested from the office of the ADE Liaison to the Legislature for distribution to the Districts for their input and review of possible impediments to their desegregation efforts. In August 1997, a meeting to review the statutes passed in the prior legislative session was scheduled for September 9, 1997. On September 9, 1997, a meeting was held to discuss the review of the statutes passed in the prior legislative session and new ADE regulations. The Districts will be contacted in writing for their input regarding any new laws or regulations that they feel may impede desegregation. Additionally, the Districts will be asked to review their regulations to ensure that they do not impede their desegregation efforts. The committee will convene on December 1, 1997 to review their findings and finalize their report to the Administrative Team and the State Board of Education. 17 IV. REPEAL STATUTES AND REGULATIONS THAT IMPEDE DESEGREGATION (Continued) E. Submit proposals to the Legislature for repeal of those laws that appear to be impediments to desegregation. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 2001 (Continued) In October 1997, the Districts were asked to review new regulations and statutes for impediments to their desegregation efforts, and advise the ADE, in writing, if they feel a regulation or statute may impede their desegregation efforts. In October 1997, the Districts were requested to advise the ADE, in writing, no later than November 1, 1997 of any new law that might impede their desegregation efforts. As of November 12, 1997, no written responses were received from the Districts. The ADE concludes that the Districts do not feel that any new law negatively impacts their desegregation efforts. The committee met on December 1, 1997 to discuss their findings regarding statutes and regulations that may impede the desegregation efforts of the Districts. The committee concluded that there were no laws or regulations that impede the desegregation efforts of the Districts. It was decided that the committee chair would prepare a report of the committee's findings for the Administrative Team and the State Board of Education. The committee to review statutes and regulations that impede desegregation is now reviewing proposed bills and regulations, as well as laws that are being signed in, for the current 1999 legislative session. They will continue to do so until the session is over. The committee to review statutes and regulations that impede desegregation will meet on April 26, 1999 at the ADE. The committee met on April 26, 1999 at the ADE. The purpose of the meeting was to identify rules and regulations that might impede desegregation, and review within the existing legislation any regulations that might result in an impediment to desegregation. This is a standing committee that is ongoing and a report will be submitted to the State Board of Education once the process is completed. The committee met on May 24, 1999 at the ADE. The committee was asked to review within the existing legislation any regulations that might result in an impediment to desegregation. The committee determined that Mr. Ray Lumpkin would contact the Pulaski County districts to request written response to any rules, regulations or laws that might impede desegregation. The committee would also collect information and data to prepare a report for the State Board. This will be a standing committee. This data gathering will be ongoing until the final report is given to the State Board. On July 26, 1999, the committee met at the ADE. The committee did not report any laws or regulations that they currently thought would impede desegregation, and are still waiting for a response from the three districts in Pulaski County. 18 IV. REPEAL STATUTES AND REGULATIONS THAT IMPEDE DESEGREGATION (Continued) E. Submit proposals to the Legislature for repeal of those laws that appear to be impediments to desegregation. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 2001 (Continued) The committee met on August 30, 1999 at the ADE to review rules and regulations that might impede desegregation. At that time, there were no laws under review that appeared to impede desegregation. In November, the three districts sent letters to the ADE stating that they have reviewed the laws passed by the 82nd legislative session as well as current rules \u0026amp; regulations and district policies to ensure that they have no ill effect on desegregation efforts. There was some concern from PCSSD concerning a charter school proposal in the Maumelle area. The work of the committee is on-going each month depending on the information that comes before the committee. Any rules, laws or regulations that would impede desegregation will be discussed and reported to the State Board of Education. On October 4, 2000, the ADE presented staff development for assistant superintendents in LRSD, NLRSD and PCSSD regarding school laws of Arkansas. The ADE is in the process of forming a committee to review all Rules and Regulations from the ADE and State Laws that might impede desegregation. The ADE Committee on Statutes and Regulations will review all new laws that might impede desegregation once the 83rd General Assembly has completed this session. 19 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES A. Through a preamble to the Implementation Plan, the Board of Education will reaffirm its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement and outcomes of programs intended to apply those principles. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of April 30, 2001 The preamble was contained in the Implementation Plan filed with the Court on March 15, 1994. B. Through execution of the Implementation Plan, the Board of Education will continue to reaffirm its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement and outcomes of programs intended to apply those principles. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of April 30, 2001 Ongoing C. Through execution of the Implementation Plan, the Board of Education will continue to reaffirm its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement by actions taken by ADE in response to monitoring results. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of April 30, 2001 Ongoing D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 20 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 2001 At each regular monthly meeting of the State Board of Education, the Board is provided copies of the most recent Project Management Tool (PMT) and an executive summary of the PMT for their review and approval. Only activities that are in addition to the Board's monthly review of the PMT are detailed below. In May 1995, the State Board of Education was informed of the total number of schools visited during the monitoring phase and the data collection process. Suggestions were presented to the State Board of Education on how recommendations could be presented in the monitoring reports. In June 1995, an update on the status of the pending Semiannual Monitoring Report was provided to the State Board of Education. In July 1995, the July Semiannual Monitoring Report was reviewed by the State Board of Education. On August 14, 1995, the State Board of Education was informed of the need to increase minority participation in the teacher scholarship program and provided tentative monitoring dates to facilitate reporting requests by the ADE administrative team and the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee. In September 1995, the State Board of Education was advised of a change in the PMT from a table format to a narrative format. The Board was also briefed about a meeting with the Office of Desegregation Monitoring regarding the PMT. In October 1995, the State Board of Education was updated on monitoring timelines. The Board was also informed of a meeting with the parties regarding a review of the Semiannual Monitoring Report and the monitoring process, and the progress of the test validation study. In November 1995, a report was made to the State Board of Education regarding the monitoring schedule and a meeting with the parties concerning the development of a common terminology for monitoring purposes. In December 1995, the State Board of Education was updated regarding announced monitoring visits. In January 1996, copies of the draft February Semiannual Monitoring Report and its executive summary were provided to the State Board of Education. 21 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 2001 (Continued) During the months of February 1996 through May 1996, the PMT report was the only item on the agenda regarding the status of the implementation of the Monitoring Plan. In June 1996, the State Board of Education was updated on the status of the bias review study. In July 1996, the Semiannual Monitoring Report was provided to the Court, the parties, ODM, the State Board of Education, and the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee. In August 1996, the State Board of Education and the ADE administrative team were provided with copies of the test validation study prepared by Dr. Paul Williams. During the months of September 1996 through December 1996, the PMT was the only item on the agenda regarding the status of the implementation of the Monitoring Plan. On January 13, 1997, a presentation was made to the State Board of Education regarding the February 1997 Semiannual Monitoring Report, and copies of the report and its executive summary were distributed to all Board members. The Project Management Tool and its executive summary were addressed at the February 10, 1997 State Board of Education meeting regarding the ADE's progress in fulfilling their obligations as set forth in the Implementation Plan. In March 1997, the State Board of Education was notified that historical information in the PMT had been summarized at the direction of the Assistant Attorney General in order to reduce the size and increase the clarity of the report. The Board was updated on the Pulaski County Desegregation Case and reviewed the Memorandum Opinion and Order issued by the Court on February 18, 1997 in response to the Districts' motion for summary judgment on the issue of state funding for teacher retirement matching contributions. During the months of April 1997 through June 1997, the PMT was the only item on the agenda regarding the status of the implementation of the Monitoring Plan. The State Board of Education received copies of the July 15, 1997 Semiannual Monitoring Report and executive summary at the July Board meeting. 22 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 2001 (Continued) The Implementation Phase Working Group held its quarterly meeting on August 4, 1997 to discuss the progress made in attaining the goals set forth in the Implementation Plan and the critical areas for the current quarter. A special report regarding a historical review of the Pulaski County Settlement Agreement and the ADE's role and monitoring obligations were presented to the State Board of Education on September 8, 1997. Additionally, the July 15, 1997 Semiannual Monitoring Report was presented to the Board for their review. In October 1997, a special draft report regarding disparity in achievement was submitted to the State Board Chairman and the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee. In November 1997, the State Board of Education was provided copies of the monthly PMT and its executive summary. The Implementation Phase Working Group held its quarterly meeting on November 3, 1997 to discuss the progress made in attaining the goals set forth in the Implementation Plan and the critical areas for the current quarter. In December 1997, the State Board of Education was provided copies of the monthly PMT and its executive summary. In January 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and discussed ODM's report on the ADE's monitoring activities and instructed the Director to meet with the parties to discuss revisions to the ADE's monitoring plan and monitoring reports. In February 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and discussed the February 1998 Semiannual Monitoring Report. In March 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary and was provided an update regarding proposed revisions to the monitoring process. In April 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary. In May 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary. 23 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 2001 (Continued) In June 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary. The State Board of Education also reviewed how the ADE would report progress in the PMT concerning revisions in ADE's Monitoring Plan. In July 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary. The State Board of Education also received an update on Test Validation, the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Committee Meeting, and revisions in ADE's Monitoring Plan. In August 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary. The Board also received an update on the five discussion points regarding the proposed revisions to the monitoring and reporting process. The Board also reviewed the basic goal of the Minority Recruitment Committee. In September 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed the proposed modifications to the Monitoring plans by reviewing the common core of written response received from the districts. The primary commonalities were (1) Staff Development, (2) Achievement Disparity and (3) Disciplinary Disparity. A meeting of the parties is scheduled to be conducted on Thursday, September 17, 1998. The Board encouraged the Department to identify a deadline for Standardized Test Validation and Test Selection. In October 1998, the Board received the progress report on Proposed Revisions to the Desegregation Monitoring and Reporting Process (see XVIII). The Board also reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary. In November, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board also received an update on the proposed revisions in the Desegregation monitoring Process and the update on Test validation and Test Selection provisions of the Settlement Agreement. The Board was also notified that the Implementation Plan Working Committee held its quarterly meeting to review progress and identify quarterly priorities. In December, the State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board also received an update on the joint motion by the ADE, the LRSD, NLRSD, and the PCSSD, to relieve the Department of its obligation to file a February Semiannual Monitoring Report. The Board was also notified that the Joshua lntervenors filed a motion opposing the joint motion. The Board was informed that the ADE was waiting on a response from Court. 24 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 2001 (Continued) In January, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board also received an update on the joint motion of the ADE, LRSD, PCSSD, and NLRSD for an order relieving the ADE of filing a February 1999 Monitoring Report. The motion was granted subject to the following three conditions: (1) notify the Joshua intervenors of all meetings between the parties to discuss proposed changes, (2) file with the Court on or before February 1, 1999, a report detailing the progress made in developing proposed changes and (3) identify ways in which ADE might assist districts in their efforts to improve academic achievement. In February, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board was informed that the three conditions: (1) notify the Joshua lntervenors of all meetings between the parties to discuss proposed changes, (2) file with the Court on or before February 1, 1999, a report detailing the progress made in developing proposed changes and (3) identify ways in which ADE might assist districts in their efforts to improve academic achievement had been satisfied. The Joshua lntervenors were invited again to attend the meeting of the parties and they attended on January 13, and January 28, 1999. They are also scheduled to attend on February 17, 1998. The report of progress, a collaborative effort from all parties was presented to court on February 1, 1999. The Board was also informed that additional items were received for inclusion in the revised report, after the deadline for the submission of the progress report and the ADE would: (1) check them for feasibility, and fiscal impact if any, and (2) include the items in future drafts of the report. In March, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board also received and reviewed the Desegregation Monitoring and Assistance Progress Report submitted to Court on February 1, 1999. On April 12, and May 10, 1999, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board also was notified that once the financial section of the proposed plan was completed, the revised plan would be submitted to the board for approval. On June 14, 1999, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board also was notified that once the financial section of the proposed plan was completed, the revised plan would be submitted to the board for approval. 25 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 2001 (Continued) On July 12, 1999, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board also was notified that once the financial section of the proposed plan was completed, the revised plan would be submitted to the board for approval. On August 9, 1999, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board was also notified that the new Desegregation Monitoring and Assistance Plan would be ready to submit to the Board for their review \u0026amp; approval as soon as plans were finalized. On September 13, 1999, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board was also notified that the new Desegregation Monitoring and Assistance Plan would be ready to submit to the Board for their review \u0026amp; approval as soon as plans were finalized. On October 12, 1999, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board was notified that on September 21 , 1999 that the Office of Education Lead Planning and Desegregation Monitoring meet before the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee and presented them with the draft version of the new Desegregation Monitoring and Assistance Plan. The State Board was notified that the plan would be submitted for Board review and approval when finalized. On November 8, 1999, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of October. On December 13, 1999, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of November. On January 10, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of December. On February 14, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of January. On March 13, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of February. On April 10, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of March. 26 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 2001 (Continued) On May 8, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of April. On June 12, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of May. On July 10, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of June. On August 14, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of July. On September 11, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of August. On October 9, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of September. On November 13, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of October. On December 11, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of November. On January 8, 2001 , the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of December. On February 12, 2001, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of January. On March 12, 2001 , the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of February. On April 9, 2001 , the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of March. 27 VI. REMEDIATION A. Through the Extended COE process, the needs for technical assistance by District, by School, and by desegregation compensatory education programs will be identified. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of April 30, 2001 During May 1995, team visits to Cycle 4 schools were conducted, and plans were developed for reviewing the Cycle 5 schools. In June 1995, the current Extended COE packet was reviewed, and enhancements to the Extended COE packet were prepared. In July 1995, year end reports were finalized by the Pulaski County field service specialists, and plans were finalized for reviewing the draft improvement plans of the Cycle 5 schools. In August 1995, Phase I - Cycle 5 school improvement plans were reviewed. Plans were developed for meeting with the Districts to discuss plans for Phase II - Cycle 1 schools of Extended COE, and a school improvement conference was conducted in Hot Springs. The technical review visits for the FY 95/96 year and the documentation process were also discussed. In October 1995, two computer programs, the Effective Schools Planner and the Effective Schools Research Assistant, were ordered for review, and the first draft of a monitoring checklist for Extended COE was developed. Through the Extended COE process, the field service representatives provided technical assistance based on the needs identified within the Districts from the data gathered. In November 1995, ADE personnel discussed and planned for the FY 95/96 monitoring, and onsite visits were conducted to prepare schools for the FY 95/96 team visits. Technical review visits continued in the Districts. In December 1995, announced monitoring and technical assistance visits were conducted in the Districts. At December 31 , 1995, approximately 59% of the schools in the Districts had been monitored. Technical review visits were conducted during January 1996. In February 1996, announced monitoring visits and midyear monitoring reports were completed, and the field service specialists prepared for the spring NCA/COE peer team visits. 28 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) A. Through the Extended COE process, the needs for technical assistance by District, by School, and by desegregation compensatory education programs will be identified. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 2001 (Continued) In March 1996, unannounced monitoring visits of Cycle 5 schools commenced, and two-day peer team visits of Cycle 5 schools were conducted. Two-day team visit materials, team lists and reports were prepared. Technical assistance was provided to schools in final preparation for team visits and to schools needing any school improvement information. In April and May 1996, the unannounced monitoring visits were completed. The unannounced monitoring forms were reviewed and included in the July monitoring report. The two-day peer team visits were completed, and annual COE monitoring reports were prepared. In June 1996, all announced and unannounced monitoring visits of the Cycle 5 schools were completed, and the data was analyzed. The Districts identified enrollment in compensatory education programs. The Semiannual Monitoring Report was completed and filed with the Court on July 15, 1996, and copies were distributed to the parties. During August 1996, meetings were held with the Districts to discuss the monitoring requirements. Technical assistance meetings with Cycle 1 schools were planned for 96/97. The Districts were requested to record discipline data in accordance with the Allen Letter. In September 1996, recommendations regarding the ADE monitoring schedule for Cycle 1 schools and content layouts of the semiannual report were submitted to the ADE administrative team for their review. Training materials were developed and schedules outlined for Cycle 1 schools. In October 1996, technical assistance needs were identified and addressed to prepare each school for their team visits. Announced monitoring visits of the Cycle 1 schools began on October 28, 1996. In December 1996, the announced monitoring visits of the Cycle 1 schools were completed, and technical assistance needs were identified from school site visits. In January 1997, the ECOE monitoring section identified technical assistance needs of the Cycle 1 schools, and the data was reviewed when the draft February Semiannual Monitoring Report was presented to the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee, the State Board of Education, and the parties. 29 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) A. Through the Extended COE process, the needs for technical assistance by District, by School, and by desegregation compensatory education programs will be identified. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 2001 (Continued) In February 1997, field service specialists prepared for the peer team visits of the Cycle 1 schools. NCA accreditation reports were presented to the NCA Committee, and NCA reports were prepared for presentation at the April NCA meeting in Chicago. From March to May 1997, 111 visits were made to schools or central offices to work with principals, ECOE steering committees, and designated district personnel concerning school improvement planning. A workshop was conducted on Learning Styles for Geyer Springs Elementary School. A School Improvement Conference was held in Hot Springs on July 15-17, 1997. The conference included information on the process of continuous school improvement, results of the first five years of COE, connecting the mission with the school improvement plan, and improving academic performance. Technical assistance needs were evaluated for the FY 97 /98 school year in August 1997. From October 1997 to February 1998, technical reviews of the ECOE process were conducted by the field service representatives. Technical assistance was provided to the Districts through meetings with the ECOE steering committees, assistance in analyzing perceptual surveys, and by providing samples of school improvement plans, Gold File catalogs, and web site addresses to schools visited. Additional technical assistance was provided to the Districts through discussions with the ECOE committees and chairs about the process. In November 1997, technical reviews of the ECOE process were conducted by the field service representatives in conjunction with the announced monitoring visits. Workshops on brainstorming and consensus building and asking strategic questions were held in January and February 1998. In March 1998, the field service representatives conducted ECOE team visits and prepared materials for the NCA workshop. Technical assistance was provided in workshops on the ECOE process and team visits. In April 1998, technical assistance was provided on the ECOE process and academically distressed schools. In May 1998, technical assistance was provided on the ECOE process, and team visits were conducted. 30 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) A. Through the Extended COE process, the needs for technical assistance by District, by School, and by desegregation compensatory education programs will be identified. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 2001 (Continued) In June 1998, the Extended COE Team Visit Reports were completed. A School Improvement Conference was held in Hot Springs on July 13-15, 1998. Major conference topics included information on the process of continuous school improvement, curriculum alignment, \"Smart Start,\" Distance Learning, using data to improve academic performance, educational technology, and multicultural education. All school districts in Arkansas were invited and representatives from Pulaski County attended. In September 1998, requests for technical assistance were received, visitation schedules were established, and assistance teams began visiting the Districts. Assistance was provided by telephone and on-site visits. The ADE provided inservice training on \"Using Data to Sharpen the Focus on Student Achievement\" at Gibbs Magnet Elementary school on October 5, 1998 at their request. The staff was taught how to increase test scores through data disaggregation, analysis, alignment, longitudinal achievement review, and use of individualized test data by student, teacher, class and content area. Information was also provided regarding the \"Smart Start\" and the \"Academic Distress\" initiatives. On October 20, 1998, ECOE technical assistance was provided to Southwest Jr. High School. B. Identify available resources for providing technical assistance for the specific condition, or circumstances of need, considering resources within ADE and the Districts, and also resources available from outside sources and experts. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of April 30, 2001 The information for this item is detailed under Section VI.F. of this report. C. Through the ERIC system, conduct a literature search for research evaluating compensatory education programs. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 31 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) C. D. Through the ERIC system, conduct a literature search for research evaluating compensatory education programs. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 2001 An updated ERIC Search was conducted on May 15, 1995 to locate research on evaluating compensatory education programs. The ADE received the updated ERIC disc that covered material through March 1995. An ERIC search was conducted in September 30, 1996 to identify current research dealing with the evaluation of compensatory education programs, and the articles were reviewed. An ERIC search was conducted in April 1997 to identify current research on compensatory education programs and sent to the Cycle 1 principals and the field service specialists for their use. An Eric search was conducted in October 1998 on the topic of Compensatory Education and related descriptors. The search included articles with publication dates from 1997 through July 1998. Identify and research technical resources available to ADE and the Districts through programs and organizations such as the Desegregation Assistance Center in San Antonio, Texas. 1. Projected Ending Date Summer 1994 2. Actual as of April 30, 2001 The information for this item is detailed under Section VI.F. of this report. E. Solicit, obtain, and use available resources for technical assistance. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of April 30, 2001 The information for this item is detailed under Section VI.F. of this report. F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 32 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 2001 From March 1995 through July 1995, technical assistance and resources were obtained from the following sources: the Southwest Regional Cooperative\nUALR regarding training for monitors\nODM on a project management software\nADHE regarding data review and display\nand Phi Delta Kappa, the Desegregation Assistance Center and the Dawson Cooperative regarding perceptual surveys. Technical assistance was received on the Microsoft Project software in November 1995, and a draft of the PMT report using the new software package was presented to the ADE administrative team for review. In December 1995, a data manager was hired permanently to provide technical assistance with computer software and hardware. In October 1996, the field service specialists conducted workshops in the Districts to address their technical assistance needs and provided assistance for upcoming team visits. In November and December 1996, the field service specialists addressed technical assistance needs of the schools in the Districts as they were identified and continued to provide technical assistance for the upcoming team visits. In January 1997, a draft of the February 1997 Semiannual Monitoring Report was presented to the State Board of Education, the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee, and the parties. The ECOE monitoring section of the report included information that identified technical assistance needs and resources available to the Cycle 1 schools. Technical assistance was provided during the January 29-31 , 1997 Title I MidWinter Conference. The conference emphasized creating a learning community by building capacity schools to better serve all children and empowering parents to acquire additional skills and knowledge to better support the education of their children. In February 1997, three ADE employees attended the Southeast Regional Conference on Educating Black Children. Participants received training from national experts who outlined specific steps that promote and improve the education of black children. On March 6-9, 1997, three members of the ADE's Technical Assistance Section attended the National Committee for School Desegregation Conference. The participants received training in strategies for Excellence and Equity: Empowerment and Training for the Future. Specific information was received regarding the current status of court-ordered desegregation, unitary status, and resegregation and distributed to the Districts and ADE personnel. 33 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 2001 (Continued) The field service specialists attended workshops in March on ACT testing and school improvement to identify technical assistance resources available to the Districts and the ADE that will facilitate desegregation efforts. ADE personnel attended the Eighth Annual Conference on Middle Level Education in Arkansas presented by the Arkansas Association of Middle Level Education on April 6-8, 1997. The theme of the conference was Sailing Toward New Horizons. In May 1997, the field service specialists attended the NCA annual conference and an inservice session with Mutiu Fagbayi. An Implementation Oversight Committee member participated in the Consolidated COE Plan inservice training. In June and July 1997, field service staff attended an SAT-9 testing workshop and participated in the three-day School Improvement Conference held in Hot Springs. The conference provided the Districts with information on the COE school improvement process, technical assistance on monitoring and assessing achievement, availability of technology for the classroom teacher, and teaching strategies for successful student achievement. In August 1997, field service personnel attended the ASCD Statewide Conference and the AAEA Administrators Conference. On August 18, 1997, the bi-monthly Team V meeting was held and presentations were made on the Early Literacy Learning in Arkansas (ELLA) program and the Schools of the 21st Century program. In September 1997, technical assistance was provided to the Cycle 2 principals on data collection for onsite and offsite monitoring. ADE personnel attended the Region VI Desegregation Conference in October 1997. Current desegregation and educational equity cases and unitary status issues were the primary focus of the conference. On October 14, 1997, the bi-monthly Team V meeting was held in Paragould to enable members to observe a 21st Century school and a school that incorporates traditional and multi-age classes in its curriculum. In November 1997, the field service representatives attended the Governor's Partnership Workshop to discuss how to tie the committee's activities with the ECOE process. 34 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 2001 (Continued) In March 1998, the field service representatives attended a school improvement conference and conducted workshops on team building and ECOE team visits. Staff development seminars on Using Data to Sharpen the Focus on Student Achievement are scheduled for March 23, 1998 and March 27, 1998 for the Districts. In April 1998, the Districts participated in an ADE seminar to aid them in evaluating and improving student achievement. In August 1998, the Field Service Staff attended inservice to provide further assistance to schools, i.e., Title I Summer Planning Session, ADE session on Smart Start, and the School Improvement Workshops. All schools and districts in Pulaski County were invited to attend the \"Smart Start\" Summit November 9, 10, and 11 to learn more about strategies to increase student performance. \"Smart Start\" is a standards-driven educational initiative which emphasizes the articulation of clear standards for student achievement and accurate measures of progress against those standards through assessments, staff development and individual school accountability. The Smart Start Initiative focused on improving reading and mathematics achievement for all students in Grades K-4. Representatives from all three districts attended. On January 21 , 1998, the ADE provided staff development for the staff at Oak Grove Elementary School designed to assist them with their efforts to improve student achievement. Using achievement data from Oak Grove, educators reviewed trends in achievement data, identified areas of greatest need, and reviewed seven steps for improving student performance. On February 24, 1999, the ADE provided staff development for the administrative staff at Clinton Elementary School regarding analysis of achievement data. On February 15, 1999, staff development was rescheduled for Lawson Elementary School. The staff development program was designed to assist them with their efforts to improve student achievement using achievement data from Lawson, educators reviewed the components of the Arkansas Smart Initiative, trends in achievement data, identified areas of greatest need, and reviewed seven steps for improving student performance. Student Achievement Workshops were rescheduled for Southwest Jr. High in the Little Rock School District, and the Oak Grove Elementary School in the Pulaski County School District. 35 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 2001 (Continued) On April 30, 1999, a Student Achievement Workshop was conducted for Oak Grove Elementary School in PCSSD. The Student Achievement Workshop for Southwest Jr. High in LRSD has been rescheduled. On June 8, 1999, a workshop was presented to representatives from each of the Arkansas Education Service Cooperatives and representatives from each of the three districts in Pulaski County. The workshop detailed the Arkansas Comprehensive Testing, Assessment and Accountability Program (ACTAAP). On June 18, 1999, a workshop was presented to administrators of the NLRSD. The workshop detailed the Arkansas Comprehensive Testing, Assessment and Accountability Program (ACTAAP) . On August 16, 1999, professional development on ways to increase student achievement and the components of the new ACTAAP program was presented during the preschool staff development activities for teaching assistant in the LRSD. On August 20, 1999, professional development on ways to increase student achievement and the components of the new ACTAAP program was presented during the preschool staff development activities for the Accelerated Learning Center in the LRSD. On September 13, 1999, professional development on ways to increase student achievement and the components of the new ACTAAP program were presented to the staff at Booker T. Washington Magnet Elementary School. On September 27, 1999, professional development on ways to increase student achievement was presented to the Middle and High School staffs of the NLRSD. The workshop also covered the components of the new ACTAAP program, and ACT 999 of 1999. On October 26, 1999, professional development on ways to increase student achievement was presented to LRSD personnel through a staff development training class. The workshop also covered the components of the new ACT AAP program, and ACT 999 of 1999. On December 7, 1999, professional development on ways to increase student achievement was scheduled for Southwest Middle School in the LRSD. The workshop was also set to cover the components of the new ACTAAP program, and ACT 999 of 1999. However, Southwest Middle School administrators had a need to reschedule, therefore the workshop will be rescheduled. On January 10, 2000, professional development on ways to increase student achievement was conducted for both Dr. Martin Luther King Magnet Elementary School \u0026amp; Little Rock Central High School. The workshops also covered the components of the new ACT AAP program, and ACT 999 of 1999. 36 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 2001 (Continued) On March 1, 2000, professional development on ways to increase student achievement was conducted for all principals and district level administrators in the PCSSD. The workshop also covered the components of the new ACTAAP program, and ACT 999 of 1999. On April 12, 2000, professional development on ways to increase student achievement was conducted for the LRSD. The workshop also covered the components of the new ACT AAP program, and ACT 999 of 1999. Targeted staffs from the middle and junior high schools in the three districts in Pulaski County attended the Smart Step Summit on May 1 and May 2. Training was provided regarding the overview of the \"Smart Step\" initiative, \"Standard and Accountability in Action,\" and \"Creating Learning Environments Through Leadership Teams.\" The ADE provided training on the development of alternative assessment September 12-13, 2000. Information was provided regarding the assessment of Special Education and LEP students. Representatives from each district were provided the opportunity to select a team of educators from each school within the district to participate in professional development regarding Integrating Curriculum and Assessment K-12. The professional development activity was directed by the national consultant, Dr. Heidi Hays Jacobs, on September 14 and 15, 2000. The ADE provided professional development workshops from October 2 through October 13, 2000 regarding, \"The Write Stuff: Curriculum Frameworks, Content Standards and Item Development.\" Experts from the Data Recognition Corporation provided the training. Representatives from each district were provided the opportunity to select a team of educators from each school within the district to participate. The ADE provided training on Alternative Assessment Portfolio Systems by video conference for Special Education and LEP Teachers on November 17, 2000. Also, Alternative Assessment Portfolio System Training was provided for testing coor.dinators through teleconference broadcast on November 27, 2000. On December 12, 2000, the ADE provided training for Test Coordinators on end of course assessments in Geometry and Algebra I Pilot examination. Experts from the Data Recognition Corporation conducted the professional development at the Arkansas Teacher Retirement Building. 37 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 2001 (Continued) The ADE presented a one-day training session with Dr. Cecil Reynolds on the Behavior Assessment for Children (BASC). This took place on December 7, 2000 at the NLRSD Administrative Annex. Dr. Reynolds is a practicing clinical psychologist. He is also a professor at Texas A \u0026amp; M University and a nationally known author. In the training, Dr. Reynolds addressed the following: 1) how to use and interpret information obtained on the direct observation form, 2) how to use this information for programming, 3) when to use the BASC, 4) when to refer for more or additional testing or evaluation, 5) who should complete the forms and when, (i.e., parents, teachers, students), 6) how to correctly interpret scores. This training was intended to especially benefit School Psychology Specialists, psychologists, psychological examiners, educational examiners and counselors. During January 22-26, 2001 the ADE presented the ACT AAP Intermediate (Grade 6) Benchmark Professional Development Workshop on Item Writing. Experts from the Data Recognition Corporation provided the training. Representatives from each district were invited to attend. On January 12, 2001 the ADE presented test administrators training for mid-year End of Course (Pilot) Algebra I and Geometry exams. This was provided for schools with block scheduling. On January 13, 2001 the ADE presented SmartScience Lessons and worked with teachers to produce curriculum. This was shared with eight Master Teachers. The SmartScience Lessons were developed by the Arkansas Science Teachers Association in conjunction with the Wilbur Mills Educational Cooperative under an Eisenhower grant provided by the ADE. The purpose of SmartScience is to provide K-6 teachers with activity-oriented science lessons that incorporate reading, writing, and mathematics skills. The following training has been provided for educators in the three districts in Pulaski County by the Division of Special Education at the ADE since January 2000: On January 6, 2000, training was conducted for the Shannon Hills Pre-school Program, entitled \"Things you can do at home to support your child's learning.\" This was presented by Don Boyd - ASERC and Shelley Weir. The school's director and seven parents attended. On March 8, 2000, training was conducted for the Southwest Middle School in Little Rock, on ADD. Six people attended the training . There was follow-up training on Learning and Reading Styles on March 26. This was presented by Don Boyd - ASERC and Shelley Weir. 38 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 2001 (Continued) On September 7, 2000, Autism and Classroom Accommodations for the LRSD at Chicot Elementary School was presented. Bryan Ayres and Shelley Weir were presenters. The participants were: Karen Sabo, Kindergarten Teacher\nMelissa Gleason, Paraprofessional\nCurtis Mayfield, P.E. Teacher\nLisa Poteet, Speech Language Pathologist\nJane Harkey, Principal\nKathy Penn-Norman, Special Education Coordinator\nAlice Phillips, Occupational Therapist. On September 15, 2000, the Governor's Developmental Disability Coalition Conference presented Assistive Technology Devices \u0026amp; Services. This was held at the Arlington Hotel in Hot Springs. Bryan Ayres was the presenter. On September 19, 2000, Autism and Classroom Accommodations for the LRSD at Jefferson Elementary School was presented. Bryan Ayres and Shelley Weir were presenters. The participants were: Melissa Chaney, Special Education Teacher\nBarbara Barnes, Special Education Coordinator\na Principal, a Counselor, a Librarian, and a Paraprofessional. On October 6, 2000, Integrating Assistive Technology Into Curriculum was presented at a conference in the Hot Springs Convention Center. Presenters were: Bryan Ayers and Aleecia Starkey. Speech Language Pathologists from LRSD and NLRSD attended. On October 24, 2000, Consideration and Assessment of Assistive Technology was presented through Compressed Video-Teleconference at the ADE facility in West Little Rock. Bryan Ayres was the presenter. On October 25 and 26, 2000, Alternate Assessment for Students with Severe Disabilities for the LRSD at J. A. Fair High School was presented. Bryan Ayres was the presenter. The participants were: Susan Chapman, Special Education Coordinator\nMary Steele, Special Education Teacher\nDenise Nesbit, Speech Language Pathologist\nand three Paraprofessionals. On November 14, 2000, Consideration and Assessment of Assistive Technology was presented through Compressed Video-Teleconference at the ADE facility in West Little Rock. Bryan Ayres was the presenter. On November 17, 2000, training was conducted on Autism for the LRSD at the Instructional Resource Center. Bryan Ayres and Shelley Weir were presenters. On December 5, 2000, Access to the Curriculum Via the use of Assistive Technology Computer Lab was presented. Bryan Ayres was the presenter of this teleconference. The participants were: Tim Fisk, Speech Language Pathologist from Arch Ford Education Service Cooperative at Plumerville and Patsy Lewis, Special Education Teacher from Mabelvale Middle School in the LRSD. 3 9 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 2001 (Continued) On January 9, 2001, Consideration and Assessment of Assistive Technology was presented through Compressed Video-Teleconference at the ADE facility in West Little Rock. Bryan Ayres was the presenter. Kathy Brown, a vision consultant from the LRSD, was a participant. On January 23, 2001, Autism and Classroom Modifications for the LRSD at Brady Elementary School was presented. Bryan Ayres and Shelley Weir were presenters. The participants were: Beverly Cook, Special Education Teacher\nAmy Littrell, Speech Language Pathologist\nJan Feurig, Occupational Therapist\nCarolyn James, Paraprofessional\nCindy Kackly, Paraprofessional\nand Rita Deloney, Paraprofessional. The ADE provided training on Alternative Assessment Portfolio Systems for Special Education and Limited English Proficient students through teleconference broadcast on February 5, 2001. Presenters were: Charlotte Marvel, ADE\nDr. Gayle Potter, ADE\nMarcia Harding, ADE\nLynn Springfield, ASERC\nMary Steele, J. A. Fair High School, LRSD\nBryan Ayres, Easter Seals Outreach. This was provided for Special Education teachers and supervisors in the morning, and Limited English Proficient teachers and supervisors in the afternoon. The Special Education session was attended by 29 teachers/administrators and provided answers to specific questions about the alternate assessment portfolio system and the scoring rubric and points on the rubric to be used to score the portfolios. The LEP session was attended by 16 teachers/administrators and disseminated the common tasks to be included in the portfolios: one each in mathematics, writing and reading. On February 12-23, 2001, the ADE and Data Recognition Corporation personnel trained Test Coordinators in the administration of the spring Criterion-Referenced Test. This was provided in 20 sessions at 10 regional sites. Testing protocol, released items, and other testing materials were presented and discussed. The sessions provided training for Primary, Intermediate, and Middle Level Benchmark Exams as well as End of Course Literacy, Algebra and Geometry Pilot Tests. The LRSD had 2 in attendance for the End of Course session and 2 for the Benchmark session. The NLRSD had 1 in attendance for the End of Course session and 1 for the Benchmark session. The PCSSD had 1 in attendance for the End of Course session and 1 for the Benchmark session. 40 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 2001 (Continued) On March 15, 2001 , there was a meeting at the ADE to plan professional development for staff who work with Limited English Proficiency (LEP) students. A $30,000 grant has been created to provide LEP training at Chicot Elementary for a year, starting in April 2001 . A $40,000 grant was created to provide a Summer English as Second Language (ESL) Academy for the LRSD from June 18 through 29, 2001. Andre Guerrero from the ADE Accountability section met with Karen Broadnax, ESL Coordinator at LRSD, Pat Price, Early Childhood Curriculum Supervisor at LRSD, and Jane Harkey, Principal of Chicot Elementary. On March 1-2 and 8-29, 2001 , ADE staff performed the following activities: processed registration for April 2 and 3 Alternate Portfolio Assessment video conference quarterly meeting\nanswered questions about Individualized Educational Plan (IEP) and LEP Alternate Portfolio Assessment by phone from schools and Education Service Cooperatives\nand signed up students for alternate portfolio assessment from school districts. On March 6, 2001, ADE staff attended a Smart Step Technology Leadership Conference at the State House Convention Center. On March 7, 2001 , ADE staff attended a National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) Regional Math Framework Meeting about the Consensus Project 2004. On March 8, 2001 , there was a one-on-one conference with Carole Villarreal from Pulaski County at the ADE about the LEP students with portfolios. She was given pertinent data, including all the materials that have been given out at the video conferences. The conference lasted for at least an hour. On March 14, 2001, a Test Administrator's Training Session was presented SP.ecifically to LRSD Test Coordinators and Principals. About 60 LRSD personnel attended. The following meetings have 15een conducted with educators in the three districts in Pulaski County sinye July 2000. On July 10-13, 2000 the ADE provided Smart Step training. The sessions covered Standards-based classroom practices. 41 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 2001 (Continued) On July 19-21, 2000 me ADE fiela tne Math/Science Leadership Conference al UCA. This provided services for Arkansas math and science teachers to SUPROrt s~stemic retorm in matfi/scierice ana training for 8th grade Benchmark. There were 200 teachers from across the state in attendance. On August 14-31, 2000 the ADE presented Science Smart Start Lessons and workea with teachers to produce curriculum. This will provide K-6 teachers with activity-oriented science lessons that incorporate reading, writing, and mathematics skills. On Septemoer 5, 2000 the ADE held an Eisenhower Informational meeting with Teacher Center Coordinators. The purgose of the Eisenhower Professional Development Program is to prepare teachers, school staff, and administra1ors to help all students meet challenging standards in the core academic subjects. A summary of the program was presented at the meeting. On November 2-3, 2000 the ADE held the Arkansas Conference on Teaching. This presented curriculum and activity workshops. More than 1200 attended the conference. On November 6, 2000 there was a review of Science Benchmarks and sample model curriculum. A committee of 6 reviewed and revised a drafted document. The committee was made up of ADE and K-8 teachers. On November 7-10, 2000 the ADE held a meeting of the Benchmark and End of Course Mathematics Content Area Committee. Classroom teachers reviewed items for grades 4, 6, 8 and EOC mathematics assessment. There were 60 participants. On December 4-8, 2000 the ADE conducted grades 4 and 8 Benchmark Scoring for Writing Assessment. This professional development was attended by approximately 750 teachers. On December 8, 2000 the ADE conducted Rubric development for Special Education Portfolio scoring. This was a meeting with special education supervisors to revise rubric and plan for scoring in June. On December 8, 2000 the ADE presented the Transition Mathematics Pilot Training Workshop. This provided follow-up training and activities for fourth-year mathematics professional development. On December 12, 2000 the ADE presented test administrators training for midyear End of Course (Pilot) Algebra I and Geometry exams. This was provided for schools with block scheduling. 42 VII. TEST VALIDATION A. 8. Using a collaborative approach, the ADE will select and contract with an independent bias review service or expert to evaluate the Stanford 8, or other monitoring instruments used to measure disparities in academic achievement between black students and white students. 1. Projected Ending Date March, 1995 2. Actual as of April 30, 2001 On March 29, 1995, letters were sent to four national experts about conducting a test bias validation of the Stanford Achievement Test, Eighth Edition, Form K (SAT-8). Dr. Paul Williams, Deputy Director of Educational Testing Service (ETS), contacted the ADE in April of 1995 concerning the proposal for validating the SAT- 8 test. The ADE requested that Dr. Williams conduct a validity study of test items used in the SAT-8. Dr. Williams submitted a final proposal for his services. The ADE Bias Review Test Committee met Friday, July 7, 1995, and approved Dr. William's contract proposal. The final contract was forwarded to Dr. Williams for his signature. The contract was signed in August 1995, thereby, completing this goal. By April 1994, establish a bias review committee to oversee the bias review process, and invite representatives of the Districts and parties to meet with the bias review committee. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of April 30, 2001 Complete. ADE established a Bias Review Committee in April 1994. In accordance with the Implementation Plan, representatives from the Districts and the parties were invited to attend and participate in this and all meetings of the Bias Review Committee. C. Upon completion of test validation procedures by the bias review service or expert, the ADE will adopt and use a validated test as a monitoring instrument. 1. Projected Ending Date March 1995 and ongoing 43 VII. TEST VALIDATION (Continued) C. Upon completion of test validation procedures by the bias review service or expert, the ADE will adopt and use a validated test as a monitoring instrument. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 2001 Dr. Paul Williams met with the staff of the Psychological Corporation to review their methods and procedures. In August 1995, he met with the staff at Georgia State University to review the statistical methods that would be used in the analysis. Dr. Williams reported difficulty with the bias-review study in receiving the names of the bias panel and the complete SAT-8 data set from the Psychological Corporation. Dr. Williams submitted an invoice totaling $8,961 for Task I activities of the SAT-8 validity study for partial fulfillment of the test validation study. On December 6, 1995, a contract extension for Dr. Williams was reviewed by the Legislative Council. In January 1996, he indicated that he was in the final stages of the test validation, and the ADE was presented a draft report in March 1996. In May 1996, Dr. Williams stated that the wrong data sets were sent to him by the Psychological Corporation resulting in Task 3 having to be redone. A new draft of the final report was received by the ADE in July 1996. In August 1996, copies of the test validation report were provided to the State Board of Education and the ADE administrative team for their review. On September 10, 1996, the LRSD notified the ADE that they had reviewed the test validation report and would like to meet with the ADE to discuss the report. The ADE Director indicated that he would schedule a meeting with the LRSD to discuss the report. In October 1996, historical files and data were provided to the ADE Director, the ADE Assistant Director for Technical Services, and the ADE Assistant Director for Planning and Curriculum for their review in preparation for a meeting with the LRSD regarding the validity study. Test validation procedures by the expert have been completed. A recommendation was drafted proposing the use of the SAT-8 by the ADE as the validated test for monitoring. The ADE is presently working to arrange a meeting with the Administration of the LRSD to discuss the test validation study. Effective September 22, 1997, the State Board of Education hired a new Director of the General Education Division, which should allow the ADE to move forward in this matter. 44 VII. TEST VALIDATION (Continued) C. Upon completion of test validation procedures by the bias review service or expert, the ADE will adopt and use a validated test as a monitoring instrument. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 2001 (Continued) In October 1997, the GED Director was updated on the history of the test validation process to provide the Director with background information in preparation for a meeting with the LRSD. In February 1998, ADE staff met with senior staff members to discuss the test validation and appropriate test scores for consideration by the LRSD. The ADE Director met with the Superintendent of the LRSD to discuss test validation issues. In June 1998, the ADE Director directed the Assistant Director for Accountability to recommend staff to discuss how the ADE would measure LRSD's progress toward meeting the loan forgiveness thresholds of the Settlement Agreement. Plans were made to meet with the staff Tuesday, June 30, 1998. The Test Validation Committee met on June 30, 1998, and discussed the following: 1. The appropriateness of the use of scaled scores on the SAT-8 test as the metric for assessing LRSD compliance with the loan forgiveness provisions of the Settlement Agreement\nand 2. The need for an independent analysis of LRSD students' test scores to determine compliance or noncompliance with loan forgiveness standard, and who would bear the cost of such an independent analysis. The Test Validation Committee met on September 10, 1998, to review recent correspondence from LRSD and to further discuss issues related to the loan forgiveness provisions of the Settlement Agreement. A follow-up administrative meeting was held on October 13, 1998, to discuss issues related to the test validation process. Participants included Tim Gauger, Assistant Attorney General, Dr. Charity Smith, Lead Planner for Desegregation, and Frank Anthony, Assistant Director for Accountability. A meeting was scheduled with Dr. Les Carnine, LRSD Superintendent and Mr. Ray Simon, ADE Director, regarding Test Validation and loan forgiveness provisions of the Settlement Agreement on May 12, 1999. 45 VII. TEST VALIDATION (Continued) C. Upon completion of test validation procedures by the bias review service or expert, the ADE will adopt and use a validated test as a monitoring instrument. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 2001 (Continued) On June 14, 1999, the State Board of Education was briefed on the status of LRSD's refusal to make principal and interest payments into escrow as required by the loan provisions of the Settlement Agreement and related documents. The Board requested that a draft motion to enforce the Settlement Agreement be prepared and submitted to the Board for review and discussion at the Board's next regularly scheduled meeting. On July 12, 1999, the State Board of Education authorized the filing of a motion to compel LRSD to make interest and principal payments into escrow pursuant to the loan provisions of the Settlement Agreement. The State Board of Education instructed the Attorney General's Office to file a motion by March 1, 2000 if a determination is made that the LRSD is not in compliance with Section 6 B of the Pulaski County Settlement Agreement regarding the establishment and funding of the escrow account in the loan provision section. On May 8, 2000, the Assistant Director of Accountability was directed by the Director of Education to contact Harcourt Brace Educational Measurement Company about the possibility of conducting a research study on the standardized test composite scores from 1990 through 1999 of LRSD (excluding special education students). The Test Selection Committee met on May 23, 2000, at the ADE and discussed ways to measure LRSD's progress toward meeting the loan forgiveness threshold of the Pulaski County Settlement Agreement. An update on the progress with Harcourt Brace was made at that time. Harcourt Brace has been contacted about conducting an initial research report on LRSD's progress toward meeting the loan forgiveness threshold of the settlement agreement. This report will review all composite scores since 1990 of LRSD's black and white students (excluding special education students). The purpose of the report is to determine if at any time from Spring 1990 to Fall 1999 did the composite scores of LRSD's black students (excluding special education students) reach 90% or greater of the composite scores of LRSD's white students (excluding special education students) on the State mandated norm-referenced test. Company representatives will advise the ADE of the cost and feasibility of producing the report by May 31, 2000. If the report indicates that LRSD has not meet the loan forgiveness requirements of the Pulaski County Settlement Agreement, an additional analysis of the Fall 2000 standardized tests results will be made. 46 VII. TEST VALIDATION (Continued) C. Upon completion of test validation procedures by the bias review service or expert, the ADE will adopt and use a validated test as a monitoring instrument. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 2001 (Continued) Harcourt Brace indicated that they would be able to provide the data, but indicated that analysis of the data should be done by an independent consultant. The search for an independent consultant has been undertaken. On February 12, 2001, the ADE Director provided the State Board of Education with a special update on desegregation activities. 47 VIII. IN-SERVICE TRAINING A. Through an interactive process with representatives of desegregating districts, identify in-service training needs. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of April 30, 2001 The information for this item is detailed under Section VIII.D. of this report. B. Develop in-service training programs to address in-service training needs of desegregating districts. C. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of April 30, 2001 The information for this item is detailed under Section VIII.D. of this report. Implement in-service training programs to address in-service training needs of desegregating districts. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of April 30, 2001 The information for this item is detailed under Section VIII.D. of this report. D. Evaluate in-service training programs developed and executed to address in-service training needs of desegregating districts. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of April 30, 2001 In April 1995, the Tri-District Staff Development Committee were provided an overview of the Scott Alternative Learning Center's operation and met with students and staff. In May 1995, the Districts were in the process of self-assessment and planning for fall staff development. 48 VIII. IN-SERVICE TRAINING (Continued) D. Evaluate in-service training programs developed and executed to address in-service training needs of desegregating districts. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 2001 (Continued) The Districts worked on staff development to be incorporated into their fall 95/96 preschool calendars. The uniqueness of each district's needs and their schools was considered in the planning by utilizing the results of needs assessment instruments. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met on September 13, 1995 to plan for an ADE administered Classroom Management grant. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met on September 19, 1995 to finalize the Classroom Management grant proposal. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met on October 24, 1995 to discuss program and staff development evaluation models that might be available to the Districts. On November 15, 1995, the ADE met with an ODM representative to discuss the progress the ADE had made in attaining the objectives outlined in the Implementation Plan with regard to inservice training. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met on November 21 , 1995 to discuss upcoming training events and various NLR programs that focus on non-academic needs. A new program consisting of placing a graduate student of social work, a field supervisor, and a OHS worker in the district at no cost to the district was discussed. Additionally, NLR provided an overview of their program for credit deficient students. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met on December 19, 1995 to discuss information dealing with ways to broaden the perspective of multicultural education. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met on January 17, 1996 to discuss proposed changes in the standards regarding media centers and NLRSD's staff development strategic planning committee. The committee reviewed a video on diversity produced by the Arkansas Elementary Principals Association. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met on February 21, 1996 to discuss the implications of budget cuts on staff development programs and PCSSD's request for unitary status for their staff development program . They also discussed the need for computer literacy, technology training, and acquisition of hardware and software by the Districts. 49 VIII. IN-SERVICE TRAINING (Continued) D. Evaluate in-service training programs developed and executed to address in-service training needs of desegregating districts. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 2001 (Continued) The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met on March 27, 1996 to discuss available resources concerning sexual harassment. ADE regulations in relation to staff members attending professional association conferences as well as the district staff development and potential sites for training seminars were also discussed. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met on April 30, 1996 to discuss the reconfiguring of Jacksonville Junior High, PCSSD professional development schedules, and APSCN on-line time lines. A tour of the Washington Magnet school was also conducted. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee received a demonstration of UALR's Baum Decision Support Center's capabilities regarding consensus and planning on May 29, 1996. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee did not meet during September, October, and November 1996 because of scheduling conflicts and the extended medical leave of the ADE liaison. On December 18, 1996, the Tri-District Staff Development Committee met to discuss the linkage between the Implementation Plan, staff development, and student achievement. On January 21 , 1997, the Tri-District Staff Development Committee met and discussed sharing middle school strategies and the Districts' training catalogs. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met on February 25, 1997 to discuss their current staff development programs and an overview of the relationship of their current programs with their desegregation plans. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met on March 26, 1997 to observe the Great Expectations Program. The principal and mentor teachers provided information on the components and philosophy of the program, and students demonstrated selected components. The PCSSD may adopt the program for selected schools in their district. The committee was provided with an update of pertinent information on resources available to the Districts. The committee decided that the ADE liaison to the committee would gather documentation of completed staff development directly from the Districts, instead of the Districts providing this information at the committee meetings. 50 VIII. IN-SERVICE TRAINING (Continued) D. Evaluate in-service training programs developed and executed to address in-service training needs of desegregating districts. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 2001 (Continued) New information on teacher licensure and rules and regulations was shared with the Tri-District Staff Development Committee at their April 1997 meeting. A report was presented to the committee on information from the Arkansas Council for Social Studies about an October 1997 meeting on integrated curriculum. The Districts will provide principal retreats this summer as a part of their staff development. The PCSSD will sponsor a renowned speaker on strategies to serve at risk youth in August 1997 in which the committee is invited to attend. The LRSD shared survey results from a pilot administration to four teachers in each district. The survey found the sample to be strong in content but lacking in context and process. Plans to address these needs will be developed. In another survey to certified and non-certified LRSD staff, stress management was the major concern. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met on May 14, 1997 to participate in a teleconference with the five 1996 awardees of the National Awards Program for Model for Professional Development. The PCSSD shared their summer and fall staff development catalog with the members. The committee will reconvene in the fall of the 97/98 school year. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee is scheduled to meet on September 30, 1997 to discuss collaborative actions for FY 97/98. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met on September 30, 1997 to discuss their staff development for the 1997 /1998 school year. The PCSSD had a pre-school in-service for the faculty, and the LRSD conducted a Principals Academy with an expert on the math and science initiative which lasted several days. The NLRSD is provid ing staff development by satellite. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met on October 28, 1997. The LRSD and NLRSD shared some of their staff development course offerings with the committee, and the PCSSD discussed ways of optimizing opportunities for staff development with specific emphasis on the junior high school conflict resolution training. In November 1997, the Lead Planner provided technical assistance to Central High School staff regarding data disaggregation, test score analysis and ways to improve student achievement. 51 VIII. IN-SERVICE TRAINING (Continued) D. Evaluate in-service training programs developed and executed to address in-service training needs of desegregating districts. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 2001 (Continued) The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met on November 25, 1997 to discuss the Standards for Staff Development. The LRSD will begin providing technology training to their employees in January by utilizing business teachers. Additionally, they discussed a collaborative venture of the Districts involving a workshop from Chicago on a program called \"Great Expectations.\" The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met on December 16, 1997 to discuss technology plans, strategies for obtaining information currently being provided to the education cooperatives, scheduling of Arkansas history, and the development of a comprehensive list of locations available for staff development. Members agreed to bring information on available locations to the January meeting and have set a tentative completion date for the project of May 1998. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met on January 27, 1998 to share information for developing a comprehensive list of locations available for staff development. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met on February 24, 1998 to work on the development of the list of locations available for staff development. The committee also discussed the meeting on student achievement sponsored by the ADE for the Districts, principals' staff development in the Districts and emphasis on improving achievement as reflected on the SAT-9. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met on March 19, 1998 to discuss the math and science grant received by the LRSD, the Districts' inservice calendars for August, TESA and Student-Team Learning trainers, and team building for staff. The ADE Deputy Director is scheduled to discuss ways the committee can strengthen their relationship with the regional cooperatives at their May meeting. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met on April 27, 1998 to discuss their proposal for involvement with the regional cooperatives. The ADE Deputy Director is scheduled to discuss committee's concerns regarding their relationship with the regional cooperatives at their next meeting. 52 VIII. IN-SERVICE TRAINING (Continued) D. Evaluate in-service training programs developed and executed to address in-service training needs of desegregating districts. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 2001 (Continued) The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met Thursday, May 21 , 1998, in the Instructional Resources Center at Little Rock School District. Dr. Woodrow Cummins, ADE Deputy Director, joined the group to discuss ways to develop a closer connection with the Education Service Cooperatives. He also discussed other issues concerning Tri-District Staff Development. Tentative plans were made to meet with the Teacher Center Coordinators at their next regular meeting. The next Central Office meeting will be at 9:00 a.m., Thursday, September 29, 1998, in the PCSSD. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee will attend the Educational Cooperative Teacher Center Coordinators' meeting September 1, 1998, in the ADE auditorium. The next regular meeting of the committee is tentatively set for 9:00 a.m., Thursday, September 29, 1998, in the PCS SD Central Office. The Tri-County Staff Development Committee met Monday, August 24, 1998, at PCSSD central office with four members present: Marion Woods, LRSD\nDoug Ask and Mary McClendon, PCSSD\nand Betty Gale Davis, ADE. Topics of discussion included the September 1 meeting scheduled with the regional cooperatives' teacher center coordinators\nthe staff development task force on which Marion Woods is serving\nthe property tax issue\nand various mathematics and reading programs being used in the districts. The committee met Tuesday, September 1, 1998, with the Teacher Center Coordinators, at which time Dr. Woody Cummins presented. Six Tri-District Staff Development Committee members were present: Marion Woods, LRSD\nDoug Ask and Mary Mcclendon, PCSSD\nDana Chadwick and Estelle Crawford, NLRSD\nBetty Gale Davis, ADE. The next committee meeting will be 9:00 a.m., Thursday, September 24, 1998, at the Little Rock District Instructional Resources Center. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met Thursday, September 24, 1998, at the Instructional Resources Center, Little Rock, with five present: Marion Woods and Dr. Bonnie Lesley, LRSD\nDoug Ask, PCSSD\nDana Chadwick, NLRSD\nand Dr. Betty Gale Davis, ADE. Topics of discussion included the meeting with the regional cooperatives' teacher center coordinators\nthe staff development task force on which Marion Woods is serving and the NSCI training\ntraining provided by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)\ntraining provided by Casio\nand the proposal of a Principals Academy. 53 VIII. IN-SERVICE TRAINING (Continued) D. Evaluate in-service training programs developed and executed to address in-service training needs of desegregating districts. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 2001 (Continued) Doug Ask will serve as representative to the October 6, 1998 meeting of the Teacher Center Coordinators. He will submit to Donna Harris, president of the group, a request for one other member of the Tri-County Committee (Dana Chadwick) to attend the meeting. Representatives for future meetings (second Tuesday of each month) will be: Marion Woods, November\nMary McClendon, December\nDana Chadwick, January. The next committee meeting will be 9:00 a.m., Tuesday, October 13, 1998, at the North Little Rock School District Central Office. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met on Tuesday, October 13, 1998, in the NLRSD Administration Building. Doug Ask represented the committee at the Teacher Center Coordinators' meeting in Fayetteville, October 6. He shared with the Tri-District Committee information regarding the upcoming NSCI/Smart Start Training. James Smith spoke with the group about Amendment 4. Members of the Tri-District Staff Development Committee also met with the Teacher Center Coordinators, Wednesday, October 28. Doug Ask, Marion Woods, and Esther Crawford were trained as facilitators, October 29, for the initial Smart Start Summit to be held November 9-12, 1998. Marion Woods will represent the committee at the next regular Teacher Center Coordinators' meeting, Tuesday, November 3, 10:00 a.m. at the ADE. The next Tri-District Committee meeting will be at 9:00 a.m., November 10, in the PCSSD Administration Building. Members of the Tri-District Staff Development Committee met several times with the Teacher Center Coordinators in preparation for the Smart Start Summit. During the Smart Start Summit, they served as facilitators. The meeting planned for November 10 was postponed due to the conflict with the Summit. Doug Ask, Marion Woods, and Esther Crawford met with the Teacher Center Coordinators on Tuesday, December 1, 1998, for the regular monthly meeting. Principal topics discussed were the Smart Start Initiative and Principals' Institute. The next meeting of the Teacher Center Coordinators is scheduled for January 6, 1999, 9:00 a.m., in the ADE Auditorium. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee will meet at 9:00 a.m., Tuesday, December 8, 1998, at the Little Rock School District Instructional Resources Center. 54 VIII. IN-SERVICE TRAINING (Continued) D. Evaluate in-service training programs developed and executed to address in-service training needs of desegregating districts. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 2001 (Continued) Doug Ask, PCSSD\nMarion Woods, LRSD\nand Esther Crawford, NLRSD, met with the Teacher Center Coordinators on Tuesday, December 1, 1998, for the regular monthly meeting. Principal topics discussed were the Smart Start Initiative and Principals' Institute. The Teacher Center Coordinators held their monthly meeting on January 6, 1999, 9:00 a.m., in the ADE Auditorium, with Doug Ask, Marion Woods, and Esther Crawford in attendance. At the January meeting, the primary focus was on the Smart Start Initiative. Dates for the future committee meetings have been tentatively scheduled to coincide with meetings with the Teacher Center Coordinators. Due to the Tri-District Committee's involvement with the Smart Start Initiative, no formal meeting of the committee was held in January. Members of the TriDistrict Staff Development Committee met with Teacher Center Coordinators, January 6 and 25, 1999, preparing for and facilitating Smart Start activities. Dates for future meetings have been tentatively scheduled to coincide with meetings of Teacher Center Coordinators. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met Wednesday, February 17, 1999, at the Best Western lnntowne with four members in attendance. Most of the discussion centered on Smart Start and Character Centered Teaching. A March meeting date was not determined. Members of the Tri-District Staff Development Committee met with the Teacher Center Coordinators at their regular monthly meeting, April 6, 1999, at the ADE. Much of the meeting centered on the Smart Start Initiative and the Getting Smarter Summer Conference to be held in Hot Springs, July 28-31, 1999. The next meeting of the Tri-District Staff Development Committee will be May 11, 1999, at the Northeast Arkansas Educational Cooperative, Walnut Ridge. Members of the Tri-District Staff Development Committee met with the Teacher Center Coordinators at their regular monthly meeting, Tuesday, May 11, 1999, at the Northeast Arkansas Educational Cooperative, Walnut Ridge, with Mary McClendon, PCSSD, Marion Woods, LRSD, Esther Crawford, NLRSD, and Janinne Riggs, ADE, attending. Much of the meeting centered on the Smart Start Initiative. The next meeting was scheduled as a retreat, June 7-9, 1999, at Hot Springs. Members of the Tri-District Staff Development Committee met with the Teacher Center Coordinators for their annual retreat, June 7-9, 1999, at Hot Springs. The next regular meeting will be in September, the date and place to be announced later. Summer activities will include the Getting Smarter Conference. 55 VIII. IN-SERVICE TR!\\INING (Continued) D. Evaluate in-service training programs developed and executed to address in-service training needs of desegregating districts. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 2001 (Continued) Members of the Tri-District Staff Development Committee met during the Getting Smarter Conference, July 28-31 , 1999, at Hot Springs. In collaboration with the Teacher Center Coordinators, those participating in the conference as facilitators were: Doug Ask, PCSSD\nEsther Crawford, NLRSD\nand Marion Woods, LRSD. The next regular meeting will be in September, the date and place to be announced later. Target, Teach, and Test for Student Success, a workshop aimed at improving interpretation of test data and applying that knowledge toward more effective lesson planning, was adapted for presentation in conjunction with the Multicultural Institute. Members of the Standards Assurance Unit (Dee Cox, Betty Gale Davis, Bob Maddox, and Lonzo Gatlin) presented an all-day workshop (Target, Teach, and Test for Student Success) for Pulaski County Special School District in connection with the Multicultural Institute, July 27, 1999. Members of the Tri-District Staff Development Committee met Tuesday, September 7, 1999, at the ADE, with five members in attendance: Doug Ask and Mary McClendon, PCSSD\nEsther Crawford, NLRSD\nMaron Woods, LRSD\nand Betty Gale Davis, ADE. Discussion included Smart Start activities and performance assessment. Following the meeting, the committee met with the Teacher Center Coordinators at their regular monthly meeting. The next meeting will be Tuesday, October 5, 1999, at the ADE. Members of the Tri-District Staff Development Committee met Tuesday, October 5, 1999 at the ADE. Discussion included middle level training (LRSD), inservice for administrators in retreat (PCSSD), and Smart Start activities. Following the meeting, the committee met with the Teacher Center Coordinators at their regular monthly meeting. The next meeting will be November 2, 1999 at the ADE. Members of the Tri-District Staff Development Committee met Tuesday, November 2, 1999 at the ADE. Following the meeting, the committee met with the Teacher Center Coordinators at their regular monthly meeting. The next meeting will be December 7, at the ADE. The December meeting was canceled due to conflicts in scheduling. The TriDistrict Staff Development Committee will hold its next meeting January 3, 2000 at the ADE. The Committee continues to work in cooperation with the Teacher Center Coordinators in the Smart Start Initiative. 56 VIII. IN-SERVICE TRAINING (Continued) D. Evaluate in-service training programs developed and executed to address in-service training needs of desegregating districts. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 2001 (Continued) The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met January 4, 2000 at the ADE. Major discussion included the upcoming three day meeting with Teacher Center Coordinators (January 4-6, 2000), benchmarks training (NLRSD), balance literacy training (PCSSD), alternative learning training (LRSD), and activities of the Smart Start Initiative. The next meeting will be February 3, 2000 at the ADE. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met Monday and Tuesday, February 7-8, 2000, at Ferncliff, with four members present: Doug Ask and Mary McClendon, PCSSD\nEsther Crawford, NLRSD\nand Marion Woods, LRSD. The meeting was held in conjunction with the Teacher Center Coordinators' retreat. Several presenters shared information on various topics, and the Getting Smarter summer conference was discussed. Plans were tentatively made to conduct the April meeting via distance learning. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met March 7, 2000, at the ADE. Following the meeting, the committee met with the Teacher Center Coordinators at their regular monthly meeting. Items discussed were: documentation of clock hours for professional development, Middle School training, and the use of staff development days. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met by Distance Learning through the Sherwood School Site with the Teacher Center Coordinators for its April meeting. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met with the Teacher Center Coordinators, in conjunction with the Smart Step Summit, May 1-2, 2000, at the Convention Center. Three members participated: Doug Ask and Mary Mcclendon, PCSSD\nand Marion Woods, LRSD. A June meeting date has not been set. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met with the Teacher Center Coordinators at their annual summer conference in Hot Springs, June 5-7, 2000. Among the discussions were the formation of a chapter of the National Staff Development Council, the Pathwise Mentor program grant, Smart Start, and Smart Step. In lieu of a regular monthly meeting, the Tri-District Staff Development Committee met and worked with the Teacher Center Coordinators during the Smart Start/Smart Step conferences, July 10-13, 2000, at the Little Rock Convention Center. The next meeting date has not yet been set. 57 VIII. IN-SERVICE TRAINING (Continued) D. Evaluate in-service training programs developed and executed to address in-service training needs of desegregating districts. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 2001 (Continued) The Tri-District Staff Development Committee will reconvene in September, with no meeting during August. LRSD, NLRSD, and PCSSD applied for the Arkansas Pathwise Mentoring Pilot Model as a collaborative effort and were awarded $445,875 for the new teachers for the 2000-2001 school year - one of many collaborative successful ventures for the districts. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee has been working with Smart Start and Smart Step Initiatives in collaboration with the Teacher Center Coordinators throughout the month of August. No regular meeting is scheduled for September. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met Tuesday, October 3, 2000, at the Arkansas Department of Education, Room 3058, with three members present: Marion Woods, LRSD\nEsther Crawford, NLRSD\nand Dr. Betty Gale Davis, ADE. The procedures for dissemination of information within the respective districts were discussed. Members of cabinet level administrators from LRSD and PCSSD will be included in future meetings. Other topics of discussion were the Arkansas Pathwise Mentoring Program and topics of presentations for LRSD administrators. The next meeting will be Tuesday, November 7, 2000, in Room 3038, ADE. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met Tuesday, November 7, 2000, at the ADE, Room 3038, with seven members present: Doug Ask, John Mccraney, and Dr. Ruth Simmons Herts, PCSSD\nEsther Crawford, NLRSD\nDr. Bonnie Lesley and Marion Woods, LRSD\nand Dr. Betty Gale Davis, ADE. Dr. Herts and Dr. Lesley have been added to the committee in response to each district's request to include a member of the cabinet. Many of the recent staff development activities in each of the districts have been related to Smart Start and Smart Step. Other topics discussed included: the upcoming National Staff Development Council conference and the availability of math specialists and literacy specialists. The next meeting will be at 9:00 a.m., Tuesday, December 5, 2000, in Room 3038, ADE. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met Tuesday, December 5, 2000, at the ADE, Room 3038, with three members present: Esther Crawford, NLRSD\nSue Walls, LRSD\nand Dr. Betty Gale Davis, ADE. Many of the recent staff development activities in each of the districts have been related to Smart Start and Smart Step. Other topics discussed included: the ongoing Pathwise training of mentors, the writing training provided by the ADE, and the ongoing collaborative work with the Teacher Center Coordinators. The next meeting has not been scheduled. 58 VIII. IN-SERVICE TRAINING (Continued) D. Evaluate in-service training programs developed and executed to address in-service training needs of desegregating districts. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 2001 (Continued) The Tri-District Staff Development Committee did not hold its monthly meeting in January. The next meeting will be Tuesday morning, February 6, at 8:30 a.m., in the ADE third floor conference room. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee, rather than meeting separately from the Teacher Center Coordinators in February, chose to meet during the regular monthly meeting of Teacher Coordinators, at Ferndale, on February 6. The staff development topics were Smart Start and Smart Step. John Mccraney from PCSSD and Esther Crawford from NLRSD attended. The next meeting will be on March 6, 2001 , at 8:30 a.m ., in the ADE third floor conference room. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee did not formally meet during the month of March. The connection and work with Teacher Center Coordinators continued through meeting informally at the conferences, i.e. , \"Smart Steps to Technology Leadership\", March 5-6, 2001 . Committee members Esther Crawford from NLRSD, and Doug Ask from PCSSD attended. The April meeting date has not been determined. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met April 3, 2001 , at the Amerisuites Hotel in Little Rock. Committee members attending were: Marion Woods, LRSD\nDoug Ask, PCSSD\nand Esther Crawford, NLRSD. The committee met with Teacher Center Coordinators at first, then separately. The discussion included Gates training , Pathwise and Middle School training. The Arkansas Association of Middle Level Education (AAMLE) and the ADE presented the Twelfth Annual Middle Level Education Conference \"AAMLE: In Step With Smart Step\" at the Hot Springs Convention Center on April 8-10, 2001 . Dr. Neila Connors gave practical tips on improving school climate and communication skills for teachers, principals, and administrators. Dr. Charles Beaman gave dynamic strategies for coping with at-risk and marginal learners within the school and classroom setting . Dr. Howard Johnson proposed a model and action plan for refocusing middle level schools on achievement. Lucinda Johnston outlined a systematic, humane and effective school-wide productive behavior model and plan with meaningful rewards for productive behavior, and effective r\nThis project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resoources.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\u003cdcterms_creator\u003eArkansas. Department of Education\u003c/dcterms_creator\u003e\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1081","title":"Little Rock School District Board","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":["1999/2000"],"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 (Ark.)--History--21st Century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Educational planning","School management and organization","School boards","School superintendents","School board members"],"dcterms_title":["Little Rock School District Board"],"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/1081"],"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":["148 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  \n\nThis transcript was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.\nF. Facilities Development       LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPN CODE: FF NAMING FACILITIES The Board of Education shall approve the official names of all school buildings. In selecting names for new buildings, recommendations will be considered from the Superintendent of Schools, interested citizens, students, or staff. Proposed names may be submitted by the Superintendent to the school staff, students, and interested citizen groups for reaction. The final recommendation shall be forwarded by the superintendent to the Board of Education for approval. The following guidelines shall govern the naming of facilities: 1. Schools shall be named for persons identified with public education or who have rendered some other distinguished public service locally, nationally, or internationally. 2. When possible, the group making the nomination should agree to provide appropriate recognition for that school in the fonn of a plaque, portrait, marker or in some other way . 3. The nomination shall be presented in a brief three paragraph statement which shall contain: a. Appropriate biographical data about the person b. The significant contribution made by the person c. A statement of why the school should be named after the person The attached form shall be used by persons nominating names for facilities. Also, the Board at its discretion may name portions of a building, such as the library or auditorium. Guidelines listed above shall apply in such cases. In all cases, care should be taken to avoid similarities with the names of existing schools. Once a person's name has been proposed, written authorization shall be secured by the superintendent from the individual, if living, or the closest relative to the third degree of the descendant before any official action is taken by the Board. Following the adoption of the official naming (or renaming) of a new school building or program housed within the building, the administrative officers of the Board will be authorized to give public notice of such action and to modify existing records and other legal documents as may be necessary.    LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPN CODE: FF ( continued) The official names of all schools will be approved or altered only by action of the Board. Request for renaming facilities will follow the format listed below: 1. State the proposed name 2. Identify the facility location or building location 3. Provide biographical or historical data supporting request 4. Describe significant contributions of the individual for which the namin- is considered 5. Offer a rationale for naming or renaming school Renaming Facilities In situations deemed unusual or appropriate, the Board may take steps to rename school facilities, or portions thereof. Schools named for a person will retain that person's name as long as the facility is used for instructional purposes by the District. Exceptions to this may be made by the Board. In renaming the facility, or portions thereof, the provisions set forth above shall be followed. Recommendations for new names or name chances shall be received anytime during the year, and shall be-referred to the administration for obtaining comments and input from the school community involved. A school building name, other than the name of a person, may be considered in naming new school buildings. Names may be recommended using the following guidelines: 1. A school name may be recommended considering its geographical location. 2. A school name may be recommended considering its function. A distinction may be made between the building name and the official name of the program(s) housed in the building. Buildings will retain the names they were given at the time of the dedication by the Board of Education, such as, hypothetically, \"Instructional Resource Center at lsh School\". The superintendent shall use the same procedure as outlined for naming schools after persons in securing reactions to other suggested names . 2    LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPN CODE: FF ( continued) Public Dedication New school buildings and major additions to existing facilities shall be dedicated in a public and formal ceremony. There shall be a program or open house to which the Board, citizens, parents, and students are invited. All plans for the public or formal opening of any school shall be made in cooperation with the school's principal. Detailed procedures for dedication ceremonies shall be furnished by the principal to the superintendent. Adopted: May 27, 1999 3    NAMING AND RENAMING FACILITIES I propose that the (Designation of building and/or location) (Address) be named for I. Biographical Data: II. The Nominee's significant contribution is: Ill. I believe the facility should be named for this person because: (Signature) (Date) This form should be submitted by persons nominating names for new facilities to the LRSD Board of Education for consideration. 4    SECTION G: PERSONNEL POLICIES Section G of the Little Rock School District policy manual contains all of the applicable personnel policies. This section has three (3) main subdivisions. Subsection GA/GB is for general policies pertaining to all employees. Subsection GC is for policies that pertain to Certified personnel who are required by the Arkansas State Department of Education to hold a certification to serve in their position. Section GD is for policies pertaining to support, or noncertified, personnel. GA Personnel Goals GB GBA GBAA GBAA-R GBE GBEA GBEAA GBEB GBEBC GBEBD GBEC GBEC-R GBGA GBGB GBGB-R GBGD GBH GBI GBJ GBK GBK-R GC GCA GCA-R GCB GCBB GCBC GCBD GCC GCCA GCCB GCE GCF General Personnel Policies Open Hiring/Equal Employment Opportunity and Affirmative Action Sexual Harassment Sexual Harassment Staff Rights and Responsibilities Staff Ethics/Conflict of Interest Staff Participation in Judging School Events Staff Conduct Staff Gifts and Solicitations Advertising of Products or Services by District Employees Drug Free Workplace Drug Free Schools and Campuses Staff Health Staff Personal Security and Safety Staff Personal Security and Safety Workers' Compensation Staff Participation in Community Activities Staff Participation in Political Activities Personnel Records Staff Concerns/Complaints/Grievance Staff Concerns/Complaints Professional Staff Personnel Policies for Administrators Administrator Employment \u0026amp; Salary Placement Certified Personnel Contracts Salaries Special Duties Fringe Benefits for Certified Staff Professional Staff Personnel Leaves and Absences Public Service Leave Policy Professional Staff Sick Leave Professional Staff Recruiting Professional Staff Hiring Section G - Page 1 of 2    GCFB-R GCFC GCFCA GCG GCGC GCID GCK GCKC GCL GCMD GCN GCOA GCOC GCP GCPB GCQ GCQ-R GCQC GCQF GCR GCRD GCS GCU GD GOA GOB GDBC GDBD GDC GDCA GOE GDFB GDI GDJ GDK GDM GOO GDP GDQ GDQ-R GDQA GDQB GDQD Hiring of School Principals Professional Staff Certification and Credentialing Requirements Certified Staff Change of Address Part-Time and Substitute Professional Staff Employment Job Sharing in Professional Staff Positions Professional Staff Training, Workshops, and Conferences Professional Staff Assignments and Transfers Displaced Staff Transfers Professional Staff Schedules and Calendars Instructional Staff Extra Duty Supervision of Professional Staff Evaluation of Instructional Staff Evaluation of Administrative Staff Professional Staff Promotions and Reclassifications Salary Grade Establishment or Reclassification Professional Staff Termination of Employment Certified Staff Non-Renewals and Terminations Resignation of Instructional Staff Discipline, Suspension, and Dismissal of Professional Staff Nonschool Employment of Professional Staff Tutoring for Pay Professional Research and Publishing Professional Staff Membership in Professional Organizations Support/Classified Staff Support Staff Positions Compensation for Support Staff Support Staff Supplementary Pay/Overtime Fringe Benefits for Support Staff Support Staff Leaves and Absences Support Staff Sick Leave Support Staff Recruiting and Hiring Support Staff Selection Process Support Staff Probation and Tenure Support Staff Assignments and Transfers Support Staff Schedules and Calendars Support Staff Career Development Evaluation of Support Staff Support Staff Promotions and Reclassification Support Staff Non-Renewals and Termination of Employment Certified Staff Non-Renewals and Terminations Support Staff Reduction in Force Support Staff Resignation Discipline, Suspension, and Dismissal of Support Staff Section G- Page 2 of 2    LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPN CODE: GA PERSONNEL GOALS The Board of Education recognizes that a dynamic and efficient staff dedicated to a strong integrated educational program is necessary to maintain a constantly improving program of education. The Board is interested in its personnel as individuals, and it recognizes its responsibility for promoting the general welfare of the staff. It is the policy of the Board to establish educational environments that will attract and maintain the best-qualified employees. The Board commits itself to the following specific goals: 1. To recruit, select, and employ the best qualified personnel to staff the school system. 2. To provide staff compensation and benefits sufficient to attract and retain qualified employees . 3. To provide staff with opportunities to pursue educational endeavors that will promote high educational standards within the District. 4. To implement an evaluation process which accurately assesses employee performance ~nd serves as a tool for professional growth. 5. To administer negotiations efforts. 6. To develop the quality of human relationships necessary to obtain maximum staff performance and a high level of job satisfaction . Adopted:    LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPN CODE: GB GENERAL PERSONNEL POLICIES The Board believes that excellence in education and fairness for all, equity, are both compatible and inseparable. The personnel policies of the District will be based on these beliefs. It is the policy of the Board of Education to establish personnel practices that will enable all employees to make optimal contributions to the mission and objectives of the District. The District will implement programs and procedures that assure equitable employment practices in recruiting, hiring, assigning, promoting and evaluating employees . Adopted: Legal References: See Policy AC, AC.A. 6-17-1901 Cross References: Board of Education Policies AC, ACA, ACB, ACC, ACD, ACE, ACF    LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPN CODE: GBA OPEN HIRING/EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY AND AFFIRMATIVE ACTION Equal opportunities will be extended to all employees and to applicants for employment who meet the qualifications established for the classification or position for which application is made. It is the policy of the Board of Education that there shall be no discrimination because of race, color, religion, sex, age, national origin, sexual orientation or handicap/disability in the recruitment, employment, assignment, training or promotion of personnel. Adopted: Cross Reference: Board of Education Policy AC    LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPN CODE: GBAA SEXUAL HARASSMENT It is the policy of the Board of Education that all employees have the right to work in an environment free from any type of unlawful discrimination. This includes the right to work in an environment free from sexual harassment. The District shall not tolerate sexual harassment of employees in any form. Any such conduct shall result in disciplinary actions up to and including dismissal. No supervisor shall threaten, suggest or imply that an employee's refusal to submit to sexual advances will adversely affect the employee's employment, evaluation, wages, advancement, assigned duties, shifts, or any other condition of employment or career development. Nor shall any supervisor suggest or imply that an employee's acquiescence to sexual advances may favorably affect the employee's condition of employment or career development. Other sexually harassing conduct in the workplace, whether committed by supervisory or non-supervisory personnel, is also prohibited. This includes, but is not limited to, offensive sexual flirtations, advances, propositions, verbal abuse of a sexual nature\ngraphic verbal commentaries about an individual's body\nsexually degrading words used to describe an individual\nand any offensive display in the workplace of sexually suggestive objects or pictures. Adopted: Legal References: See Policy AC Cross References: Board of Education Policies AC, ACA Administrative Regulation GBAA-R    LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPN CODE: GBAA-R SEXUAL HARASSMENT I. Purpose To set forth procedures for the implementation of the sexual harassment policy. II. Definition of Terms Sexual harassment is any repeated or unwanted verbal or sexual advance, sexually explicit derogatory remarks, or statements made by someone in the work place which are offensive or objectionable to the recipient, or which cause the recipient discomfort or humiliation, or which interfere with job performance, and which can be reasonably determined to constitute unlawful behavior as follows: A. Submission to the conduct is either an explicit or implicit term or condition of employment. B. Submission to or rejection of the conduct is used as a basis for employment decisions affecting the recipient. C. The conduct has the purpose or effect of substantially interfering with work performance, or creating an intimidating, hostile or offensive work environment. Ill. Procedures A. The Employee 1. The employee should be certain beyond a reasonable doubt that harassment exists and that it is directed toward him or her. 2. The employee should advise the offending individual that the conduct in question is offensive and request that it be discontinued immediately. 3. If the offending conduct continues or recurs, the employee should report the conduct to his or her immediate supervisor. 4. In the event the supervisor is the offending party, the conduct should be reported to the next higher person in the organizational chart .   LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPN CODE: GBAA-R (continued) B. The Supervisor 1. The supervisor will take immediate action to investigate any and all complaints which are registered. 2. After the investigation and determination of the merits of the complaint, the supervisor will meet with the offended employee to discuss the results of the investigation. 3. If it is determined that an employee has engaged in harassment the supervisor will take appropriate disciplinary action. The nature of the action will depend on the severity of the harassing behavior. The action may range from a warning to dismissal. 4. If the accused employee denies the harassment and there are no witnesses to the alleged harassment, the supervisor will restate District policy to both parties and emphasize the District's expectation of proper work behavior. The supervisor will document the complaint, the findings and the conferences held. C. The District 1. The District will make every reasonable effort to insure that no retaliation occurs against any employee who has registered a complaint or who has assisted in the investigation of a complaint. 2. The District will take appropriate disciplinary action including possible discharge against any employee who engages in retaliation.  Date: March 1999 2  LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPN CODE: GBE STAFF RIGHTS AND RESPONSIBILITIES All staff members have a responsibility to make themselves familiar with, and abide by, the laws of the state as these affect their work, the policies of the Board, and the regulations designed to implement them. All staff members shall be expected to carry out their assigned responsibilities with conscientious concern. The first responsibility of the instructional staff is the education of the student. Also essential to the success of ongoing school operations and the instructional program are the following specific responsibilities, which shall be required of all personnel: 1. Faithfulness and promptness in attendance and work. 2. Support and enforcement of policies of the Board and regulations of the school  administration in regard to students.  3. Diligence in submitting required reports promptly at the times specified. 4. Care and protection of school property. 5. Concern and attention toward their own and the Board's legal responsibility for the safety and welfare of students, including the need to ensure that students are under supervision at all times. In their association with students all school employees will set examples that are an important part of the educational process. Their manner, dress, courteousness, work ethic and attitudes establish models that affect the development of young people. The Board expects its staff members to be exemplary models, as well as provide exemplary instruction . Adopted:   LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPN CODE: GBEA STAFF ETHICS/CONFLICT OF INTEREST Employees of the Board will not engage in any activity that conflicts, or raises a reasonable question of conflict, with their responsibilities in the District. More specifically, employees will not: * * * * * * Use institutional privileges for private gain. Solicit or receive compensation, other than that allowed by law, for performance of his/her duties. This precludes, among other things, acceptance of any gratuities, gifts, or favors that might impair or appear to impair professional judgement\nand any personal dealings with any individual or entity with whom he/she, on behalf of the Board, has any direct or indirect contact for purposes of obtaining from such individual or entity, noncompetitive contracts, services, or materials. Knowingly authorize or employ the authority or influence of his/her office to secure authorization of any public contract in which he/she, a member of his/her family, or any of his/her business associates has an interest. Offer any favor, service, or thing of value to obtain special advantage. Permit commercial exploitation of his/her professional position. Engage in selling any of the following merchandise or services for personal profit to students or parents in the attendance area served by the schools in which they work: instructional supplies and equipment\nreference books\neducational tours. Furnish lists of students or parents to anyone selling such materials or services. Employees will use time granted for leave, planning and workshops for the purpose for which it is intended. Nepotism In order that there is no conflict of interest in the supervision and evaluation of employees, at no time may any administrator directly be responsible for the supervision and/or evaluation of any employee directly related to him or her.  Adopted: Cross Reference: Board of Education Policy BCB    LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPN CODE: GBEAA STAFF PARTICIPATION IN JUDGING SCHOOL EVENTS The Board of Education is committed to providing equitable opportunities for all students to participate in extracurricular activities and to encourage broad participation in school clubs, activities, programs, and events. In some activities, especially student tryouts for cheerleader positions and participation in school beauty pageants, competition is often intense. In order to avoid any appearance of a conflict of inter-est in determining the outcome of these competitions, District employees are prohibited from serving as a judge in cheerleader tryouts, beauty pageants, or other similar competitions . Adopted:    LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPN CODE: GBEB STAFF CONDUCT The Board reaffirms one of the oldest beliefs in education: One of the best methods of instruction is that of setting a good example. The Board expects that the staff of the District will strive to set the kind of example for students that will serve them well in their own conduct and behavior which will contribute toward an appropriate school atmosphere. To that end, in dress, conduct, and interpersonal relationships, all staff should recognize that students are continuously observing them and that their actions and demeanor will be reflected in the conduct of the students. The personal life of an employee will be the concern, and warrant the attention of, the Board only as it may directly prevent the employee from effectively performing assigned functions during duty hours, or as it violates local, state, or national law or contractual agreements . No employee will commit or attempt to induce students or others to commit an act or acts of immoral conduct, which may be harmful to others or bring discredit to the district. If it appears the law may have been violated, the district will cooperate with the law enforcement agencies. Employees of the District, while on duty and in the presence of students, should not use profanity, should not use tobacco in any form, and will not consume or be under the influence of intoxicating beverages. They will not be involved in drug abuse or drug traffic. Violations of this policy by employees may be grounds for immediate suspension and possible termination of employment. In such cases, an employee will be informed of his or her rights to a hearing. Arrest of an Employee Specific authority to take appropriate employment action with regard to an employee who has been arrested is delegated to the superintendent or designee with subsequent approval by the Board. * Employees arrested for a misdemeanor offense that would indicate no danger or appearance of danger to students, employees, or the District will normally not be subject to any employment action.    * * * * LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPN CODE: GBEB (continued) Employees arrested for a misdemeanor offense which would indicate a possible danger or appearance of danger to the District, co-employees, or to students will normally be suspended with pay pending adjudication. Employees arrested for a misdemeanor offense which would indicate a possible danger or appearance of danger to students but not to the District or coemployees will normally be reassigned to a different responsibility away from students within the District pending adjudication. Employees arrested for a felony offense will normally be suspended with pay pending adjudication. In certain circumstances, other employment action may be taken. Adopted: 2    LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPN CODE: GBEBC STAFF GIFTS AND SOLICITATIONS No employee of the Little Rock School District or member of the Board of Education shall accept any gratuity or favor from any supplier, contractor, or person performing personal services for the Little Rock School District. Further, the same policy will apply to any person, partnership, company or any other entity which may reasonably be expected to perform such services, or offer bids or prices for any supplies, construction, or maintenance work to be performed for the Little Rock School District. An employee will not have a personal financial interest, a business interest, or any other obligation that in any way creates a substantial conflict with the proper discharge of assigned duties and responsibilities or that creates a conflict with the best interest of the district An employee who believes he or she has or may have a conflict of interest will disclose the interest to the superintendent or designee, who will take whatever action is necessary, if any, to ensure that the District's best interests are protected. Endorsements Employees will not recommend, endorse, or require students to purchase any product, material, or service in which they have a financial interest or that is sold by a company that employs the district employee during nonschool hours. Professional employees will not recommend or require students to purchase a specific brand of school supplies if there are other brands that are equal and suitable for the intended instructional purpose. Sales Employees will not use their positions with the District to gain entrance to a home within the district or to obtain an audience with any District resident for the purpose of attempting to sell products or services. Adopted: Cross Reference: Board of Education Policy GBEA    LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPN CODE: GBEBD ADVERTISING OF PRODUCTS OR SERVICES BY DISTRICT EMPLOYEES No employee of the Little Rock School District shall use District facilities, school time, or the school or District name for any form of private advertising for products or services . Adopted:    LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPN CODE: GBEC DRUG FREE WORKPLACE It is the policy of the Board of Education to provide a drug-free workplace and to work toward a drug-free society. It is the goal of the District to prevent the illicit use of controlled substances and. alcohol. The unlawful manufacture, or the distribution, dispensing, use, possession, or being under the influence of controlled substances and/or alcohol by any employee during the work day, at any school activity or while in the performance of their employment by the District, wherever located, is absolutely prohibited. In appropriate circumstances disciplinary action may include completion of an approved rehabilitation program at the employee's expense, however, any applicable insurance benefits will be applied. For purposes of this policy, controlled substances include, but are not limited to, narcotics, drugs, hallucinogenic or mind-altering drugs or substance, amphetamines, barbiturates, stimulants, depressants, marijuana, anabolic steroids, and any other controlled substance as defined in law, or any prescription, medicine, or other chemical substances not taken in accordance with a physician's prescription. This definition also includes substances presented to be any such controlied substance or which an employee believes to be such a substance. The term \"drug abuse education and prevention\" means prevention, early intervention, rehabilitation referral, and educational programs related to the use and abuse of alcohol and the use and abuse of controlled, illegal, addictive, or harmful substances, including anabolic steroids . Adopted:    LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPN CODE: GBEC-R DRUG FREE SCHOOLS AND CAMPUSES I. Purpose To set forth procedures for regulating and monitoring the implementation of the Drug Free Schools and Campuses policy. II. Definition of Terms Ill. The term \"controlled substance\" means any drug listed in 11 U.S.C. Section 812 and other federal regulations. Generally, these are drugs that have a high potential for abuse. Such drugs include, but are not limited to, Heroin, Marijuana, Cocaine, \"Crack,\" PCP and \"Ice.\" They also include \"legal drugs\" which are prescribed by a licensed physician and are illegally distributed, dispensed or sold on school premises or at school-related activities. Procedures 1. The District will not differentiate between drug users and drug pushers or sellers. Any employee who is guilty of possession, use or distribution of a controlled substance and/or alcohol on school premises or as a part of any school-related activity will be subject to discipline up to and including termination of employment and referral for prosecution. 2. The building principal or other administrative head shall notify the superintendent or his/her designee of any employee guilty of a drug related violation occurring on District property or at school-related activities, and impose sanctions on the guilty employee. Alternatively, the school district may give the employee the option, at the employee's expense, to successfully complete a drug/alcohol abuse program sponsored by an accredited and approved private or governmental institution. 3. Each employee is required to inform the District within five (5) days after he or she is convicted for violation of any federal or state criminal drug statute where such violation occurred on the district's premises or during districtsponsored activities. A conviction means a finding of guilt (including a plea of nolo contendre) or the imposition of a sentence by a judge or jury in any federal court, state court or other court of competent jurisdiction . 4. If any employee is convicted of violating any criminal drug statute while in the workplace, he or she will be subject to discipline up to and including   LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPN CODE: GBEC-R ( continued) 5. termination. Alternatively, the school district may give the employee the option, at the employee's expense, to successfully complete a drug/alcohol abuse program sponsored by an accredited and approved private or governmental institution. 6. By virtue of District participation in federally funded programs, the law requires all employees of the District to abide by these regulations as a condition of employment in the Little Rock School District. 7. Each unit administrator shall he responsible for compliance with the reporting and certification procedures outlined in this policy and shall maintain, at the building site, appropriate documentation to demonstrate compliance. 8. All employees are to be made cognizant of this policy and regulations and are required to sign an acknowledgment form and return it to the unit administrator .  Dated: March 1999 2    LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPN CODE: GBGA STAFF HEALTH The Board promotes an attitude of assistance and support towards solving human personal problems encountered by employees, e.g. alcohol or other drug misuse, physical or mental problems or other concerns that may affect job performance. The Board encourages staff to take advantage of the resources available on a voluntary basis. However, the Board's first commitment is to the education of the students. Therefore, when performance is adversely affected mandatory referral would be the alternative to dismissal. The Board reserves the right to require a medical examination in the event a medical condition adversely affects an employee's job performance. If the results of the examination confirm an adverse medical condition, appropriate administrative action will be taken. Such action will be based upon the nature of the impairment and the nature of the employee's assignment. All District employees upon initial employment, and those who have been separated from public school employment more than one school year, including superintendents, supervisors, principals, teachers, and any other employees in the public schools of the state, will with their application provide a certificate that said person does not have tuberculosis in the communicable form . Adopted:   LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPN CODE: GBGB STAFF PERSONAL SECURITY AND SAFETY It is the policy of the Board of Education to assist employees if a job-related assault should occur on school grounds or off . Adopted: Legal References: AC.A. 6-17-113, AC.A. 6-17-1209, AC.A. 6-17-1308  Cross Reference: Administrative Regulation GBGB-R    LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPN CODE: GBGB-R STAFF PERSONAL SECURITY AND SAFETY Job-related assault will be defined as any physical assault or battery upon an employee that takes place at any time during an employee's performance of work-related duties, either on school grounds or off. Self-Protection. Employees may take reasonable and necessary action to protect themselves from immediate impending assault, but the employee must also use appropriate measures to avoid assault. Reporting the Assault. The employee will report the assault or see that the assault is reported to his/her supervisor as soon as possible after the event. The supervisor will assist in: (1) seeing that appropriate medical attention is given and/or arranged for, (2) seeing that the assault is reported and/or filed with the appropriate administrators, (3) reporting the incident to the police . The superintendent or a designee will report the incident to the District Safety and Security Department. Days Missed as a Result of Assault. Days absent from duty, whether for injury, doctor's direction, hospitalization, attorney consultation, or court proceeding directly relating to the assault, will not be charged against any leave days, but the absence(s) must be consistent with workmen's compensation guidelines. Limitations: The District reserves the right of approval of the choice of doctors. The doctor must release the employee for return to work. Upon the doctor's release, the employee must return to work. If the employee chooses to be absent after the doctor's release and if the absence is or is claimed to be a result of the assault, the absence(s) will be subtracted from the employee's accumulated sick leave. The district reserves the right to be in consultation with the attending doctor before and/ or after the release of the employee. Salary of the Employee. The District will pay the difference between what workmen's compensation pays and the employee's regular daily salary for as long as the employee is absent from work as a direct result of the assault.   LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPN CODE: GBGB-R ( continued) Termination of Assault Benefits. The benefits described will terminate when: (a) the doctor has released the employee to go back to work\n(b) the employee is found to be the aggressor in the incident\nor (c) the employee resigns. Findings of Fault. In the event a court of law finds that the employee was the aggressor in the assault incident, all payments of benefits will cease and the District will have a cause of action against the employee for repayment of benefits .  Date: March 1999 2    LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPN CODE: GBGD WORKERS' COMPENSATION The District employees are covered for occupational injuries and illnesses in accordance with the provisions of Arkansas Worker's Compensation law. When an employee suffers an occupational injury or illness and/or is unable to work as a result of the injury or illness, he/she must complete the necessary forms to obtain coverage. The applicable law will cover all claims for benefits . Adopted: Legal Reference: AC.A. 6-17-1411    LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPN CODE: GBH STAFF PARTICIPATION IN COMMUNITY ACTIVITIES The Board encourages employees of the District to participate in civic, service club and professional organizations which provide an opportunity for community or professional service which reflects, in a positive manner, upon the individual employee and the school district. However, neither an individual nor the school as a whole shall be permitted to use school time in working on a community sponsored project unless such an undertaking is contributing to the educational program . Adopted:    LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPN CODE: GBI STAFF PARTICIPATION IN POLITICAL ACTIVITIES School-sponsored functions involving duly qualified candidates for any office will not be structured in such a manner as to provide any candidate acting on behalf of their candidacy an advantage over other candidates. The use of school materials, or school personnel in their capacity as employees of the school system, on behalf of any or all candidates, as expressly forbidden.  Employees and elected officials are expected to take every reasonable step to differentiate between their activities as individuals and their official positions as employees or elected officials, including the solicitation of funds of support from subordinate employees or persons or groups of persons or firms doing business with the Little Rock School District. Adopted:    LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPN CODE: GBJ PERSONNEL RECORDS The superintendent is authorized and directed to develop and implement a comprehensive and efficient system of personnel records under the following guidelines: 1 A personnel folder for each employee, certified and classified, shall be accurately maintained in the District administrative office. 2. In addition to the application for employment, such folders shall contain records and information relative to compensation, changes of address, employment contracts, evaluations, and such other information as may be considered pertinent. 3. All personnel records of individual employees shall be considered confidential and therefore shall not be open for public inspection, with the exception of the information covered under the Freedom of Information Act. 4. Each employee shall have the right, upon request, to review the contents of his/her own personnel file, with the exception of references and recommendations provided to the District on a confidential basis by universities, colleges, or persons not connected with the District. 5. The employee may submit for inclusion in the file written information in response to any of the material contained therein. 6. The superintendent and his/her designees shall take the necessary steps to safeguard against the unauthorized use of all confidential material. Adopted: Legal Reference: A.C.A. 6-17-1505   LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPN CODE: GBK STAFF CONCERNS/COMPLAINTS/GRIEVANCE A procedure to address questions concerning staff relationships will result in encouraging employees to express themselves on subjects concerning conditions of employment, in fostering a better understanding of policies, and ensuring all employees that their questions and concerns are considered fairly, rapidly, and without reprisals. It is the policy of the Board of Education to have written grievance procedures which provide an orderly method of resolving concerns raised by an employee. \"Grievance\" shall mean any concern related to personnel policies or salary raised by an employee. \"Employee\" shall mean a person employed by the District under a written contract. Adopted: Legal Reference: A.C.A. 6-17-208  Cross Reference: Administrative Regulation GBK-R    LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPN CODE: GBK-R STAFF CONCERNS/COMPLAINTS Purpose: Most employees are covered by grievance procedures defined in their respective negotiated agreement. For those employees not covered by a negotiated agreement, there shall be a resolution process. The resolution of questions concerning staff relationships with the employer can be resolved promptly and fairly by the application of well-defined procedures known to all staff members. Communication and discussion between the employee and staff member can resolve the majority of questions and problems that cause difficulties. When resolution is not reached rapidly, the employer and the staff member may proceed to effect resolution in writing as defined in this procedure. The purpose of the resolution procedures is to secure, at the lowest possible level, equitable solutions consistent with the legal standards of \"due process\" to obtain better understanding of policies, to encourage employees to express themselves more effectively on subjects concerning conditions of employment, and to ensure to all employees that their questions and problems are considered fairly, rapidly and without reprisals. Procedure: All documents, communications and records dealing with the processing of a grievance will be filed separately from the personnel files of the participants and will be destroyed three years after the last official entry. All parties will hold the resolution proceedings in confidentiality at all levels. Normally, the resolution process should be conducted at times that do not interfere with assigned duties. A grievance should be processed as rapidly as feasible. The parties should act in good faith to expedite the process. If at any level of the grievance procedure, an appeal is not filed within a reasonable time, the grievance will be considered resolved. Process: The employee will schedule a meeting with the appropriate supervisor to discuss the complaint and resolutions sought. If the problem is not resolved, and the employee indicates a desire to pursue further, a written request for a review by the Director of Human Resources should be submitted to the Department of Human Resources. The written request will include a statement setting forth the issue(s) to be reviewed. The Director of Human Resources will submit the grievance to the superintendent or his/her designee. Date: March 1999    LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPN CODE: GC PROFESSIONAL STAFF The term \"certified personnel\" will be used for those employees who must possess teaching or administrative certificates issued by state education authorities in order to hold their positions. The following definitions will apply to certified personnel:  Full-time Personnel: Employees whose regular assignment requires them to work not less than five days per week for not less than five hours per day during the period of the employee's work year, excluding vacation, sick leave, and holidays.  Part-Time Personnel: Employees whose regular assignment requires them to work less than four hours per day.  Temporary Personnel: Employees who accept assignments(s) for a predetermined period of time. The length of service for an assignment may be based on: a. Time needed to complete a specific task\nb. A specific date set for the termination of an assignment\nc. The return of a full-time or part-time employee from an absence.  Extended Temporary Personnel: Temporary employees who may receive an assignment that continues for 20 consecutive working days or longer.  Intern Personnel: Teachers who receive an assignment after the first student contact day of the school year that continues until the end of the school year. The position is declared vacant at the end of the school year . Adopted:    LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPN CODE: GCA PERSONNEL POLICIES FOR ADMINISTRATORS The Board of Education recognizes that policies and regulations for all certified employee groups cannot be identical because of negotiated agreements, job performance responsibilities, and the interests of the Little Rock School District. For the purposes of this policy, administrators and managers shall be defined as any personnel paid on an administrative salary schedule. Salary placement, benefits, and other related conditions for administrators are defined in the attached regulations . Adopted:  LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPN CODE: GCA-R ADMINISTRATOR EMPLOYMENT \u0026amp; SALARY PLACEMENT Salary Schedules Administrative positions have been assigned to an appropriate level (range) on the salary schedules based on job classification and performance responsibilities. Each level (range) has 20 steps which recognize credit for administrative experience. Salaries for each range and step have been prorated into separate salary schedules consistent with the length (number of workdays) of the contract. In addition to the scheduled salary, employees placed on the administrative salary schedules receive additional stipends for educational training as follows: 1. $1500 for MA+30\n2. $2000 for MA+60 or Specialist\n3. $3000 for Doctorate.  Note: These stipends will not apply to grades 7 and 8 administrators.  Initial Placement Credit for previous experience will be granted at the rate of one year of credit for each three years of teaching or other non-administrative experience. Credit for previous acceptable administrative experience will be granted at the rate of one year of credit for each year of experience. Any current administrator whose daily rate of pay is less than this regulation allows because of initial placement under any previous regulation shall have his/her pay increased by adding one additional incremental step each year until the placement is consistent with this regulation. At no time should an administrator be given a promotional increase of more than _% of his/her annual salary. Advancement All employees on administrative salary schedules are normally advanced one step per year from their initial step placement. Administrators must be employed for at least one full semester after initial placement to qualify for a step increase for the following school year.    LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPN CODE: GCA-R (continued) EVALUATION Each administrator will be evaluated annually in writing. The evaluation process will be consistent with procedures and expectations which are presented to the administrator prior to the initiation of the process. ADMINISTRATOR DISMISSAL All administrators are expected to conform to reasonable standards of conduct and performance. Any action taken against an administrator will be appropriate for the behavior which precipitated the action. Non-renewal or termination of administrators will be handled in accordance with the \"Arkansas Teacher Fair Dismissal Act\" or the \"Public School Employee Fair Hearing Act.\" There are occasions when employees, because of the nature of their misconduct, must be suspended and recommended for immediate termination. The suspension of any administrator may be without pay\nthe superintendent will weigh the circumstances leading to the suspension and will determine whether or not pay during the suspension is appropriate. GRIEVANCES Any administrator may grieve any disciplinary action that results in the administrator being placed on probation. The grievant must appeal within 10 days to the immediate supervisor of the person who placed the administrator on probation. If the grievant is not satisfied with the decision at this level, within 10 days of receipt of the decision he/she may appeal directly to the superintendent or his/her designee. SICK LEAVE At the beginning of each school year each full-time administrator will be credited with sick leave without loss of pay. The number of days credited will be based on contract length as indicated below: 1. 185-209 contract days - 10 sick leave days 2. 210-229 contract days - 11 sick leave days 3. 230-240 contract days - 12 sick leave days 2    LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPN CODE: GCA-R ( continued) Sick leave days may accumulate from year to year to a maximum which is equal to the length of the employment contract. Administrators coming to the District from other Arkansas public school districts will be granted credit for unused sick leave accumulated in Arkansas public school districts up to a maximum of 90 days. An administrator may use sick leave only for reasons of personal illness or death, illness, or medical care of a member of his/her immediate family. With the recommendation of the Director of Human Resources and approval of the superintendent or his/her designee, additional sick leave may be advanced to the administrator. PERSONAL LEAVE At the beginning of each school year, all administrators will be credited with two days of personal leave without loss of pay. If these days are not used within the school year, they will be credited to accumulated sick leave. Personal leave may be taken on any contract day with the approval of the administrator's immediate supervisor. Except in cases of emergency, request for approval of personal leave must be made at least 24 hours prior to taking the leave. EXTENDED LEAVE Medical Any administrator who has an illness or disability may request an extended leave of absence for the remainder of the semester in which the illness or disability occurs. The administrator may be required to verify the illness or disability at the time the extended leave begins and again at the beginning of each semester for which the leave is extended. Extended leave may be continued for up to three semesters after the semester in which the illness or disability occurs. Any administrator may remain on payroll until all accumulated sick leave has been exhausted\notherwise, all extended leave will be without pay and without increment. Prior to returning from the extended leave, the employee may be required to present a doctor's certificate verifying that he/she is physically capable of returning to work . 3    LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPN CODE: GCA-R ( continued) Educational Any administrator who has five (5) or more years of experience with the District may apply for a leave of absence, subject to the superintendent's approval, for one year to engage in educational administration advanced study in an accredited college or university. The employee must present a comprehensive statement setting forth the benefit the District should expect to derive from granting such leave. The extended leave will be without pay and without increment. If the administrator does not engage in the course of study described in his/her request for leave, he/she shall forfeit the right to return to the District. Other Any administrator who is in good standing and separates service from the District for 2 years or less, for reasons other than those defined above, will be given preference in the hiring process when vacancies occur . SABBATICAL LEAVE When an administrator has rendered a minimum of five (5) consecutive full years of uninterrupted service to the District, he/she is eligible to make application for sabbatical leave according to the following conditions: 1. The application form will require the normal personal and professional data. In addition to this, the applicant will prepare a comprehensive statement setting forth his/her plans for advanced study and his/her evaluation of the benefits the schools program may expect to derive from his/her additional training. 2. Applicant must hold the standard master's degree or thirty-six (36) approved hours above the bachelor's degree and his/her sabbatical leave for advanced study must lead to the doctorate. 3. Sabbatical leave will be granted upon recommendation by the superintendent and approval by the Board of Education. Evidence of admissibility to a standard doctoral program in an acceptable institution of higher learning must be presented . 4    LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPN CODE: GCA-R ( continued) 4. Leave will be granted for a period of not less than four and one-half (4 1/2) school months nor more than twelve (12) calendar months (including nine months in the same year). 5. Applications will be received in the office of the superintendent prior to February 1 preceding the school year for which the leave is requested. Acceptance by the institution that the applicant has applied for must be finalized by March 1. The superintendent's office shall notify the applicant as to whether he/she has been approved for leave immediately after the regular March Board meeting. 6. One (1) sabbatical leave may be granted annually. If no leave is approved in a given year, two (2) such leaves may be granted during the succeeding year. 7. For sabbatical leave, the grantee will receive a stipend equal to fifty (50) percent of the actual salary to which the grantee is entitled during the year in which the leave is taken, or one hundred percent of the eligible salary the grantee would be entitled to receive if he/she were a classroom teacher nine and one-four (9 1/4) months, whichever is higher. 8. Personnel on sabbatical leave should be allowed to return to their vacated positions, if possible. If this is not possible, they shall be placed in at least a comparable position. 9. Grantee will sign a non-interest bearing promissory note in favor of the District for the amount of the stipend\nsaid note to be canceled and of no effect at the conclusion of the third year of service rendered to the District following the leave year. The total amount of the note shall become due and payable if the grantee fails to render a minimum of one (1) year of service following the leave\ntwo-thirds (2/3), if the grantee fails to render a minimum of two (2) years of service\none-third (1/3), if the grantee fails to render a minimum of three (3) years of service. This regulation assumes that three (3) successive contracts will be offered grantee. Failure on the part of the school system to offer a contract any year (except as stipulated under the \"Arkansas Fair Dismissal Act\" or the \"Public School Employee Hearing Act\") following the year of leave renders the note invalid . 5    LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPN CODE: GCA-R ( continued) VACATION All twelve month administrators are contracted to work 250 days annually. Paid vacation days are based on years of administrative experience in the LRSD (and PCSSD if hired during the annexation). Administrators with 0-7 years receive 15 days, 8-14 years receive 20 days, and 15 or more years receive 25 days. Vacation days which are not used during the school year may be accumulated from school year to school year to a maximum of 45 days. Any administrator who separates employment from the District will be paid for up to 45 unused accumulated vacation days at the employee's daily rate of pay. Administrators are encouraged to take vacation days during June, July and/or Christmas and spring breaks. Vacations may be taken at other times only with the approval of the administrator's immediate supervisor . Date: March 1999 6    LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPN CODE: GCB CERTIFIED PERSONNEL CONTRACTS Under policy, the Board may voluntarily enter into a Professional Negotiated (PN) agreement with the teaching staff that establishes the salary schedule, benefits, and working conditions for all teachers in the District. The agreement remains in effect only under the conditions of Board policy. Each year, employment of administrators, supervisors, and regular teaching staff is evidenced by written contracts that are binding on both employer and employee. The Board grants to the superintendent or designee the authority to offer contracts for employment subject to final approval by the Board. Contracts are approved by the Board upon the recommendation of the superintendent. These contracts will include the terms of employment and any special conditions of employment. It is the responsibility of the employee to provide all information necessary for proper certification or licensing and credit for prior work experience to the appropriate division of the state department of education. If the employee fails to maintain the required certification and endorsements, the contract of the employee shall be considered null and void. Assistance in processing necessary information will be offered by the district personnel office Adopted: Cross Reference: Board Policy HD    LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPN CODE: GCBB SALARIES Salaries for teachers shall be in accordance with the District Personnel Salary Schedule and the applicable negotiated agreements between the Board of Education and the representatives of the teacher unit. Because it is the desire of the Board to promote from within when possible, teachers who become administrators will not be placed on a salary schedule which pays less on a per day basis . Adopted:    LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPN CODE: GCBC SPECIAL DUTIES When special duties are assigned to a teacher and when such duties are not regular teaching duties or extracurricular duties of a nature considered a normal part of a teacher's work, the teacher shall be paid additional compensation for such duties and the amount shall be added as an addendum to the annual contract. Coaches will be paid stipends that are commensurate with the demand of their specific coaching assignments . Adopted:    LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPN CODE: GCBD FRINGE BENEFITS FOR CERTIFIED STAFF A comprehensive fringe benefit package is provided personnel. A detailed outline of benefits is made available to employees by the Director of Human Resources. All employee benefits, other than those established by collective bargaining agreements approved by the Board, will be subject to Board policy. The superintendent will provide for the interpretation and application of the Board's policies and decisions regarding benefits . Adopted:    LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPN CODE: GCC PROFESSIONAL STAFF PERSONNEL LEAVES AND ABSENCES Employees' continuous presence promotes excellence in the instructional program by ensuring the uninterrupted continuity of education, greater teacher-student contact time, consistent classroom discipline, and reduced cost. Accordingly, employees are expected to come to work every day. The Board recognizes, however, that certain absences are unavoidable. Leave of absence, without pay, may be granted by the Board of Education to a certified employee upon recommendation of the superintendent in accordance with this policy or the negotiated agreement. A. Purposes: A leave of absence may be granted for the following purposes: 1. For advanced study in the employee's major field. 2. For personal illness if it can be shown that rest and recuperation will contribute to the welfare of the employee. 3. For service required by an agency of government consistent with applicable law. 4. To care for a member of the employee's immediate family. B. Conditions Failure to notify the superintendent of intention to resume work prior to the expiration of a leave of absence, or failure to report for duty at the expiration of a leave of absence or extension granted, or failure to ask for, and be granted, a leave of absence in case of protracted absence shall be considered a resignation. PROLONGED ABSENCE FROM SCHOOL Whenever a teacher is absent from duty for a period of time which, in the judgment of the superintendent, would be detrimental to the progress of the students in the teacher's classroom, the superintendent is directed to recommend to the Board a leave of absence for such teacher following the District procedures and/or applicable negotiated agreement. Adopted: Legal Reference: A.C.A. 6-17-306   LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPN CODE: GCCA PUBLIC SERVICE LEAVE POLICY District personnel may be granted an unpaid leave of absence for the purpose of serving in an elective or appointive governmental office. Such leave shall be for the duration of the term of office, term of the legislative session, or position held. After deciding to pursue the position or having received the appointment, written application for public service leave should be made to the building principal and superintendent. Upon return to work all rights and benefits at the local level shall be fully restored to the staff member as though such leave had never been taken. An effort should be made to see that such leave does not adversely affect the program of the District. Adopted:  Legal Reference: AC.A. 6-17-116    LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPN CODE: GCCB PROFESSIONAL STAFF SICK LEAVE Sick leave will be awarded and accrued in accordance with appropriate state law and/or the appropriate professional negotiations agreements. Leaves of Absence will also be granted in accordance with the Family Medical and Leave Act (FMLA) of 1993 . Adopted: Legal References: Family Medical and Leave Act (FMLA) of 1993 A.C.A. 6-17-1201 through 6-17-1209 Cross Reference: Board of Education Policy GCC    LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPN CODE: GCE PROFESSIONAL STAFF RECRUITING The quality of the educational program in any school system is dependent upon the employment and retention of high caliber certified personnel. It will be the policy of the District that the procedure for employing the best-qualified teachers and administrators will include:   An effective recruitment program  An initiative that results in prompt action when vacancies occur or new positions are created  A set of consistent hiring practices in dealing with applicants for teaching or administrative positions Discrimination against any applicant for reasons of race, color, religion, disability, natio_nal origin, sex, age or socioeconomic status will be prohibited in the District. Special efforts will be taken in the recruitment and in all phases of the employment process to guarantee that there is no such discrimination and that there be an equitable distribution of teachers by race and experience throughout the District's schools. Particular attention will be made to the active recruitment of African-Americans in the categories of media specialist, guidance counselor, early childhood education, primary grades, and secondary core areas. Job applicants must fill out an \"Application for Employment\" form. References and transcripts will be required and checked. False information given knowingly by the applicant may result in immediate dismissal at any time it is discovered. All applicants for teaching positions will be handled by the Human Resources Department. All applications will be made available to all principals when vacancies occur. It is the responsibility of the Human Resources Department to secure information about each applicant's certification rating, professional history and teaching experience. This information will be kept on file. Adopted: Cross References: Board of Education Policies AC, ACA, ACB, ACC, ACD, ACE Revised Desegregation and Education Plan of 1998    LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPN CODE: GCF PROFESSIONAL STAFF HIRING The Board of Education will select the best-qualified applicant for each position regardless of race, color, religion, sex, age, national origin, or handicap/disability. All employees of the Board, except the superintendent shall be recommended by the superintendent and approved by the Board. Should a person nominated by the superintendent be rejected by the Board it shall be the duty of the superintendent to make another nomination. Teachers and other instructional professional personnel will be required to hold or be qualified to hold a certificate in compliance with the provision of the law or in accordance with the regulations of the State Board of Education. Obtaining and maintaining certificate status and providing a valid record thereof in the Human Resources Department are the responsibilities of the applicant or employee, not of the school system or of any of its employees. Failure to obtain or maintain a valid certificate shall be cause for the contract to be void. A recommendation to hire a teacher or administrator will be made to the Board after a personal interview with the candidate has been conducted and one or more references have been personally contacted by the principal and/or the Human Resources Department. The principals of the District who have vacancies will interview applicants and make recommendations for employment to the Director of Human Resources. The Director of Human Resources and the superintendent will in turn recommend employment to the Board of Education. Contracts for employment will be issued pursuant to approval by the Board. All personnel selected for employment must be recommended by the superintendent and approved by the Board of Education. Some applicants may report prior to their election by the Board\nhowever, no applicant will be considered a permanent employee until the Board has voted its approval. The timing of the election of certified employees shall be on a schedule in accordance with state law. Adopted: Cross References: Board Policy AC, ACA, ACB, ACC, ACD, ACE Revised Desegregation and Education Plan of 1998    LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPN CODE: GCFB-R HIRING OF SCHOOL PRINCIPALS 1. Persons desiring employment as a school principal shall file an application in writing (resume, letter of intent, or vitae are acceptable for the initial contact.) District application forms will then be provided for applicants not currently employed with the Little Rock School District. 2. District administration officials will screen the applicants for acceptability. Taken into consideration are certification, experience, education, performance reviews, and references. 3. The associate superintendent and/or the assistant superintendent(s) will prepare a list of interview questions, which may include suggestions from parents and committee members, to be used in the interview process. 4. The Human Resources Director will review the questions for appropriateness regarding legal issues (i.e. E.E.O., Affirmative Action, Americans with Disability Act, etc.) 5. An interview committee will be selected/appointed, as follows: Three Two Three (3) Parents/Patrons (2) Teachers (3) Administration Representatives Note a Note b Note c a. The Parent/Patrons representatives will be selected by a process designated by the PTA president of the affected school in consultation with the campus leadership team .. b. The teacher(s) representatives shall be from the affected school and appointed by the administration of the school in consultation with the campus leadership team. c. The associate superintendent (in consultation with appropriate staff - assistant superintendents, supervisors, and principals) may designate the administrative representatives. *NOTE: The committee's composition shall be balanced, as nearly as possible, by race and gender .    LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPN CODE: GCFB-R ( continued) 6. The interview committee shall meet to interview and recommend candidates. The interview committee will be provided folders containing the following : a. An interview schedule b. The approved interview questions c. An approved candidate rating form d. The candidates' application materials 7. The interview committee shall interview the applicants and complete the ratings sheet. The committee, through consensus, will agree upon and submit a recommendation of the top three (3) candidates to the superintendent. NOTE: Although the applicants are rated, the ratings are only for use in reaching consensus and need not be the sole basis for selecting the recommended candidates.) 8. The superintendent shall review the recommendations of the interview committee and select the applicant to be submitted for Board approval. The superintendent may at his/her option, reject each of the three (3) applicants and require that the committee reconvene to determine new recommendations. 9. Once the superintendent has selected an acceptable applicant, he/she will submit that individual's name to the Board of Education for approval. If the applicant is currently serving as a principal, the superintendent may reassign the principal and advise the Board of the lateral transfer. 10. When approved, the candidate shall receive a contract that details his /her salary, pay grade, and other pertinent information . Date: March 1999 2  LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPN CODE: GCFC PROFESSIONAL STAFF CERTIFICATION AND CREDENTIALING REQUIREMENTS 1. All professional personnel shall, before employment, submit to the Department of Human Resources the following : a. An official transcript of all college credit b. A valid Arkansas teaching certificate c. An official birth certificate d. A copy of his/her National Teacher Examination scores e. A TB skin test 2. A withholding tax form shall be executed at the time of employment.  3. Personnel who are identified by the Pulaski County Health Department as needing additional TB skin tests must submit_th e results of such tests as required by the Health Department. 4. A criminal background check will be done for all applicants. Adopted:  Legal References: AC.A. 6-17-101, A.C.A. 6-17-401, AC.A. 6-17-411    LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPN CODE: GCFCA CERTIFIED STAFF CHANGE OF ADDRESS Any change of address or telephone number must be reported to the principal or department head and the office of the Director of Human Resources. Forms for this purpose are available in the school office or from the Human Resources department. Adopted:    LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPN CODE: GCG PART-TIME AND SUBSTITUTE PROFESSIONAL STAFF EMPLOYMENT The Board of Education believes that the role of the substitute teacher is highly important for maintaining continuity in teaching and learning. The Department of Human Resources, under the direction of the superintendent, will establish an effective program for selecting and assigning all substitute teachers and for evaluating their performance. Whenever possible, a substitute teacher will be a person who is employed in the absence of the regular teacher and who possesses knowledge in the area of assignment and demonstrated successes in teaching. A substitute employed twenty (20) or more consecutive work days in the same position will be classified as a long-term substitute. The designation will be in effect on the twenty-first consecutive day and thereafter in the same position. The substitute teachers list will be maintained in the Human Resources Department. Substitute teachers will not participate in the health and welfare plans or other fringe benefits of the school system . Adopted:    LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPN CODE: GCGC JOB SHARING IN PROFESSIONAL STAFF POSITIONS The District will consider job-sharing proposals from teachers who desire such an opportunity. Only the teachers involved may initiate such a proposal. Job-sharing means that two teachers share one full-time teaching position, and decide for themselves how much time that each teacher will devote to the job. Both teachers might be on the job at the same time, or one teacher might be there at one time and the other at another. Each teacher receives one-half the base salary. Benefits and credit for teaching experience will be the same as for half-time teachers. Decisions concerning supplemental positions, if any, will be made on an individual basis. Teachers who want to share a job will submit a proposal to their principals. Submitted proposals must include precise statements concerning:  The prior relationship of the partners  The division of tasks between the partners  Time scheduling  Provisions for communication between the partners  Provisions for communication between the partners and the rest of the staff  Benefits to pupils  Benefits to the partners  Benefits to the school system The principals will evaluate and forward the proposal to the Associate Superintendent of School Services for approval. The Associate Superintendent of School Services will evaluate and forward the proposal to the Director of Human Resources for final disposition. Proposals will be evaluated based upon the following criteria:  Advantages and disadvantages to pupils  Advantages and disadvantages to the teachers involved  Advantages and disadvantages to the school system  Estimated probability of success  Other administrative concerns    LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPN CODE: GCGC (continued) The job-sharing plan specified above is to be considered an experimental project. Great flexibility will be maintained in the type of proposals approved and in the individual conditions attached to such approval. Every effort will be made to assure that all teachers involved are accorded equitable treatment. Adopted: 2   LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPN CODE: GCID PROFESSIONAL STAFF TRAINING, WORKSHOPS, AND CONFERENCES In order to improve the quality of instruction available to students in the District, opportunities shall be extended to all employees to improve their individual competence. Professional employees shall be encouraged to participate in activities that will contribute to their professional instructional ability whenever such participation is possible without interference with regular duties or the educational program. Participation in professional conferences, meetings or activities is encouraged in areas such as: 1. Attendance at educational seminars, conferences, conventions and similar professional meetings at the local and regional levels 2. Visitation to classes in other schools 3. Participation in educational conferences and meetings at the state and national levels 4. Continuation of professional study in institutions of higher education  Adopted:    LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPN CODE: GCK PROFESSIONAL STAFF ASSIGNMENTS AND TRANSFERS The assignment and transfer of staff members to schools will be made by the superintendent or his/her designee. In units that are covered by a negotiated agreement, transfers will be made in accord with the applicable agreement. Adopted:    LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPN CODE: GCKC DISPLACED STAFF TRANSFERS It is the desire and intent of the Board of Education that all employees in good standing who are displaced because of actions over which they have no control will be transferred to a comparable vacant position at a comparable salary, contract term, and working conditions. When that is not appropriate, however, it may be necessary for an employee to move to a vacant position that carries a different salary, contract term, and/or working condition. In the event an employee, through no fault of his/her own, is moved to a position that carries a lower salary, contract term, or working condition, the following will be the policy of the Board of Education: A. If the Board of Education makes a decision prior to the statutory deadlines for making changes in public school employee contracts for the following year, the affected employee will be notified in a timely manner and any subsequent change in position, salary, or working condition will adhere to the standard established for the new position. B. If the Board of Education makes a decision after the statutory deadlines for making changes in public school employee contracts for the following year, the affected employee will retain his/her salary for the remainder of the current contract year. The employee will be notified in a timely manner that the terms of his/her contract will be changed to conform to the terms established for the position. Adopted: The exception to this provision is in the case of a displaced employee accepting a new position that is covered by a labor agreement, in which case the salary and other terms of the labor agreement will be effective immediately upon assuming the new position .    LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPN CODE: GCL PROFESSIONAL STAFF SCHEDULES AND CALENDARS Work Year The working year for the teaching staff will be set forth on the school calendar adopted by the Board. The number of teaching days will conform to state requirements for the number of instructional days. Additional staff days are a matter of instructional program needs as well as a condition of employment. Therefore, the determination to and by certified personnel for an extended year will be a responsibility of the Board acting on the recommendation of the superintendent. Although most staff members are expected to be on official duty only for the teacheremployment year, the Board anticipates that they will work such additional contract days as are necessary before or after the school year to carry out the responsibilities of their positions. The yearly schedules of all personnel will be published as work day calendars based upon the length of their employment contracts. Working Hours Teachers will arrive at their posts sufficiently in advance of students and will remain after the school day to meet with individual students, parents, and faculty committees, and to carry out other professional responsibilities. Administrators and supervisory personnel are expected to observe a daily schedule consistent with the hours that the central office is open, extending this by the time required to discharge the responsibilities of their positions. Schedules during the summer may be shortened or changed as deemed appropriate by the superintendent of schools . Adopted:    LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPN CODE: GCMD INSTRUCTIONAL STAFF EXTRA DUTY All student activities which are sponsored by the schools and carried on in school buildings or on school grounds are considered a part of the educational program. Supervision of such activities by teachers shall be in accordance with the appropriate negotiated agreement. Extracurricular duties are considered a normal part of a teacher's work. The allocation and assignment of such duties in each school is a responsibility of the principal. Adopted:    LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPN CODE: GCN SUPERVISION OF PROFESSIONAL STAFF The school principal is the instructional leader of the school. As such, he/she is responsible for the supervision of instruction and instructional personnel. The purpose of supervision is to improve the educational program and the effectiveness of instruction. Thus the school principal is responsible for aiding teachers in implementing the approved objectives and reviewing teacher plans, observing actual instruction, offering suggestions for the improvement of teaching, and helping teachers correct deficiencies. The principal may require a teacher to change methods and lesson plans when these conflict with the approved curriculum or Board policy. A teacher who willfully ignores such a directive may be subject to a charge of insubordination. The principal will be particularly attentive to the needs of new teachers, of those who are undertaking new instructional programs, and of those whose classes, for no apparent reason other than daily instruction, have not achieved as well as comparable classes on standardized tests and other appropriate manners. Supervision and Evaluation of Spouse, Housemate, or Family Member District employees who are spouses, family members to any of those individuals outlined in the District nepotism policy, or share housing, will not be in a position to supervise or evaluate one another. If necessary, the District will involuntarily transfer employees in order to avoid such supervisory relationships. Adopted: Cross Reference: Board of Education Policies BCB, GCOA    LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPN CODE: GCOA EVALUATION OF INSTRUCTIONAL STAFF The Board believes that quality teaching is of critical importance to a sound educational program and that thorough and regular evaluation of teaching, supervisory, and administrative performance is crucial to improving the total educational process. A continuous program of performance evaluation of all professional personnel will be established and maintained. The purpose of performance evaluation is to ensure a high quality of teaching, supervisory, and administrative performance primarily to advance the instructional program for students. Another purpose of the evaluation system is to provide information to management and leadership personnel to assist them in making personnel decisions. Annual performance evaluations of professional employees will be based upon identified performance standards and criteria. Observations and evaluations will be initiated and coordinated by the principal. Principals may designate persons to assist in the process. The annual evaluation will be placed in the employee's permanent file in the Human Resources Department. Adopted: Legal Reference: A.C.A. 6-17-1504    LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPN CODE: GCOC EVALUATION OF ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF The purpose of appraising the performance and effectiveness of administrators is to promote improvement in the administrative function, to recognize exceptional professional performance, and ultimately to bring continued improvement in the teaching-learning process in District schools. Each administrator's performance and effectiveness will be assessed within the scope of that person's area of responsibility, systemwide goals and objectives and individual performance objectives. Major areas of responsibilities on which individuals may be appraised are established in their job descriptions. Such areas include: curriculum and instruction, staff relations, student relations, fiscal management, building management, program management, school-community relations, supportive services, professional growth plans, and other systemwide responsibilities . Systemwide goals and objectives are developed annually by the administrative team for the improvement of the school system. When feasible, individual performance objectives will be agreed to by the appraiser and appraised, and may relate to systemwide goals and objectives, area of responsibility and/or personal growth. Throughout the evaluation process, all administrators will share in the responsibility of maintaining and enhancing the self-image and self-respect of participants . Adopted:    LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPN CODE: GCP PROFESSIONAL STAFF PROMOTIONS AND RECLASSIFICATIONS When school system positions are to be filled, consideration will be given to all applicants. Preference will be given to persons within the school system when their qualifications are essentially equal to the qualifications of other applicants. Selection for promotion will be made without regard to sex, race, religion, national origin, age or handicap. Training, certification, experience, professional competence and suitability for the position will be considered in the selection of persons for school system positions. The processing of applications, evaluative screening, interviewing and final selection of persons to be recommended for school system positions will follow the general procedures used in the selection of new employees. The superintendent reserves the right to recommend promotion without regard to the screening processes when it is in the best interest of the school system. If the superintendent exercises this right, the Board will be informed. Adopted: Cross Reference: Board Policy AC    LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPN CODE: GCPB SALARY GRADE ESTABLISHMENT OR RECLASSIFICATION Whenever there is deemed a need to establish or change a salary schedule or salary schedule placement, the request must be made in writing. The request shall state the nature and basis for the request. The Human Resources Salary Committee will review the request for confirmation or denial. In the event the requester wishes to appeal the decision of the committee, the superintendent or his/her designee will rule on the appeal. That decision will be final. Adopted:    LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPN CODE: GCQ PROFESSIONAL STAFF TERMINATION OF EMPLOYMENT Resignations Professional employees who for any reason intend to resign or who intend to retire are encouraged to indicate their plans in writing at as early a date in the school year as plans may become firm and the decision to leave the district is made. Letters of resignation will be submitted to the Director of Human Resources. Resignations become effective on the date specified in the body of the resignation letter. While unusual circumstances may dictate otherwise, usually a resignation letter will occur at least thirty days before the effective date of the resignation. Anytime an employee leaves the employment of the District without providing proper notification the notation \"Left without Notice\" will be placed in their personnel file. Terminations Procedures for the dismissal of certified employees are governed by state law and all actions of the District and the Board, as well as the rights and privileges of employees, shall be in accordance with the Arkansas Teacher Fair Dismissal Act. Adopted: Legal References: \"Teacher Fair Dismissal Act\" -AC.A 6-17-1501 through 6-17-1510  LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPN CODE: GCQ-R CERTIFIED STAFF NON-RENEWALS AND TERMINATIONS NON RENEWALS Each year, each employee's immediate supervisor shall evaluate the employee's job performance and make a recommendation for continued employment, dismissal, or reassignment of the employee. Permanent employees may be discharged for inefficiency, repeated absence from the job, for conduct unbecoming an employee of the District, or other reasons believed to be detrimental to the best interests of the District. Discharge may be recommended by the employee's immediate supervisor on specific charges. Employees may be laid off due to a lack of work or financial circumstance of the District. TERMINATIONS There are occasions when persons, because of the nature of their misconduct, must be  suspended and recommended for immediate termination.  Examples of offenses for which an employee will be recommended for immediate termination are listed below. These offenses may include, but are not limited to: a. Conviction at a trial court level of any felony or misdemeanor that is manifestly inconsistent with the safe and efficient operation of the school or department. b. Fighting, threatening or attempting to do bodily injury causing physical pain, illness, or any impairment of physical condition. c. Carrying weapons. A weapon is any object that could cause injury to another person and is not required to be in possession of that employee in the normal course of their job. d. Stealing or misappropriation of property of employees or the District. e. Malicious mischief, the abuse, misuse, or deliberate destruction or damaging of property, tools, or equipment of other employees or of the District. f. Altering or tampering with time cards, \"sign in/out\" rosters or other reporting documents relative to attendance, promptness or departures . g. Drinking alcoholic beverages on the job or during working hours, or the possession of, or introduction of any alcoholic beverage on District property at any time. This also includes reporting to work while under the influence of alcohol.    LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPN CODE: GCQ-R ( continued) h. Use of narcotics, and/or the use, possession, or transmitting on school premises drugs or substances capable of modifying mood and/or behavior. i. Insubordination, including refusal or failure to perform work assigned and/or refusal to obey orders of supervisors. j. Disorderly, disruptive, or immoral conduct on school premises. k. The making of or publishing of false, vicious, or malicious statements concerning any employee or supervisor of the District. I. Falsification of personnel or other official school or insurance records, or making false statements when applying for employment. m. Falsifying or refusing to give testimony concerning accidents involving school vehicles, or other accidents and/or incidents which are being investigated . n. Failure to observe or purposefully disregard school district and departmental policy and procedure. o. Use of District facilities, personnel, or equipment for non-district purposes. WRITTEN NOTICE Written notice must be given to any suspended employee with a recommendation for nonrenewal. Notices must comply with the standards set in the \"Public School Employee Fair Hearing Act.\" HEARINGS Hearings will be conducted in accordance with the standards set in the \"Public School Employee Fair Hearing Act.\" Additionally, any employee entitled to a hearing before the Board of Education may schedule a hearing before the superintendent or his/her designee to review the charges and evidence prior to the time the superintendent makes his/her recommendation to the Board of Education. This hearing should be requested within ten (10) days of receipt of the written notice and does not affect the time limit required for requesting a hearing before the Board . Date: March 1999 2    LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPN CODE: GCQC RESIGNATION OF INSTRUCTIONAL STAFF When so stated in the contract of employment, a certified employee has the privilege of resigning from the school system upon thirty days written notice. When certified personnel resign from the school system before the close of the year, the immediate supervisor will be responsible for seeing that all records and other property are turned in, the same as is required of all other personnel at the end of the school year. All student progress records, grades, etc. shall be complete. The employee's paycheck will be held until the immediate supervisor has certified that the employee's work has been satisfactorily completed . Adopted:    LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPN CODE: GCQF DISCIPLINE, SUSPENSION, AND DISMISSAL OF PROFESSIONAL STAFF The superintendent will follow all state laws pertaining to the suspension and dismissal of certified employees. Notice of intention not to renew a probationary or continuing teacher's contract for the next school year will be served to the teacher as required by law. The notification will state the reasons for not renewing the contract. Compulsory leave of absence If any certified teacher is charged by criminal complaint, or indictment with any criminal offense that would be deemed cause for dismissal, the Board may immediately place the teacher on compulsory leave of absence for a period of time not exceeding 10 days after the date of the judgement in the proceedings . Any teacher placed on compulsory leave of absence will continue to be paid regular salary during the period of compulsory leave of absence. Suspension prior to dismissal If there is a determination to suspend a teacher with a recommendation for termination, the notice of suspension will be in writing and be served to the teacher personally or by registered mail addressed to the teacher at the place of residence as recorded in school district records. A teacher who is suspended will continue to be paid regular salary during the period of suspension. Adopted: Legal Reference: A.C.A. 6-17-1501 through 6-17-1510    LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPN CODE: GCR NONSCHOOL EMPLOYMENT OF PROFESSIONAL STAFF No employee shall engage in any outside employment which would require the performance of duties at times that fall within the regularly scheduled work day of the employee. Outside employment at other times is permitted provided such employment does not interfere with the employee's job performance and district operations in normal and/or emergency situations. At no time will any employee utilize District equipment or other resources for purposes except those in the performance of assigned job duties. No employee shall act as a salesperson for any type of school supplies or books which are used in a school or by the students at any school while in the employ of the Little Rock School District. Adopted:    LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPN CODE: GCRD TUTORING FOR PAY Tutoring for pay by teachers under contract to the District is subject to the following: 1. A teacher's first allegiance is to the District and its programs. Tutors should be ethical in their relations with parents and students. 2. Tutors should contact the school in which the child is enrolled and consult his/her teacher before tutoring is begun. 3. Tutoring should be limited to students who can profit from it. 4. Teachers in the District should not tutor boys and/or girls attending school in buildings where they teach. 5. Any teacher who tutors or desires to tutor should file his/her name and teaching field with the Educational Programs Division and the list of approved tutors will be made available to school personnel and upon request. Adopted:    LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPN CODE: GCS PROFESSIONAL RESEARCH AND PUBLISHING The Board recognizes the value of educational research conducted by staff members. However, all research studies carried out within the school system, using District or school data of any kind, or staff or students as subject, must be approved in advance by the superintendent or a designee. Only those studies that have value to the District will be approved. It is the purpose of this policy to establish (a) the respective rights and obligations of the District personnel related to the development of copyrightable materials and (b) administrative procedures for carrying out this policy. Publication Rights, Inventions, and Patents  Materials or devices created as part of the officially assigned educator responsibility will be the property of the Board .  The Board will patent or copyright all such materials or devices in the District's name\nhowever, such items will bear the name(s) of the creator(s).  The publisher or agent will return all profits from the production of this material or device to the District.  In order to stimulate these creations fifty percent of the profits will be distributed and returned to the innovator(s) and producer(s) of the material or devices. The remaining fifty percent will be placed in the general funds by the Board. Computers, Computer programs, and Computer usage Personnel employed by the District may have occasion to develop computer programs, routines, procedures, and documents useful for computer-based learning (hereinafter, materials). These activities may involve use of District owned or leased computer mainframes, mini-computers, microcomputers, associated equipment, software, or documentation and may be supported completely or in part by District resources or funds provided by outside sponsors.  Materials or devices created as part of the officially assigned educator responsibility will be the property of the Board .    LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPN CODE: GCS ( continued)  The Board will patent or copyright all such materials or devices in the District's name\nhowever, such items will bear the name(s) of the creator(s).  The publisher or agent will return all profits from the production of this material or device to the District.  In order to stimulate these creations fifty percent of the profits will be distributed and returned to the innovator(s) and producer(s) of the material or devices. The remaining fifty percent will be placed in the general funds by the Board . Adopted: 2    LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPN CODE: GCU PROFESSIONAL STAFF MEMBERSHIP IN PROFESSIONAL ORGANIZATIONS The Board recognizes growth opportunities as a result of membership and participation in professional organizations and encourages the staff to benefit from these\nhowever, membership in any professional organizations is not a requirement for employment in the District. Adopted:    LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPN CODE: GD SUPPORT/CLASSIFIED STAFF Persons employed in positions not requiring teaching or administrative certification will be known as \"classified employees.\" The following definitions will apply:  A full-time classified employee is a person who works at least twenty-five (25) hours per week and is on contract until the end of the school year or sixty (60) days, whichever is longer.  A part-time classified employee is a person who works less than least twenty-five (25) hours per week and is on contract until the end of the school year or sixty (60) days, whichever is longer.  A probationary employee is a person who is employed to fill a full or part time position for a trial period of one (1) year.  A substitute is an employee who is employed to fill in for an absent employee or on a per diem basis . Adopted:    LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPN CODE: GOA SUPPORT STAFF POSITIONS The Board recognizes that the employment and retention of classified personnel is essential to the success of the educational system. The superintendent is authorized by the Board to establish necessary classified positions within the limits of the local budget. Each position will be controlled by a job description and associated performance evaluation system. The job descriptions outline the primary duties and responsibilities of all classified employees thereby communicating job expectations. These job expectations will be used as a basis for performance evaluation and assignment to the appropriate pay level in accordance with salary grades and ranges adopted by the Board. In this context, the term \"classified\" will encompass any and all employees of the Board whose positions do not require certification by the State Department of Education . Adopted:  LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPN CODE: GOB COMPENSATION FOR SUPPORT STAFF Each classified employee shall have a written annual contract. The District shall have a Board approved salary schedule for support staff .   Adopted:    LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPN Code: GDBC SUPPORT STAFF SUPPLEMENTARY PAY/OVERTIME Overtime at the rate of time and one-half will be earned by any classified employee required to work more than forty (40) hours during the work week. All overtime must have prior approval of the direct supervisor. The above provisions do not apply to supervisory or managerial personnel or to employees who voluntarily accept assignments to serve community groups using school facilities. Classified employees whose attendance is required at meetings beyond forty (40) hours will be paid at the time and one-half rate for the time required . Adopted:    LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPN CODE: GDBD FRINGE BENEFITS FOR SUPPORT STAFF A comprehensive fringe benefit package is provided the support staff personnel. A detailed outline of benefits may be found in the \"Little Rock School District Personnel Benefit Handbook.\" Adopted:    LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPN CODE: GDC SUPPORT STAFF LEAVES AND ABSENCES 1. Leave of absence, without pay, may be granted by the Board of Education of the Little Rock School District to support staff personnel upon recommendation of the superintendent under the terms stated below. a. For personal Illness, if it can be shown that rest and recuperation will contribute to the welfare of the employee. b. For accident in the line of duty. Such Absence shall be charged against accumulated sick leave until such leave has expired or the employee becomes eligible for Worker's Compensation. Each absence of this type shall be judged on its merits. c. An employee required by an agency of the government (such as the United States Armed Forces, the federal or state judiciary etc.) to perform duties which prevent the accomplishment of regularly assigned responsibilities shall be entitled to a temporary leave of absence. The employee will not take such leave during his/her contract period unless required to do so by the governmental agency involved. d. Request for leave of absence must be submitted by the employee to the supervisor or department head at least two weeks prior to the beginning of the leave. e. Being absent without approved leave or failure to notify the supervisor or department head of intention to resume work, or failure to report for duty at the expiration of a leave of absence or extension granted, or failure to ask for additional leave of absence in case of protracted absence shall be considered a resignation. 2. Military leave will be granted, without loss of status, but with no pay, according to the provisions of the Veterans' Readjustment Act of 1974. Adopted: Legal Reference: Veterans' Readjustment Act of 197 4 A.C.A. 17-1301 through 6-17-1308, A.C.A. 6-17-306  LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPN CODE: GDCA SUPPORT STAFF SICK LEAVE Sick leave will be granted in accordance with appropriate state law .   Adopted: Legal Reference: A.C.A. 6-17-1301    LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPN CODE: GOE SUPPORT STAFF RECRUITING AND HIRING The Board will establish, and budget for, support staff positions in the school system on the basis of need. The recruitment and selection of candidates for such positions in the schools will be the responsibility of principals. Recruitment and selection for district-wide positions will be the responsibility of the appropriate central office administrator or supervisor. The central office will maintain a list of vacancies in support staff positions and will assist school administrators in filling them. All job openings will be posted in the central office and in appropriate locations in school and other buildings. The Board will officially vote on all employees upon the superintendent's recommendation. However, tentative appointments may be made by the superintendent or designee(s) prior to Board action. The Board may accept or reject a nomination. In the case of rejection, it is the duty of the superintendent to make another nomination . Adopted:    LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPN CODE: GDFB SUPPORT STAFF SELECTION PROCESS 1. Persons desiring employment shall file written application. 2. The Human Resources department will maintain all applications on file in a central location. 3. The supervisor or department head will select applicants to recommend for employment. This determination may be based on a personal interview or other method that the supervisor or department head may choose. 4. The appropriate director/assistant superintendent and the Director of Human Resources will review recommendations for hire for approval. The Revised Desegregation and Education Plan will be a guide for assuring that compliance is achieved. 5. Each appointee shall receive a contract showing his/her salary, department, and other pertinent information . Adopted:    LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPN CODE: GDI SUPPORT STAFF PROBATION AND TENURE Conditions of Employment 1. For the first year of continuous employment in the District, employees shall be probationary employees and may be discharged at any time they are not needed or when their work is unsatisfactory. 2. After employees have worked for the District for one year and are contracted for the second year, they shall become permanent employees . Adopted:    LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPN CODE: GDJ SUPPORT STAFF ASSIGNMENTS AND TRANSFERS I. Vacated or newly established positions shall be filled, to the fullest extent consistent with efficient operations, by the promotion of qualified employees. The Director of Human Resources will be notified of all vacancies as they occur. 2. Employees shall be transferred within the organization as is practical to utilize their highest skills. 3. Transfers may be at the initiative of the superintendent or other administrative officer for any purpose which, in the judgment of either the superintendent or a designee, is for the welfare of the employee or the schools. An administrative transfer or reassignment will be made only after a conference between the employee involved and the superintendent or respective administrator, at which time the employee will be notified of the reason for the transfer. When transfers of employees are necessitated by organizational changes, effort shall be made to avoid reductions in pay . 4. An employee shall be subject to demotion under the following conditions: a) If the employee has been found unsuited for his/her present position but may have skills and ability sufficient to give satisfactory performance in a lower paying position. b) If the employee's position has been abolished or reallocated to a lower pay scale and the employee cannot be transferred to a position of equal pay. Under such circumstances, it shall be clearly indicated on all documents related to the demotion that the transaction in no way reflects on the employee's performance or ability . Adopted:    LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPN CODE: GDK SUPPORT STAFF SCHEDULES AND CALENDARS The superintendent or his/her designee, in consultation with appropriate administrators, will establish work calendar schedules for the classified staff in keeping with the standard workday and workweek and in conformance with such time schedules for various classifications of employees as approved by the Board. The workyear for the various classifications of employees will be set forth in the current calendars. Hours of work shall be determined by the immediate supervisor or department head and shall be designed to facilitate the most efficient operation of the department/school. Adopted:    LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPN CODE: GDM SUPPORT STAFF CAREER DEVELOPMENT Classified employees are an integral part of the District's total staff. Their training and development are essential to the efficient and economical operation of the schools. Therefore, all classified employees will be encouraged to grow in job skills and to take additional training that will improve their skills on the job. It will be the responsibility of all building principals and department managers to assist to the maximum degree in the training of custodians, clerks, and other classified employees assigned to their buildings and departments. Absences to attend meetings, conventions, conferences, or workshops of local, state, or national associations which serve to advance the welfare of the District through the upgrading and strengthening of the classified service may be granted by the superintendent or designee without loss of pay to the employee . Adopted:   LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPN CODE: GOO EVALUATION OF SUPPORT STAFF The development of a strong, competent classified staff of employees and the maintenance of high morale among this staff are major objectives of the Board. The finding of the right employees to fill vacancies, the determination of assignments and equitable work loads, the establishment of wage and salary policies which encourage employees to put forth their best efforts, the evaluation of employee achievements and the provision of a good atmosphere in which to work are some of the major duties of the Board. A program of continuous evaluation is necessary in fulfilling these duties. The evaluation will cover the major areas of the employee's responsibilities and will include the following:  specific work assignment  attitude toward children  attitude toward public education  attitude toward supervisors, teachers, fellow employees  and work habits The employee's supervisor has the responsibility for informing each employee in advance of the criteria to be used in evaluation. Each employee will be given an explanation of his or her duties and responsibilities and guidance in performing them satisfactorily by his or her immediate supervisor.  Adopted:    LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPN CODE: GDP SUPPORT STAFF PROMOTIONS AND RECLASSIFICATION When classified staff vacancies are to be filled, preference will be given to qualified applicants from within the school system, provided their qualifications (proven and potential ability, training, experience, and personal characteristics) are equal to those of other applicants. However, the best qualified person from among all who apply within and without the school system will be selected . Adopted:    LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPN CODE: GDQ SUPPORT STAFF NON-RENEWALS AND TERMINATION OF EMPLOYMENT In order to maintain a good working environment, all employees are expected to conform to reasonable standards of performance and conduct. When an employee demonstrates an inability or unwillingness to maintain these standards, the supervisor will take necessary corrective action. This action, in all cases, is directed toward resolving personal and work-related problems that interfere with the employee's effectiveness. When all reasonable efforts to correct employee deficiencies are exhausted, it will become necessary that the employment contracts of these persons be terminated ornon-renewed . Adopted:    LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPN CODE: GDQ-R CERTIFIED STAFF NON-RENEWALS AND TERMINATIONS DEFINITIONS CLASSIFIED EMPLOYEE: Any person employed by the District under a written annual contract who is not required to have a teaching certificate issued by the Arkansas Department of Education as a condition of employment. PROBATIONARY EMPLOYEE: An employee who has not completed one (1) year of employment with the District. The Board may extend the probationary period of any employee by one (1) year provided the extension is voted at least thirty (30) days prior to the completion of the employee's probationary period . NONRENEWALS Each year, each employee's immediate supervisor shall rate the employee's job performance and make a recommendation for continued employment, dismissal, or reassignment of the employee. Permanent employees may be discharged for inefficiency, repeated absence from the job, conduct unbecoming an employee of the District, or other reasons believed to be detrimental to the best interests of the District. Discharge may be recommended by the employee's immediate supervisor on specific charges. Employees may be laid off due to a lack of work or financial circumstance of the District. TERMINATIONS There are occasions when persons, because of the nature of their misconduct, must be suspended and recommended for immediate termination. Examples of offenses for which an employee will be recommended for immediate termination are listed below. These offenses may include, but are not limited to: a. Conviction at a trial court level of any felony or misdemeanor that is manifestly inconsistent with the safe and efficient operation of the school or department. b. Fighting, threatening or attempting to do bodily injury .    LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPN CODE: GDQ-R (continued) c. Carrying weapons. A weapon is any object that could cause injury to another person and is not required to be in possession of that employee in the normal course of his/her job. d. Stealing or misappropriation of property of employees of the District. e. Malicious mischief, the abuse, misuse, or deliberate destruction or damaging of property, tools, or equipment of other employees or of the District. f. Altering or tampering with time cards, \"sign in/out\" rosters or other reporting documents relative to attendance, promptness or departures. g. Drinking alcoholic beverages on the job or during working hours, or the possession of, or introduction of any alcoholic beverage on District property at any time. This also includes reporting to work while under the influence of alcohol. h. i. j. k. I. Use of narcotics, and/or the use, possession, or transmitting on school premises drugs or substances capable of modifying mood and/or behavior. Insubordination, including refusal or failure to perform work assigned and/or refusal to obey orders of supervisors. Disorderly, disruptive, or immoral conduct on school premises. The making of or publishing of false, vicious, or malicious statements concerning any employee or supervisor of the District. Falsification of personnel or other official school or insurance records, or making false statements when applying for employment. m. Falsifying or refusing to give testimony concerning accidents involving school vehicles, or other accidents and/or incidents which are being investigated. n. Failure to observe or purposefully disregard school district and departmental policy and procedure. o. Use of District facilities, personnel, or equipment for non-district purposes .    LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPN CODE: GDQ-R (continued) WRITTEN NOTICE Written notice must be given to any employee suspended with a recommendation for nonrenewal. Notices must comply with the standards set in the \"Public School Employee Fair Hearing Act.\" HEARINGS Hearings will be conducted in accordance with the standards set in the \"Public School Employee Fair Hearing Act.\" Additionally, any employee entitled to a hearing before the Board of Education may schedule a hearing before the superintendent or his/her designee to review the charges and evidence prior to the time the superintendent makes his/her recommendation to the Board. This hearing should be requested within ten (10) days of receipt of the written notice and does not affect the time limit required for requesting a hearing before the Board . Date: March 1999    LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPN CODE: GDQA SUPPORT STAFF REDUCTION IN FORCE The superintendent will determine when a reduction in support staff is necessary, the number of individuals whose employment must be interrupted, and the areas of work in which the reduction will occur. Before recommendations for employment interruption are made, all options for transfer and reassignment of affected support staff will have been used . Adopted:    LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPN CODE: GDQB SUPPORT STAFF RESIGNATION An employee desiring to terminate his/her employment is requested to submit a written resignation at least two weeks in advance, setting forth his /her reason for resigning. Failure to give proper notification will cause the District to place a memorandum in the employee's permanent file that the employee \"quit without providing proper notification.\" Adopted:    LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPN CODE: GDQD DISCIPLINE, SUSPENSION, AND DISMISSAL OF SUPPORT STAFF Each year each employee's immediate supervisor shall rate the employee's job performance and make a recommendation for continued employment, dismissal, or reassignment of the employee. Permanent employees may be discharged for inefficiency, repeated absence from the job, for conduct unbecoming an employee of the District, or other reasons believed to be detrimental to the best interests of the District. Discharge may be recommended by the employee's immediate supervisor on specific charges. A written copy of the charges shall be furnished the employee upon request. Permanent employees may be laid off due to a lack of work or financial circumstances of the District. Corrective discipline in the form of oral warning or oral reprimand, written warning or written reprimand, suspension with pay and suspension without salary may be used, sequentially, in any combination, or singularly at the administrative level prior to a recommendation for termination of employment. This policy is intended to offer options for corrective discipline and the full application of this policy, or the application of any part therein, will not be a precondition to the district's right to terminate or suspend an employee. The District reserves the right to apply or institute whatever disciplinary sanction it deems appropriate at any time or in any sequence. Discipline of classified employees will not be caused or affected by the employee's religious beliefs, racial of ethnic background, sex, age or exercise of constitutionally protected rights . Adopted:    SECTION H: NEGOTIATIONS Section H of the Little Rock School District policy manual contains policies, regulations, and exhibits on the process of negotiating with bargaining units recognized by the school board and authorized under state law. HD Negotiation Practices and Process HGA Recognition of Staff Meet and Confer Organizations    LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPN CODE: HD NEGOTIATION PRACTICES AND PROCESS The Little Rock School District Board of Education wishes to establish a working relationship with all employees which will result in a working environment which will be as productive, efficient, and creative as possible. The Board of Education is willing to allow groups of employees to establish the type of relationship they would like to have with the Board of Education, including the communication process between the Board and the employees. Staff members will have the opportunity to work with their supervisors to determine their working conditions, to use the process of \"Meet and Confer,\" or to select the process of negotiations. RECOGNITION OF NEGOTIATING PRACTICES While there is no legal obligation on the part of the Board of Education to negotiate with employee groups, the Little Rock School District Board of Education will voluntarily enter into negotiated agreements with certain classifications of nonmanagement employees. It is the desire of the Board to extend negotiating rights on economic conditions of employment, e.g., salaries and fringe benefits, to these classifications of employees, as long as this arrangement is beneficial to the employees and to the District as determined by the Board of Education. Recognition of the right to negotiate shall be granted under the following conditions: A. That such recognition of the rights to negotiate be deemed by the Board of Education to be in the best interest of the employees and the District. B. That such negotiating practice shall be a voluntary practice of the individual groups of employees. C. That the Board of Education shall recognize the official representatives of those individual groups. D. That in the opinion of the Board of Education, the employees to be represented have a community of interests, including but not limited to, the following: 1. Similarity of duties, skills, interests, and working conditions of employees. 2. Similar placement in the Little Rock School District organizational structure. For the purpose of this policy, the Board identifies the following    LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPN CODE: HD (continued) groups to have differing community of interests: security officers\nbus drivers\nmaintenance workers\ncustodians\nfood service workers\nclerical personnel\nparaprofessionals\nnurses\nand teachers. If it can be shown that a different community of interest does exist, the Board of Education will be willing to combine those groups into a community for the purpose of negotiations, and reserves the right to do so. (Upon the decision of the Board of Education to alter the defined groups, this policy will be edited to reflect the change.) 3. The following positions will be excluded from the above groups because of their direct relationship with management: executive assistants and the staff assistant in the superintendent's office. Any employee who has access to information subject to use by the Board of Education in the negotiations or meet and confer process also will be excluded from the groups .  E. While the Board is willing to negotiate with employee groups under the above conditions, it also recognizes the necessity to reserve for the Board and the Administration, certain management rights, including, but not limited to establishment of policy\nto determine qualifications, hire, direct, assign, suspend, demote, promote all employees\nand to establish the work year. In this vein, the Board directs that an acceptable management rights clause be part of every negotiated agreement. PERSONNEL SERVICE OBLIGATIONS F. Any employee organization shall not cause or permit its members to cause, nor will any member of the organization take part in any curtailment of work or restriction of services or interference with the operations of the District in any manner in those areas affecting work responsibility. The organization will not support the action of any employee taken in violation of this article nor will it directly or indirectly take reprisals of any kind against an employee who continues the full, faithful, and proper performance of his/her contractual duties, obligations, or refuses to participate in any strike or curtailment of work or restriction of services activity. Violation of this policy or Arkansas law by an organization shall cause the Board of Education to remove recognition of the organization and terminate 2    LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPN CODE: HD (continued) any contract. Violation of this policy or Arkansas law by any employee shall cause the Board of Education to terminate the employee. The Board agrees that as long as recognition is granted, and a valid contract remains in force, the Board will not participate in a lockout. PROCESS A. Initial Recognition For a group to be initially recognized, or to challenge the recognition of the present representative, the following procedure shall be followed: A valid petition calling for a representative election shall be presented to the Board of Education. For a petition to be valid it must (1) contain at least a majority of the signatures of the employee group, or be accompanied with a statement from a certified public accountant, mutually agreed to, that a majority of the employees of the group are bona fide dues paying members of an organization representing the group, and (2) be presented to the Board prior to December 1 of the school year. Petitions may be circulated only in the month of November. The Board may ask the Human Resources Office to verify the signatures of the employees. If the petition is valid, the Board will schedule an election to select or decertify an official representative. B. Continued Recognition Once an organization has been recognized as the official representative of an employee group, the following procedures shall be followed: The organization must present certified verification that it represents at least a majority of the employees of the employee group. To determine whether or not an organization represents a majority of the employees in the group, the Human Resources Office will provide the organization a list of all of the persons employed in the group on December 1. The organization shall present a statement from a certified public accountant, mutually agreed to, verifying that a majority of the employees on the list were bona fide dues paying members of the organization on December 1. Such verification shall be presented to the Board by January 15. 3 t' -    LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPN CODE: HD (continued) If the organization fails to provide such verification by January 15, the Board shall withdraw its recognition of the group. The Board will schedule an election to determine the desire of the employees concerning representation. C. Elections 1. The ballot used for representation elections shall be approved by the Board and will include an option to the issue being considered. 2. The election will be conducted by the Human Resources Office and will be by secret ballot. 3. In order for an employee representative to be recognized, it must receive in the election at least a majority of the votes of the total number of employees in the employee group . 4. Campaigning on District property will not be allowed. 5. The cost of the petition and the cost of the election shall be paid by the organization petitioning the Board. D. Harassment Harassment or coercion of employees concerning joining or not joining or voting or not voting for an employee group will not be allowed. Such conduct is grounds for invalidating the results of an election or withdrawing continued recognition of a representative. E. Non-compliance Non-compliance with any of these regulations shall be grounds for the Board to revoke the recognition or the privilege to negotiate with the Board. Continued recognition of any employee group bargaining representative will be contingent upon both of the following: 1. Continued belief on the part of the Board of Education that such recognition is in the best interest of the employees and the School District\nand 4    LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPN CODE: HD ( continued) 2. Continued desire on the part of the employees of that particular group that continued recognition is desirable . Adopted: 5    LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPN CODE: HGA RECOGNITION OF STAFF MEET AND CONFER ORGANIZATIONS While there is no legal obligation on the part of the Board of Education to meet and confer with employee groups, the Little Rock School Board of Education may voluntarily meet and confer with certain classifications of employees. This voluntary arrangement can be beneficial to the Little Rock School District and to the employee groups affected. It is the desire of the Board to extend the opportunity to meet and confer to classifications of employees and to recognize the representatives of those employees. Such recognition shall be granted under the following conditions: 1. That such recognition be deemed, by the Board of Education and a majority of the employees, to be in the best interest of the employees and-the School District. 2. That, in the opinion of the Board of Education, the employees to be represented have a community of interests including, but not limited to, the following: (a) similarity of duties, skills, interests, and working conditions of employees\n(b) similar placement in the Little Rock School District organizational structure. 3. That a majority of the employees, in the classification seeking to be recognized for meet and confer purposes, elect by secret ballot the members of the team from within that employee group that will represent them. Continued recognition of any meet and confer team will be contingent upon the following: 1. Continued belief, on the part of the Board of Education and the majority of the employees, that such recognition is in the best interest of the employees and the School District. 2. That the team conduct the employee's business in a manner consistent with the State Laws relating to public sector employee groups. This policy is not intended to apply to employees covered by a collective bargaining agreement with the Board . Adopted:    SECTION I: INSTRUCTION Section I o the Little Rock School District policy manual contains poli es, regulations, and exhibits n the instructional program: basic curricular subjects\npecial programs, instructional r sources, and academic achievement. IA IB IC ICA ID School Day IG Curriculum Develo ment, Adoptio , and Review IGA Curriculum Prog m Alignme and Coherence 1GB Educational Rese ch IGBA Grant-Funded P IGC Pilot Programs IGE Curriculum Guides Religion in th OCT 4 1999  , fl OF lm'MONITOR/NG IHAL IHBA IHBB IHBDA IHBH IHCA IHCC Special Edu ith Disabilities IHCD IHCDA IHD 11B IJ IJOA IJOC IJOCA IKA IKACA IKB IKC Gifted and Remedial nstruction Alternative ducation Program\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_303","title":"Collaborate Action Team","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":["1998/2002"],"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","Teachers","Parents","Civic leaders","Educational planning","School improvement programs"],"dcterms_title":["Collaborate Action Team"],"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/303"],"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":["149 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\nRECBWO LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT INSTRUCTIONAL RESOURCE CENTER 3001 PULASKI STREET LITTLE ROCK, AR 72206 OCT 3 0 i9S8 OfflCEOr tBfGREGATI0NM0NIT0a!*i8 October 30,1998 TO: Debbie Milam Suellen Vann Catherine Gill Liz Lucker Sadie Mitchell Diane Vibhakar Ann Brown, ODM Gail Nickerson Jo Evelyn Elston Linda Watson FROM: SUBJECT: Dr. Bonnie Lesley,'Associate Superintendent for Instruction SEDLs Collaborative Action Team Please plan to meet with me and and Ms. Cathy Jordan from SEDL on Tuesday, November 3, at 9:00 a.m. in Room 19. We will discuss with her the possibility of our participating in a collaborative action team. Im attaching some information on the project for your review prior to the meeting. BAL/adg Attachments RECEIVED 2 OCT 3 0 1998 OFFICE OF DEScGREGAPON MOSrrORIMS What is the Collaborative Action Team (CAT) Process? The Collaboration Action Team (CAT) process guides family members, community representatives, school personnel, and students who collaborate as partners to improve results for children, youth, and families. The team helps improve results by developing plans and taking actions that address issues and concerns of the school and community. These plans and activities build on a commitment to bring together representatives of the community as a team to improve the chances for children  and their families to succeed in school and in life. The development of a CAT process includes activities organized around three concepts\nteam building, team planning and momentum generation. These activities encourage individual team members to work together as a productive unit to solve problems and to build new opportunities. Although the work differs in team building, team planning, and momentum generation, all three are needed to build a cohesive and effective community/school team. Teams that are strong in all three of these concepts will be capable of making significant progress. Collaborative Action Teams develop strength by practicing team building and team planning skills while generating momentum. Small changes that can produce big results create momentum for the team. During the planning stages when the team may seem to be talking more than doing, generating momentum creates a sense of progress and accomplishment. It also helps keep the team focused in the doing stages when a sense of direction can become blurred. Progress begins to happen as the teams energy and momentum build. Building Collaborative Action Teamsa Wha-t are the \u0026amp;asic Concepts of the Collaborative Action Team Process? The concepts that guide a Collaborative Action Team in its work are:  Team Building  Team Planning e?  Momentum Team Building and Team Planning. The process begins by identifying a group of diverse team members. Each person contributes a different perspective as school personnel, family member, - businessperson, community volunteer, or student. They meet together around the same table and commit to work together on common interests that will build on their school and community assets. Talking constructively from different vantage points and planning and working together to begin projects helps members build relationships with each other. Mutual respect and trust grow as personal relationships evolve. Momentum. Momentum is created by using team building and team planning together to generate movement and forward progress toward achieving the teams mission. Momentum builds when individuals are moved to act specifically on important ideas and issues. They become engaged and active in something bigger than themselves. Many teams create momentum by working on manageable size projects. In St. Bernard's Parish, Louisiana, a team began galvanizing its members when it successfully found funding and refurbished a much needed sign in front of the school to announce activities. Completing this simple project together built a sense of forward movement and accomplishment. Other projects such as a family fair attended by 300 people were more complex, as were efforts to increase parents invol' unent in their childrens education. Early success generates the energy and enthusiasm needed for long-term development and increasingly more complicated efforts. Momentum is the product of the effort it takes to improve schools and communities. Buildinf' Collaborative Action Teams't CAT Development Process Team Building Team Planning The next circle details the specific elements of Team Planning. The ring labeled momentum involves specific actions that generate the energy to make progress toward achieving the teams vision and mission. The outer circle represents the specific elements of Team Building. These three concepts-7eaw Building, Team Planning, and Momentum-mnst work together to create the synergy required to build and sustain partnerships that work toward the vision through the Team Identification, Team Mobilization, Project Development, and Project Implementation activities. Building Collabonitive Aclinn Teams 1 What are CATs and what is their purpose? I  RECI WED \"Meeting school community needs through expiinded partnerships\" OCT 3 0 1998 They are team.s whose members represent a broad cross-section nJ the school community, including parents, school staff, busiruss. civic and religiou.s organizations, health and social sets u e pros id ers, and teacher educator in.stitutions. Their purpose is to meet school community needs through expanding partnerships, thereby broadening systemic change in education. OFF DESE6REGATI EOh m MONITORING 2 What arc some need? of these areas of school comnuinity WJhaiit sure GATsT Three critical areas have been identified by Southwest Educational Development Diboratory (SEDL). 1 hey are. more success-oriented approache.s to reducing violence in schools, drug/alcohol/tobacco abuse\nteenage pregnancy, and school gang activities\n10 important reasons to establish Collaborative Action Teams more family-friendly, .student-centered comprehensive sersice delivery systems\nand  more kiiowledf-e among educators about iategratmg studentd early growth and education experiences later. with those that occur 3 t I l[f\" How did the CAT concept come about? I Southwest Educational Development Laboratory *211 East 7th Street  Austin, Texas 7870J-328I  512/476-6861  During a previously completed project, SEDL de\\-eloited and unple- merited Home, Sclurol, Conuiwnity Partnerships in its five-.state South- western Region. Diese [xirmerships irleruifiedpriority-C(\u0026gt;iu eni.s in their comnuuiities and .succe.wfitlly resolved .some of these com em.s through J collaboration ami mutual problem solving. CATs are extended v t rsii \u0026lt; ' these iKirtnerdiip.s in t/uit they incltule representatives from a wuler rmig, of organisations, incliutuig teacher education institutions. !4 What is unique about the CAT Model? The CA T Model i.s based on the principle of self-reliance within a communitv. Members take responsibility for developing and implementing an action plan that identifies and itse.s local resoun-e.s to resolve issue.s that members have identified a.s important to their community. It uses a two-dimensional, integrated approach\nTeam Building and Team Planning. These dimen.sion.s help members function ollahoraiive, cohesive team while developing and impleits il C menting a plan for making productive changes in the school community. Through guided activitie.s members will experience and practice consensus-building skills, effective communication, shared leadership, and decision making. Thi.s emphasi.s on Team Building, Team Planning, and Momentum Generation is the model's strength and the foundation of the team and peipetu- ates il.s replication. You mentioned Team Building and Team Planning as dimensions of the approach. Please describe them. Team Planning i.s the nuts and holts of defining and implementing the projects that add re.vs the concern.s of the school communiiy that were identified by the team. Thi.s includes, for example, setting goal.s and objectives, determining role.s and responsibilities, developing strategies, and setting lask.s and timeline.s to accomplish the work. Team Building is the prm ess of how teams work together as a unit. The activitie.s of Team Building allow the group to develop skills for exploring and eventually settling on ways of working together effectively. .Momentum is created by using Team Building and Team Planning together to generate movement and forward progress. 6 What is SEDL's plan for developing Collaborative Action Teams throughout the Southwestern Region. During 1996-2000, SDDI. will use a planning and iinplcincnlaiiun model in the five slates (Arkansas, Louisiana, Oklahoma, New Mesh o. and Texas) and refine it for replication. The first CATs in Fabens, TX, Violet, LA\nWest Memphis, AR\nand Albuquerque, NM will seis e us resource.s for additional CATs a.s they are established. .Sites established thu.s far in 1998 include\nAnn Parish Elementary School, Los Lunas, NM\nBalmorhea ISD, TX\nDel Valle High School, Del Valle. TX\nPonca City Mid-High School, OK\nDollarway ISD. AR\nand Barbara Jordan Elementary School, New Orleans, I A. CATs ill be self-sustaining once they have completed their Team Building and Team Planning work. By the year 2000. up to 40 C .A T sites will he tn existence. 7 How long does each CAT exist? Aa long a.s there are school needs to he met. The membership ma\\ hange hut the CAT itself regularly examines its eflectivcnes^. priority concerns, and its mission. il\\ Who can develop CATs? CATsite.s can begin in individual elementary or secondary schools, consortium.s within a school district, county, or slate. 9 What are Rural Development Collaborative Action Teams? Using the same CAT process described above, these teams are formed tn ruru. areas to link community and economic development with school improti mt t.t A service learning plan is developeilfor student and community meinber\\ to learn and practice entrepreneurship while serving the needs of the greater community. Comment.s and retptesls regarding Rural Development Aetton Teams can be directed to Pat Deloney al STDL.The CAT Development Process The Collaborative Action Team (CAT) Development Process guides home, school, and community through the process of building and sustaining partnerships to improve results for children, youth, and families. CAT members learn effective collaboration practices, identify the most pressing issues in their communities, and then develop, implement, and evaluate action plans for addressing those issues. Examples from CAT sites:  Middle schools in Oklahoma City identified violence as a major concern and are developing mentoring programs for their students.  An elementary school in West Memphis, Arkansas decided to focus on increasing community awareness and involvement in academic efforts and have established a family resource center to help in this purpose. received OCT 3 0 1998 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING Team Building and Team Planning The strength of the CAT model is the integration of team building and team planning. SEDL staff guide team members in applying the model to strengthen skills in consensus building, effective communication, networking, and shared leadership. At the same time, CAT members practice the nuts and bolts of defining and implementing projects that address their identified priority concerns. According to a CAT member from the Louisiana CAT site, We moved in a few short months from skepticism to optimism to success. We are a team and we can never go back. (Over) More examples...  The South Valley of Albuquerque established school-based health and social services for students and their families. Their success was recently recognized at the Department of Educations regional conference in Dallas.  A rural CAT site located along the Texas-Mexico border seeks to increase parent involvement in school efforts. The CAT has provided immigrant parents with an active medium for developing community leadership skills. Benefits to CAT sites By participating in this effort, you will...  receive initial training in the use of the model,  receive on-site monthly technical assistance and training,  receive consultation by telephone and e-mail, -  participate in an annual Training Institute with other CAT sites,  have opportunities to network with other CATs,  receive resource materials. How to Join the Project SEDL will add new sites to the CAT Development project each spring from across its five-state region of Arkansas, Louisiana, New Mexico, Oklahoma, and Texas. These sites will be selected according to their commitment to partnership building and full inclusion of family and community members in schools. Sites must be willing to commit to the project for three years. For more information on the CAT development project, contact any of the staff listed below. Pat Deloney, Jerry Elder, Jose Velazquez, or Catherine Jordan a|~1B Phone: Fax: E-mail: Web site: 800/476-6861 512/476-2286 as tockto@sedl. org http\n//www.sedl.org/ rib- [nsr aj 1 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT INSTRUCTIONAL RESOURCE CENTER 3001 PULASKI STREET LITTLE ROCK, AR 72206 November 3,1998 TO: Debbie Milam Suellen Vann Catherine Gill Liz Lucker Sadie Mitchell Diane Vibhaker Ann Brown Gail Nickerson Jo Evelyn Elston Linda Watson Connie Whitfield received NOV i 2 JS98 Cfi^CEOF CESE^SfflOOGfflTORJNS FROM: Dr. Bonnie Lesley, ^sociate Superintendent for Instruction SUBJECT: Collaborative Team Thanks to all of you who came to the November 2 meeting! I was very pleased with the outcome, and I am looking forward to our next steps. We agreed to meet again on Friday, November 20, at 1:30 p.m. in Room 19 at the IRC. Our agenda will include the following: 1. Brief review/ of November 2 meeting Debbie Milam 2. Discussion of a vision for the LRSD parent and community programs and services Bonnie Lesley 3. Discussion of a focus for the possible SEDL partnership Liz Lucker 4. Planning of next steps I look forward to seeing you all on November 20*^. BAL/adg cc: Catherine Jordan, SEDL 01/29/1994 19:19 5013242296 LRSD VIPS M P^ 04 EO'd Meeting Objeettvea: little rock school DISTRICT COLLABORATIVE ACTION TEAM MEETING Adult Leisure Center, 6401 West 12\" Street 7:30 .m, - October 7,1399 ' awareness of Collaborative Action Team work in LltDe Rock Objective Two\nDefine and Build Representative Membership agenda process and how it will Item Time Person Reaponaibte Welcome, Review Agenda and Objectives Ice Breaker Exercise Report on Start-up Training and CAT Process Discuss Defining and Building Representative Membership ot CAT Review Next Steps (meeting, agenda. obyacHves) Conduct Meeting Evaluation 5 min. 15 min. 15 min 30 min 5 min. 5 min. Marion Baldwin Essie Middleton Barabara OsbomeZKaye Rainey Debbie Milam/Connio Whitfield Diane Vibhakar/Priscilla Alexander Calvin Brady/Amber Mooney VOZ:tT 66-SO-43Oi3:ia bB13242296 LRSD VIPS M PAGE 03 TO: FROM: RE DATE: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT VOLUNTEERS IN PUBLIC SCHOOLS 501 SHERMAN STREET LITTLE ROCK. ARKANSAS 72202 LittJe Rock School District Collaborative Action Team members Debbie Milam, ViPS Coordinator Next meetino - October 7, 1999 September 30. 1990 Collaborative Action Team meeting is sat for Thursday, October 7 at 7.30 a m Center. We hope you can join us. This will be our official first maeting and we want to get off to a good start. Please call ViPS at 324-2290 to confirm your attendance Thank you for your support. ZOd VOZ:TT 66-SO-4^^OSeptember?, 1999 SOUTHWEST EDUCATIONAL DEVELOPMENT LABORATORY 211 East Seventh Street Austin, Texas 78701-3281 Voice or TDD: 512/476-6861 FAX: 512/476-2286 RECBW Ms. Ann Brown 201 E. Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 SEP i 0 1999 OFiCEO? CESEGREEAroilMCHSS Dear Ms. Brown: The Southwest Educational Development Laboratory (SEDL) is pleased to invite you to participate in a start-up training session for the Little Rock School District Collaborative Action Team (CAT) project. This training will take place on September 23 1999 at the Greater Second Baptist Church. 5616 Geyer Springs Rd. Registration and coffee will be from 8:00-8:30 a.m. Enclosed is an agenda for the day. An additional two and half-hour training will be conducted the following momina for an organizina aroup that will be selected during the daylong training. This organizing group will develop plans for the first CAT meeting. Your participation is key to the development of a Little Rock Schools Collaborative Action Team. The project will help parents, school personnel, and community representatives develop a team approach to address the needs of the Little Rock school community and will guide you in developing an action plan to get this done. SEDL staff have planned this training to engage participants in a full day of activities that combines presentations, small and large group activities, and individual participant feedback. Our goals for e training are that participants will:  discuss the process for developing a Collaborative Action Team\n identify and apply strategies for partnership development\nand  develop an understanding of the roles and responsibilities of SEDL staff and the Organizing Group in the CAT development process. Come and join us Thursday, September 23 and be an integral part of an exciting new Little Rock Schools/SEDL project. Lunch will be provided. If you unable to attend this training, please call Ms. Debbie Milam at 324-2297 so we can get an accurate count of participants. We look forward to seeing you September 23\"*. Inberely, L Jerry O, Elder, Program Specialist ' Program for Refining Educational Partnerships ^n^. Rudo, Program Associate TOgram for Refining Educational Partnerships Enclosure AN EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY/AEFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER Site Start-Up Training for Developing a Collaborative Action Team at Little Rock School District September 23,1999 The Site Start-Up Training consists of a seven hour training the first day for all members of the Collaborative Action Team and a two and one half -hour training session the following day for members of the Organizing Group. Day One Goals  Discuss process for developing a Collaborative Action Team (CAT)  Identify and apply strategies for partnership development  Identify members of CAT Organizing Group Agenda for Day One 8:00 - 8:30 Sign Up \u0026amp; Smell the Coffee! (Continental Breakfast) 8:30 - 9:15 Welcome \u0026amp; Warm-Up Activity 9:15 - 9:45 Overview of SEDL and Collaborative Action Team Project 9:45 - 10:00 Where do we start? Self-Assessment 10:00 - 10:15 Break 10:15 - 11:45 Team Identification: Finding A Common Issue 11:45 - 12:45 On your mark... get set... LUNCH!!! 12:45 - 1:45 Team Mobilization: Planning for Action 1:45 - 2:10 Collaboration Energizer 2:10-3:00 Project Development: Celebrating Strengths 3:00-3:15 Break 3:15 - 3:50 Project Implementation: Evaluating Success 3:50 - 4:00 Closure \u0026amp; Training Evaluation J NOV i TO\nFROM: RE: DATE\nLITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT COLLABORATIVE ACTION TEAM 501 SHERMAN STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72202 Little Rock Collaborative Action Team (CAT) Members Debbie Milam, ViPS Coordinator CAT meeting - Thursday, November 4, 7:30 a.m. October 30, 1999 W33 Our next Collaborative Action Team (CAT) meeting is Thursday, November 4 at 7:30 a.m. in the Adult Leisure Center at 6401 West 12* Street. Members of our team have just finished attending two days of training at the regional SEDL conference here in Little Rock. They will be sharing information with the rest of the team on what the other CATs are doing in our region. We hope you will join us. We have enclosed copies of the previous meetings agenda and handouts for those of you who could not attend. Also included is a survey regarding your preference for meeting times. Please complete a survey and return it IF you did not complete one at the meeting. Feel free to invite any community or student representatives that you know. We have a fairly good group of parents and school reps but were lacking in community and student representation.LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT COLLABORATIVE ACTION TEAM MEETING Adult Leisure Center, 6401 West 12'* Street 7:30 a.m. - October 7, 1999 Meeting Objectives:  Objective One: Increase awareness of Collaborative Action Team process and how it will work in Little Rock  Objective Two: Define and Build Representative Membership AGENDA Item Time Person Responsible Welcome, Review Agenda and Objectives 5 min. Marion Baldwin Ice Breaker Exercise 15 min. Essie Middleton Report on Start-up Training and CAT Process 15 min. Barabara Osbome/Kaye Rainey Discuss Defining and Building Representative Membership of CAT 30 min Debbie Milam/Connie Whitfield Review Next Steps (meeting, agenda, objectives) 5 min. Diane Vibhakar/Priscilla Alexander Conduct Meeting Evaluation 5 min. Calvin Brady/Amber MooneySession Goals  Develop understanding and appreciation for representative membership  Define representative membership that reflects local community T-1 12 12/22/98 Representative Membership What is it? A cross-section of the local population that reflects the diversity of the community, including parents and family members, school staff, health and social service providers, institutions of higher education, community organizations, private industry/business, and others. Why is it important? To develop a comprehensive response to school and community needs for the well-being of the students and their families T-2 13 12/22/98Collaborative Action Team Please mark the times you would be willing to meet. 7:30 am 12:00 noon evening (list time) Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday(list time) Name PhoneNovember 23, 1999 To: From: Re: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT COLLABORATIVE ACTION TEAM 501 SHERMAN STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72202 Little Rock Collaborative Action Team (CAT) Members Marion Baldwin, Community Education CAT Meeting - Thursday, December 2, 7:30 a.m. VI ' J I' u, lSSGRGATiC'tj Our next Collaborative Action Team (CAT) meeting is scheduled for Thursday, December 2, 7:30 a.m. in the Adult Leisure Center located at 6401 West 12^ Street. We look forward to everyone attending.KJ 1 Welcome LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Collaborative Action Team (CAT) Meeting January 6, 2000 Oebbie Milam Choose a recorder and evaluator for meeting Debbie Milam Adopt a mission statement Marion Baldwin DIVIDE INTO REPRESENTATIVE GROUPS Reach consensus on one issue to address in small groups Reach consensus on one issue to address in large group Develop one long term action for issue Develop one short term action for issue Review next meeting RsBCE^yg JAN 3 i 2009 GfHGc Of Facilitators Facilitators Facilitators Kaye Rainey ICollaborative Action Team Minutes October 7,1999 Marion Baldwin opened the first official meeting of the Little Rock Collaborative Action Team by welcoming the group of 40 participants and reviewing the days agenda. Essie Middleton provided an ice breaker that got everyone moving around and talking to each otlier. Barbara Osborne reported on the start-up training that was provided by SEDL in September. Kaye Rainey reviewed the CAT process. Debbie Milam facilitated a process for identifying representative membership for the team. Groups that need to be invited to join Include other youth serving organizations, health care agencies, business representatives, minority populations and members of the faith community. Diane Vibhakar and Priscilla Alexander reviewed the next steps. Calvin Brady and Amber Mooney conducted the meeting evaluation. November 4,1999 Clementine Kelley welcomed the group of 41 participants. Suellen Vann provided an ice breaker that got everyones brains working. Judy Powers gave an overview of SEDLs CAT conference that was held in Little Rock on October 27-29, 1999. Little Rock representatives who attended were Debbie Milam, Diane Vibhakar, Kaye Rainey, Marion Baldwin, Rita Baldwin, Judy Powers, Essie Middleton, Connie Whitfield, Priscilla Alexander, Mike Vogler, Calvin Bracy and Amber Mooney. Leon Adams took the group through an exercise to refine the drafts of a mission statement that the group had hurriedly written at the end of the previous meeting. December 4,1999 The team met at 7:30 on December 4, 1999 at the Adult Leisure Center. Marion Baldwin facilitated the meeting of 25 participants. The team went through a consensus building activity, using a parable to reach consensus on which characters behavior they most approved of to which they least approved of. The team then reviewed drafts of a mission statement. A small group volunteered to finish the wordsmithing for the teams next meeting. The small group consists of Marion Baldwin, Diane Vibhakar, Barbara Osborne, Rita Baldwin, Sarah Huckabee, Dave Hoffpouir, Judy Powers, Marian Shead Jackson and Dante Smith. They will meet on Tuesday, January 4 at 7:30 a.m. at Dubs. The next CAT meeting is Thursday, January 6 at 7:30 a.m. at the Adult Leisure Center. Barbara Osborne, representing the City, agreed to take care of room arrangements and coffee for the meeting. Each member should bring three priority actions they would like to see the CAT work on this year. The group will spend the meeting reaching consensus on identifying the top priority for the team to address.Consensus Decision Making Consensus decision making is one of the most effective methods of group decision making. It requires that all members agree with the decision to the extent that they can live with it. In other words, even though the decision may not be what an individuals preferred choice of action would be, he or she will agree to support it How Consensus Decision Making Works 1 A member of the team states the proposed decision. 2 The proposal is written on a flip chart or board so that everyone can see it and check it for accuracy and completeness. 3. The facilitator asks each member in turn to talk about whether they support the decision and why or why not. 4. Members of the team who are opposed to the decision can offer their suggestions for modifications or an alternative decision. o. If all members of the team agree they can support the proposed decision, then a consensus exists. No decision is finalized until every member indicates they can live with the decision. Guidelines for Consensus Decision Making Avoid arguing for your own position. Present yourviews as clearly as possible and then listen carefully to the reactions of other members. Avoid personal attacks.  Do not assume that someone must win and someone must lose when the discussion reaches an impasse. Instead, look for the next most acceptable option for all  concerned. Do not change your mind simply to avoid conflict. When agreement seems to come too quickly and easily, be suspicious. Explore the reasons for this and be sure that everyone accepts the decision for similar reasons.' t 13Little Rock School District Collaborative Action Team Mission Statement Our mission is to develop educational partnerships among parents, students, the community, and the district to advocate for the well-being of and to provide opportunitiesall children and youth for the building and strengthening of minds.Little Rock School District Collaborative Action Team Vision Statement To maximize family, school, student, and community involvement so all children and youth may reach their potential.04/17/2000 09:04 5016635631 UALR OCCP PAGE 02 AMMENDMENTS- ChecUist forStudent Re!ttrnnn Plcssfi 3dd the following to the chccldist: T. Handicap Accessibie Adequate  YesQ Inadequate 0 Does each Stan have two handrails YesO Non Commoits? No  tl*e following to foe checklist procedures:  After checking in with foe office, please ask if there is anyone that would like to acwmpany you on your check. This is not needed, however, we want foe schools to know that we are there to help them, not to intrude.04/17/2000 09:04 5016635631 UALR OCCP PAGE 03 RESTROOM CHECKLIST PROCEDURES LRSD Collaborative Action Team  Complete your checklist between ^nil 17 and 21. Go to the schools between 10:30 and 1:30.  Bring your checklist packets with you to each school. Bring the principal letter, as wed, just in case there are any questions.  When you arrive at the school, please notify the office to let them know why you are there. For example, I am here as a representative of the LRSD Collaborative Action Team and we have identified school restrooms as a concern\ntherefixe 1 am here to perform a survey of the restrooms at your schooF. Be sure to ask for a visitors pass/badge. * Ask the office staff if there have been any custodians absent within the last week and how many work at that school  Visit one boy, one girl and a staff bathroom at all the schools. In addition, visit a londergorten class bathroom at the dementary schools.  Fill out checklist - Be very specific with your comments, especuUy if yon check that the area is inadequate. For example: I found the stall doors to be inadequate because 5 out of the 10 stalls had broken locks, or I found the toilet paper inadequate because there was only a roll or less in each stafl at H .00 in the morning  Check out with the office before you leave.  Mail to or bring surveys by Kayo Rainey at 501 Sherman, Little Rock, AR 72202 by April 24. If you prefer, you may \u0026amp;x your checklist to Kaye at 324-2044. Please remember when foxing that there is a fi'ont AND back to the survey.  If you have any questions, call Kaye Rainey at 324-2293 or Heather Gage at 663- 5541. Thank You!lO CD c CL \u0026amp; s (X i CO m co a\u0026gt; r4 IS in s in IS co o o CM S\u0026gt; Senior High Schools 1. cansAt iNTHwinitAi stwhes * ISaOPiAGt,O2 124 2300 2. 4A.FAIH 1342ODlll4Aa.D(XklHA,IO 22S3I6U 1. HAU UNIVEHSin STUDIES 6700-M'a, 05 67I-G2OO 4. UcCiaiANiUSttlESSZ CBMHUMICAItONSAWWET t 9417 Qoifgr Spring RA, 09 570 4100 A PAHnnan arts a ecuke maohet * 2601 Mn Baioi* fl A, 04 226-10011 n*cattonaMbcftn/caf Uucatlon a MEIROPOUTAN CABEER lECRHIGAI CBITBl 7701 ScoU Hwiabn Di., 09 5656485 Middle Schools 7. CLOVBUMUEACMlEMy aaUIMianRl.OS 870 4065 a tWHSARKIEfltiAnOMiSTUHESZ SFTEBSIAianBlEQUCAnSnNASREI * I WO ww All., 00 324 24401 \u0026amp; FOUST liaBHTS 5901 Eimi4rwiDi.,06 67I-S390 to. Hai)Ei|)N REAUHS43BICtSMAGNET* , 401 JdnBoHowHil, OS 22S-M60 II. MASaWLE tOBIIMaOatniaWHA, MakiMe.ARTZIOl 495-7400 IL HORACCHMHt MnSkWEMCEMMlNEr t lOOOE RnuBfellHd., 06 3242400 11. musniifttHTS 467N.I%a\u0026lt;B 671-6250 It BOUIHWesi IMIS-Bnart a. 04 5704070 19. AUERNAIIVEtEARUlNBCailER tt)O/ptiefsinSt,02 3242370 . Elementary Schools ta SA06ETT A BSOOPkmRA.OB 124-2475 17. BAl A 6501 HI BZfut 51,04 570-4060 10 OASOHE A 3S23BaielmtM,0S S7O-4TM 19. BOOWaAHTS WUDIET  201EBatwSL,06 124-2402 20, BRAOT A 79l5W.ttol4iaiiia,05 228-3006 2L CA1WBMSICSIIULS7 HAFH-SCiaCEMASHH t 2100 EM 60) 81,02 324-2460 22. OffiOT A IltflOCtSniUU, MatoM,AH 72103 570^ 23 ttOWHUIAlE A 6900Hli6iaa)ilil.,lR 570^4055 24. DODD A 6423.Sto08ciBcli HA, 04  45S-7430 25. EAR PARK a 61BN.HBnlunSI.,05 671B2M 26. ranurPMK IBIH.r)fcrSl,O7 0716267 I. 6NJAMnFHAIM.IMCaMHLIMIMT)0HS lECHHQLOBVaiMfcKTAfiY 1701 S.HitMi)S).,04 671-6380 2BL FULBRIGlir 3OQPIessafllVski7Dr..l2 228-3080 29. GARUVtU ACADEMY A 3CI5 Hl 256161., 04 671 627S Ml OEYCnSPWNOS 6240 Mabilvala nils. 09 67O4t\u0026gt; II. GIBBS FOHBON LAHOlUUieSZ niEHMAnoMIU. STUDIES HACNH t i11SHltiiSt,02 3242490 32. HMmNUniBMUfi,JR.H6HIRTBKin LEARNMGlNrannSTAICTMAStlET   A SSSMutlLuUiai K10D,Jr.DL,02 324-2135 n JEI7ERB0M 2SOOH.Md\u0026lt;]hley.07 671^11 H MABGUUHE A BOOIMabcIvalgQil-^, UMidwl, AR 72103 466-7420 38. McOBIMDFT 1200R\u0026gt;w(Vo\u0026lt;rHd.,07 220-3072 n IKADDWCUFF ZSSlHiilonOr^ra STIMtCS 37. mrCIfiL ACADEMY Of CREJUIVE DRAMATIC ARTS A 2410B0tlMya,0B 324-2415 . Onra CREEK 160(0llBiOl(Pt(n7.,09 456-7440 anrUASHHEIEms ai8M.nriBSt,05 6ZI-62Sa 411. flienTauLAuumrA Dtiw.teisi,08 . 324 2430 41. ROCKHEUEBEIBIETFIARITUtOEARIYCHUIIIOOD MAGHET SGHDCN. t A 7O0E.17lha.O8 324-2385 42. ftOMRECOMFinERSCIBlIXAHD DASICdnilS HTEJUHSimCT f 3400 RoitiAiaFlA.IH 228-3086 41 TEBRY 10800 Mm Lynn Di., 11 220-3603 44. WJUUUU) 76 IMutnOOsta 01,69 S70 4IIU a. booker T-WAIHMSTOH BASIC SnUS/MATR-SCENCE MASWTUnamSTIUGT * 4 A 1l5W.27ltia,O6 324-2470 46. MATSON A 70lViiltavDr.,.a 670-4166 4t UESTBWHUS 4901 WnM Hills, M S7O-\u0026lt;(7S \u0026lt; WtXWUSBASCSNUSMABMn * 730|ES(Bnana,07 E7l-B3li3 40i muoli A 4OI5SlBni1uR4.,O4 670-4160 Sa WOOHHUFf A 30l0W7lh,05 671-6270 2804/17/2000 09:04 5016635631 UALR OCCP PAGE 06 Date April 12,2000 To: Principals From: Betsy Johnson (Community Member) LRSD Collaborative Action Team I am writing on behalf of die Collaborative Action Team (CAT) of the Little Rock School District CAT represents concerned parents, students, LRSD staff, and members of the community who are interested in the improvement of our schools. Responding to student CAT members, who identified sanitary conditions at their schools as a concern, CAT is sending volunteers to tour school restrooms. The site visit to your school will take place between April 14* and April 21*. We will ask the CAT volunteer to check in at the office when they arrive, and to check out when they have completed their tour. We would appreciate your office answering the following questions for the volunteers: Have there been any custodians absent from your staff within die past week? If so, how many hours/days have the custodians been absent? Thanks you for your cooperation. If you have questions or comments, please contact me at 320-5150. cc: Dr. Bonnie Lesley 04/17/2000 09:04 5016635631 UALR OCCP PAGE 07 COLLABORATIVE ACTION TEAM SITE VISIT CHECKLIST FOR STUDENT RESTROOMS SCHOOL: _____ Checklist Completed by\nDate: ____________Time: Location of restroom 1. 2. 3. 4. Girls Cl Custodial Staff # of staff Comments:___ Boys  Kindergarten D Staff  Any absent this week? Yes  How many? No  Supplies available and adequate: So^ Adequate Q Comments: Toilet paper Adequate Q Comments\n_ How many dispensers? Inadequate Q How many stalls? Inadequate D Paper towels How many dispensers? Adequate D Comments: Inadequate O Privacy insured\nDoor to the hallway remains closed Comments:__________ Stall doors Adequate O Comments\nInadequate Cl Locks for stall doors Adequate Q Comments:________ Inadequate Q None Cl None  None Cl Yes  Yes  Yes  No  No  No  Utilities: Running water Adequate Q Comments:___ Inadequate Q Yes  No Cl Hot running water Adequate D Comments\n______ Inadequate Q Yes  No  Site Checklist 04/13/00 104/17/2060 09:04 5016635631 UALR OCCP PAGE 08 lights Adequate O Comments: Inadequate Q * Temperature control Adequate Q\nComments- Inadequate Q 5. Ventilation\nFans  Comments: Inadequate D 6, Yes  Yes  Yes  No  No  No Q Adequate Deodorizer Adequate E3 Comments: Inadequate D Yes  No O Cleanliness\nDry floors Adequate Q Comments: Inadequate Q Yes  No  Clean floors Adequate Q Comments: Inadequate Q Yes  No  Trash cans emptied Adequate O Comments\n_____ Inadequate Q Yes  No  Toilets cleaned Adequate Q Comments: Inadequate Q Yes  No  Sinks cleaned Adequate D Comments\nInadequate Q Yes  No  Mirrors cleaned Adequate D Comments: Inadequate O Yes  No  Site decklist 04/13/00 204/17/2000 09:04 5016635631 UALR OCCP PAGE 09 collaborative action team SITE VISIT CHECKLIST FOR STUDENT RESTROOMS SCHOOL: Checklist Completed by: Date: ___________ Time: Location of restroom 1. 2. 3. 4. GirE D Custodial Staff # of staff_____ Comments: Boys Q Kindergarten D Staff D Any absent this week? Yes  How many? No n Supplies available and adequate: Soap Adequate D Comments: Toilet paper Adequate  Comments\nHow many dispensers? Inadequate O None  How many ^E? Inadequate Q None D Paper toweb How many dispensers? Adequate D Comments: Inadequate O None  Privacy insured\nDoor to the hallway remains closed Comments: Yes  No  Stall doors Adequate D Comments: Inadequate Q Locks for stall doors Adequate D Comments\nInadequate Q Yes  Yes  No  No O Utilities: Running water Adequate O Comments\nInadequate Q Yes  No  Hot running water Adequate D Comments: Inadequate Q Yes  No  Site Checklist 04/13/00 104/17/2000 03:04 5016635631 UALR OCCP PAGE 10 5. 6. Lights Adequate Q Comments: Inadequate O ' Temperature control Adequate d ! CoTrunenTs- Inadequate O Yes  Yes  No  No  Ventilation\nFans . d Comments: Deodorizer Adequate d Comment!!- Cleanliness: Dry floors Adequate d Comments: Clean floors Adequate d Comments\nInadequate Q Inadequate D Inadequate Q Inadequate Q Yes  Yes  Yes  Yes  No O Adequate No  No  No  Trash cans emptied Adequate D Comments\nInadequate O Yes  No  Toilets cleaned Adequate d Comments: Inadequate D Yes  No  Sinks cleaned Adequate O Coaunents: Inadequate D Yes d No  Mirrors cleaned Adequate d Comments: Inadequate Q Yes  No  Site Checklist 04/13/00 204/17/2000 09:04 5016635631 UALR OCCP PAGE 11 COLLABORATIVE ACTION TEAM SITE VISIT CHECKLIST FOR STUDENT RESTROOMS SCHOOL\n________ Checklist Completed by: Date: ___________ Time: Location of restroom 1. 2. 3. 4. Girls O Custodial Staff # of staff_____ Comments:___ Boys  Kindergarten D Staff D Any absent this week? Yes  How many? No  Supplies available and adequate: Soap Adequate Conaments: Toilet paper Adequate Q Comments: How many dispensers? Inadequate Q How many stalls? Inadequate O Paper towels How many dispensers? Adequate Q Comments\n_ Inadequate Q Privacy insured\nDoor to the hallway remains closed Comments: Stall doors Adequate D Comments: Inadequate O Locks for stall doors Adequate  Comments\n_______ Inadequate Q None  None  None  Yes  Yes  Yes  No  No  No  Utilities: Running water Adequate Q Comments:___ Inadequate D Yes  No  Hot running water Adequate D Comments\n______ Inadequate CH Yes n No  Site Checklist 04/13/00 104/17/2000 09:04 5016635631 UALR OCCP PAGE 12 5. 6. Li^ts Adequate d Comments: Inadequate D  Temperature control Adequate Q Comments: Inadequate Q Yes  Yes  No  No  Ventilation. Fans Comments: Deodorizer Adequate D Conoments: Cleanliness: Dry floors Adequate Q Comments: Clean floors Adequate Q Comments: Yes  Inadequate Q Inadequate D Inadequate ED Inadequate Q Yes  Yes  Yes  No n Adequate No  No  No  Trash cans emptied Adequate Q Comments: Inadequate O Yes  No  Toilets cleaned Adequate D Comments: Inadequate O Yes  No  Sinks cleaned Adequate Q Comments: Inadequate d Yes  No  Mirrors cleaned Adequate D CnmrngntS' Inadequate D Yes  No  Site Checklist 04/13/00 204/17/2000 09:04 5016635631 UALR OCCP PAGE 13 COLLABORATIVE ACTION TEAM SITE VISIT CHECKLIST FOR STUDENT RESTROOMS SCHOOL: Checklist Completed by\nDate: ____________ Time: Location of restroom 1. 2. 3. 4. Girls Q Boys  Kindergarten O Staff D Custodial Staff # of staff_____ Comments: Any absent this week? Yes  How many? No  Supplies available and adequate: Soap Adequate Q Comments: Toilet paper Adequate O Comments\nHow many dispensers? Inadequate O How many stalls? Inadequate Q Paper towels How many dispensers? Adequate Q Comments\nInadequate D Privacy insured\nDoor to the hallway remains closed Comments: Stall doors Adequate D Comments: Inadequate D None D None  None n Yes Q Yes  No  No  Locks for stall doors Adequate D Comments: Inadequate Q Yes  No  Utilities: Running water Adequate O Comments\nInadequate D Yes  No  Hot running water Adequate O Comments\nInadequate EJ Yes  No  She Checklist 104/17/2000 09:04 5016635631 UALR OCCP PAGE 14 5. 6. Lights Adequate d Comments: ' Temperature control Adequate d j Comments\nInadequate O Yes  No  Yes n No  Ventilation\nFans d Comments: Deodorizer Adequate d Comments: Cleanliness\nDry floors Adequate d Comments\nClean floors Adequate Q Comments' Inadequate Q Inadequate D Inadequate Q Inadequate Q Yes  Yes  Yes C Yes  No n Adequate No  No n No  Trash cans emptied Adequate d Comments: Inadequate O Yes  No O Toilets cleaned Adequate D Comments: Inadequate D Yes  No  Sinks cleaned Adequate d Comments\nInadequate O Yes D No  Mirrors cleaned Adequate O Comments\nInadequate D Yes  No  Site Checklist 04/13/00 204/17/2000 09:04 5016635631 UALR OCCP PAGE 15 COLLABORATIVE ACTION TEAM SITE VISIT CHECKLIST FOR STUDENT RESTROOMS SCHOOL: ________ Checklist Completed by: Date\n____________ Time: Location of restroom 1. 2. 3. 4. Girls O Custodial Staff # of staff_____ Cominefits- Boys  Kindergarten Q Staff Q Any absent this week? Yes  How many? No  Supplies available and adequate\nSoap Adequate Cl Comments: Toilet paper Adequate El Comments: How many dispensers? Inadequate El How many stalls^ Inadequate El Paper towels How many dispensers? Adequate C Connments: Inadequate D Privacy insured: Door to the hallway remains closed Comments: Stall doors Adequate Q Comments: Inadequate  None n None Q None  Yes  Yes  No  No  Locks for stall doors Adequate Q Comments: Inadequate Q Yes  No  Utilities\nRunning water Adequate Q Comments- Inadequate O Yes  No  Hot running water Adequate O Comments: Inadequate O Yes  No  SneCheckKst 04/13/00 104/17/2000 03:04 5016635631 UALR OCCP PAGE 16 5. 6. Lights Adequate Q Comments\nInadequate D Yes  No  Temperature control Adequate d\nComments: Inadequate D Yes  No  Ventilation: Fans d Commente- Deodorizer Adequate Q Comments- CleanliQess: Dry floors Adequate O Comments\nClean floors Adequate d Comments: Inadequate Q Inadequate D Inadequate Q Inadequate D Yes  Yes n Yes D Yes  No  Adequate No  No  No  Trash cans emptied Adequate d Comments\nInadequate O Yes O No  Toilets cleaned Adequate Q Comments: Inadequate Q Yes  No  Sinks cleaned Adequate D Comments: Inadequate Q Y,s  No  Mirrors cleaned Adequate O Comments: Inadequate Q Yes D No  Site Checklist 04/13/00 204/17/2000 09:04 5016635631 UALR OCCP PAGE 17 COLLABORATIVE ACTION TEAM SITE VISIT CHECKLIST FOR STUDENT RESTROOMS SCHOOL: ________ Checklist Completed by: Date: ___________Time\nLocation of restroom  1. 2. 3. 4. Girls Q Custodial Staff # of staff_____ Comments\n___ Boys  Kindergarten Q Staff Q Any absent this week? Yes  . How many? No n Supplies available and adequate\nSoap Adequate Q Comments: Toilet paper Adequate E3 Comments: How many dispensers? Inadequate Q How many stalls? Inadequate Q Paper towels Sow many dispensers? Adequate CD Comments: Inadequate D Privacy insured: Door to the hallway remains closed Comments: Stall doors Adequate C Comments: Inadequate O Locks for stall doors Adequate D Comments\nInadequate D None  None Q None Q Yes  No  Yes  Yes  No  No  Utilities: Running water Adequate D Comments: Inadequate Q Yes  No  Hot running water Adequate d Comments\nInadequate Q Yes Q No  Site Checklist 04/13/00 104/17/2000 09:04 5016635631 UALR OCCP PAGE 18 \\ 5. 6. Lights Adequate O Commentg- Inadequate Q Temperature control Adequate D\nComments: Inadequate O Yes  Yes  No O No  Ventilation\nFans Comments: Deodorizer Adequate D Comments: Cleanliness\nDry floors Adequate Q Comments: Clean floors Adequate Q Comments: Inadequate O Inadequate D Inadequate O Inadequate O Yes  Yes  Yes  Yes  No  Adequate No  No  No  Trash cans emptied Adequate D Comments\nInadequate Q Yes  No  Toilets cleaned Adequate  Comments: Inadequate D Yes  No  Sinks cleaned Adequate O Comments: Inadequate Q Yes D No  Mirrors cleaned Adequate D Comments: Inadequate D Yes  No  Site Checklist 04/13/00 2-04/17/2000 09:04 5016635631 UALR OCCP 19 COLLABORATIVE ACTION TEAM SITE VISIT CHECKLIST FOR STUDENT RESTROOMS SCHOOL: Checklist Convicted by\nDate\n_____________ Time\nLocation of restroom Girls  Boys  Kindergarten D Staff O  1. Custodial Staff # of staff_____ Comments: Any absent this week? Yes  How many? No  Supplies available and adequate\nSoap Adequate Q Comments' How many dispensers? Inadequate O None  3. 4. Toilet paper Adequate Q Comments\nHow many stalls? Inadequate Q None Q Paper towels How many dispensers? Adequate Q Comments: Inadequate Q None  Privacy insured: Door to the hallway remains closed Comments\nStall doors Adequate Q Comments: Inadequate D Yes  No  Yes  No  Locks for stall doors Adequate O Comments: Inadequate d Yes  No  Utilities: Running water Adequate O Comments: Inadequate Q Yes  No  Hot running water Adequate Q Comments: Inadequate Q Yes  No  Site Checklist 04/13/00 104/17/2000 09:04 5016635631 UALR OCCP PAGE 20 5. 6. Li^ts Adequate D Comments\nInadequate D Yes  No  ' Temperature control Adequate d Comments: Inadequate O Yes n No  Ventilation: Fans  Comments\nDeodorizer Adequate d Comm ante Cleanliness\nDry floors Adequate d Comments: Clean floors Adequate d Comment\n- Inadequate Q Inadequate Q Inadequate Q Inadequate O Yes D Yes n Yes d Yes n No O Adequate No  No  No  Trash cans emptied Adequate d Comments\nInadequate Q Yes  No  Toilets cleaned Adequate d Comment\n- Inadequate D Yes  No  Sinks cleaned Adequate d Comments: Inadequate O Yes  No D Mirrors cleaned Adequate d Comments: Inadequate Q Yes  No  Site Checklist 04/13/0004/17/2000 09:04 5016635631 UALR OCCP PAGE 21 COLLABORATIVE ACTION TEAM SITE VISIT CHECKLIST FOR STUDENT RESTROOMS SCHOOL: Checklist Completed by: Date: ____________Time: Location of restroom 1. 2. 3. 4. Girls d Custodial Staff # of staff_____ Comm ante- Boys  Kindergarten D Staff ID Any absent this week? Yes d How many? No  Sapplies available and adequate\nSoap Adequate d Comments: Toilet paper Adequate d Comments\nHow many dispensers? Inadequate d How many stalls? Inadequate d Paper towels How many dispensers? Adequate d Comments\nInadequate Q Privacy insured\nDoor to the hallway remains closed Comments\nStall doors Adequate d Comments\nInadequate D Locks for stall doors Adequate d Comments\nInadequate ID None  None ID None  Yes  Yes  Yes  No  No  No  Utilities: Running water Adequate d Comments: Inadequate ID Yes  No  Hot running water Adequate d Comments: Inadequate ID Yes  No  Site Checklist 04/13/00 104/17/2000 09:04 5016635631 UALR OCCP PAGE 5. 6. \\ Li^ts Adequate d Comments: Inadequate O ' Temperature control Adequate d Comment\n' Inadequate D Yes  Yes  No  No  Ventilation: Fans  Comments: Deodorizer Adequate d Comments\nCleanliness: Dry floors Adequate d Comments\nClean floors Adequate d Comments\nYes  TnaHequate^ O Inadequate D Inadequate d Inadequate D Yes Q Yes  Yes  No D Adequate No  No  No  Trash cans emptied Adequate d Comments: Inadequate d Yes O No  Toilets cleaned Adequate d Comments: Inadequate d Yes  No d Sinks cleaned Adequate d Comments: Inadequate d Yes  No d Mirrors cleaned Adequate d Comments: Inadequate D Yes d No d Site Checklist 04/13/00 2Student Perception of the Physical Appearance of their School In the spring of 2000, elementary students, grades 4 and 5, were surveyed as to their perception of the physical appearance of their school. All schools collected and reported data. Attached, is a sample of the survey and results by school. Students rated their schools condition and general cleanliness mostly fair or poor. They felt that the bathrooms were in the most need of cleaning and that soap was needed in these bathrooms. Students felt that it was the custodians responsibility to keep their school clean and interestingly enough students rated themselves third on this list. Schools need to begin building positive student perceptions and students need to take ownership in keeping their school clean. Except for Fair Park and Mitchell there appears to be adequate response by the 4* and 5'* grade students to the survey. Students felt that the bathrooms were the number one facility that needed the most repairs and cleaning, followed by the cafeteria and hallways. However, students at Carver (13%), Chicot (13%), Wakefield (9%) and Williams (7%) reported no repairs were needed. In general, only a little over a third (38.7%) of the students rated the general conditions of their school as excellent or good. Students at Carver (70%), Cloverdale (57.9%), and Geyer Springs (67.1%) were examples of some exceptions to this general feeling. Student feelings about the general cleanliness of the schools were lower than the previous question on school conditions, with only 33.5% of students rating their school as excellent or good. Again, Carver (48.8%), Cloverdale (62.1%), and Geyer Springs (53.9%) were some of the exceptions to the general feeling about cleanliness. Students reported that soap in the bathrooms was the number one supply item not available. Soap was followed by tissue and paper towels in the bathrooms as those items most often not available. Students at Baseline (19%), Cloverdale (15%), Gibbs (12%), Jefferson (15%), Otter Creek (14%), Rockefeller (31%), and Wilson (17%) reported that all supplies are available. Question six could be problematic. The design of the survey appears to have limited the response or guided students to a specific response. Most students considered mice or bugs as the primary sanitation problem. The question probably should have been posed as Is there a sanitation problem at your school? However, a number of students reported no problems, (i.e., Bale 13%, Baseline 17%, Carver 19%, Cloverdale 21%, Gibbs 16%, and Williams 18%). Finally, students ranked custodians as the most responsible for the cleanliness of the schools. Students ranked everyone second and themselves third. With some exceptions students are not pleased with the condition or cleanliness of their school. It is probably not surprising that bathrooms were rated as the facility most in need of repair. The data from question six on the primary sanitation problem should be considered unreliable. Interestingly enough, students did not consider themselves as the primary entity for keeping their school clean. Schools should review their results on this survey and begin the process of building positive student perception and students need to take ownership in keeping their school clean. LRSD Collaborative Action Team (CAT) 1 11/06/01LRSD Collaborative Section Team (CAT) School survey for Students: A Survey of 4th and Sth Grade Students Spring 2000 1. What do you consider to be the facility that is in the most need of repair? School Badgett Bale Baseline Booker Brady Carver Chicot Cloverdale Dodd Fair Park Forest Park Franklin Fulbright_____ Garland Geyer Springs Gibbs Jefferson King_________ Mabelvale McDermott Meadowcliff Mitchell Otter Creek Pulaski Heights Rightsell______ Rockefeller Romine Terry________ Wakefield Washington Watson Western Hills Williams Wilson Woodruff Total Bathrooms Cafeteria 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 6 2 3 2 5 4 3 3 2 5 4 3 3 2 2 2 5 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 4 4 5 5 2 2 3 2 2 Hallways 5 4 4 4 4 6 4 5 5 4 2 4 4 3 4 3 2 5 4 3 5 5 3 6 4 4 5 2 3 3 4 4 4 5 4 3 Classrooms Auditorium 4 3 5 5 3 2 7 4 4 3 5 5 2 4 5 4 4 4 3 4 4 3 4 4 2 3 3 5 2 2 6 5 7 6 3 4 2 6 2 6 _6 _5 5 _2 6  3 2   7 6 6 7_ 1  3 6 7 3_  6 4 3 5 4 3  3 4 5 5 Gym 3 5 7 3 2 3 2 6 3 1 7 6 7 1 3 1 3 2 6 7 1 6 7 6 5 1 1 6 6 2 3 5 2 1 6 No Repairs are Media Center Needed 7 1 6 7 1 1 6 7 1 1 6 1 5 6 6 5 7 6 5 5 6 7 5 5 1 7 6 6 7 1 7 1 6 7 6 1 0% 0% 6% 0% 6% 2% 13% 13% 0% 0% 2% 1% 2% 1% 7% 1% 2% 0% 1% 7% 0% 4% 1% 1% 3% 0% 1% 2% 9% 1% 1% 2% 7% 0% 0% 3%LRSD Collaborative Section Team (CAT) School survey for Students\nA Survey of 4th and 5th Grade Students Spring 2000 2. How would you rate the general conditions of the facilities at your school? Badgett Bale Baseline Booker Brady Carver Chicot Cloverdale Dodd Fair Park Forest Park Franklin Fulbright_____ Garland Geyer Springs Gibbs Jefferson King_________ Mabelvale McDermott Meadowcliff Mitchell Otter Creek Pulaski Heights Rightsell______ Rockefeller Romine Terry________ Wakefield Washington Watson Western Hills Williams Wilson Woodruff Total Excellent 7.3% 8.2% 18.2% 4.8% 6.3% 10.9% 13.5% 2.6% 4.1% 0.0% 7.2% 4.8% 2.3% 4.3% 21.5% 21.7% 5.1% 35.0% 14.1% 8.9% 5.4% 11.4% 7.7% 1.2% 0.0% 21.9% 1.4% 3.9% 1.6% 10.9% 4.8% 8.1% 6.4% 5.3% 8.2% 8.4% Good 4.9% 19.7% 37.7% 39.4% 7.8% 55.1% 18.1% 55.3% 14.3% 41.7% 44.3% 8.6% 35.7% 10.1% 45.6% 33.7% 35.9% 35.0% 21.7% 30.0% 14.9% 31.6% 34.6% 24.1% 8.8% 42.7% 25.7% 35.3% 6.3% 35.0% 5.7% 47.5% 45.9% 27.6% 28.8% 30.3% Fair 9.8% 49.2% 24.7% 46.1% 43.8% 27.6% 49.0% 36.8% 34.7% 33.3% 39.2% 33.3% 41.1% 55.1% 21.5% 25.3% 41.0% 20.0% 30.4% 54.4% 47.3% 39.5% 42.3% 38.6% 49.1% 28.1% 50.0% 48.4% 19.0% 40.1% 33.3% 27.3% 38.5% 48.7% 49.3% 38.7% Poor 78.0% 23.0% 19.5% 9.7% 42.2% 6.4% 19.4% 5.3% 46.9% 25.0% 9.3% 53.3% 20.9% 30.4% 11.4% 19.3% 17.9% 10.0% 33.7% 6.7% 32.4% 17.5% 15.4% 36.1% 42.1% 7.3% 22.9% 12.4% 73.0% 13.9% 56.2% 17.2% 9.2% 18.4% 13.7% 22.6% Average Number of Students Resending to All of the Questions on the Survey 43 62 84 166 64 166 161 39 49 12 107 109 131 69 85 86 122 21 95 97 77 118 80 86 59 99 74 164 68 146 108 101 116 77 74 3215LRSD Collaborative Section Team (CAT) School survey for Students: A Survey of 4th and 5th Grade Students Spring 2000 3. How would you rate the cleanliness of the facilities at your school? Badgett Bale Baseline Booker Brady Carver Chicot Cloverdale Dodd Fair Park Forest Park Franklin Fulbright Garland Geyer Springs Gibbs Jefferson King_________ Mabelvale McDermott Meadowcliff Mitchell Otter Creek Pulaski Heights Rightsell______ Rockefeller Romine Terry________ Wakefield Washington Watson______ Western Hills Williams Wilson Woodruff Total Excellent 4.9% 5.0% 17.9% 2.5% 3.2% 8.8% 16.4% 13.5% 6.1% 0.0% 5.0% 3.7% 7.8% 7.2% 21.8% 27.8% 7.0% 0.0% 11.7% 9.2% 2.6% 12.4% 2.6% 5.9% 6.9% 14.7% 2.9% 7.0% 0.0% 11.9% 5.7% 12.0% 10.5% 9.3% 12.3% 9.0% Good 9.8% 30.0% 32.1% 17.5% 6.3% 40.0% 18.9% 48.6% 16.3% 0.0% 40.6% 17.8% 22.5% 15.9% 32.1% 34.2% 25.4% 28.6% 20.2% 25.3% 11.8% 22.1% 19.7% 16.2% 20.7% 38.9% 21.7% 32.3% 3.4% 26.7% 12.3% 31.5% 27.2% 30.7% 21.9% 24.5% Fair 22.0% 33.3% 26.9% 43.8% 25.4% 41.9% 39.6% 32.4% 34.7% 33.3%, 42.6% 29.9% 34.1% 50.7% 32.1%, 30.4%o 48.2% 42.9% 38.3% 50.6% 42.1% 33.6%, 28.9%o 48.5%o 41.4%, 32.6%. 52.2%, 36.1% 25.4% 40.0% 22.6% 37.0% 47.4% 28.0%, 37.0% 37.5% Poor 63.4% 31,7% 23.1% 36.3% 65.1% 9.4% 25.2% 5.4% 42.9% 66.7% 11.9% 48.6% 35.7% 26.1% 14.1% 7.6% 19.3% 28.6% 29.8% 14.9% 43.4% 31.9% 48.7% 29.4% 31.0% 13.7% 23.2% 24.7% 71.2% 21.5% 59.4% 19.6% 14.9% 32.0% 28.8% 29.0%LRSD Collaborative Section Team (CAT) School survey for Students\nA Survey of 4th and 5th Grade Students Spring 2000 4. What do you consider to be the facility you feel is in the most need of cleaning? Bathrooms Cafeteria Badgett Bale Baseline Booker Brady Carver Chicot Cloverdale Dodd Fair Park Forest Park Franklin Fulbright Garland Geyer Springs Gibbs Jefferson King_________ Mabelvale McDermott Meadowcliff Mitchell Otter Creek Pulaski Heights Rightsell______ Rockefeller Romine Terry________ Wakefield Washington Watson Western Hills Williams Wilson Woodruff Total 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 4 4 2 2 4 2 2 2 2 4 3 3 2 2 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 2 2 6 2 2 3 6 4 3 4 2 3 2 2 Hallways Classrooms Auditorium 3 6 5 4 3 5 4 4 1 3 4 4 4 3 4 3 3 5 4 3 5 4 3 6 3 4 5 2 2 2 2 3 4 6 5 3 2 5 3 5 2 4 6 6 4 5 5 5 3 4 5 4 4 3 3 4 4 2 4 4 4 6 3 5 3 3 5 2 5 5 3 4 2 4 6 6 6 5 3 5 6 2 2 5 5 6 6 6 4 6 6 3 5 1 3 5 5 4 4 5 5 4 6 3 4 4 5 Gym 3 1 3 5 3 3 5 3 2 7 6 7 6 2 1 5 7 1 1 7 6 6 7 2    6     6 All Facilities Media Center are Clean 5 7 6 7 1 7 1 1 6 1 6 1 6 7 1 5 1 'o 5 5 6 7 5 5 2 1 1 6 7 1 7 1 1 1 6 7 0% 0% 12% 1% 3% 5% 12% 15% 0% 0% 5% 6% 2% 0% 2% 10% 4% 0% 5% 6% 0% 7% 5% 0% 0% 15% 3% 2% 1% 3% 7% 4% 6% 1% 12% 5%LRSD Collaborative Section Team (CAT) School survey for Students: A Survey of 4th and 5th Grade Students Spring 2000 5. What do you consider to be the supply item which is most often not available? Soap in the Tissue in the bathrooms bathrooms Badgett Bale Baseline Booker Brady Carver Chicot Cloverdale Dodd Fair Park Forest Park Franklin Fulbright Garland Geyer Springs Gibbs Jefferson King_________ Mabelvale McDermott Meadowcliff Mitchell Otter Creek Pulaski Heights Rightsell_____ Rockefeller Romine Terry________ Wakefield Washington Watson Western Hills Williams Wilson Woodruff Total 2 2 2 1 1 1 3 1 3 1 1 4 1 2 1 1 1 3 2 1 1 1 2 1 1 4 1 2 1 1 3 4 1 1 2 1 4 1 3 2 3 2 1 2 1 3 3 3 2 3 2 2 2 1 1 2 2 2 1 2 3 3 2 4 4 2 2 3 2 2 3 2 Paper towels in the bathrooms 3 3 1 3 2 4 2 4 4 2 2 2 3 1 3 3 4 2 4 3 3 3 3 3 2 1 3 1 3 3 4 2 3 3 4 3 Working pencil All sharpener in Trashcans Supplies the in the are classrooms bathrooms Available 1 4 4 4 4 3 4 3 2 4 4 1 4 4 5 4 3 4 3 4 4 4 5 4 4 2 4 3 2 5 1 1 4 5 1 4 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 4 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 4 5 5 5 5 5 5 4 5 5 5 4 5 5 2% 0% 19% 1% 6% 7% 9% 15% 8% 0% 5% 9% 2% 3% 1% 12% 15% 10% 9% 9% 3% 10% 14% 5% 0% 31% 0% 7% 10% 3% 4% 5% 3% 17% 11% 8%LRSD Collaborative Section Team (CAT) School survey for Students\nA Survey of 4th and Sth Grade Students Spring 2000 6. What do you consider to be the primary sanitation problem at your school? Badgett______ Bale________ Baseline Booker______ Brady_______ Carver______ Chicot_______ Cloverdale Dodd________ Fair Park Forest Park Franklin_____ Fulbright_____ Garland______ Geyer Springs Gibbs________ Jefferson King_________ Mabelvale McDermott Meadowcliff Mitchell______ Otter Creek Pulaski Heights Rightsell______ Rockefeller Romine______ Terry________ Wakefield Washington Watson______ Western Hills Williams______ Wilson_______ Woodruff mice or bugs mice or bugs mice or bugs mice or bugs mice or bugs mice or bugs mice or bugs foui odors mice or bugs mice or bugs foul odors mice or bugs foul odors mice or bugs foul odors foul odors foul odors foul odors mice or bugs foul odors mice or bugs foul odors foul odors foul odors other mice or bugs mice or bugs foul odors mice or bugs mice or bugs mice or bugs foul odors foul odors foul odors mice or bugs (Mold \u0026amp; Mildew) Total There are no sanitation problems at my school. 2% 13% 17% 2% 6% 19% 5% 21% 8% 0% 9% 5% 6% 0% 7% 16% 2% 5% 6% 11% 1% 3% 8% 3% 0% 6% 4% 12% 1% 4% 3% 12% 19% 1% 11% 7%LRSD Collaborative Section Team (CAT) School survey for Students\nA Survey of 4th and 5th Grade Students Spring 2000 7. Who is responsible for the cleanliness of you school? Badgett Bale Baseline Booker Brady Carver Chicot Cloverdale Dodd Fair Park Forest Park Franklin Fulbright Garland Geyer Springs Gibbs Jefferson King_________ Mabelvale McDermott Meadowcliff Mitchell Otter Creek Pulaski Heights Rightsell______ Rockefeller Romine Terry________ Wakefield Washington Watson Western Hills Williams Wilson Woodruff_____ Total Principal 16% 10% 13% 12% 16% 14% 12% 11% 14% 23% 13% 10% 14% 19% 9% 15% 11% 17% 16% 15% 10% 10% 18% 8% 16% 14% 16% 14% 8% 6% 15% 17% 15% 11% 15% 13% Custodians 18% 24% 26% 27% 22% 23% 31% 33% 39% 19% 19% 20% 32% 23% 30% 25% 25% 25% 28% 23% 18% 23% 28% 27% 25% 23% 21% 25% 26% 29% 28% 21% 30% 26% 24% 25% Heopie irom the community 5% 2% 2% 3% 1% 4% 5% 3% 1% 2% 5% 7% 4% 2% 4% 2% 3% 4% 5% 3% 7% 3% 1% 5% 6% 4% 3% 2% 0% 9% 2% 2% 1% 2% 4% 4% T eachers 9% 6% 5% 13% 17% 13% 10% 9% 11% 21% 15% 11% 12% 17% 10% 15% 12% 16% 14% 11% 8% 12% 14% 11% 12% 13% 13% 13% 9% 10% 11% 15% 14% 12% 14% 12% btuoents, including myself 11% 13% 10% 18% 18% 18% 18% 21% 9% 13% 17% 13% 14% 17% 20% 17% 19% 16% 15% 13% 18% 20% 24% 16% 18% 18% 11% 17% 22% 20% 13% 18% 19% 17% 15% 17% Everyone 22% 39% 35% 16% 16% 13% 14% 19% 24% 13% 17% 21% 13% 17% 15% 16% 21% 10% 12% 17% 28% 21% 9% 19% 14% 15% 21% 13% 30% 16% 26% 18% 13% 22% 21% 18% Parents 5% 2% 2% 3% 0% 7% 1% 0% 1% 4% 6% 5% 3% 1% 9% 5% 3% 3% 3% 7% 2% 5% 3% 5% 3% 8% 10% 6% 0% 2% 2% 2% 2% 4% 2% 4% siuaents, noi including myself 7% 4% 5% 4% 8% 3% 5% 3% 0% 2% 2% 8% 6% 2% 1% 3% 4% 6% 3% 2% 5% 3% 3% 5% 3% 2% 5% 3% 5% 3% 2% 4% 5% 2% 3% 4% Visitors ~6^ 1% 2% 4% 2% 4% 4% 1% 1% 2% 6% 5% 3% 2% 2% 2% 3% 3% 4% 8% 4% 1% 2% 4% 2% 3% 1% 7% 0% 4% 2% 2% 2% 4% 4% 3%Parent Involvement Survey In the fall of 2000, volunteers from LRSDs Collaborative Action Team (CAT) collected survey information data from parents attending their respective schools open house. Data from 17 schools, (i.e. 10 elementary, 5 middle, and 2 high schools) were collected and reported. Attached to this report is a copy of the survey and survey results by level. Survey results are aggregated by level and disaggregated by school. Across all levels parents report being involved by encouraging their child to read, attending conferences and school functions, by monitoring homework, taking their children to the library and volunteering. There was a lack of parent response to the questions on the timing and frequency of communications. This made analysis difficult. Parents felt they could be more involved if they understood the curriculum, could be offered workshops, had evening conferences with teachers, and have a homework hot line. The results of this survey should not be generalized to the whole school district. The school surveyed should use this data to build parent involvement through workshops and evening conferences. The next three paragraphs summarize the survey data by level. Parents from Bale, Brady, Franklin, Mitchell, Rightsell, Romine, Wakefield, Western Hills, Wilson, and Woodruff participated in the survey. The number of parents completing the elementary survey ranged from 5 to 27 per school. Most parents reported that they involved themselves in their childs education by encouraging their child to read, attending conferences and school functions, and by monitoring homework. Parents reported that their job interferes the most when trying to become more involved with the school. Some other interferences were lack of at home assistance that parent could provide the schools and not being given a list of volunteer activities. Parents felt that the quality of communications was good, and that letters and newsletters were the most common form of communications. A number of parents, across all levels, did not complete the questions on the timing and frequency of communications. Those parents that did respond reported that most communications occuned 2-3 days prior to an event and that some type of communications occurred weekly. When asked how the schools could help them, as parents become more involved, parents responded equally with understanding the curriculum, workshops, and evening conferences with teachers. Parents from Southwest, Mann, Mabelvale, Forest Heights, and Cloverdale middle schools participated in the survey. The number of parents completing the elementary survey ranged from 12 to 21 per school. Middle school parents only differed from their elementary counterparts in the method and frequency of communications and support form school. Middle level parents tended to get more telephone calls than letters and typically received communications on a monthly rather than weekly basis. Finally, parents reported that a homework hot line would be very helpful towards involving parents. Parents from Central (N = 26) and Parkview (N = 13) High schools participated in the survey. High school parents from these two schools reported taking their children to the library and volunteering more than their middle and elementary peers. High school parents had similar interferences, to school involvement, as their middle and elementary peers. LRSD Collaborative Action Team (CAT) 1 11/06/01Parents rated the quality of communications as OK and typically received this information on a monthly basis. High school parents also felt that the homework hot line would be beneficial. Data were collected on only a third of the school in the District. As such, this at a report should be viewed only in the context of those reporting schools. Parents attending open house completed surveys. This in itself is an indicator of high parental involvement. There were low numbers of parents completing the survey (e.g., 5 Woodruff). Two of the questions (i.e. quality and frequency of communications) had _ low response rate. This calls into question the reliability of data on these two questions. In spite of the shortcomings the surveys did reveal some important information. The schools of the parents surveyed should encourage parents to be involved in the childrens education. According to the survey this could be accomplished by providing more volunteer opportunities, offering workshops to help parents understand the cuniculum and at-home assistance, a homework hot line, and evening conferences with teachers. LRSD Collaborative Action Team (CAT) 2 11/06/01LRSD Collaborative Action Team (CAT) Parent Involvement Survey Fall 2000 Aggregate Data: 17 Schools (N = 297) 297 1. How have you been involved in your child's education? Encouraging my child to read for fun. Attending parent-teacher conferences when scheduled. Monitoring and following up on my child's homework assignments. Attending school functions. Joining the PTA. Taking my child to the library. Volunteering to help on school projects, field trips, etc. Serving on a decision-making team. Other ways. # of Responses % to N 258 258 255 212 193 176 146 59 32 87% 87% 86% 71% 65% 59% 49% 20% 11% 2. What interferes with you being more available to be involved in your child's school? Jobs interfere with daytime.school involvement. Not aware of \"at-home\" assistance I could provide the school. Not given a list of volunteer activities. Lack of child care. Don't know how to become involved at school. Sign up to volunteer but am never called. Feelings from my own school years cause me to stay away. Lack of transportation. Not made to feel welcome by school staff. 192 44 36 18 16 11 8 8 7 65% 15% 12% 6% 5% 4% 3% 3% 2% Quality of communication. Very Good OK Needs Improvement 177 75 28 60% 25% 9% Method of communication Newsletters Letters Telephone Calls Home Visits 161 137 119 7 54% 46% 40% 2% Timing of communications 2-3 days before activity/event The day of activity/event After the activity/event 165 13 4 56% 4% 1% Frequency of communications Weekly Monthly Not at All 99 61 6 33% 21% 2% 4. What support could the school provide to help you become more involved with your child's education? Understanding the curriculum taught in class. Evening conferences with teachers. Homework help line. Workshops Opportunities to meet other parents. 130 102 96 93 65 44% 34% 32% 31% 22%LRSD Collaborative Action Team (CAT) Parent Involvement Survey Fall 2000 Bale (N = 25) 25 1. How have you been involved in your child's education? Encouraging my child to read for fun. Attending parent-teacher conferences when scheduled. Monitoring and following up on my child's homework assignments. Joining the PTA. Attending school functions. Taking my child to the library. Volunteering to help on school projects, field trips, etc. Serving on a decision-making team. Other ways. #of Responses % to N 19 19 18 13 13 11 7 4 1 76% 76% 72% 52% 52% 44% 28% 16% 4% 2. What interferes with you being more available to be involved in your child's school? Jobs interfere with daytime.school involvement. Lack of child care. Not aware of \"at-home\" assistance I could provide the school. Feelings from my own school years cause me to stay away. Don't know how to become involved at school. Not made to feel welcome by school staff. Not given a list of volunteer activities. Sign up to volunteer but am never called. Lack of transportation. 16 4 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 64% 16% 8% 4% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Quality of communication. Very Good OK Needs Improvement 18 3 0 72% 12% 0% Method of communication Newsletters Letters Telephone Calls Home Visits 12 12 7 0 48% 48% 28% 0% Timing of communications 2-3 days before activity/event The day of activity/event After the activity/event 14 0 0 56% 0% 0% Frequency of communications Weekly Monthly Not at All 12 0 0 48% 0% 0% 4. What support could the school provide to help you become more involved with your child's education? Evening conferences with teachers. Understanding the curriculum taught in class. Homework help line. Opportunities to meet other parents. Workshops 11 8 4 3 3 44% 32% 16% 12% 12%LRSD Collaborative Action Team (CAT) Parent Involvement Survey Fall 2000 Brady (N = 17) 17 1. How have you been involved in your child's education? Encouraging my child to read for fun. Monitoring and following up on my child's homework assignments. Attending parent-teacher conferences when scheduled. Attending school functions. Joining the PTA. Taking my child to the library. Volunteering to help on school projects, field trips, etc. Serving on a decision-making team. Other ways. # of Responses % to N 11 11 11 9 7 6 4 3 2 65% 65% 65% 53% 41% 35% 24% 18% 12% 2. What interferes with you being more available to be involved in your child's school? Jobs interfere with daytime, school involvement. Not given a list of volunteer activities. Not aware of \"at-home\" assistance I could provide the school. Don't know how to become involved at school. Feelings from my own school years cause me to stay away. Not made to feel welcome by school staff. Sign up to volunteer but am never called. Lack of transportation. Lack of child care. 8 3 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 47% 18% 12% 6% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Quality of communication. Very Good OK Needs Improvement 41% 24% 6% Method of communication Newsletters Letters Telephone Calls Home Visits 8 6 2 1 47% 35% 12% 6% Timing of communications 2-3 days before activity/event The day of activity/event After the activity/event 47% 6% 0% Frequency of communications Weekly Monthly Not at All 29% 6% 6% 4. What support could the school provide to help you become more involved with your child's education? Understanding the curriculum taught in class. Workshops Homework help line. Opportunities to meet other parents. Evening conferences with teachers. 6 5 4 3 2 35% 29% 24% 18% 12% 7 4 1 8 1 0 5 1 1LRSD Collaborative Action Team (CAT) Parent Involvement Survey Fall 2000 Cloverdale Middle (N = 17) 17 1. How have you been involved in your child's education? Monitoring and following up on my child's homework assignments. Encouraging my child to read for fun. Attending parent-teacher conferences when scheduled. Taking my child to the library. Attending school functions. Volunteering to help on school projects, field trips, etc. Joining the PTA. Other ways. Serving on a decision-making team. # of Responses % to N 15 14 14 9 8 7 7 2 1 88% 82% 82% 53% 47% 41% 41% 12% 6% 2. What interferes with you being more available to be involved in your child's school? Jobs interfere with daytime.school involvement. Not made to feel welcome by school staff. Don't know how to become involved at school. Not aware of \"at-home\" assistance I could provide the school. Feelings from my own school years cause me to stay away. Not given a list of volunteer activities. Sign up to volunteer but am never called. Lack of transportation. Lack of child care. 12 4 3 3 2 0 0 0 0 71% 24% 18% 18% 12% 0% 0% 0% 0% Quality of communication. Very Good OK Needs Improvement 41% 29% 24% Method of communication Telephone Calls Letters Newsletters Home Visits 8 7 5 0 47% 41% 29% 0% Timing of communications 2-3 days before activity/event After the activity/event The day of activity/event 35% 6% 0% Frequency of communications Weekly Monthly Not at All 29% 18% 6% 4. What support could the school provide to help you become more involved with your child's education? Evening conferences with teachers. Understanding the curriculum taught in class. Homework help line. Opportunities to meet other parents. Workshops 9 7 5 3 3 53% 41% 29% 18% 18% 7 5 4 6 1 0 5 3 1LRSD Collaborative Action Team (CAT) Parent Involvement Survey Fall 2000 Forest Heights Middle (N = 19) 19 1. How have you been involved in your child's education? Encouraging my child to read for fun. Joining the PTA. Monitoring and following up on my child's homework assignments. Attending parent-teacher conferences when scheduled. Attending school functions. Taking my child to the library. Volunteering to help on school projects, field trips, etc. Serving on a decision-making team. Other ways. # of Responses % to N 19 19 17 17 17 15 14 9 6 100% 100% 89% 89% 89% 79% 74% 47% 32% 2. What interferes with you being more available to be involved in your child's school? Jobs interfere with daytime school involvement. Not given a list of volunteer activities. Not aware of \"at-home\" assistance I could provide the school. Don't know how to become involved at school. Lack of transportation. Lack of child care. Feelings from my own school years cause me to stay away. Not made to feel welcome by school staff. Sign up to volunteer but am never called. 12 4 3 2 1 1 0 0 0 63% 21% 16% 11% 5% 5% 0% 0% 0% Quality of communication. Very Good OK Needs Improvement 37% 37% 21% Method of communication Newsletters Telephone Calls Letters Home Visits 12 4 3 0 63% 21% 16% 0% 7 7 4 Timing of communications 2-3 days before activity/event After the activity/event The day of activity/event 5 1 0 26% 5% 0% Frequency of communications Monthly Weekly Not at All 10 2 1 53% 11% 5% 4. What support could the school provide to help you become more involved with your child's education? Understanding the curriculum taught in class. Workshops Homework help line. Opportunities to meet other parents. Evening conferences with teachers. 14 8 8 7 3 74% 42% 42% 37% 16%LRSD Collaborative Action Team (CAT) Parent Involvement Survey Fall 2000 Franklin (N = 27) 27 1. How have you been involved in your child's education? Encouraging my child to read for fun. Attending parent-teacher conferences when scheduled. Monitoring and following up on my child's homework assignments. Joining the PTA. Attending school functions. Taking my child to the library. Volunteering to help on school projects, field trips, etc. Serving on a decision-making team. Other ways. # of Responses % to N 24 23 21 18 18 12 12 3 2 89% 85% 78% 67% 67% 44% 44% 11% 7% 2. What interferes with you being more available to be involved in your child's school? Jobs interfere with daytime school involvement. Lack of child care. Not given a list of volunteer activities. Not aware of \"at-home\" assistance I could provide the school. Sign up to volunteer but am never called. Lack of transportation. Don't know how to become involved at school. Feelings from my own school years cause me to stay away. Not made to feel welcome by school staff. 17 6 5 5 2 2 1 1 0 63% 22% 19% 19% 7% 7% 4% 4% 0% Quality of communication. Very Good OK Needs Improvement 15 9 1 56% 33% 4% Method of communication Newsletters Letters Telephone Calls Home Visits 17 14 11 2 63% 52% 41% 7% Timing of communications 2-3 days before activity/event The day of activity/event After the activity/event 15 1 0 56% 4% 0% Frequency of communications Weekly Monthly Not at All 10 3 0 37% 11% 0% 4. What support could the school provide to help you become more involved with your child's education? Workshops Understanding the curriculum taught in class. Homework help line. Opportunities to meet other parents. Evening conferences with teachers. 12 10 10 6 6 44% 37% 37% 22% 22%LRSD Collaborative Action Team (CAT) Parent Involvement Survey Fall 2000 Mabelvale Middle (N = 12) 12 1. How have you been involved in your child's education? Attending parent-teacher conferences when scheduled. Encouraging my child to read for fun. Monitoring and following up on my child's homework assignments. Attending school functions. Joining the PTA. Taking my child to the library. Volunteering to help on school projects, field trips, etc. Serving on a decision-making team. Other ways. # of Responses % to N 12 11 11 10 9 8 6 2 1 100% 92% 92% 83% 75% 67% 50% 17% 8% 2. What interferes with you being more available to be involved in your child's school? Jobs interfere with daytime.school involvement. Not given a list of volunteer activities. Don't know how to become involved at school. Not aware of \"at-home\" assistance I could provide the school. Lack of child care. Feelings from my own school years cause me to stay away. Not made to feel welcome by school staff. Sign up to volunteer but am never called. Lack of transportation. 8 2 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 67% 17% 8% 8% 8% 0% 0% 0% 0% Quality of communication. Very Good OK Needs Improvement 58% 17% 17% Method of communication Telephone Calls Newsletters Letters Home Visits 7 5 4 0 58% 42% 33% 0% Timing of communications 2-3 days before activity/event The day of activity/event After the activity/event 42% 8% 0% Frequency of communications Monthly Weekly Not at All 25% 17% 0% 4. What support could the school provide to help you become more involved with your child's education? Homework help line. Understanding the curriculum taught in class. Workshops Evening conferences with teachers. Opportunities to meet other parents. 7 6 5 5 2 58% 50% 42% 42% 17% 7 2 2 5 1 0 3 2 0LRSD Collaborative Action Team (CAT) Parent Involvement Survey Fall 2000 Mann Middle (N = 20) 20 1. How have you been involved in your child's education? Monitoring and following up on my child's homework assignments. Attending parent-teacher conferences when scheduled. Encouraging my child to read for fun. Attending school functions. Joining the PTA. Taking my child to the library. Volunteering to help on school projects, field trips, etc. Serving on a decision-making team. Other ways. # of Responses % to N 18 18 17 17 16 14 13 3 1 90% 90% 85% 85% 80% 70% 65% 15% 5% 2. What interferes with you being more available to be involved in your child's school? Jobs interfere with daytime.school involvement. Not given a list of volunteer activities. Not aware of \"at-home\" assistance I could provide the school. Don't know how to become involved at school. Sign up to volunteer but am never called. Lack of transportation. Lack of child care. Feelings from my own school years cause me to stay away. Not made to feel welcome by school staff. 14 5 3 2 2 1 1 0 0 70% 25% 15% 10% 10% 5% 5% 0% 0% Quality of communication. Very Good OK Needs Improvement 45% 45% 10% Method of communication Newsletters Telephone Calls Letters Home Visits 12 9 4 1 60% 45% 20% 5% Timing of communications 2-3 days before activity/event The day of activity/event After the activity/event 45% 10% 5% Frequency of communications Monthly Weekly Not at All 35% 15% 5% 4. What support could the school provide to help you become more involved with your child's education? Understanding the curriculum taught in class. Homework help line. Evening conferences with teachers. Workshops Opportunities to meet other parents. 11 10 8 7 6 55% 50% 40% 35% 30% 9 9 2 9 2 1 7 3 1LRSD Collaborative Action Team (CAT) Parent Involvement Survey Fall 2000 Mitchell (N = 17) 17 1. How have you been involved in your child's education? Monitoring and following up on my child's homework assignments. Encouraging my child to read for fun. Attending parent-teacher conferences when scheduled. Attending school functions. Taking my child to the library. Joining the PTA. Volunteering to help on school projects, field trips, etc. Serving on a decision-making team. Other ways. # of Responses % to N 15 14 14 12 10 9 7 1 1 88% 82% 82% 71% 59% 53% 41% 6% 6% 2. What interferes with you being more available to be involved in your child's school? Jobs interfere with daytime school involvement. Not aware of \"at-home\" assistance I could provide the school. Feelings from my own school years cause me to stay away. Not given a list of volunteer activities. Not made to feel welcome by school staff. Sign up to volunteer but am never called. Don't know how to become involved at school. Lack of transportation. Lack of child care. 9 6 2 2 1 1 0 0 0 53% 35% 12% 12% 6% 6% 0% 0% 0% Quality of communication. Very Good OK Needs Improvement 14 2 0 82% 12% 0% Method of communication Timing of communications Frequency of communications Letters Telephone Calls Newsletters Home Visits 2-3 days before activity/event The day of activity/event After the activity/event Monthly Weekly Not at All 4. What support could the school provide to help you become more involved with your child's education? Homework help line. Understanding the curriculum taught in class. Evening conferences with teachers. Opportunities to meet other parents. Workshops 11 10 6 0 13 1 0 8 7 6 4 3 65% 59% 35% 0% 76% 6% 0% 12% 0% 0% 47% 41% 35% 24% 18% 2 0 0LRSD Collaborative Action Team (CAT) Parent Involvement Survey Fall 2000 Parkview (N = 13) 13 1. How have you been involved in your child's education? Attending parent-teacher conferences when scheduled. Monitoring and following up on my child's homework assignments. Taking my child to the library. Encouraging my child to read for fun. Joining the PTA. Attending school functions. Volunteering to help on school projects, field trips, etc. Other ways. Serving on a decision-making team. # of Responses % to N 13 12 11 11 11 11 8 1 0 100% 92% 85% 85% 85% 85% 62% 8% 0% 2. What interferes with you being more available to be involved in your child's school? Jobs interfere with daytime school involvement. Not given a list of volunteer activities. Not aware of \"at-home\" assistance I could provide the school. Don't know how to become involved at school. Feelings from my own school years cause me to stay away. Not made to feel welcome by school staff. Sign up to volunteer but am never called. Lack of transportation. Lack of child care. 8 2 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 62% 15% 15% 8% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Quality of communication. OK Very Good Needs Improvement 62% 23% 0% Method of communication Newsletters Telephone Calls Letters Home Visits 9 4 3 0 69% 31% 23% 0% Timing of communications 2-3 days before activity/event The day of activity/event After the activity/event 38% 0% 0% Frequency of communications Monthly Weekly Not at All 69% 0% 0% 4. What support could the school provide to help you become more involved with your child's education? Understanding the curriculum taught in class. Homework help line. Evening conferences with teachers. Workshops Opportunities to meet other parents. 7 7 5 4 3 54% 54% 38% 31% 23% 8 3 0 5 0 0 9 0 0LRSD Collaborative Action Team (CAT) Parent Involvement Survey Fall 2000 Rightsell (N = 20) 20 1. How have you been involved in your child's education? Encouraging my child to read for fun. Monitoring and following up on my child's homework assignments. Attending parent-teacher conferences when scheduled. Taking my child to the library. Joining the PTA. Attending school functions. Volunteering to help on school projects, field trips, etc. Serving on a decision-making team. Other ways. # of Responses % to N 17 16 15 11 11 11 6 2 1 85% 80% 75% 55% 55% 55% 30% 10% 5% 2. What interferes with you being more available to be involved in your child's school? Jobs interfere with daytime, school involvement. Not aware of \"at-home\" assistance I could provide the school. Not given a list of volunteer activities. Don't know how to become involved at school. Lack of child care. Feelings from my own school years cause me to stay away. Not made to feel welcome by school staff. Sign up to volunteer but am never called. Lack of transportation. 14 3 2 1 1 0 0 0 0 70% 15% 10% 5% 5% 0% 0% 0% 0% Quality of communication. Very Good OK Needs Improvement 13 4 3 65% 20% 15% Method of communication Timing of communications Frequency of communications Letters Newsletters Telephone Calls Home Visits 2-3 days before activity/event The day of activity/event After the activity/event Weekly Monthly Not at All 4. What support could the school provide to help you become more involved with your child's education? Understanding the curriculum taught in class. Evening conferences with teachers. Workshops Opportunities to meet other parents. Homework help line. 11 10 9 1 14 0 0 12 12 10 8 7 55% 50% 45% 5% 70% 0% 0% 45% 10% 0% 60% 60% 50% 40% 35% 9 2 0LRSD Collaborative Action Team (CAT) Parent Involvement Survey Fall 2000 Romine (N = 10) 10 1. How have you been involved in your child's education? Attending parent-teacher conferences when scheduled. Attending school functions. Encouraging my child to read for fun. Monitoring and following up on my child's homework assignments. Taking my child to the library. Volunteering to help on school projects, field trips, etc. Joining the PTA. Other ways. Serving on a decision-making team. # of Responses % to N 10 10 9 9 8 8 8 5 3 100% 100% 90% 90% 80% 80% 80% 50% 30% 2. What interferes with you being more available to be involved in your child's school? Jobs interfere with daytime school involvement. Not given a list of volunteer activities. Lack of child care. Don't know how to become involved at school. Feelings from my own school years cause me to stay away. Not made to feel welcome by school staff. Not aware of \"at-home\" assistance I could provide the school. Sign up to volunteer but am never called. Lack of transportation. 6 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 60% 10% 10% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Quality of communication. Very Good OK Needs Improvement 90% 0% 0% Method of communication Newsletters Telephone Calls Letters Home Visits 9 4 3 0 90% 40% 30% 0% Timing of communications 2-3 days before activity/event The day of activity/event After the activity/event 80% 10% 0% Frequency of communications Weekly Monthly Not at All 70% 20% 0% 4. What support could the school provide to help you become more involved with your child's education? Understanding the curriculum taught in class. Evening conferences with teachers. Opportunities to meet other parents. Homework help line. Workshops 2 2 1 1 0 20% 20% 10% 10% 0% 9 0 0 8 1 0 7 2 0LRSD Collaborative Action Team (CAT) Parent Involvement Survey Fall 2000 Southwest Middle (N = 21) 21 1. How have you been involved in your child's education? Monitoring and following up on my child's homework assignments. Encouraging my child to read for fun. Attending parent-teacher conferences when scheduled. Attending school functions. Joining the PTA. Taking my child to the library. Volunteering to help on school projects, field trips, etc. Serving on a decision-making team. Other ways. #of Responses % to N 21 19 18 17 14 12 6 4 2 100% 90% 86% 81% 67% 57% 29% 19% 10% 2. What interferes with you being more available to be involved in your child's school? Jobs interfere with daytime school involvement. Not aware of \"at-home\" assistance I could provide the school. Not given a list of volunteer activities. Lack of transportation. Don't know how to become involved at school. Not made to feel welcome by school staff. Sign up to volunteer but am never called. Lack of child care. Feelings from my own school years cause me to stay away. 14 4 3 2 1 1 1 1 0 67% 19% 14% 10% 5% 5% 5% 5% 0% Quality of communication. Very Good OK Needs Improvement 13 6 1 62% 29% 5% Method of communication Timing of communications Frequency of communications Newsletters Telephone Calls Letters Home Visits 2-3 days before activity/event The day of activity/event After the activity/event Monthly Weekly Not at All 4. What support could the school provide to help you become more involved with your child's education? Understanding the curriculum taught in class. Evening conferences with teachers. Homework help line. Workshops Opportunities to meet other parents. 12 10 9 1 57% 48% 43% 5% 38% 10% 0% 29% 24% 0% 10 10 8 5 4 48% 48% 38% 24% 19% 8 2 0 6 5 0LRSD Collaborative Action Team (CAT) Parent Involvement Survey Fall 2000 Wakefield (N = 10) 10 1. How have you been involved in your child's education? Encouraging my child to read for fun. Attending parent-teacher conferences when scheduled. Monitoring and following up on my child's homework assignments. Joining the PTA. Attending school functions. Taking my child to the library. Volunteering to help on school projects, field trips, etc. Serving on a decision-making team. Other ways. # of Responses % to N 10 10 8 7 7 5 4 0 0 100% 100% 80% 70% 70% 50% 40% 0% 0% 2. What interferes with you being more available to be involved in your child's school? Jobs interfere with daytime school involvement. Not aware of \"at-home\" assistance I could provide the school. Sign up to volunteer but am never called. Feelings from my own school years cause me to stay away. Not given a list of volunteer activities. Don't know how to become involved at school. Not made to feel welcome by school staff. Lack of transportation. Lack of child care. 10 2 2 1 1 0 0 0 0 100% 20% 20% 10% 10% 0% 0% 0% 0% Quality of communication. Very Good OK Needs Improvement 90% 10% 0% Method of communication Letters Telephone Calls Newsletters Home Visits 8 5 2 0 80% 50% 20% 0% Timing of communications 2-3 days before activity/event The day of activity/event After the activity/event 80% 10% 0% Frequency of communications Weekly Monthly Not at All 70% 0% 0% 4. What support could the school provide to help you become more involved with your child's education? Workshops Homework help line. Evening conferences with teachers. Opportunities to meet other parents. Understanding the curriculum taught in class. 4 3 3 2 2 40% 30% 30% 20% 20% 9 1 0 8 1 0 7 0 0LRSD Collaborative Action Team (CAT) Parent Involvement Survey Fall 2000 Western Hills (N = 24) 24 1. How have you been involved in your child's education? Encouraging my child to read for fun. Monitoring and following up on my child's homework assignments. Attending parent-teacher conferences when scheduled. Attending school functions. Joining the PTA. Taking my child to the library. Volunteering to help on school projects, field trips, etc. Serving on a decision-making team. Other ways. #of Responses % to N 23 23 22 18 15 13 13 5 4 96% 96% 92% 75% 63% 54% 54% 21% 17% 2. What interferes with you being more available to be involved in your child's school? Jobs interfere with daytime school involvement. Not aware of at-home\" assistance I could provide the school. Not given a list of volunteer activities. Don't know how to become involved at school. Lack of transportation. Lack of child care. Feelings from my own school years cause me to stay away. Not made to feel welcome by school staff. Sign up to volunteer but am never called. 16 4 3 2 2 2 0 0 0 67% 17% 13% 8% 8% 8% 0% 0% 0% Quality of communication. Very Good OK Needs Improvement 19 4 1 79% 17% 4% Method of communication Letters Newsletters Telephone Calls Home Visits 17 13 10 0 71% 54% 42% 0% Timing of communications 2-3 days before activity/event The day of activity/event After the activity/event 20 1 0 83% 4% 0% Frequency of communications Weekly Monthly Not at All 15 3 0 63% 13% 0% 4. What support could the school provide to help you become more involved with your child's education? Workshops Evening conferences with teachers. Understanding the curriculum taught in class. Opportunities to meet other parents. Homework help line. 11 8 7 4 2 46% 33% 29% 17% 8%LRSD Collaborative Action Team (CAT) Parent Involvement Survey Fall 2000 Wilson (N = 14) 14 1. How have you been involved in your child's education? Encouraging my child to read for fun. Attending parent-teacher conferences when scheduled. Monitoring and following up on my child's homework assignments. Joining the PTA. Attending school functions. Taking my child to the library. Volunteering to help on school projects, field trips, etc. Serving on a decision-making team. Other ways. # of Responses % to N 13 13 12 7 7 6 5 0 0 93% 93% 86% 50% 50% 43% 36% 0% 0% 2. What interferes with you being more available to be involved in your child's school? Jobs interfere with daytime school involvement. Not given a list of volunteer activities. Not aware of \"at-home\" assistance I could provide the school. Don't know how to become involved at school. Feelings from my own school years cause me to stay away. Not made to feel welcome by school staff. Sign up to volunteer but am never called. Lack of transportation. Lack of child care. 11 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 79% 7% 7% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Quality of communication. Very Good OK Needs Improvement 12 2 0 86% 14% 0% Method of communication Timing of communications Frequency of communications Newsletters Letters Telephone Calls Home Visits 2-3 days before activity/event The day of activity/event After the activity/event Weekly Monthly Not at All 4. What support could the school provide to help you become more involved with your child's education? Understanding the curriculum taught in class. Workshops Opportunities to meet other parents. Homework help line. Evening conferences with teachers. 9 8 4 0 12 1 0 8 6 3 2 0 64% 57% 29% 0% 86% 7% 0% 64% 0% 0% 57% 43% 21% 14% 0% 9 0 0LRSD Collaborative Action Team (CAT) Parent Involvement Survey Fall 2000 Woodruff (N = 5) 5 1. How have you been involved in your child's education? Encouraging my child to read for fun. Attending parent-teacher conferences when scheduled. Taking my child to the library. Monitoring and following up on my child's homework assignments. Attending school functions. Volunteering to help on school projects, field trips, etc. Serving on a decision-making team. Joining the PTA. Other ways. # of Responses % to N 5 5 4 4 3 2 2 1 0 100% 100% 80% 80% 60% 40% 40% 20% 0% 2. What interferes with you being more available to be involved in your child's school? Jobs interfere with daytime school involvement. Not given a list of volunteer activities. Dont know how to become involved at school. Feelings from my own school years cause me to stay away. Not made to feel welcome by school staff. Not aware of \"at-home\" assistance I could provide the school. Sign up to volunteer but am never called. Lack of transportation. Lack of child care. 5 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100% 20% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Quality of communication. Very Good OK Needs Improvement 60% 20% 0% Method of communication Letters Telephone Calls Newsletters Home Visits 4 3 1 0 80% 60% 20% 0% Timing of communications 2-3 days before activity/event The day of activity/event After the activity/event 100% 0% 0% Frequency of communications Weekly Monthly Not at All 80% 0% 0% 4. What support could the school provide to help you become Understanding the curriculum taught in class. Evening conferences with teachers. Workshops Homework help line. Opportunities to meet other parents. 3 3 2 2 0 60% 60% 40% 40% 0% 3 1 0 5 0 0 4 0 0LRSD Collaborative Action Team (CAT) Parent Involvement Survey Fall 2000 Central (N = 26) 26 1. How have you been involved in your child's education? Monitoring and following up on my child's homework assignments. Attending parent-teacher conferences when scheduled. Volunteering to help on school projects, field trips, etc. Attending school functions. Encouraging my child to read for fun. Taking my child to the library. Joining the PTA. Serving on a decision-making team. Other ways. # of Responses % to N 24 24 24 24 22 21 21 17 3 92% 92% 92% 92% 85% 81% 81% 65% 12% 2. What interferes with you being more available to be involved in your child's school? Jobs interfere with daytime school involvement. Not aware of \"at-home\" assistance I could provide the school. Sign up to volunteer but am never called. Don't know how to become involved at school. Feelings from my own school years cause me to stay away. Not made to feel welcome by school staff. Not given a list of volunteer activities. Lack of transportation. Lack of child care. 12 3 3 1 1 1 1 0 0 46% 12% 12% 4% 4% 4% 4% 0% 0% Quality of communication. Very Good OK Needs Improvement 12 8 6 46% 31% 23% Method of communication Newsletters Letters Telephone Calls Home Visits 19 13 12 1 73% 50% 46% 4% Timing of communications 2-3 days before activity/event The day of activity/event After the activity/event 10 1 0 38% 4% 0% Frequency of communications Monthly Weekly Not at All 10 4 2 38% 15% 8% 4. What support could the school provide to help you become more involved with your child's education? Understanding the curriculum taught in class. Evening conferences with teachers. Homework help line. Opportunities to meet other parents. Workshops 10 9 8 6 5 38% 35% 31% 23% 19%LRSD Collaborative Action Team (CAT) Parent Involvement Survey Fall 2000 EiGmentsry Aggregate Data (N = 169) 169 1. How have you been involved in your child's education? Encouraging my child to read for fun. Attending parent-teacher conferences when scheduled. Attending school functions. Joining the PTA. Taking my child to the library. Monitoring and following up on my child's homework assignments. Volunterring to help on school projects, field trips, etc. Serving on a decision-making team. Other ways. # of Responses % to N 145 142 108 96 86 86 68 23 16 86% 84% 64% 57% 51% 51% 40% 14% 9% 2. What interferes with you being more available to be involved in your child's school? Jobs interfere with daytime-school involvement. Not aware of \"at-home assistance I could provide the school. Not given a list of volunteer activities. Lack of child care. Don't know how to become involved at school. Feelings from my own school years cause me to stay away. Sign up to volunteer but am never called. Lack of transportation. Not made to feel welcome by school staff. 112 25 19 14 5 5 5 4 1 66% 15% 11% 8% 3% 3% 3% 2% 1% Quality of communication. Method of communication Very Good OK Needs Improvement Missing Data 119 30 7 13 70% 18% 4% 8% Timing of communications Frequency of communications Letters Newsletters Telephone Calls Home Visits 2-3 days before activity/event The day of activity/event After the activity/event Missing Data Weekly Monthly Not at All Missing Data 4. What support could the school provide to help you become more involved with your child's education? Understanding the curriculum taught in class. Workshops Evening conferences with teachers. Homework help line. Opportunities to meet other parents. 94 87 65 4 117 7 1 44 78 13 1 77 65 56 53 43 34 56% 51% 38% 2% 69% 4% 1% 26% 46% 8% 1% 46% 38% 33% 31% 25% 20%LRSD Collaborative Action Team (CAT) Parent Involvement Survey Fall 2000 MiddiG LgVGI Aggregate Data (N = 88) 88 1. How have you been involved in your child's education? Monitoring and following up on my child's homework assignments. Encouraging my child to read for fun. Attending parent-teacher conferences when scheduled. Attending school functions. Joining the PTA. Taking my child to the library. Volunterring to help on school projects, field trips, etc. Serving on a decision-making team. Other ways. # of Responses % to N 81 79 79 68 65 57 46 19 12 92% 90% 90% 77% 74% 65% 52% 22% 14% 2. What interferes with you being more available to be involved in your child's school? Jobs interfere with daytime school involvement. Not given a list of volunteer activities. Not aware of \"at-home\" assistance I could provide the school. Don't know how to become involved at school. Not made to feel welcome by school staff. Lack of transportation. Lack of child care. Sign up to volunteer but am never called. Feelings from my own school years cause me to stay away. 60 14 14 9 5 4 4 3 2 68% 16% 16% 10% 6% 5% 5% 3% 2% Quality of communication. Method of communication Very Good OK Needs Improvement Missing Data 43 29 13 3 49% 33% 15% 3% Newsletters Letters Telephone Calls Home Visits 46 27 38 2 52% 31% 43% 2% Timing of communications Frequency of communications 2-3 days before activity/event The day of activity/event After the activity/event Missing Data 33 5 3 47 38% 6% 3% 53% 4. What support could the school involved with your child's education? Understanding the curriculum taught in class. Homework help line. Evening conferences with teachers. Workshops Opportunities to meet other parents. Weekly Monthly Not at All Missing Data provide to help you become more 17 29 3 39 19% 33% 3% 44% 48 38 35 28 22 55% 43% 40% 32% 25%LRSD Collaborative Action Team (CAT) Parent Involvement Survey Fall 2000 High School Aggregate Data (N = 40) 40 1. How have you been involved in your child's education? Taking my child to the library. Encouraging my child to read for fun. Monitoring and following up on my child's homework assignments. Attending parent-teacher conferences when scheduled. Volunterring to help on school projects, field trips, etc. Joining the PTA. Attending school functions. Serving on a decision-making team. Other ways. # of Responses % to N 33 34 37 37 32 32 36 17 4 83% 85% 93% 93% 80% 80% 90% 43% 10% 2. What interferes with you being more available to be involved in your child's school? Jobs interfere with daytimeschool involvement. Not aware of \"at-home\" assistance I could provide the school. Not given a list of volunteer activities. Sign up to volunteer but am never called. Don't know how to become involved at school. Feelings from my own school years cause me to stay away. Not made to feel welcome by school staff. Lack of transportation. Lack of child care. 20 5 3 3 2 1 1 0 0 50% 13% 8% 8% 5% 3% 3% 0% 0% Quality of communication. Method of communication Very Good OK Needs Improvement Missing Data 15 16 8 1 38% 40% 20% 3% Timing of communications Frequency of communications Newsletters Letters Telephone Calls Home Visits 2-3 days before activity/event The day of activity/event After the activity/event Missing Data Weekly Monthly Not at All Missing Data 4. What support could the school provide to help you become more involved with your child's education? Understanding the curriculum taught in class. Homework help line. Evening conferences with teachers. Opportunities to meet other parents. Workshops 28 16 16 1 15 1 0 24 4 19 2 15 17 15 14 9 9 70% 40% 40% 3% 38% 3% 0% 60% 10% 48% 5% 38% 43% 38% 35% 23% 23%fJCC -/cr Chtckh-i/- Office of Desegregation Monitoring United States District Court  Eastern District of Arkansas Ann S. Brown, Federal Monitor 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Heritage West Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501)376-6200 Fax (501) 371-0100 Date: May 18, 2000 To: Kaye Rainey From: Ann BroWn\" Re: CAT Restroom Monitoring Attached are the completed Site Visit Checklists for Restrooms that I was asked to complete on behalf of our CAT monitoring. I apologize for returning them late, but my schedule has been disrupted by unexpected events (the tragic death of two of my childrens young friends and out-of-town travel). I spoke to Heather Gage yesterday, and she assured me that the forms were still being compiled, so 1 hope these arent too late to be counted. Thanks so much for all your hard work on behalf of our Team.js is/. Individual Approach to a World of Knowledge APR 5 2001 April 5, 2001 *w Dear Collaborative Action Team Member\nWe appreciate all of the time and energy you have devoted to helping to improve education for the students in the Little Rock School District (LRSD). Your willingness to serve on the Collaborative Action Team (CAT) is evidence of your support for children in our community. During the past two years CAT members have addressed sanitary conditions at every school in the LRSD. We are pleased to have focused on this need cited by students as important in their school life and feel that there are many more opportunities for us to make a difference in our schools. This letter is to invite your active participation in the CAT and to update your contact information. We have planned a reception for CAT members on Monday, April 16, from 4:30 until 6:00 p.m. in the LRSD Board Room located at 810 West Markham Street. In addition to refreshments, we have some activities planned to energize you about the CAT and how we can help our schools. We need your attendance and input if our CAT is going to be successful. Please reaffirm your commitment to CAT by filling out the attached form and faxing it to Kaye Rainey at 324-2044. Thanks! Your Fellow CATs 810 W Markham  Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  www.lrsd.kl2.ar.us 501-324-2000  fax:501-324-2032 COLLABORATIVE ACTION TEAM LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 2001 DESIRE TO SERVE AND INFORMATION FORM .Yes, I wish to continue to participate on, and will attend meetings of, the LRSD Collaborative Action Team. No, I cannot continue to serve as a CAT member. Name: Home Address\nHome Phone: Work Address\nWork Phone\nFax: E-mail Address: Comments Please check one: Community  Student  Parent  School \u0026lt;2\n1 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT INSTRUCTIONAL RESOURCE CENTER 3001 PULASKI STREET LITTLE ROCK, AR 72206 TO: Board of Education FROM: PREPARED BY: T. Kenneth James, Superintendent of Schools ^^onnie A. Lesley, Associate Superintendent for Instruction DATE: November 21, 2002 SUBJECT: Approval of SEDLs Program Evaluation for the Collaborative Action Team Project Background The Southwest Education Development Lab (SEDL) in Austin began their Collaborative Action Team Project in 1996 by selecting schools or districts for participation within their five-state region. The focus was on districts with concentrations of students as follows: rural, urban, the Delta, the Border, and the American Indian Nations. The Little Rock School District was selected for inclusion, representing urban children, as a part of Cohort 3 in fall 1999, the last year of the project. We participated only that one year (1999-2000) in the project, but the Collaborative Action Team that was established continues to meet and most recently fulfilled the charge we gave them to provide leadership in the development of the District's Strategic Plan for Parent Involvement. Dr. Ed Williams, the PRE statistician, and Debbie Milam, Director of the ViPS program and the person assigned as liaison to SEDL for this project, both provided data to SEDL for their project evaluation. Members of the Collaborative Action Team responded to surveys as requested. Although the 249-page study produced by SEDL that evaluated the project included student achievement data, those data were not disaggregated by race, and LRSDs short-term (one year) participation in the project would not predict that the involvement of this relatively small group of parents and community volunteers would result in improved student performance. The purpose of the SEDL project is described on pp. 2- 3 of the report. On pp. 25-33 can be found a description of the Research Design and Methodology. Board of Education - Memo November 21,2002 Page Two SEDL s report includes some data that are specific to districts, but much of their analysis is by cohort group, so even though the Little Rock School District data are included in Cohort 3 data, it is impossible to know how we compared to anyone else on some measurements. Other Cohort 3 participants are listed on p. 9 of the report. The following pages are those with references either to LRSD specifically or to Cohort 3 in the analysis of Site Characteristics:  p. 35Demographic data, by district  p. 36Types of schools served, by cohort  p. 37 Special parent involvement programs, by cohort  p. 39Survey on Team Confidence, by cohort  p. 40Type^of community challenges, by cohort  P- 42Existence of community factors, by cohort  p. 44Days between project start-up and first CAT meeting, by district In the chapter on CAT Sustainability, the following pages are those with references to LRSD or to Cohort 3 data:  p. 49Responses to surveys, CAT Self-Assessment and Exit Survey, bv district  pp. 58-60Levels of perceived support from school administration, campus staff, community at-large, parent/other family member, and students for CAT sustainability, aggregated  p. 66Time of goal accomplishment, by cohort  p. 70 Perceived changes in CAT recognition/importance in the community, aggregated  P- ^2Importance of taking action on goals, aggregated f 1 i I i i The chapter on Student Outcomes is most relevant to Section 2.7.1 of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. Cohort 3, however, had only one year in the project, and much of the first semester was spent on training, not action, improvement in student outcomes would not be predictable. so p. 82Percent student attendance, by district p. 83Percent student attendance, by cohort p. 85Percent student attendance, districts in Arkansas p. 89Percent student dropout, by district p. 90Percent student dropout, by cohort p. 91Percent student dropout, districts in Arkansas p. 96Percent student graduation, by district p. 97Percent student graduation, by cohort p. 98Percent student graduation, districts in Arkansas pp. 100-101Sat9 scores below 25** percentile, districts in ArkansasBoard of Education - Memo November 21,2002 Page Three Section 10 of the evaluation, Implications and Recommendations, discusses the research findings. Specific recommendations are given on page 147, Recommendation That the Board of Education accept and approve SEDL's \"Collaborative Action Team Process: Final Research Report as the program evaluation of the LRSD Collaborative Action Team project of 1999-2000. BAL/adg Attachment\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_315","title":"Compliance hearing exhibits, 119-129","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":["1998/2000"],"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 law and legislation","Education--Evaluation","Educational statistics"],"dcterms_title":["Compliance hearing exhibits, 119-129"],"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/315"],"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":["exhibition (associated concept)"],"dcterms_extent":["104 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\nData Hams Membership Corporal Punishment Suspenslen-Out of School Eipulsion } Mental Retardation Serious Emotional Disturbance Specific Learning Disability H$ Diploma 1 HS Certincete ot Attendance er Completion In Need et LEP i Enrolled In LEP G\u0026lt;ned and Talented AP Maihemalics I J AP Science American IndlanZAIasIcan Native Number % AsiarUPacIflc Islander Number % ! i Male Female Total Male Female Total Male Female Total Male Female Total Male Female Total Male Female Total Male Female Total Male Female Total Male Female Total Male Female Total Male * Female Total Male Female Total Maie Female Total Male Female Total 261.403 250.365 511.040 4.178 952 5.120 25.133 12.060 37,213 1.114 321 1.435 3.739 2.025 6.564 4,095 1,161 5,256 25,724 12.429 36.153 10 128 10.766 20.892 214 250 472 39.085 35.920 75.005 33.561 30.060 64.421 11.966 12890 24.656 743 793 1536 951\" 1.012 1.963 057 0 54 1.11 1 14 0 26 1 40 0 79 0 36 1 17 1 26 0 37 1 64 0 59 0 45 1 04 096 0 27 1 23 0 93 0 4$ 1 38 042 0 44 006 0 40 0 49 0 09 1 20 1 10 2 30 1 17 108 2 25 0 42 0 45 0 07 0 24 026 OSO 031 0 33 0 65 967.626 909.064 1.678.690 545 . 141 686 45.637 15.148 60,765 1.538 302 1.840 6.846 5.112 11.958 3.884 1.235 4.919 29.132 12.651 41.783 58.826 58.460 115.266 984 979 1,963 247.466 209.657 457 123 223.080 169.212 412.292 90.541 96.706 167.247 19.406 Department of Education, Office for Civil Rights 1998 Elementary and Secondary School Civil Rights Compliance Report Projected Values for the Nation Hispanic Number % 2 to 3.540.501 199 3.356.212 4 00 6.904 713 0 IS 0 04 019 1 43 0 40 1 91 1 76 0 35 2 11 109 061 1 90 0 67 0 29 1 16 1 05 0 46 1 51 2 33 2 40 4 73 1 06 1 65 3 70 7 57 6 42 13 99 7 78 660 14 30 3 17 3 39 657 6 31 19.092 5.058 ____24i1^ 333.065 129 646 462.711 11 392 2.769 14.161 36.177 27.007 63.184 29.787 7 963 37.750 295.745 140.891 444,436 120.063 132.244 252.307 3 251 3.133 ____6 384 1.278.115 1.169.690 2.467813 1.109 860 1.036.566 2.146.446 117.954 128 239 246.193 10.353 10.445 6 00 ------10.403 37.853 19.496 18.705 38.201 1231 641 6 15 12 57 20.036 10.475 11.827 22 302 Black (non-Hlspsnic) Number % White (non-Hltpanlc) Number % Total Number % Disabled Number % Limited-Engllsh Pronclent 21-W%.TI(n \u0026gt;60%-Tlm Number % Number % Number % Number 7 71 3.990.703 730 3.007.526 15 01 7.606.229 0 69 14.037.124 0 45 13.907.401 5 23 1 39 682 1045 4 07 14 52 13 05 317 16 22 5 75 4 29 10 04 700 1 87 887 .10 67 537 16 04 4 92 5 42 10 35 6 13 5 91 12 04 39 11 36 40 75 51 38 72 36 16 2153. 4 14 4 50 0 63 3 37 341 6 77 3 45 3 89 7 34 99.358 36.165 135.523 600.299 359.923 1.040 222 19.710 7.314 27.024 124.536 03.292 207.629 86.794 25.600 114.602 342.575 169,372 511.947 140.056 178.280 316,316 0.913 0.551 17.464 40.088 35.480 75,566 35.990 32.204 68,194 104.717 134 999 239.716 9.123 12.192 21.315 7.884 11.493 19.377 17 14 20.024.605 3225 23.813.437 30 40 22.390.647 62 60 46.004,004 27 22 991 37 12 21 35 11 30 32 65 22 50 6 36 30 96 1960 13 24 33 04 20 86 606 26 92 12 36 6 11 10 40 574 7 23 1297 16 60 16 12 32 93 1.23 109 231 1,26 1 12 230 3 87 4 73 840 2 97 390 693 2 59 3 70 0 37 167.753 31,619 199.572 1.168.326 416.481 1,564.769 33.368 9.469 42.837 195,492 144.044 339.536 204.534 56 649 263,183 1.106,047 548,156 1.734,203 653.218 679.936 1,733.152 14,937 11.619 26,756 103.429 89247 192,670 93.794 01.259 175,053 1.050,065 1,095,279 2.154,144 110.741 107.287 226.008 110.875 111,490 222,165 45 95 8 72 54 67 36 67 13 07 49 75 3622 10 65 4907 31.08 22 90 S3 97 48 05 13.78 61 62 42 61 19 79 62 59 35 00 30 09 7109 28 16 22 20 5045 316 2 73 5.90 3 27 2 63 6 11 37 13 30 40 75 S3 38 01 34 66 73 49 3641 36 67 73 06 290.923 74.135 365,058 2.252.463 933.256 3,165,721 87,122 20.178 67,298 366.790 262.281 629.071 330.894 94.015 425,709 1.079.223 091.299 2.770.522 1.160.268 1.257.667 2.437,955 20.299 24.739 53.030 1,700.101 1.560.002 3.266,183 1,498.305 1.370,100 2.066.405 1.304.044 1.460.114 2.052,150 158,369 149.180 307.549 149.481 154.527 304,008 5133 48 67 100.00 79.69 20 31 100 00 70 70 29 30 100 00 76 89 23 11 100 00 56 31 41 69 100 00 77 73 22 27 100 00 67 83 32 17 100 00 48 41 51 59 100 00 53 36 46 64 100 00 52 27 47 73 100 00 52 20 47 60 10OO0 46 53 51 47 100 00 51 49 48 51 100 00 49 17 50 83 100 00 5.592.517 1.708.196 1.560,013 12 16 3.268,209 4.380 910 ____________5j27O__ 93.269 30.117 _________123.386 2.394 525 2.919 15.633 11.965 __________27,598 6.301 1.740 ___________SjO41_ 92,408 54.314 . 146,722 3,71 339 7.10 1.19 025 1.44 293 095 387 2 74 060 334 249 1 90 4,39 1 48 041 1 69 334 1 96 87.397 47.666 115,065 96.684 30.670 127.360 620.610 396.443  Use these numbers with caution due to large stalislical uncertainty In the estimate because the standard For eiample, if the eslimale Is 100 students and the standard error Is 28, the estimate will be flagged  Non-response rate it more than 10% but less than 20%.  Non-response rata is mere than 20% but less than 30%. U Non-response rate Is more than 30%. 93.910 56.811 150.729 12.335 7.271 19,606 145,539 70.066 223,605 119.096 64.076 183,974 30.020 15.122 45,142 1.758 1.171 2.929 1.953 1.432 3,385 3 05 2 33 0 18 23 26 13 71 36 97 445 2 39 0 84 4.16 2 24 042 1 05 0 53 1 50 0 57 0 30 095 064 047 111 23.279 22.762 46,041 5.30 1,217,053 10.71 758 18.29 22 71 7,21 29,92 29 62 14 31 43,93 109.488 03.987 193,475 06.953 27.239 114,192 742.051 347.538 1,009,589 17 40 190.509 1335 131,409 30.76 321.990 2043 147.037 6 40 37.200 26 02 105,117 2678 315.795 12 54 146.006 3933 462,601 error ol the estimate eiceeds 25 percent of the estimate. 0 62 080 1 61 30 20 51 34 8 43 5 16 Pt\u0026gt;e I i sExhibit No. 119: LI230-90 1998 Elementary \u0026amp; Secondary School Civil Rights Compliance Report Projected Values for the Nation-OCR 4\n1 I. I !)5A ,? V- i '} % i 5 It S'/\"/ Illi '.a i* V e9 'ft. Exhibit No. 120: LI230-90 1998 Elementary \u0026amp; Secondary School Civil Rights Compliance Report Projected Values for AR-OCR ^Illl s syl II I I ft 1 I 3 II Dat9 Items Membership Corporal Punishment Suspension-Out of School Expulsion Mental Retardation Serious Emotional Disturbance Specific Learning Disability HS Diploma HS Certificale ot Attendance or Completion In Need of LEP Enrolled in LEP Gifted and Talented AP Mathematics AP Science Male Female Total Male Female Total Male Female Total Male Female Total Male Female Total Male Female Total Male Female Total Male Female Total Male Female Total Male Female Total Male . Female Total Male Female Total Male Female Total Male Female Total American Indian/Alaskan Native Number 1,124 979 2.103 50 . 2  52  44 12  56 5 0 5 18  12 30 0  2  2  48  21 69 43 35 78 0 0 0 10  2 12  8  9  62 73 135 2  6 2 3 % 0 25 0 22 047 0 12 000 0 13 0 14 0 04 0 16 0 58 000 0 58 0 15 010 0 25 000 041 041 0 23 0 10 0 33 0 16 0 13 0 29 000 000 000 0 13 0 03 0 IS 0 11 001 013 012 0 15 0 27 0 08 015 0 23 0 03 006 009 AslanZPaciftc Islander Number 1.723 1.707 3,430 36  45  128 34 162 6 0 6 22 % Department of Education, Office for Civil Rights 1998 Elementary and Secondary School Civil Rights Compliance Report Projected Values for the State of Arkansas Hispanic Number % Black (non-Hispanic) Number % White (non-Hispanic) Number % Total Number % Disabled Number % LimHed-Engilsh Proficient Number % \u0026lt;21%-Time Number % 2V6O%-TimB Number % \u0026gt;60%-Time Number *_l 0 39 0 39 0 77 0 09 0 02 0 11 041 oil 0 52 0 69 000 069 009 009 0 18 1  021 0  000 21 6 27 99 128 225 5 11 16 459 435 694 436 424 660 265 264 529 33 39 72 39 37 76 14 0 21 0 10 0 03 0 13 0 37 047 0 84 1 69 3 73 5 42 5 75 5 44 11 19 6 07 590 11 97 0 53 0 53 1 08 1 27 1 50 2 77 1 17 1.11 2 26 6 485 5.853 12 338 462  78 538  389 69 478 25 0 25 64 37 __221_ 8  5  13  255 134 __389_ 160 142 302 5  6  13 3.577 3 194 8.771 3.244 2.872 8 116 354 . 371 . 725  6 13 10 7 17 1 46 1 32 2 78 1 13 0 19 1 32 1 25 0 29 1 54 2 89 000 2 69 0 69 030 099 1 66 1 04 2 69 1 20 0 63 1 84 080 0 53 1 12 1 69 2 71 4 41 44 77 39 98 64 75 45 16 39 98 85 13 071 0 74 1 45 0 23 0 27 050 030 0 21 0 51 50.905 50,158 101.061 7,350 3,070 10.420 8.505 4.079 12,584 300 77 377 3.235 2.111 5,346 11 49 11 32 2280 1801 7 52 25 53 27 38 13 13 40 50 34 64 8 89 43 53 28 55 17 32 43 67 166.672 157.373 324.245 24.937 4,819 29,756 13.681 4.108 17.789 358 94 452 3.900 2.767 6.667 37 65 35 51 73 16 61 10 11 81 72 91 44 04 13 22 57 26 41 34 10 85 52 19 32 01 22 71 54 71 84 4 17 39 32 4 6 63 116 4 24 02 3,278 1.372 4,650 2,586 3,273 5.859 19 15 34 63 49 112 31 31 ____6^ 4.694 5,673 10,387 248 336 586 282 445 727 1547 8 47 21 94 9 63 12 19 21 62 6 44 508 11.53 0 79 061 1 40 0 43 043 088 941 11 36 20 79 9 53 1299 2251 8 47 13 37 2184  Use these numbers wHh caution due to large atatlstical uncertainty in the estimate because the 247 4 51 14 102 4 21 12 349 4 72 26 227,110 218.067 443,177 32.636 7.975 40.611 22.747 8,321 31.086 695 171 668 7.246 4.937 12,165 341  142  5125 48 75 100 00 80 46 19 54 100 00 73 22 26 78 100 00 60 25 19 75 100 00 59 48 40 52 100 00 70 60 29 40 50,154 11 32 4,229 3.782 7,991 220  47  267  179 40 219 8 5  13 0 95 0 85 1 80 054 012 0.65 058 013 0.70 092 0 58 1 50 107 b 0 88 11.328 4 733 16,061 10.078 10.312 20.390 111 120  231 118 82 200 73 64 137 18 146 19.960 38.106 973 954 1.927 1.257 1,250 2.507 53 45 22 33 75 78 37 53 38 40 7593 37 63 4066 7831 1 48 103 250 102 0 69 191 36 39 4003 76 42 37 38 36 65 7403 37 77 37 56 75 33 483 4 10000 14.930 6.265 21,195 12.965 13.867 26.852 141 154  295 4,227 3,782 7,969 3,792 3,392 7,184 23,521 26,341 49,882 1.281 1.342 2403 1,589 1.739 3,326 70 44 29 56 100 00 46 26 51 72 100 00 47 80 52 20 10000 52 91 47 09 10000 52 78 47 22 1O0O0 47 17 52 83 100 00 48 44 51 58 10000 47 75 52 25 10000 64 8 171  9 8 0 8 9 8 163 8 84 8 247 8 0 53 1 40 1 86 000 168 0 77 0 40 1 17 1.185 758 1,943 9 73 6 22 1595 3.902 2.816 6,720 81 4 1877 40 4 6 28 121 4 25 05 6.023 2.855 8.678 2842 12 53 40,94 32 02 23 13 55.15 120 4 24 84 66 4 1368 188 4 36 51 2.192 1.372 3.564 1799 11 26 29 25 149 4 30.85 38  7 87 953 473 1.428 31 21 52 189 122 311 184 115 299 482 344 826 38  18 56  9 23  3 55 1 78 5 31 10 51 7 12 17 03 2 37 1 53 3 89 256 1 60 4 16 0 97 0 69 166 1 e6 0 69 2 15 0 42 0 27 089 283  275  538  0 53 0 55 106 FAra.amnU u Ik. i. J Z----------------------........u.e standard error of the estimate exceeds 25 percent of the estimate. For example, if (he estimate is 100 students and the standard error is 28. (he es(lma(e will be flaooed la Ik... \u0026gt;M\u0026lt; u..* 1________ 4 Non-response rale is more than 10% but less than 20%,  Non-response rate is more then 20% but less than 30%. O Non-response rale Is mors (han 30%. 7.962 3.207 11,169 37 66 15 13 52 79 187 4 38 72 965 407 1.392 4 65 1 92 6 57 PageExhibit No. 121: Year 2 Evaluation\nThe Effectiveness of the PreK-2 Literacy Program in the LRSD 1999-2000 and 2000-01. LI230-9 IT. I 5 I 1 I) I 5H, f -Ul, (I ill II I ll Year 2 Evaluation: The Effectiveness of the I PreK-2 Literacy Program in the Little Rock School District 1999-2000 and 2000-2001 Executive Summary Presented to the Board of Education Little Rock School District October 2001 Prepared by Dr. Bonnie A. Lesley Dr. Ed Williams Patricia Price Pat Busbea Ann Freeman Ken Savage Anita Gilliam Sharon KiilsgaardYear 2 Evaluation: The Effectiveness of the PreK-2 Literacy Program in the Little Rock School District 1999-2000 and 2000-2001 Executive Summary This report is one in a series of at least seven reports to the Board of Education over the past three years relating to the improvement of student achievement in PreK-2 literacy. The study is organized into ten sections, as follows: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. Section I includes the Introduction, as well as a delineation of the Research Questions for the study and a description of the methodologies employed. Section II provides background information on the program design and its relationship to the Strategic Plan and the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. Section III describes the selection of appropriate assessments for grades K-2 and the processes by which readiness standards were established for each grade level for the Developmental Reading Assessment. It also includes information on national and local validation studies of the Observation Study and the Developmental Reading Assessment, as compared to the Achievement Level Test. The literacy plans design in relationship to the findings in national research studies on early literacy is described in Section IV. This section also includes an alignment of the research with the assessments selected by the District. Three major sections on data analysis follow. Section V is a description of each of the tables that was constructed from the data reports to assist the writers of this report and its readers in analyzing the results on the eight measurements: the five sub-tests on the Observation Survey (OS)\nthe Developmental Reading Assessment (DRA)\nand the reading and language usage sub-tests of the Achievement Level Tests (ALTs). Section VI is a detailed analysis of the data in each table and a comparison of 1999-2000 and 2000-01 data, by race. Additional data are provided in Section VII on the achievement gap among schools and on some statistical studies that were conducted relating to program effectiveness and the relationship between teacher participation in professional development and the achievement of their students. Following the data analysis is Section VIII that summarizes the program strengths and weaknesses and specifies the implications for instruction, with specific recommendations for improvements in 2001-02. Section IX is the Bibliography for the study. 10. Section X includes 87 tables of school-level data. Those interested in individual school performance or comparisons are encouraged to use the model in this report for data analysis at the District level to conduct similar analyses at the school level. 1The appendices A-E include copies of previous evaluation reports on the PreK-2 literacy program. In addition, a draft of a PreK-2 study was presented to the Board of Education for information in summer 2000 by the Plarming, Research, and Evaluation Department. The complete text of Section VIII, which includes the analysis of all available data and a set of recommendations for improvement in 2001-02, follows: VIII. Program Evaluation Findings and Recommendations for Improvement The research questions posed for this program evaluation are as follows: 1. Are the new curriculum standards/benchmarks, instructional strategies, and materials effective in teaching primary grade students how to read independently and understand words on a page? (See Section 5.2.1a of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan and Strategy 2 of the Strategic Plan.) 2. Is the new program effective in improving and remediating the academic achievement of African American students? (See Section 2.7 of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan.) 3. 4. 5. 6. Is there a relationship between teacher participation in professional development and student achievement? (See Policy IL expectation to examine cost effectiveness and Strategy 7 of the Strategic Plan.) Is there evidence of success in each of the four literacy models in use Early Literacy Learning in Arkansas (ELLA) only\nELLA and Reading Recovery\nSuccess for All\nand Direct Instruction? (See Section 2.7 of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan.) What are the programs strengths and weaknesses? (See Policy IL.) Is the program cost effective? (See Policy IL and Strategy 3 of the Strategic Plan.) This section will provide answers to each of the six research questions, along with summaries of supporting data. 1. Are the new curriculum standards/benchmarks, instructional strategies, and materials effective in teaching primary grade students how to read independently and understand words on a page? (See Section 5.2.1a of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan and Strategy 2 of the Strategic Plan.) When the program design committee published their plan for the PreK-3 Literacy Program, they included a section on Effectiveness (see pp. 12-14). Using the available 2data at that time, the 1997-98 and 1998-99 Grade 4 Literacy Benchmark results and the fall 1998 grade 3 SAT9 results, they noted that only approximately 30 percent of the students were achieving at an acceptable level. Another concern at that time was the achievement gaps that were evident. The committee wrote, These gaps are, of course, unacceptable and are indicators that current practice is not effective\" (p. 12). They also wrote, ... far too few students are becoming good readers by grade 3 (p. 13). To determine effectiveness of the new program components, the percent of students meeting the performance standard (readiness) on the Developmental Reading Assessment (DRA) was used since this measurement most closely approximates the type of measurement used on the grade 4 Literacy Benchmark. In summary, the standard for kindergarten is Level 2, for grade 1 it is Level 16, and for grade 2 it is Level 24. The percent readiness is the percent of students at each grade level who met the standard. (See Section III for a description of the DRA and the process used to establish performance levels or standards.) Tables 22 and 23 in Section V provide the data that are summarized here. The reader may also wish to review Tables 75-83 in Section X for school-level data. A summary of those results follows: Summary of K-2 Percent Readiness Data on the Developmental Reading Assessment All three grade levels improved in spring 2001. Grade 1 showed the greatest improvement. Grade Level 1999-2000 2000-2001 Change Kindergarten Grade 1 Grade 2 72.2 53.6 67.5 80.7 63.8 75.4 +8.5 +10.2 +7.9 More than 75 percent of the schools improved in spring 2001. Grade Level # Impr. % Impr. Kindergarten Grade I Grade 2 n 29 29 77% 83% 83% Both area and magnet schools did well. The five highest performing schools at each grade level for each year follow. McDermott Elementary was among the top five schools in 2000-2001 at all three grade levels. 3Grade Level 1999-2000 2000-2001 Kindergarten Grade 1 Grade 2 McDermott* Fulbright* Rightsell* Terry * Mitchell* Woodruff* Williams Wilson* Western Hills* McDermott* Rightsell* Williams Forest Park* Western Hills* Otter Creek* McDermott* Baseline* Fulbright* Gibbs Brady* Williams Carver McDermott* Booker Forest Park* Carver Williams Western Hills* Otter Creek* McDermott* Denotes area schools. Many schools improved dramatically in spring 2001. Schools improving 20 or more points were as follows. All are area schools, and most are high poverty schools. Stephens Elementary and Badgett Elementary were among the most improved schools at all three grade levels in 2000-2001. Grade Level 2000-01 Kindergarten Grade 1 Grade 2 Baseline (42.9)* Badgett (28.4)* Forest Park (27.1) Cloverdale (26.1)* Stephens/Garland (25J)* Wakefield (44.6)* Watson (41.9)* Baseline (41.2)* Stephens/Garland (27.5)* Western Hills (25.8) Chicot (24.4)* Badgett (20.6)*_________ Dodd (31.1) Badgett (31.1)* Stephens/Garland (30.1)* Pulaski Heights (29.3) McDermott (22.5) Denotes schools with 75% or higher eligible for free/reduced lunch. The Incentive Schools, in general, improved. With the exception of Mitchell and Rightsell at grade 1, a majority of the students performed at or above the readiness level, although significant gaps between the lowest and highest-performing schools are a concern. Franklin, Rockefeller, and Stephens had more than 50 percent of their students at or above readiness level at all three grade levels. 4Kindergarten School 1999-2000 2000-2001 Change Franklin Mitchell Rightsell Rockefeller Stephens 64.3 90.6 92.1 75.8 40.8 58.6 92.3 80.5 76.2 66.1 -5.7 1.7 -11.6 0.4 25.3 Grade 1 School 1999-2000 2000-2001 Change Franklin Mitchell Rightsell Rockefeller Stephens 57.6 25.0 35.7 76.3 23.5 58.9 25.0 41.7 65.2 51.0 1.3 0.0 6.0 -11.1 27.5 Grade 2 School 1999-2000 2000-2001 Change Franklin Mitchell Rightsell Rockefeller Stephens 81.2 48.6 94.7 71.4 31.3 83.6 50.0 70.5 84.2 61.4 2.4 1.4 -24.2 12.8 30.1 The Newcomer Centers improved, except for Terry at kindergarten and grade 2. All five schools had more than a majority of their students performing at or above the readiness level at the kindergarten level, all except one at grade 1, and all at grade 2. Second-language students scores are included in these results. Kindergarten School 1999-2000 2000-2001 Change Brady Chicot Romine Terry_____ Washington 76.9 56.1 66.7 91.9 81.2 93.4 70.9 86.4 86.7 84.1 16.5 14.8 19.7 -5.2 2.9 Grade 1 School 1999-2000 2000-2001 Change Brady Chicot Romine Tea_____ Washington 34.9 26.8 59.6 47.1 35.5 53.5 51.2 76.5 59.8 41.1 18.6 24.4 16.9 12.7 5.6 Gradel School 1999-2000 2000-2001 f haiigc Brady Chicot Romine Terry_____ Washington 70.8 38.6 68.8 81.2 63.3 79.6 52.1 81.6 67.1 81.4 8.8 13.5 12.8 -14.1 18.1 5 j iThere are seventeen (49 percent) elementary schools in the District where 75 percent or more of the students are eligible for ffee/reduced lunch. Many of these schools improved dramatically in spring 2001 and/or some performed in the highest range of scores (80 percent or higher). Kindergarten was the strongest performing grade with six of the 17 schools at 80 percent or higher. Sixteen of the 17 schools (94 percent) had the majority of their students at or above the readiness level at kindergarten, 11 of 17 ( 65 percent) at grade 1, and 15 of 17 (88 percent) at grade 2. First grade was the lowest of the three grades tested, but where the most growth occurred. Six schools improved 20 points or more. Kindergarten School 1999-2000 2000-2001 Change Badgett (94%) Franklin (90%) Stephens (90%) Chicot (87%)______ Baseline (86%) Woodruff (86%) Cloverdale (85%) Wilson (85%) Mabelvale (85%) Mitchell (84%) Watson (83%) Geyer Springs (83%) Rightsell (82%) Meadowcliff (81%) Wakefield (80%) Fair Park (78%) 21.6 64.3 40.8 56.1 51.1 69.2 56.4 66.7 61.0 90.6 56.4 85.1 92.1 77.4 46.8 68.3 so.o S8.6 66.1 70.9 94.0 46.2 82.5 80.0 73.3 92J 73.7 87.7 80.5 77.1 61.1 75.6 28.4 -5.7 25.3 14.8 42.9 -23.0 26.1 13.3 12.3 1.7 17.3 2.6 -11.6 -0.3 14.3 7.3 Grade 1 School 1999-2000 2000-2001 Change Badgett (94%) Franklin (90%)_____ Stephens (90%) Chicot (87%) Baseline (86%) Woodruff (86%) Cloverdale (85%) Wilson (85%) Mabelvale (85%) Mitchell (84%) Watson (83%)_____ Geyer Springs (83%) Rightsell (82%) Meadowcliff (81%) Wakefield (80%) Fair Park (78%) 5.9 57.6 23.5 26.8 29.6 84.2 28.4 82.9 50.8 25.0 24.7 46.8 35.7 70.0 22.0 62.5 26.5 58.9 51.0 51.2 70.8 61.5 33.9 53.8 60.5 25.0 66.6 38.6 41.7 66.6 66.6 72.7 20.6 1.3 27.5 24.4 41.2 -22.7 5.5 -29.1 9.7 0.0 41.9 -8.2 6.0 -3.4 44.6 10.2 6Grade 2 School 1999-2000 2000-2001 Change Badgett (94%) Franklin (90%) Stephens (90%) Chicot (87%)______ Baseline (86%) Woodruff (86%) Cloverdale (85%) Wilson (85%) Mabelvale (85%) Mitchell (84%) Watson (83%)______ Geyer Springs (83%) Rightsell (82%) Meadowcliff (81%) Wakefield (80%) Fair Park (78%) 11.8 81.2 31.3 38.6 47.1 78.3 57.9 60.4 43.4 48.6 54.4 72.5 94.7 57.9 40.0 62.9 42.9 83.6 61.4 52.1 60.5 86.5 45.1 61.4 63.0 50.0 51.2 66.0 70.5 75.0 54.4 67.7 31.1 2.4 30.1 13.5 13.4 8.2 -12.8 1.0 19.6 1.4 -3.2 -6.5 -24.2 17.1 14.4 4.8 Five of the seven Success for All (SFA) schools improved at the kindergarten and grade 1 levels in spring 2001, and six of the seven improved at grade 2. Some are now enriching the SFA program with ELLA strategies. Kindergarten had four schools in 2000-01 with scores at 80 percent or above, and grade 2 had two. All except one school had the majority of their students performing at or above readiness level at kindergarten, grade 1, and grade 2. Baseline posted high levels of growth at all three grade levels, especially kindergarten and grade 1. Kindergarten School 1999-2000 2000-2001 Change Brady Baseline Cloverdale Fair Park Meadowcliff Romine Woodruff 76.9 51.1 56.4 68.3 77.4 66.7 69.2 93.4 94.0 82.5 75.6 77.1 86.4 46.2 16.5 42.9 26.1 7.3 -0.3 19.7 -23.0 Grade 1 School 1999-2000 2000-2001 Change Brady Baseline Cloverdale Fair Park Meadowcliff Romine Woodruff 34.9 29.6 28.4 62.5 70.0 59.6 84.2 53.5 70.8 33.9 72.7 66.6 76.5 61.5 18.6 41.2 5.5 10.2 -3.4 16.9 -22.7 7Grade 2 School 1999-2000 2000-2001 Brady Baseline Cloverdale Fair Park Meadowcliff Romine Woodruff 70.8 47.1 57.9 62.9 57.9 68.8 78.3 79.6 60.5 45.1 67.7 75.0 81.6 86.5 Change 8.8 13.4 -12.8 4.8 17.1 12.8 8.2 Schools using both the ELLA strategies in grades K-2 and the Reading Recovery program in grade 1 performed well, especially in grade 2 evidence of the power of the grade 1 intervention. Eleven of the 12 schools (92 percent) had more than half of their students performing at or above the readiness level at grade 1, and all of them were over the 50 percent mark at grade 2. At grade 1, only two of the 12 schools (17 percent) had at least 80 percent of their students at or above readiness, and at grade 2 there were eight (67 percent). Grade 1 School 1999-2000 2000-2001 Change Booker Chicot* Dodd Franklin Fulbright** Geyer Springs Gibbs Jefferson** Otter Creek Pulaski Heights' Williams Wilson* 69.3 26.8 58.3 57.6 61.0 46.8 65.9 69.1 67.7 50.0 84.1 82.9 87.4 51.2 73.5 58.9 66.6 38.6 71.4 73.9 69.6 61.7 97.1 53.8 18.1 24.4 15.2 1.3 5.6 -8.2 5.5 4.8 1.9 11.7 13.0 -29.1 *2000-2001 was a training year. **Reading Recovery not continued in 2000-2001 due to loss of Title I funding. Grade 2 School 1999-2000 2000-2001 Change Booker Chicot* Dodd Franklin Fulbright' Geyer Springs Gibbs Jefferson** Otter Creek Pulaski Heights' Williams Wilson* 79.8 38.6 51.7 81.2 79.3 72.5 80.5 71.1 87.2 45.2 89.7 60.4 81.4 S2.1 82.8 83.6 88.7 66.0 82.9 85.0 90.5 74.5 92.6 61.4 1.6 13.5 31.1 2.4 9.4 -6.5 2.4 13.9 3.3 29.3 2.9 1.0 *2000-2001 was a training year. **Reading Recovery not continued in 2000-2001 due to loss of Title 1 funding. 8The number of schools with a majority of students performing below the readiness level declined, with the most improvement at grade 1. Grade Level 1999-2000 2000-2001 Kindergarten Grade 1 Grade 2 3 (9%) 13(37%) 8 (23%) 1 (3%) 6 (17%) 2 (6%) The number of schools with at least 80 percent of the students performing at the readiness level increased. Kindergarten was the strongest grade. Grade Level 1999-2000 2000-2001 Kindergarten Grade 1 Grade 2 15 (43%) 5(14%) 10(29%) 21 (60%) 5 (14%) 18(51%) The gap between the lowest and highest performing schools decreased. Grade Level 1999-2000 2000-2001 Change Kindergarten Grade 1 Grade 2 73.2 78.3 82.9 48.1 72.1 50.2 -25.1 -6.2 -32.7 Black students improved at every grade level and at a higher rate than non-black students. Grade Level 1999-2000 2000-2001 Change Kindergarten Grade 1 Grade 2 69.3 48.3 63.8 77.0 57.4 69.8 7.7 9.1 6.0 Non-black students also improved at every grade level. Grade Level 1999-2000 2000-2001 Change Kindergarten Grade 1 Grade 2 84.7 71.2 81.6 88.8 77.3 86.8 4.1 6.1 5.2 The achievement gap is much lower in grades K-2 now than in higher grade levels and is decreasing. It is lowest at kindergarten and highest at grade 1. Grade Level 1999-2000 2000-2001 Change Kindergarten Grade 1 Grade 2 15.4 22.9 17.8 11.8 19.9 17.0 -3.6 -3.0 -0.8 All of the data just cited are evidence that reading achievement improved in grades K-2 since fall 1999 when the new curriculum standards^enchmarks were implemented, along with new instructional strategies, materials, and assessments. In general, in some schools 9to a greater extent than others, but at all schools to some extent, students are performing at a higher level than they were in the pastboth black and non-black. So what can the District expect as these children move into higher grade levels? As discussed in Section III, it is too early to determine whether performance at the readiness level on the Developmental Reading Assessment (DRA) at grade 2 predicts proficient performance (or above) on the grade 4 Literacy Benchmark test administered by the state. The students who began the new curriculum in kindergarten in fall 1999 will not take the grade 4 Benchmark examination until spring 2004. If readiness on the DRA in grade 2 proves to predict only the basic level of performance (rather than proficient) in grade 4, then the new program would be expected to produce results that exceed the performance in 1997-9858 percent performing at or above the basic level. If readiness on the DRA in grade 2 predicts the proficient level of performance in grade 4, then the new program would be expected to produce results higher than 30 percent (the percent performing at or above the proficient level in 1997-98). Continued improvement on the grade 4 Literacy Benchmark test is anticipated since each year more teachers complete more training, and more students have more experience in the new program. It is important to remember, however, that test scores reflecting the performance of different groups of students each year do not necessarily go up every year- !ven with high levels of implementation. There will be some variances due to a number of different influences. In spring 2004, when the 1999-2000 kindergarten students will take the grade 4 Literacy Benchmark test, the District can more accurately calculate how performance on the grade 2 DRA predicts achievement on the grade 4 Literacy Benchmark. At that time, more accurate pronouncements of the effectiveness of the early literacy program can be determined. 2. Is the new program effective in improving and remediating the academic achievement of African American students? (See Section 2.7 of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan.) As discussed in Section II, the District chose to emphasize the prevention of failure to every extent possible in its efforts to improve and remediate the achievement of African American students. The philosophy behind the Districts instruction program for early literacy development mirrors that of the International Reading Association in their position paper entitled Making a Difference Means Making It Different: Honoring Childrens Rights to Excellent Reading Instruction. The first principle in that document is that Children have a right to appropriate early reading instruction based on their individual needs (3). The position is that No single method or single combination of methods can successfully teach a child to read. Instead, each child must be helped to develop the skills and understandings he or she needs to become a reader (3). A major challenge to District staff was to design a total program that would take into account that 10Children of poverty are more likely than others to enter school without the knowledge and background necessary for learning to read and wnte. They are more likely to fail at school tasks, thus decreasing motivation. Reducing the impact of poverty will require instruction that is sensitive to the childrens own knowledge and background and consistent in supporting children as individual learners each with his or her own set of strengths and needs (13-14). The program design had to be one that would allow every child, regardless of prior knowledge and skill, to grow, to develop increasingly more complex knowledge and skills, and to be challenged and successfuland, at the same time, to accelerate the growth of children from poverty so that the gap narrowed over time. To determine the effectiveness of the new program in improving and remediating the academic achievement of African American students, the District used the performance results of the Observation Survey and the Developmental Reading Assessment. The basic criterion established in determining the program effectiveness for black students was that black student achievement would have to improve and then that growth over the two-year period of the programs implementation would need to be equal to, but preferably greater than, the growth of non-black students. A caution in interpreting the scores of some of the measures is that four of the five subtests on the Observation Survey have relatively low ceilingsfor at least two reasons. (See Section III for a description of the tests and the maximum scores for each.) The first is that they are designed so that all children can experience some measure of success in the assessment process, and the second is that they measure leaming-to-read skills, not higher-level comprehension skills foimd in many reading assessments for older children. For example, there are only 54 items on the Letter Identification test, which measures whether a child can recognize upper and lower-case letters. There are only 20 words to decode on the Word Test, and those words are the most frequently occurring words in the basal reader. There are only 24 questions on the Concepts about Print test, all relatively simple. And there are only 37 points that can be earned on the K-1 Hearing and Recording Sounds test and 64 points at grade 2. In most of the sub-tests the greatest growth for both black and non-black students occurs at the kindergarten level where the ceiling is less of a factor. One of the Observation Survey sub-tests does not have a ceilingWriting Vocabulary, where the child is asked to write, within ten minutes, all the words he/she can write. And, as one might expect, children who come to school with rich literacy experiences in their backgrounds do better on this test than those who come from poverty backgrounds. Also, students who come to school with substantial vocabularies have more to build upon, and they learn how to write the words they already know and how to wnte new words at a faster rate than those coming in with limited vocabulary. In fall 1999 the black kindergarten scores were only 62 percent of those of non-black students. The data will show, however, that even though this test concludes with a higher gap than the other sub-tests of the Observation Survey, the gap is considerably more narrow at the end of 11 grade 2 than it was in fail of kindergarten, and black students grew a great deal on this measurement over a two-year period. The Developmental Reading Assessment (DRA) has a maximum of 44 levels. Since this test was constructed to be used through grade 3 or even beyond for students who are still learning to read, the ceiling effect is not evident at the end of grade 2 in the LRSD. The DRA is the most difficult of the measurements used in K-1 since it does test comprehension and more complex cognitive operations. The Achievement Level Test at grade 2 has far less of a ceiling than any of the measurements used in K-2. Staff reviewed the data from various perspectives to determine program effectiveness, specifically for Afiican American students. They looked, for instance, for evidence that black students growth in the leaming-to-read skills was progressing at the same or higher amount than non-black students growth and that the percentage (ratio) of black performance to non-black performance was increasing from the fall pre-test to the spring post-test and from grade-level to grade-level. Scores were examined as well to determine the amount of summer regression and to determine the growth of two-year cohorts (kindergarten in 1999-2000 and grade 1 in 2000-01 and then grade 1 in 1999-2000 and grade 2 in 2000-01). Comparisons of black and non-black performance for each test administration and each grade level were made of the average scores on each sub-test, the percent of those averages of the maximum scores, and the percent of students achieving the readiness standard for each grade level. These detailed analyses for each sub-test are found in Section VI of this program evaluation, with references to the tables in Section V. The following findings based on Observation Survey, Developmental Reading Assessment, and Achievement Level Test results make it possible to conclude that the new early literacy program has so far been effective in improving and remediating the reading achievement of African American students, as well as all students. It is unusual in any District to find gains by both blacks and non-blacks over a two-year period on eight different measurements, as this study finds. Again, however, experts on program implementation advise that it takes approximately five years to determine program effectiveness, so this year 2 study at best establishes baseline and early trend data for comparisons in future years. Also, the Year 2 study does not include an examination of the variance in learning opportunities for students from school to school or an examination of the different forms of interventions. It is a look at the total program, including all its components. Letter Identification The gap was almost closed on Letter Identification by the end of kindergarten in 2000-01, and it was totally closed at the end of grade 1. 'The percentages in the following table represent the ratio of black to non-black scores for each testing administration. 12Letter IdentificationBlack to Non-Black Ratios Grade Level Kall 1999 Kindertarten Grade 1 Spring 2000 Fall 2000 Spring 2001 81% 96% 96% 100% 83% 99% 97% 100% i Black growth exceeded that of non-black students at both kindergarten and grade 1 in both 1999-2000 and 2000-01. The Letter Identification test is not given in grade 2. Letter IdentificationGrowth/Improvement Grade Level 1999-00 Growth 2000-01 Growth KinderBlack KinderNon-B Difference Grade 1Black Grade 1Non-B Difference 20.89 16.22 4.67 5.36 3.42 1.94 21.95 18.04 3.91 4.06 3.42 0.64 The ratio of the number of points of growth for black students as compared to non-black students over a two-year period (kindergarten in 1999-2000 and grade 1 in 2000-01) was 134 percentthe highest growth ratio on any of the sub-tests for this cohort. (See Table 7.) Ratios over 100 percent indicate that black students grew more points than non-black students. Letter IdentificationGrowth Ratios of Black to Non-Black Grade Level 1999-2000 2000-2001 Kinderearten Grade 1 Two-Year Cohort 129% 157% 122% 119% 134% Black students experienced no regression during the summer between kindergarten and grade 1 on this measurement, although non-black students did. Letter IdentificationSummer Regression Race Spring 2000K Fall 2000Gr. I Diff. Black Non-Black 48.48 50.30 48.95 49.66 +0.47 -0.64 In fall 1999 black kindergarten students achieved 51 percent of the maximum score of 54 on this measurement, as compared to 63 percent for non-black students. By the end of grade 1 in 2000-01, the black students scored 98 percent of the maximum, as did the non-black students. 13Letter IdentificationPercent of Maximum Score Grade Level Fall 1999 Spring 2000 Fall 2000 Spring 2001 KinderBlack Kinder-Non-B Grade 1Black Grade 1Non-B 51% 63% 88% 92% 90% 93% 98% 98% 51% 61% 91% 92% 91% 95% 98% 98% Word Test Although black students began kindergarten in fall 1999 scoring at only 57 percent of non-blacks, by the end of grade 2 in 2000-01 the black scores were 96 percent of non-black scoresvirtually closing the gap on this measurement in the second year of program implementation. This test includes only 20 of the most frequently occurring words, so it measures a very limited amount of decoding achievement. Word TestBlack to Non-BIack Ratios Grade Level Fall 1999 Spring 2000 Fall 2000 KinderEarten Grade 1 Grade 2 Spring 2001 57% 73% 89% 76% 92% 96% 83% 68% 91% 97% 94% 96% Even though black students did not grow as many points as non-blacks in kindergarten, they grew more than non-blacks in both grade 1 and grade 2 for both years, 1999-2000 and 2000-01. They also grew at a faster pace in kindergarten on this measurement than they did in either grade 1 or grade 2. Neither black nor non-black students grew much on this measurement in grade 2 since both groups were close to maximizing their scores by the end of grade 1. The larger gro3vth in the second year of the program at the kindergarten level may be an indication of teachers being more explicit in developing these necessary skills. The growth ratios indicate the more rapid improvement of black student achievement in grades 1 and 2. The higher growth ratios for black students may also reflect that non-black students had come close to maximizing the total possible score on this low-ceiling measurement. Word TestGrowth/Improvement Grade Level 1999-00 Growth 2000-01 Growth Kinder-Black KinderNon-B Difference Growth Ratio Grade 1Black Grade 1Non-B Difference Growth Ratio Grade 2Black Grade 2Non-B Difference Growth Ratio 9.58 16.22 -6.64 81% 11.12 10.45 0.67 106% 2.82 1.73 1.09 163% 12.03 13.73 -1.70 88% 11.52 10.04 1.48 115% 2.06 1.31 0.75 157% 14Black students grew more than non-black students during the two-year period of 1999-2000 kindergarten and 2000-2001 grade 1 (cohort 1) and during the 1999- 2000 grade 1 and 2000-2001 grade 2 (cohort 2). Cohort Growth Cohort I Cohort 2 Black Non-Black Difference Ratio 15.58 15.48 0.10 101% 12.31 11.02 1.29 112% Both black and non-black students regressed in their performance on this measurement during the summer between kindergarten and grade 1. There was slight regression for both groups between grade 1 and grade 2, but not nearly as much as the previous summer. In both cases, black students regressed less than non-blacks on this measurement. Word TestSummer Regression Race Spring 2000 Kinder Fall 2000 Grade I Diff. Spring 2000 Grade I Fall 2000 Grade 2 Diff. Black Non-Black 11.33 14.91 5.81 8.49 -5.52 -6.42 16.87 18.34 16.00 17.60 -0.87 -0.74 1 i In fall 1999 the black kindergarten students scored 9 percent of the maximum score of 20 on this measurement, as compared to 15 percent for non-black students. By the end of grade 2 in 2000-01, after two years in the program, black students scored 90 percent, as compared to 95 percent for non-black students. Word TestPercent of Maximum Score Grade Level Fall 1999 Spring 2000 Fall 2000 Spring 2001 KinderBlack KinderNon-B Grade 1Black Grade 1Non-B Grade 2Black Grade 2Non-B 9% 15% 29% 39% 81% 90% 57% 75% 84% 92% 95% 99% 7% 13% 29% 42% 80% 88% 67% 82% 87% 93% 90% 95% Concepts about Print Black students started kindergarten in fall 1999 scoring at 69 percent of non-black students scores. By the end of grade 1 in 2000-01 the ratio was 93 percent almost closing the gap on this measurement. Concepts about PrintBlack to Non-Black Ratios Grade Level Fall 1999 Spring 2000 Fall 2000 Spring 2001 Kindergarten Grade 1 69% 88% 81% 93% 72% 84% 87% 93% 15Just as in the Word Test, black kindergarten students did not grow as many total points as did non-black students in either 1999-2000 or 2000-01, although the growth was almost the same in 2000-01. But their growth did exceed non-black growth in grade 1 for both years. The highest amount of growth on this measurement was in kindergarten for both blacks and non-blacks. Teachers were clearly more effective in teaching the skills measured on this sub-test the second year of implementation. This test is not administered in grade 2. Concepts about PrintGrowth/lmprovement Grade Level 1999-00 Growth 2000-01 Growth Kinder-Black KinderNon-B Difference Growth Ratios Grade IBlack Grade 1Non-B Difference Growth Ratios 7.76 8.06 -.30 96% 5.65 5.21 .44 108% 10.07 10.11 -.04 100% 6.25 5.11 1.14 122% Black students grew more than non-black students in the two-year period of 1999- 2000 kindergarten and 2000-2001 grade 1. Cohort Growth Cohort 1 Black Non-Black Difference Ratio 13.22 11.72 1.50 113% Both black and non-black students experienced a slight regression in their performance over the summer between kindergarten and grade 1 on this measurement. The non-black students regressed a little more than did the black students. Concepts about PrintSummer Regression Race Spring 2000K Fall 2000Gr. I Dill. Black Non-Black 14.30 17.56 13.51 16.11 -0.79 -1.45 In fall 1999 the black kindergarten students scored 27 percent of the maximum score of 24 on this measurement, as compared to 40 percent for non-black students. By the end of grade 1 in spring 2001,, after two years of instruction, the black students scored 82 percent of the maximum, as compared to 88 percent for non-black students. 16Concepts about PrintPercent of Maximum Score Fall 1999 Spring 2000 Fall 2000 Spring 2001 KinderBlack KinderNon-B Grade 1Black Grade 1Non-B 27% 40% 58% 65% 60% 73% 81% 87% 25% 35% 56% 67% 67% 77% 82% 88% Writing Vocabulary The gap at the end of grade 2 on this measurement is the highest of any of the gaps on the five sub-tests of the Observation Survey, but it is still much smaller than the gaps that have been in existence in the past, especially those on the SAT9. This sub-test is the only one of the Observation Survey sub-tests that is without a ceiling. Black kindergarten students started in fall 1999 performing at only 62 percent of non-black scores. At the end of grade 2 in 2000-01, the ratio had improved to 87 percentan improvement of 25 points. Writing VocabularyBlack to Non-Black Ratios Fall 1999 Spring 2000 Fall 2000 Spring 2001 Kindergarten Grade 1 Grade 2 62% 87% 95% 66% 84% 82% 58% 80% 84% 71% 88% 87% Black Student growth lagged behind non-black growth in terms of numbers of points at all three grade levels on this measurement. This finding reinforces what teachers know as the power of prior knowledge. Students entering school already knowing much of what is measured on Letter Identification, Concepts about Print, and even the Word Test begin to amass vocabulary and spelling skills immediately, while those who come without that knowledge must take the time to learn them before they can perform well on a measurement such as the Writing Vocabulary sub-test. As on other measures, there was considerably more growth for all students the second year of program implementation. Also, the difference between the growth of black and non-black students lessened in year 2 at both grade 1 and grade 2. 17Writing VocabuiaryGrowlh/Improvement Grade Level 1999-00 Growth 2000-01 Growth Kinder-Black KinderNon-B Difference Growth Ratios Grade 1Black Grade 1Non-B Difference Growth Ratios Grade 2Black Grade 2Non-B Difference Growth Ratios 11.57 17.43 -5.86 66% 23.57 28.39 -4.82 83% 15.18 24.08 -8.90 63% 16.86 23.06 -6.20 73% 27.22 29.29 -2.07 93% 25.96 28.54 -2.58 91% Black students grew at a slower pace than non-black students in both cohort 1 (1999-2000 kindergarten and 2000-2001 grade 1) and cohort 2 (1999-2000 grade 1 and 2000-2001 grade 2) on Writing Vocabulary. Also, the results of this subtest reveal a widened gap over the two-year period, even though the number of points of improvement for both blacks and non-blacks was the highest^perhaps due to the test not having a ceiling. Cohort Growth Cohort I Cohort 2 Black Non-Black Difference Ratio 37.23 40.74 -3.51 91% 42.22 48.32 -6.10 87% Black students experienced only a slight regression on this measurement between kindergarten and first grade, and the regression for non-black students was about three times as many points. Both groups also regressed on this measurement over the summer between grade 1 and grade 2. Again, non-black students regressed more than black students. Writing VocabularySummer Regression Race Spring 2000 Kinder Fall 2000 Grade I Diff. Spring 2000 Grade I Fall 2000 Grade 2 Diff. Black Non-Black 14.50 22.13 12.94 16.15 -1.56 -5.98 37.11 44.04 29.80 35.43 -7.31 -8.61 18 I iHearing and Recording Sounds The gap almost closed (91 percent) on this measurement by the end of grade 2 in 2000-01, even though the black kindergarten scores in fall 1999 were only 54 percent of those of non-black students. The 46 percent in fall 2000 was the lowest beginning ratio of all the sub-tests on the Observation Survey. Hearing and Recording SoundsBlack to Non-Black Ratios Fall 1999 Spring 2000 Fall 2000 Spring 2001 Kindergarten Grade 1 Grade 2 54% 78% 86% 70% 91% 88% 46% 74% 87% 76% 92% 91% Black students did not grow as many points on this measurement as non-black students during kindergarten of either 1999-2000 or 2000-01. However, their growth did exceed that of non-black students in grade 1. It lagged only slightly behind non-black students in grade 2 during 1999-2000, but exceeded the non- black students in 2000-01, again indicating the growing effectiveness of the program. As seen on other measurements, the greatest growth or improvement for both black and non-black students was at the kindergarten level. This measurement, like Writing Vocabulary, reveals the importance of prior knowledge. Children cannot write down a dictated sentence without knowing Letter Identification and Concepts about Printinformation that many had not mastered at the kindergarten level. Black student growth at grade 1 and grade 2 are evidence that they have mastered the prerequisite knowledge and skills for good performance on this sub-test. Hearing and Recording SoundsGrowtb/Improvement Grade Level 1999-00 Growth 2000-01 Growth Kinder-Black KinderNon-B Difference Growth Ratios Grade 1Black Grade 1Non-B Difference Growth Ratios Grade 2Black Grade 2Non-B Difference Growth Ratios 13.44 17.71 -4.27 76% 13.62 12.13 1.49 112% 8.18 8.21 -0.03 100% 17.43 21.03 -3.60 83% 14.21 10.85 3.36 131% 6.10 4.34 1.76 141% The black growth exceeded non-black growth for cohort 1 (1999-2000 kindergarten and 2000-2001 grade 1), but it lagged slightly behind non-black growth in cohort 2 (1999-2000 grade 1 and 2000-2001 grade 2). 19Cohort Growth Cohort I Cohort 2 Black Non-Black Difference Ratio 28.12 27.74 0.38 101% 34.35 34.80 -0.45 99% Black students did not regress over the summer between kindergarten and grade 1, although non-black students did on this measurement. Both black and on-black students gained multiple points over the summer between grade 1 and grade 2 on this measurement. Hearing and Recording SoundsSummer Regression Race Spring 2000 Kinder Fall 2000 Grade I Diff. Spring 2000 Grade I Fall 2000 Grade 2 Diff. Black Non-Black 17.02 24.37 17.49 23.55 4-0.47 -0.82 30.87 34.11 45.50 52.44 4-14.63 4-18.33 In fall 1999 black kindergarten students scored 10 percent of the maximum score of 37 on this measurement, as compared to 18 percent for non-black students. By the end of grade 1 in 2000-01 black scores had improved to 86 percent, as compared to non-black scores at 93 percent. At the end of grade 2, black students in 2000-01 scored 81 percent of the maximum score of 64, as compared to 89 percent for non-black students. Hearing and Recording SoundsPercent of Maximum Score Fall 1999 Spring 2000 Fall 2000 Spring 2001 KinderBlack Kinder^Non-B Grade 1Black Grade 1Non-B Grade 2Black Grade 2Non-B 10% 18% 47% 59% 66% 77% 46% 66% 83% 92% 79% 89% 6% 13% 47% 64% 71% 82% 53% 69% 86% 93% 81% 89% Developmental Reading Assessment This test assesses significantly more complex xmderstandings and skills than does any one of the sub-tests on the Observation Survey. The Observation Survey provides information on each students leaming-to-read skills, while the Developmental Reading Assessment tests recall and comprehension. In spite of that, however, LRSD students, both black and non-black, made significant improvements in their performance over the past two years. Black kindergarten students in fall 1999 were scoring at only 35 percent of the level of non-black studentsthe widest gap seen on any of these K-2 assessments. But by the end of grade 2 in 2000-01, after only two years in the program, the black to non-black ratio was 80 percent. The staff members consulted for this program evaluation are confident that once students have been in the program for three years that the end 20of grade 2 ratio will be closer to 90 percentvirtually closing the gap in ensuring that all students learn to read independently by the end of grade 3. Developmental Reading AssessmentBlack to Non-Black Ratios Grade Level Fall 1999 Kindergarten Grade 1 Grade 2 Spring 20QQ Fall 2000 Spring 2001 35% 64% 74% 43% 68% 78% 41% 47% 70% 48% 71% 80% Although black students did not grow as many points as non-black students in kindergarten or grade 1 for both years of the test or during grade 2 in 1999-2000, they grew more than non-black students in grade 2 during 2000-01again evidence of the growing effectiveness of the program in the second year of implementation. Performance on this measurement again is evidence of the importance of prior knowledge. Children entering school with strong knowledge and skills learn to read much quicker than those who come without them, e.g., the rapid growth of non-black students in kindergarten and grade 1. Non-black children, in general (with some exceptions), are learning to read at grade 1, and black children, again in general (but with many exceptions), are learning to read at grade 2. Developmental Reading AssessmentGrowth/Improvement Grade Level 1999-00 Growth 2000-01 Growth Kinder-Black KinderNon-B Difference Growth Ratios Grade 1Black Grade 1Non-B Difference Growth Ratios Grade 2Black Grade 2Non-B Difference Growth Ratios 2.14 4.40 -2.26 49% 12.38 17.69 -5.31 70% 10.11 11.79 -1.68 86% 3.21 6.62 -3.41 48% 14.22 17.46 -3.24 81% 10.55 9.87 0.68 107% As on the Writing Vocabulary sub-test, non-black growth on the Developmental Reading Assessment surpassed black growth for both cohort 1 (1999-2000 kindergarten and 2000-2001 grade 1) and cohort 2 (1999-2000 grade 1 and 2000- 2001 grade 2). Cohort Growth Cohort I Cohort 2 Black Non-Black Difference Ratio 16.99 22.69 -5.70 75% 24.46 29.20 -4.74 84% 21Both black and non-black students slightly improved their performance over the summer between kindergarten and grade 1 on the DRA. Both also improved over the summer between grade 1 and grade 2. Developmental Reading AssessmentSummer Regression Race Spring 2000 Kinder Fall 2000 Grade I Diff. Black Non-BIack 3.09 7.12 Spring 2000 Grade I 3.72 7.95 Fall 2000 Grade 2 Diff. 16.67 24.37 18.20 26.01 + 1.53 +1.64 In fall 1999 black kindergarten students achieved 2 percent of the maximum score of 44 on the DRA, as compared to 6 percent for non-black students. By the end of grade 2 in 2000-01, after two years of instruction in the new program, the black students scored at 65 percent of the maximum, as compared to 82 percent for non- black students. Developmental Reading AssessmentPercent of Maximum Score KinderBlack KinderNon-B Grade 1Black Grade INon-B Grade 2Black Grade 2Non-B Fall 1999 2 6 10 15 40 55 Spring 2000 7 16 38 55 63 82 Fall 2000 1 2 8 18 41 59 Spring 2001 8 17 41 58 65 82 Achievement Level TestGrade 2 Reading The Achievement Level Test for grade 2 reading differs significantly from the Developmental Reading Assessment, although both are measurements of reading comprehension. The Developmental Reading Assessment is a one-on-one administered test that uses in its instructions to students the same language as the teacher used in the instruction of the students. Also, the teacher, using a rubric, scores the students responses, so the student is not distracted by having to manipulate a test booklet, plus an answer sheet and pencil and be moving back and forth between the test booklet and the answer sheet. The Achievement Level Test at grade 2 is the first experience that elementary students have with a group-administered examination that requires them to bubble in their responses to questions on a separate answer sheet. The directions to the students may or may not be in familiar language. So even though some of the same concepts are tested on these two measurements, they are tested in entirely different ways, and most early childhood experts advise against administering this kind'of test to students below grade 3. (See position statements by the International Reading Association and the National Associate for the Education of Young Children.) 22Black students scores were 93 percent of the national median in spring 2001, as compared to non-black students scores at 99 percent. The gap between the RIT scores narrowed from spring 2000 to spring 2001 by one pointfrom 13 to 12. Black students RIT scores improved two points from spring 2000 to spring 2001, as compared to only one point of improvement for non-black students. Achievement Level TestGrade 2 Language Usage This sub-test is the first test in language usage experienced by LRSD elementary students. The same issues as described for the ALT reading test exist for the language usage test relating to the unfamiliarity and complexity of the testing situation. In spite of these potential difficulties, performance improved from spring 2000 to spring 2001. Black students scores were 95 percent of the national median in spring 2001, as compared to non-black students scores at 102 percent. The gap between the RIT scores narrowed from spring 2000 to spring 2001 by two pointsfrom 14 to 12. Black students RIT scores improved two points from spring 2000 to spring 2001, as compared to no improvement for non-black grade 2 students. National Research on the Achievement Gap National research and other credible studies on the achievement gap between black and non-black students have been consistent in finding that black students test scores are lower than non-black students test scores. Educational Achievement and Black-White Inequality, just released in July 2001 by the National Center for Education Statistics (a department of the Office of Educational Research and Improvement), found the following in their analyses of educational achievement of children at various points between grades 1 and 12: Black-white gaps in mathematics and reading achievement appeared at every grade studied. Even for children with similar levels of prior achievement one or two grades earlier, mathematics and reading scores of blacks were generally lower than the corresponding scores of whites (p. xi). The black-white reading gap also differed in size across grades, but not in an entirely consistent manner\nit grew wider between grades within two elementary school cohorts, but was narrower in cohorts observed in grades 9 and 12 than in a cohort observed in grade 2 (p. xii). 23Within the same samples of children, the black-white reading gap increased by one-third between grades 1 and 2 and one-fifth between grades 3 and 5, while remaining the same between grades 7 and 9, and between grades 10 and 12 (p. xiv). These findings imply that black-white disparities in educational achievement can widen as students progress through elementary or secondary school. Possible explanations for these differences in achievement growth include differences in the school or home environments of children of different racial backgrounds that make it more difficult for blacks to acquire math or reading skills at the same pace as whites (p. xv). The black-white reading gap widened by one-third between grades 1 and 2, and by one-sixth between grades 3 and 5 (p. 37). Within each of the elementary school samples, black children acquired reading skills at slower rates than white children. Between grades 1 and 2, and between grades 3 and 5, blacks acquired reading skills at a rate onefifth slower than the rate of whites (p. 37). The existence of a smaller black-white reading gap in grade 12 than in grade 2 suggests that these gaps are not immutable, and that appropriately designed public policies can reduce the educational disparities between black and white children (p. 42). The results of two years of changes in the LRSD policies, programs, and procedures in grades PreK-2 indicate that both black and non-black children in the Little Rock School District are learning to read and are well on their way of reaching the district goal of all children being able to read independently by grade 3 (see Section 5.2.1 of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan). The findings and analyses in this report indicate trends in the opposite direction of the national research findings cited above and of scores of other similar studies. Instead of black students growing at slower rates than non- blacks, in most of the measurements the LRSD results indicate higher rates of growth of black students than non-blacks. Instead of the gap widening between grades 1 and 2 as it does in national studies, it narrows significantly in the LRSD by every one of the eight measures (five sub-tests of the Observation Survey, the Developmental Reading Assessment, and two sub-tests of the Achievement Level Test). The black to non-black ratios on each of the measures are summarized below for each of the two years of testing: 24Kindergarten Black to Non/Black Ratios: Reductions in the Achievement Gap Sub-Test hall 1999 Spring 2000 Change hall 2000 Spring 2001 Change Letter Identification Word Test Concepts about Print Writing Vocabulary Hearing/Recording DRA 81% 57% 69% 62% 54% 35% 96% 76% 81% 66% 70% 43% -15 -19 -12 -4 -16 -6 83% 53% 72% 58% 46% 41% 97% 82% 87% 71% 76% 48% -14 -29 -15 -13 -30 -7 Grade 1 Black to Non-Black Ratios: Reductions in the Achievement Gap Sub-Test hall 1999 Spring 2000 Change h all 2000 Spring 2001 Change Letter Identification Word Test Concepts about Print Writing Vocabulary Hearing/Recording DRA 96% 73% 88% 87% 78% 64% 100% 92% 93% 84% 91% 68% -4 -19 -5 +3 -13 -4 99% 68% 84% 80% 74% 47% 100% 94% 93% 88% 92% 71% -1 -26 -9 -8 -18 -24 Grade 2 Black to Non-Black Ratios: Reductions in the Achievement Gap Sub-Test hall 1999 Spring 2000 Change h all 2000 Spring 2001 Change Word Test Writing Vocabulary Hearing/Recording DRA ALT Reading_____ ALT Lang. Usage 89% 95% 86% 74% 96% 82% 88% 78% 93% 93% -7 + 13 -2 -4 91% 84% 87% 70% 98% 87% 91% 80% 94% 94% -7 -3 -4 -10 Another prominent study on black vs. white achievement in reading is entitled, Does the Black-White Test Score Gap Widen after Children Enter School? by Meredith Phillips, James Crouse, and John Ralph, published in The Black-White Test Score Gap (1998) that was edited by Christopher Jencks and Meredith Phillips. That comprehensive studys major findings included the following\n... About half of the total black-white math and reading gap at the end of high school can be attributed to the fact that blacks start schools with fewer skills than whites. The other half can be attributed to the fact that blacks learn less than whites who enter school with similar initial skills. This does not necessarily mean that schools are a major contributor to the black-white test score gap. Although blacks may attend worse schools than whites, may be treated differently from whites in the same schools, or may be less interested in school than initially similar whites, it is also possible that blacks parenting practices, peer influences, summer learning opportunities, or beliefs about their academic ability could explain why 25they learn less between first asid twelfth grades than initially similar whites (p. 232). ... The black-white vocabulary' gap is about the same size at the end of the ninth grade as at the beginning of first grade (p. 233). ... Race appears to have a stronger negative effect on reading growth than on math growth (p. 248). ... Race also has more impact on vocabulary growth than on math growth during elementary school (p. 249). Our calculations imply that 56 percent of the math gap and 43 percent of the reading gap can be attributed to the fact that blacks start school with fewer skills than whites. It follows that 44 percent of the math gap and 57 percent of the reading gap is unrelated to racial differences in initial skills (p. 254). If equal educational opportunity means that black and white children should start school with the same basic skills, then we have yet fulfilled that ideal. The average black child starts elementary school with substantially weaker math, reading, and vocabulary skills than the average white child. Because these skill differences persist throughout elementary and secondary school, the average black child finishes the twelfth grade with weaker math, reading, and vocabulary skills than the average white child. Our results imply that we could eliminate at least half, and probably more, of the black-white test score gap at the end of the twelfth grade by eliminating the differences that exist before children enter first grade (pp. 256-257). Again, the results in the LRSD are, for the most part, in the opposite direction of these studies. Black students are making significant progress in catching up with their non- black peers through the Districts early literacy program, especially in the leaming-to- read skills that are tested on the Observation Survey. It is true, however, that the vocabulary gaps and the gaps on the more difficult measures, such as the Developmental Reading Assessment, while greatly narrowed, do still persistundoubtedly due to the much wider gaps that existed at the beginning of kindergarten. 3. Is there a relationship between teacher participation in professional development and student achievement? (See Policy IL expectation to examine cost effectiveness and Strategy 7 of the Strategic Plan.) The most expensiveand the most important-piece of the cost of any program implementation designed to improve student achievement is always the cost of professional development. The cost of student materials is a one-time expense, generally, but the cost of professional development is ongoing. New teachers have to begin their 26 initial training every year. Ineffective teachers have to be retrained. All teachers need on-going opportunities to refine and enhance their understandings and skills. Implementation has to be coached and monitored. And all are necessary if there is to be continuous improvement. Richard Allington summarizes the research literature as follows: In study after study, it is the quality of the teacher, not variation in curriculum materials, that is identified as the critical factor in effective instruction. That is not to say that materials are wholly unimportant, but that investing in teacher development has a better result than investing in curriculum materials (9). It is very important, therefore, for the District to know if there is a positive relationship between teacher participation in the LRSD training on early literacy and the achievement of their students. Patricia Busbeas Education Specialists thesis examined this question for a sample of kindergarten students. In her findings, she concluded, The current study strongly indicated Early Literacy Learning in Arkansas (ELLA) did influence the student outcomes of the ten students included in the study (p. 77). She added, It can be concluded that the teachers participation in the ELLA training did influence changes in the teachers classroom practices (p. 78). Another study relating to the black-white test score gap is also helpful here. Ronald Fergusons study, Teachers Perceptions and Expectations and the Black-White Test Score Gap was published in The Black-White Test Score Gap (1998), edited by Christopher Jencks and Meredith Phillips. He wrote the following: Simply cajoling teachers to raise their expectations for black childrenusing phrases such as All children can learnis probably a waste of time. However, good professional development programs can make a difference. Recall that some teachers in Oklahoma responded to the Great Expectations program with the assertion, My kids couldnt do that. If they had gone on teaching as they had always done, that judgment would have been correct. But when they changed their teaching methods, they learned that they were wrong. Similarly, Guskey shows that teachers can learn responsive teaching methods that weaken the link between past and future performance. Teachers who have been helped to improve their classroom practices can have seeing is believing experiences that challenge their prior biases (312). Other studies on the effectiveness of the ELLA training, as well as studies in general on the impact of professional development on teacher practice and student achievement would suggest a positive relationship, if the training is closely aligned with the curriculum standards and assessments, if the training is delivered well, if the training is followed by coaching and feedback, and if the training is in depthsufficient to build the new skills and understandings. Twelve days of ELLA training have been offered to LRSDs K-2 teachers during the past two years, in addition to the required training on the administration of the Observation Survey and Developmental Reading Assessment, and in addition to the days in the school-year calendar for professional development. In Section VII are summaries of two 27 studies conducted to determine, by program, the degree of teacher participation in professional development. The highest average number of days of participation has been among kindergarten teachers for the schools implementing ELLA strategies and for those implementing both ELLA and Reading Recovery. The greatest participation at all three grade levels has been among the teachers in schools implementing both ELLA strategies and Reading Recovery. These schools, perhaps, have the greatest degree of commitment to improved literacy, as evidenced both by the commitment of their Title I funds to literacy by funding Reading Recovery and by the teachers willingness to attend professional development sessions. Almost half of their grade 1 teachers have completed the entire 12 days of training. The following table indicates by school the participation level of teachers in ELLA training over the two-year period: Teacher Participation in ELLA Training, by School School # Kinder Tchers Kinder Days #Gr. 1 Tchers Grade I Days #Gr. 2 Tchers Grade 2 Days Total Days Total # Tchers Avg. # Days Badgett Bale Baseline Booker Brady________ Carver Chicot Cloverdale Dodd Fair Park Forest Park Franklin Fulbright_____ Geyer Springs Gibbs Jefferson King_________ Mabelvale McDermott Meadowcliff Mitchell Otter Creek Pulaski Heights Rightsell______ Rockefeller Romine Stephens_____ Terry________ Wakefield Washington Watson Western Hills Williams Wilson Woodruff Total Average Days 1 2 3 5 4 4 4 3 2 2 2 3 4 3 3 3 5 3 3 2 2 3 3 2 4 4 3 4 3 4 3 2 3 2 2 105 0 7 0 37.5 6 32.5 17 19 21 0.5 0 36 42 24 23 24 42.5 9 0 0 8 24 33 5 10.5 21 10 32.5 20 0 0 11 34 14 9.5 573.5 5.46 2 3 3 5 3 4 3 3 2 2 3 4 3 2 3 3 3 2 3 2 2 4 2 2 3 2 2 4 3 4 3 3 3 3 2 100 9 6.5 5 43.5 0 33 22 0 24 0 4.5 48 .42 9.5 22 25 16 12.5 0 0 2 38 0 0 18 0 15 20.5 16 7 3 6 22.5 27 0 497.5 4.98 2 3 3 5 4 4 6 2 3 2 3 3 3 2 2 3 5 3 3 2 2 3 2 2 2 3 2 5 3 4 3 2  4 3 2 105 0 3.5 0 47 0.5 10 24.5 12 36 0 4 36 18 14.5 22 13.5 7.5 17 13 0 1 11 10 5 0 0 2.5 22.5 17 7 0 0 3.5 24 0 372.6 3.54 9 17 5 126 6.5 75.5 62.5 31 79 0.5 8.5 120 92 48 67 63.5 66 38.5 13 0 II 73 43 10 28.5 21 27.5 73.5 53 14 9 17 60 65 9.5 1,443.6 5 8 9 15 1 12 13 8 7 6 8 10 10 7 8 9 13 8 9 6 6 10 7 6 9 9 7 13 9 12 3 7 10 8 6 310 Teachers designated as Special Education or other special programs were added to grade 2 to simplify the table. 1.8 2.1 0.6 8.4 0.6 6.3 4.8 3.9 11.3 .08 1.1 12 9.2 6.9 8.4 7.1 5.1 4.8 1.4 0 1.8 7.3 6.1 1.7 3.2 2.3 3.9 5.6 5.9 1.2 0.3 2.4 6 8.1 1.6 4.65 28From the table above, one can infer that implementation is, in general, still at a low level since the average number of days of ELLA training experienced by teachers is 4.65 of the 12 possible days available. Kindergarten teachers have the highest level of participation, then grade 1 and then grade 2. Kindergarten, probably not coincidentally, is the highest performing grade level. Interestingly, participation does not seem to vary as much within a school as it does across schools. In other words, for the most part, either every teacher at a grade level or in a school participates fully, or they participate minimally. For example, every teacher at Franklin has participated all twelve days, and the average number of days at Dodd is 11.3 days. Other high-participation schools include Booker, Fulbright, Gibbs, and Wilson. ELLA schools with two or fewer average days of participation include Badgett, Bale, Forest Park, McDermott, Mitchell, Rightsell, Watson, and Western Hills. The major obstacle the District has had in providing the 12 days of professional development to all teachers has been the lack of availability of substitute teachers. Too many times when District staff pull teachers out of class for professional development, the school is not able to secure a substitute, so a class is divided up and sent to other classrooms. In either case, even when a substitute can be secured, valuable instructional time is lost. The staff has attempted, therefore, to provide the training in the evenings, on week-ends, and during the summer, paying stipends to teachers for attendance rather than paying for substitutes. This strategy makes participation optional, and fewer teachers participate. The following table displays by quarter the number of classrooms where teachers were absent in 2000-01 and there were no substitutes available to cover their classes. The absences were for all possible reasons, not just for ELLA training, but the numbers indicate the extent of the problem in attempting to provide teacher training during school time. Teacher Absences without Substitutes, Elementary Schools, 2000-01 Quarter First Second Third Fourth Total Number 63 120 295 479 957 One can assume approximately half of those 957 teachers would be K-2 teachersor 478. The other half can be assumed to be 3-5 teachers. If there is an average of 20 students in the K-2 classrooms and given the mandated two and one-half hours daily for literacy instruction, then 23,900 student hours of literacy instruction were lost in 2000-01 in grades K-2 alone due to teacher absences and the lack of quality substitutes. The number of lost hours due to teacher absences covered with a substitute substantially increases this number. Given the necessity of teachers being out from time to time due to illness and the resulting loss of quality instructional time, it is clearly a major problem to 29 pull teachers out of classrooms for professional developmenteven when their participation in these activities results in improved sludesit achievement. The statistician in PRE conducted statistical analyses for each of the past two years to determine which of the four instructional approaches (ELLA only, ELLA plus Reading Recovery\nSuccess for All\nand Direct Instruction) was producing the most powerful results. For both years the most effective program was clearly the ELLA plus Reading Recovery, and the second most powerful program was ELLA only. In 2000-01 the Success for All schools did perform at a significantly higher level than they did in 1999- 2000, especially at grade 1. It is important to note that the schools implementing ELLA plus Reading Recovery were also the schools with the highest participation in professional development. 4. Is there evidence of success in each of the four literacy models in useEarly Literacy Learning in Arkansas (ELLA) only\nELLA and Reading Recovery\nSuccess for All\nand Direct Instruction? (See Section 2.7 of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan.) When the early literacy program plan was developed, it allowed schools to implement either ELLA, ELLA plus Reading Recovery, or Success for All strategies. If a school wished to do something different, that school was required to submit a waiver request for approval. Only Washington Magnet did so. Their waiver application requested approval for them to continue the implementation of Direct Instruction, and it was granted. To establish evidence of success for each of these models, at least one school implementing each of the four models was examined. Except for Direct Instruction where there is only one school involved, there is, of course, more than one successful school implementing each model. One is reminded here, however, of an oft-repeated quotation from Ron Edmonds: How many effective schools would you have to see to be persuaded of the educability of poor children? If your answer is more than one, then I submit that you have reasons of your own for preferring to believe that basic pupil performance derives from family background instead of school response to family background. Ron Edmonds was the seminal researcher who established the first correlates of effective schools, i.e., those schools that were effective in teaching all students, regardless of economic or racial background. A Successful ELLA School Carver Magnet School is a good example of a school that has implemented the ELLA strategies. Although a magnet school. Carver has many students from poverty backgrounds and who enter kindergarten performing considerably below their more affluent peers. Because they have so many students from middle and upper-class 30 backgrounds, their average scores are usually among the highest in the District. Effective schools, however, are those schools with not only high average (mean) scores, but also high scores among each of their sub-groups. Carvers progress in improving the percent of their students performing at or above the readiness level on the Developmental Reading Assessment and in closing the black to non-black achievement gap is displayed in the following table. Without exception, both black and non-black students improved their performance at grade-level during the second year of implementation. And, without exception, the gap was considerably narrowed the second year of the program. Finally, the grade 2 gap in 2000-2001 is only about a third of what it was for kindergarten students. Improvements in Percent Readiness Developmental Reading Assessment Can er Magnet 1999-2000 2000-2001 KindergartenAll KindergartenBlack KindergartenNon-Black KindergartenGap Grade 1All Grade 1Black Grade 1Non-Black Grade 1Gap__________ Grade 2All Grade 2Black Grade 2Non-Black Grade 2Gap 80.5% 74.4% 91.7% 17.3 76.1% 64.7% 90.3% 25.6 81.8% 78.3% 94.7% 16.4 90.4% 83.8% 97.2% 13.4 91.8% 83.3% 100% 16.7 93.1% 91.1% 95.2% 4.1 An area school that has performed well in the last two years is McDermott Elementary. This school performed in the highest range at the kindergarten and grade 1 the first year of the new program and at all three grade levels in 2000-01. McDermott Elementary ranked in the top five schools on the DRA in 1999-2000 at kindergarten and grade 1 and at all three grade levels in 2000-01. McDermotts kindergarten class was the highest performing in the District both years, and McDermotts grade 2 was among the schools that improved the most in 2000-01. It is important to note, as well, that McDermott virtually closed the achievement gap in 2000-01 between black and non-black students at grades 1 and 2 on the Developmental Reading Assessment. 31Improvements in Percent Readiness Developmental Reading Assessment McDermott Elementan' 1999-2000 2000-2001 Kindergarten.All KindergartenBlack KindergartenNon-Black KindergartenGap Grade IAll Grade 1Black Grade 1Non-Black Grade 1Gap__________ Grade 2--A11 Grade 2Black Grade 2Non-Black Grade 2Gap 94.8 94.7 97.3 2.6 80.4 85.7 76.9 *8.8 67.1 62.8 86.4 23.6 94.3 86.4 100.0 13.6 87.9 87.5 87.9 0.4 89.6 89.5 89.7 0.2 A Successful ELLA, Plus Reading Recovery. School Dodd Elementary, a school with high percentages of minority and poverty, is an example of a successful school implementing both ELLA strategies and Reading Recovery. Because Dodd is very smalt and because it has high mobility, it is difficult to make valid comparison of scores from one year to the next. One child represents several percentage points in a small school, and the children who were in kindergarten last year are likely to be very different from the children in grade 1 this year. Nevertheless, the efforts of the Dodd faculty are making major differences in the literacy of the children who attend there. In the second year of the program implementation, both grade 1 and grade 2 improved significantly. The gap was virtually closed in grade 1, and that is the year of the Reading Recovery intervention for the lowest performing students. Improvements in Percent Readiness Developmental Reading Assessment Dodd Elementary' 1999-2000 2000-2001 KindergartenAll KindergartenBlack KindergartenNon-Black KindergartenGap Grade 1All Grade 1Black Grade 1Non-Black Grade 1Gap__________ Grade 2All Grade 2Black Grade 2Non-Black Grade 2Gap 86.5% 88.2% 85.0% *3.2 58.3% 60.0% 62.5% 2.5 51.7% 52.9% 71.4% 18.5 80.0% 76.5% 88.2% 11.7 73.5% 72.2% 73.3% 1.1 82.8% 73.7% 100% 26.3 Denotes that black students are higher performing than non-black students. A Successful Success for All School Baseline Elementary made such dramatic improvements in 2000-01 that they were selected as an example of a successful Success for All school. Baseline Elementary has 86 percent of its children eligible for the free/reduced lunch program and very few 32 non-black children, so their challenge is to overcome the effects of poverty and the disadvantages that go with it. The improvements at Baseline at the kindergarten and grade 1 levels are exemplary. Grade 2 did not perform as well, but black students did improve sufficiently to close the gap at that grade level. Improvements in Percent Readiness Developmental Reading Assessment Baseline Elementary 1999-2000 2000-2001 KindergartenAll KindergartenBlack KindergartenNon-Black KindergartenGap Grade 1All Grade 1Black Grade 1Non-Black Grade 1Gap Grade 2All Grade 2Black Grade 2Non-Black Grade 2Gap 51.0% 48.6% 100% 51.4 29.6% 30.2% 20.0% *10.2 47.1% 46.2% 57.1% 10.9 94.0% 92.5% 100% 7.5 91.8% 68.3% 85.7% 17.4 60.5% 60.5% 60.0% *0.5 Denotes a school where blacks scores are higher than non-blacks. A Successful Direct Instruction School Washington Magnet is the only school in the Little Rock School District implementing the Direct Instruction model. Their overall performances at kindergarten and grade 2 are strong, although the gap did increase at both grade levels in the second year. The gap at grade 1 nanowed, but the scores are low. Success is very mixed at this school, with few consistent patterns. Both sub-groups improved only at grade 2. Improvements in Percent Readiness Developmental Reading Assessment Washington Magnet 1999-2000 2000-2001 KindergartenAll KindergartenBlack KindergartenNon-Black KindergartenGap Grade 1All Grade 1Black Grade 1Non-Black Grade 1Gap Grade 2-All Grade 2Black Grade 2Non-Black Grade 2Gap 81.2% 81.8% 83.3% 1.5 35.5% 24.4% 55.2% 30.8 63.3% 61.7% 73.1% 11.4 84.1% 78.0% 95.7% 17.7 41.1% 36.8% 50.0% 13.2 81.4% 74.3% 88.6% 14.3 As demonstrated in the data under Research Question #1 and with the information in this section, the literacy programs are working well in a variety of school models and with both black and non-black students. 335. What are the programs strengths and weaknesses? (See Policy IL.) When a District chooses to implement a program that is already research-based, already tested with students of similar demographics, then the program itself does not require evaluation. Rather, it is the program implementation that requires scrutiny. Thus, in response to this question, the program evaluation team must consider the areas of strong implementation and the areas where the implementation has been weak. Program Strengths The elementary literacy programs (ELLA only, ELLA plus Reading Recovery, Success for All, and Direct Instruction) in the Little Rock School District are producing improvements in student achievement on every one of the eight different measurements examined in this program evaluation\nthey are producing improvements in every individual school, even if only at one grade level\nand they are narrowing and sometimes totally closing the achievement gap, even as non-black students are also improving. It would be impossible to determine which individual components of the new programs have had the most powerful effects since everything was implemented at once, without setting up controlled experiments. There tends to be a consensus, however, among teachers and reading specialists who have been asked that the designation of the two and one-half hour uninterrupted block of time for literacy instruction has made a major difference in the degree of emphasis given to literacy at every school. Also cited as important and powerful are the ELLA strategies that teachers are learning through the professional development program and the availability of the new materials in every classroom. Animated Literacy has made a difference in childrens mastery of phonemic awareness at the kindergarten level. Another definite strength is that teachers are using the assessment results to drive their instructionone of the staffs objectives in selecting the Observation Survey and the Developmental Reading Assessment with their rich sources of data and their tight alignment with the Districts curriculum standards and grade-level benchmarks. Teachers also cite the preponderance of children who now have access to the Districts pre-kindergarten program as another strength. More and more children are having an opportunity for another year of experiences that promote higher levels of literacy. Program Weaknesses Program weaknesses can be found in the examination of school-by-school performances.  There was in 2000-01 a narrowing of the achievement gap among the performance of the 35 elementary schools, but gaps still exist, the widest on the Developmental Reading Assessment., And at each grade level the gap widened in 2000-01 on one sub-testLetter Identification at grade 1 and Writing Vocabulary at kindergarten and grade 2. 34Another program weakness is in the variability of the amount of teacher training experienced from school to school. There is one school where not a single teacher has participated in the ELLA training\nand there are two where all the teachers have participated fully, with other schools somewhere in between. Teachers in the Success for All and Direct Instruction schools have had lower rates of participation in the ELLA training. Grade 1 is the lowest performing grade of the three grades tested, so that grade level requires attention in improvement efforts. There is likely a need for further intervention. Lack of a monitoring plan through classroom observations to document the level of implementation is a problem. This weakness not only resulted in a late identification of poor implementation in some cases, but it was also a weakness in evaluating the consistency of program implementation. Finally, more high quality parent involvement would likely improve results, especially to address the summer regression phenomenon, but also in general. 6. Is the program cost effective? (See Policy IL and Strategy 3 of the Strategic Plan.) The literacy plan was adopted in spring 1999, so the first purchases of classroom materials and the first professional development sessions designed to prepare teachers for implementation occurred in summer 1999. The District has invested over the two-year period $405,948 on materials for teachers and books for classroom libraries to support the implementation of the new program. The State provided a grant of $198,440 that was also spent on students instructional materials. During the two-year period the District spent $119,450 on the salary and fringe benefits for one teacher leader and approximately $12,000 on teacher stipends for inservice participation. Other professional development conducted during the school day at times required the cost of substitutes (paid by the Human Resources Department) and at times was absorbed by the school staff. One additional expense was the $29,500 cost for the Developmental Reading Assessment materials. In summary, the total investment over two years in this program has been as follows: Instructional materials Professional development Assessments Total $604,388* $131,450 $ 29,500 $765,338* *0f these amounts, $198,440 was funded by the State through a grant. The total cost to the District, therefore, was $566,898 for ELLA implementation. During the past two 35 years all ELLA training was conducted during the summer and after school hours. Teachers were not paid a stipend. One group of 35 teachers, however, was paid stipends for the training-of-trainers training for live days of pailscipalion in summer 1999. The schools implementing Success for All and Direct Instruction paid for their professional development and student materials from their Title I budgets. A reading specialist from the Elementary Literacy Department has been assigned to supervise the Success for All school programs, so her salary, travel, and benefits are costs to the District, not Title I. Reading Recovery costs were also funded through school-level Title I budgets. An average salary for a Reading Recovery teacher is $40,000, plus fringe benefits. The cost of six hours of graduate-level tuition for their training is approximately $1,000. And the cost of materials to use with students is about $3,000 per teacher. Schools have expended about $1,100,000 over the past two years in paying for training costs and salaries for their Reading Recovery teachersa total of eight. Are all these expenditures cost effective? It is really too early to make a determination. If the program results in virtually all children learning to read independently by grade 4 when they take the Benchmark examination, then this program is a bargain on that measurement alone. If only a few children become proficient enough to go to college and, as a result, earn a much higher salary than they would have had they not learned to read well, then the investment will be returned several times. If the District moves from only 30 percent of its students performing at or above the proficient level to even^O percent, then the investment will see incremental returns. The staff and the Board of Education must make a determination at this juncture as to whether the current results are encouraging enough to continue the course that has been set. The data indicate positive results at all three grade levels, even though the data also indicate that the teachers have received only about one-third of the training for full implementation. Ongoing investments, plus possible policy decisions, will be necessary to ensure that all teachers receive the minimum 12 days of training, with appropriate follow-ups and enhancements. Recommendations for Improvement are made for the consideration of The following recommendations for improvement District and building-level staff, as well as for the Board of Education. Instructional Recommendations Given the gap between black and non-black achievement in the fall kindergarten scores for both 1999-2000 and 2000-01, there is an indication that Letter Identification should be stressed more with black and other low-performing prekindergarten students. Schools should monitor their implementation of the balanced literacy program, including Animated Literacy implementation, to ensure that all kindergarten children learn their letters and sounds by the end of the kindergarten year. The National Research Council in Preventing Reading Difficulties in Young Children makes a similar recommendation: 36It is clear from the research on emergent literacy that important experiences designed to reduce the number of children with inadequate literacy-related knowledge (e.g., concepts of print, phonemic awareness, receptive vocabulary) at the onset of formal schooling would considerably reduce the number of children with reading difficulties and, thereby, the magnitude of the problem currently facing schools (317). Adams points out that it is not simply the accuracy with which children can name letters that gives them an advantage in learning to read, but it is the ease or fluency with which they can do so (p. 43). Therefore, if it takes two years of school just to learn the letters, then some time is lost in developing ease and fluency. She concludes, Thus the speed with which they can name individual letters both strongly predicts success for prereaders and is strongly related to reading achievement among beginning readers (43). Schools and teachers should assess why the 2000-01 grade 2 students, both black and non-black, performed lower on the Word Test than those in 1999-2000. One implication is that decoding development should be emphasized even more in grade 1. Adams notes that weaknesses in basic decoding skills may be the most common and can be the most serious source of reading difficulties (92). Acceleration of black students decoding skills in reading frequently occurring words is recommended in pre-kindergarten and kindergarten so that the black students performance on the Word Test catches up to non-black performance before grade 2. The gap closed in Letter Identification at grade 1 and for the Word Test in grade 2. Even though it is almost closed at the end of grade 1 for Concepts about Print, it is not quite, and instruction must continue in this area in grade 2 until the concepts are mastered for students who are low-performing. Adams points out that A lack of phonemic awareness ... appears to be characteristic of children who are failing or have failed to learn to read (57). The skills and knowledge that are prerequisite to high performance on Concepts about Print should be consciously and explicitly taught at the pre-kindergarten and kindergarten levels so that little remains to be done in this area by grade 1. This kind of acceleration is essential if the gap is to be closed on this measure. Schools must ensure the full implementation of the Pre-ELLA program at the prekindergarten level and the ELLA strategies at the kindergarten level. Even though both black and non-black students recorded their highest rates of growth on Writing Vocabulary, the achievement gap is highest on this measure at the end of two years than of any other sub-test. Even at that, the gap is only 13 points, with black scores achieving 87 percent of those of non-black students. There are implications here, again, for African-American students, who clearly 37 need even greater attention to vocabulary and spelling development and an accelerated program to bring their achievement to the level of that of non-black students. None of the measurements used in K-2 is a vocabulary test, per se. They all, however, test vocabulary, and as research indicates, higher-level, more standardized tests, such as the Achievement Level Tests, essentially measure students vocabulary, regardless of the subject matter being tested. Marzano, Kendall, and Gaddy report in their recent book. Essential Knowledge: The Debate Over What American Students Should Know, that their research indicates that vocabulary instruction should be the focal point of education, especially for students from more disadvantaged backgrounds (143). They continue as follows: Research indicates that even when there is no attempt to ensure that the words students are taught are ones they will need to know when learning new content, the effect on their achievement is substantial. Specifically, teaching vocabulary has been shown to increase students ability to understand new content by 12 percentile points (146-147). The effects of vocabulary instruction are even more powerful when the words selected are those that students most likely will need to know as they encounter new content. Specifically, research indicates that student achievement will increase by 33 percentile points when vocabulary instruction focuses on specific words that are important to what they are learning (147). The National Reading Panels findings indicate that vocabulary should be taught both directly and indirectly. Repetition and multiple exposures to vocabulary items are important. Learning in rich contexts, incidental learning, and use of computer technology all enhance the acquisition of vocabulary. Direct instruction should include task restructuring as necessary and should actively engage the student (p. 14). Adams encourages teachers to teach vocabulary explicitly: direct vocabulary instruction is generally shown to result in an increase in both word knowledge and reading comprehension (p. 29). Teachers should include in their lessons at least some degree of instruction on test wiseness. That is, since the ALT is the first test with the requirement to bubble answers that the students take, their lack of familiarity with the format and expectations may depress achievement. An excellent resource for teachers in ways to do this work effectively and ethically is A Teachers Guide to Standardized Reading Tests: Knowledge Is Power by Lucy Calkins, Kate Montgomery, and Donna Santman. 38Parent Involvement Recommendations Students who begin kindergarten knowing a lot about literacy learn faster than those who do not. They have the necessary prior knowledge to make meaning from grade-level instruction. A concern, therefore, is that while some black students take two years of school to master letter identification, non-black students had achieved 95 percent of the maximum score by the end of kindergarten. While many black students continued to master letter identification in grade 1, non-black students were, no doubt, moving forward in other areas, such as vocabulary development. Adams states, One interpretation impossible to avoid is that the likelihood that a child can succeed in first grade depends, most of all, on how much he or she has already learned about reading before getting there (p. 44). The poverty-related factors, therefore, that created the gap for children before they started to school continue after they start to school, even though the school programs may be highly effective. These findings have implications for public policy at the federal, state, and community level for pre-natal care and early childhood health care, parenting, cognitive development, and social development. It takes a village to teach children high levels of literacy. The schools and classroom teachers can do their best by seeking individual ways to accelerate student learning in pre-kindergarten and kindergarten so that grade 1 students can spend their time on more complex cognitive operations that are prerequisite to learning to read. Both black and non-black students at the end of both kindergarten and grade 1 lost significant Writing Vocabulary during the siunmer, indicating, most likely, little reinforcement of this skill during summer months. Along with summer reading and spelling lists that are sent home, teachers should also include exercises that allow students to maintain, at a minimum, and ideally to improve their Writing Vocabulary during the summer. Schools should organize, perhaps with the assistance of the HIPPY staff, a preschool PT A so that support and assistance can be provided to as many parents as possible in the development of early literacy experiences, from birth forward. For instance, parents need to know the research cited by Adamsthat the beginmng of phonemic awareness is seeded in childrens knowledge of nursery rhymes (p. 42). She continues\n... success in reading can be found in traditional rhymes and word games such as Baa Baa Black Sheep and Humpty Dumpty (p. 43). Adams also found that The single most important activity for building the knowledge and skills eventually required for reading appears to be reading aloud to children. In this, both the sheer amount of and choice of reading materials seem to make a difference (46). The staff should design appropriate reports and processes to keep parents well informed about their childrens performance on the early literacy assessments, as 39well as about ways that they can support higher achievement. The Student Academic Improvement Plan (SAIP) and the Parent-School Compact are two processes that address the need for close communication with parents. Schools should evaluate the effectiveness of their implementation of these processes. Rasinski summarizes the research on the effect of parental involvement on literacy as follows: For if you are talking about research-based information, we have it in the effects of community-home-school connections and student achievement in reading. Study after study has shown positive effects of parental involvement in the literacy education of their children. .. (161). District-level should collaborate with school-level staff in designing processes for effective communication of the results of K-2 assessments. Intervention Recommendations Given the amount of summer regression that is evident on several of the measurements, attention to these issues should be a priority for those children participating in the inter-sessions of the Extended Year Education (EYE) schools and for children participating in after-school programs and summer school. A concern of the Superintendents Cabinet for the past three years has been that several schools are no longer eligible for Title I funding due to changes in their demographic make-up. A school must have among its students at least 35 percent who are eligible for ffee/reduced lunch services in order to qualify. Both the staff in those schools and staff at the District level have noted that some of the Districts most economically-deprived children attend those schools, and there is now no funding for special services or support for them. The area schools without Title I funding are as follows: Forest Park, Fulbright, and Jefferson. Fulbright and Jefferson lost their Reading Recovery programs when Title I funds were no longer available, and Pulaski Heights lost theirs due to inadequate Title I funding. Not surprisingly, those very schools have some of the widest achievement gaps of any of the Districts schools. The District should continue to explore options for providing the necessary support services to these schools for the lowest-performing students. Otherwise, wide achievement gaps will continue to exist. The District should take all necessary steps to continue its efforts to secure external grant funding for additional support for individual schools. Funds are needed to provide more Reading Recovery teachers, especially in the lowest performing schools. Ideally, there would be one Reading Recovery teacher for every two grade 1 classrooms. This step, plus the addition of Literacy Coaches in every school, would greatly enhance the likelihood'of success. Schools with Title I funding should redirect their budgets to fund these effective interventions. 40Since grade 1 is the lowest performing grade of the three grades tested, attention must be devoted to improvement at this level. The National Research Council makes the following recommendations for students in grade 1 who still are having reading related difficulties: Additional instructional services in supplemental reading programs should be provided in the first grade. Instruction should be provided by a well-qualified reading specialist who has demonstrated the ability to produce high levels of student achievement in reading. Materials and instructional techniques should be provided that are well integrated with ongoing excellent classroom instruction and that are consistent with the findings, conclusions, and recommendations identified above in Reading Instruction in Kindergarten through Third Grade. Children who are having difficulty learning to read do not, as a rule, require qualitatively different instruction from children who are getting it. Instead, they more often need applications of the same principles by someone who can apply them expertly to individual children who are having difficulty for one reason or another (327). To these ends, the following recommendations are critically important for continued improvement: Expand Animated Literacy into grade 1 (or even grade 2) for students who need it or design another effective intervention\nEncourage schools to implement their own research-based interventions during after-school, tutoring, inter-sessions, and summer school. Reallocate Title I dollars to these high-quality interventions and away from the employment of aides and provide as many Reading Recovery and Literacy Coaches as possible through all sources of funds. Continue or expand teacher training in all components of Balanced Literacy for all teachers. These components include instruction in concepts about print, phonemic awareness and letter identification, phonics, language acquisition, vocabulary development, and emergent writing. Professional Development Recommendations Given the high positive correlation in national studies and in LRSD of the relationship between teacher participation in high quality professional development and the achievement levels of their students, it is evident that professional development should continue to be a high priority in the ongoing implementation refinements of the PreK-2 Literacy Program, including for 41teachers in the Success for All and Direct Instruction schools. Too, participation should not be optional, given the findings of the National Reading Panel: the results indicated that inservice professional development produced significantly higher student achievement (17). District staff should ensure that every LRSD teacher knows the skills that students must have to perform at least at the national median on the Achievement Level Tests. The publications available from the Northwest Evaluation Association delineate the specific skills and understandings that are needed to perform in various levels of each test. It is important that teachers ensure that those same skills and understandings are included in their lesson plans so that students are as well prepared as possible to perform well on the grade 2 ALTs. Schools Identified for Improvement at K-2 The following schools are identified for improvement. They are among the lowest performing schools in at least two of the three grade levels tested. According to the Districts Priority Intervention Procedures, the District should provide special assistance for improvement for the staff of the following schools: Badgett, Cloverdale, Meadowcliff, Mitchell, and Watson. Badgett, Mitchell, and Watson are ELLA schools, but with very low levels of teacher participation in professional development and, thus, low levels of program implementation. Both Cloverdale and Meadowcliff are Success for All schools, again with low levels of implementation in that program. Year 3 Program Evaluation Recommendations The District should design and implement procedures to document the quality of program evaluation in all K-2 classrooms. The District should add to the year 3 study an analysis of how the new literacy program has impacted the referral and placement of K-2 children for 504 or Special Education services. The District should add to the year 3 study an analysis of the impact of participation in the Districts pre-kindergarten program on early literacy achievement. The District should measure Effect Size as an alternative to the growth index in determining improvement. The District should examine the impact of the new literacy program on the retention rate. 42Section IX: Bibliography Adams, Marilyn Jager (1990). Beginning to Read: Thinking and Learning about Print. Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT Press. Adams, Marilyn Jager (1990). Beginning to Read: Thinking and Learning about Print A Summary. Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT Press. Allington, Richard L. (2001). Teaching Children to Read: What Really Matters. Preventing Early Learning Failure. Bob Somson, Ed. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Beaver, Joetta (1997). Developmental Reading Assessment. Parsippany, NJ: Celebration Press. Busbea, Patricia A. (2000). A Study of the Effects of the Professional Development Model. Early Literacy Learning in Arkansas (ELLAl on Changes in Kindergarten Teachers Instructional Practices and Students Outcomes. Little Rock, AR: University of Arkansas at Little Rock. Calkins, Lucy, Kate Montgomery, and Donna Santman (1998). A Teachers Guide to Standardized Reading Tests: Knowledge Is Power. Portsmouth, NH\nHeinemann. Celebration Press (1996). Preliminary Validation of the Developmental Reading Assessment. Parsippany, NJ: Celebration Press. Clay, Marie M. (1993). An Observation Survey of Early Literacy Achievement. Portsmouth, NH\nHeinemann. Compliance Committee (March 2000). Interim Compliance Report. Little Rock, AR: Little Rock School District. Compliance Committee (March 2001). Compliance Report. Little Rock, AR: Little Rock School District. Dom, Linda (1999). Partnerships in Literacy: School-Wide Design for Success. Little Rock, AR\nUniversity of Arkansas at Little Rock. Dom, Linda J., Cathy French, and Tammy Jones (1998). Apprenticeship in Literacy: Transitions Across Reading and Writing. York, Maine: Stenhouse Publishers. Edmonds, Ron (1979). Effective Schools for the Urban Poor. Educational Leadership. 37(1). 15-24. 43Ferguson, Ronald F. (1998). Teachers Perceptions and Expectations and the Black- White Test Score Gap. In The Black-White Test Score Gap edited by Christopher Jencks and Meredith Phillips. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press. 273-317. Flippo, Rona, Ed. (2001). Reading Researchers in Search of Common Ground. Newark, Delaware: International Reading Association. International Reading Association and National Association for the Education of Young Children (1999). Learning to Read and Write: Developmentally Appropriate Practices for Young Children. Newark, DE: International Reading Association. International Reading Association (July 1998). Phonemic Awareness and the Teaching of Reading. Newark, DE: International Reading Association. Jencks, Christopher and Meredith Phillips, Eds. (1998). The Black-White Test Score Gap. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press. Joint Committee on Standards for Educational Evaluation. James R. Sanders, Chair (1994). The Program Evaluation Standards (2\"*^ Edition): How to Assess Evaluations of Educational Programs. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications. Marzano, Robert J., John Kendall, and Barbara Gaddy (1999). Essential Knowledge: The Debate Over What American Students Should Know. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. National Association for the Education of Young Children (1990). Guidelines for Appropriate Curriculum Content and Assessment in Programs Serving Children Ages 3 Through 8. Washington, DC: NAEYC. National Association for the Education of Young Children (1987). Standardized Testing of Young Children 3 Through 8 Years of Age. Washington, DC: NAEYC. National Center on Education and the Economy and the University of Pittsburgh (1999). Reading and Writing Grade by Grade: Primary Literacy Standards for Kindergarten through Third Grade. Washington, DC: National Center on Education and the Economy. National Center for Education Statistics (2001). Educational Achievement and Black- White Inequality. Washington, DC: United States Department of Education Office of Educational Research and Improvement. 44National Reading Panel (2000). Teaching Children to Read: An Evidence-Based Assessment of the Scientific Research Literature on Reading and Its Implications for Reading Instruction. Washington, DC: National Institute of Child Health and Human DevelopmentNational Institutes of Health. National Research Council (1998). Preventing Reading Difficulties in Young Children. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. Neuman, Susan B. and David K. Dickinson (2001). Handbook of Early Literacy Research. New York: The Guilford Press. Phillips, Meredith, James Crouse, and John Ralph (1998). Does the Black-White Test Score Gap Widen after Children Enter School? in The Black-White Test Score Gap, edited by Christopher Jencks and Meredith Phillips. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press. 229-272. Rasinski, Timothy V. (2001). A Focus on Communication with Parents and Families. Reading Researchers in Search of Common Ground. Newark, DE: International Reading Association. 159-166. Reeves, Douglas (2000). Accountability in Action: A Blueprint for Learning Organizations. Denver, CO: Center for Performance Assessment. Reeves, Douglas (1998). Making Standards Work: How to Implement Standards-Based Assessments in the Classroom. School, and District. Denver, CO: Center for Performance Assessment. Strickland, Dorothy S. (2001). Early Intervention for Afncan American Children Considered to Be at Risk. In Handbook of Early Literacy Research. Susan B. Neuman and David K. Dickinson, Eds. New York: The Guilford Press. Wiggins, Grant P. (1993). Assessing Student Performance: Exploring the Purpose and Limits of Testing. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers. Williams, E. Jane (1999). Developmental Reading Assessment: Reliability Study. http://intranet.prenhall.eom/edtech/mcp/Docs/research/DRA.doc4/13/00 45Cb'') /i/ Year 2 Evaluation: The Effectiveness of the PreK-2 Literacy Program in the Little Rock School District 1999-2000 and 2000-2001 Presented to the Board of Education Little Rock School District October 2001 Prepared by Dr. Bonnie A. Lesley Dr. Ed Williams Patricia Price Pat Busbea Ann Freeman Ken Savage Anita Gilliam Sharon KiilsgaardTable of Contents Section I: Introduction Introduction Research Questions Methodology Outline of Program Evaluation Sections Outline of Appendices 1-6 1-2 3 3-5 5-6 6 Section II: Background on Program Design Background on Program Requirements: Design of the PreK-3 Literacy Program Background on Program Requirements: LRSD Strategic Plan Background on Program Requirements: Revised Desegregation and Education Plan 7-13 7-8 8 8-13 Section III: The Assessments The Assessments: Observation Survey The Assessments: Developmental Reading Assessment Definition of Readiness vs. Proficiency Reliability and Validity: National Study Reliability and Validity: LRSD Study Developmental Appropriateness of Testing Instruments The Assessments: Achievement Level Tests in Reading and Language Usage 14-25 14-15 15-21 16-19 19-20 20-21 21-23 23-25 Section IV: Alignment with National Research on Early Literacy 26-29 Section V: Description of Tables Table 1: Kindergarten, 1999-2000, Fall to Spring Black and Non-Black Performance Table 2: Kindergarten, 2000-01, Fall to Spring Black and Non-Black Performance Table 3: Grade 1, 1999-2000, Fall to Spring Black and Non-Black Performance Table 4: Grade 1, 2000-01, Fall to Spring Black and Non-Black Performance Table 5: Grade 2, 1999-2000, Fall to Spring Black and Non-Black Performance 30-42 31 31 32 33 33Table 6: Grade 2, 2000-01, Fall to Spring Black and Non-Black Performance Table I'. Cohort 1, Kindergarten Fall 1999 and Grade 1 Spring 2001 Table 8: Cohort 2, Grade 1 Fall 1999 and Grade 2 Spring 2001 Table 9: Grades K-2, 1999-2000, Fall to Spring Performance, All Students Table 10: Grades K-2, 2000-01, Fall to Spring Performance, All Students Table 11: Percent of Maximum Scores, Kindergarten Black Students Table 12: Percent of Maximum Scores, Kindergarten Non-Black Students Table 13: Percent of Maximum Scores, Grade 1 All Students Table 14: Percent of Maximum Scores, Grade 1 Black Students Table 15: Percent of Maximum Scores, Grade 1 Non-Black Students Table 16: Percent of Maximum Scores, Grade 1 All Students Table 17: Percent of Maximum Scores, Grade 2 Black Students Table 18: Percent of Maximum Scores, Grade 2 Non-B lack Students Table 19: Percent of Maximum Scores, Grade 2 All Students Table 20: Cohort 1All Students, Kindergarten Fall 1999 and Grade 1 Spring 2001 Table 21: Cohort 2All Students, Grade 1 Fall 1999 and Grade 2 Spring 2001 Table 22: Percent Readiness, DRA, Black and Non-Black Students Table 23: Percent Readiness, DRA, All Students Table 24: Grade 2 Reading, ALT, Black and Non-B lack Comparisons Table 25: Grade 2 Reading, ALT, All Students Table 26: Grade 2 Language Usage, ALT, Black and Non-Black Comparisons Table 27: Grade 2 Language Usage, ALT, All Students 34 35 35 36 37 37 38 38 38 38 39 39 39 39 40 40 41 41 41 42 42 , 42Section VI: Analysis of Results, 1999-2000 and 2000-2001 Letter Identification Word Test Concepts about Print Writing Vocabulary Hearing and Recording Sounds Developmental Reading Assessment 43-67 43-46 47-51 52-54 55-59 60-63 64-67 Section VII: Additional Data Achievement Gap Among Schools Impact of Professional Development 68-71 68-70 70-71 Section VIII: Program Evaluation Findings and Recommendations for Improvement Research Question 1Program Effectiveness Research Question 2Achievement Disparities Research Question 3Professional Development Research Question 4Four Literacy Models Research Question 5Program Strengths and Weaknesses Research Question 6Cost Effectiveness Recommendations for Improvement Instruction Parent Involvement Interventions Professional Development Schools Identified for Improvement Year 3 Program Evaluation 72-113 72-80 81-96 96-100 100-103 103-105 105-106 106- 107-109 109-110 110-112 112 112 112-113 Section IX: Bibliography 114-116 Section X: School-Level Data Letter Identification, Kindergarten Word Test, Kindergarten Concepts about Print, Kindergarten Writing Vocabulary, Kindergarten Hearing and Recording Sounds, Kindergarten Developmental Reading Assessment, Kindergarten 117-205 119-122 123-126 127-130 131-134 135-138 139-142 Letter Identification, Grade 1 Word Test, Grade 1 Concepts about Print, Grade 1 Writing Vocabulary, Grade 1 Hearing and Recording Sounds, Grade 1 143-146 147-150 151-154 155-158 159-162Developmental Reading Assessment, Grade 1 163-166 Word Test, Grade 2 Writing Vocabulary, Grade 2 Hearing and Recording Sounds, Grade 2 Developmental Reading Assessment, Grade 2 167-170 171-174 175-178 179-182 Cohort 1Letter Identification, Black and Non-BIack Cohort 1Word Test, Black and Non-BIack Cohort 1Concepts about Print, Black and Non-BIack Cohort 1Writing Vocabulary, Black and Non-BIack Cohort 1Hearing and Recording Sounds, Black and Non-BIack Cohort 1Developmental Reading Assessment, Black and Non-BIack 183 184 185 186 187 188 Cohort 2Word Test, Black and Non-BIack Cohort 2Writing Vocabulary, Black and Non-BIack Cohort 2Hearing and Recording Sounds, Black and Non-BIack Cohort 2Developmental Reading Assessment, Black and Non-BIack 189 190 191 192 Percent Readiness, Developmental Reading Assessment, K-2 Percent Readiness, DRA, Rank Order, K-2 Percent Readiness, DRA, Black and Non-BIack 193-195 196-198 199-201 Grade 2 ALT, ReadingAll Students Grade 2 ALT, Reading, Black and Non-BIack Grade 2, ALT, Language Usage, All Students Grade 2, ALT, Language Usage, Black and Non-BIack 202 203 204 205 Appendices A. B. C. D. PreK-3 Literacy Program Plan Section 5.2.1 of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plans March 2000 Interim Compliance Report Section 5.2.1 of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plans March 2001 Compliance Report Presentation to the Board of Education, January 2000 (update on program implementation and early results)E. Update on the Implementation of the PreK-3 Literacy Program Plan, Highlights of Grades K-2 Results: Developmental Reading Assessment, 1999-2000 and 2000-2001, and a copy of the slides for the June 2001 presentation to the Board of EducationYear 2 Evaluation: The Effectiveness of the PreK-2 Literacy Program in the Little Rock School District 1999-2000 and 2000-2001 Section I: Introduction Introduction During March 2000 the Little Rock School District provided to the Board of Education, the federal court, the Office of Desegregation Monitoring, and administrators an Interim Compliance Report, which included a status report on the implementation of the PreK-3 Literacy Program (pp. 93-105) relating to the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan (RDEP). In August 2000 the Planning, Research, and Evaluation (PRE) office provided to the Board and staff a draft copy of a program evaluation for the first year of implementation of the K-2 Literacy Program. At least two subsequent drafts were developed as more data became available, but these were not presented to the Board of Educationjust discussed among staff members. An implementation update was provided to the Board in January 2001 by the curriculum staff, on the status of program implementation and including an analysis of available data, along with an outline of next steps. Then in March 2001 the staff provided a summary evaluation in the Compliance Report (pp. 72-93) relating to the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan that was filed with the federal court and provided to members of the Board of Education. The Board of Education approved on second reading in March 2001 a new policy on program evaluation. Policy IL: Evaluation of Instructional Programs requires that the staff evaluate the instructional programs designated by the Board of Education in their annual approval of the program evaluation agenda. Each evaluation is to provide valuable insights into how programs are operating, the extent to which they are serving the intended purpose of increasing student achievement, the strengths and weaknesses, the cost-effectiveness, and directions for the future. In August 1999, 2000, and 2001, the Board of Education included the PreK-2 literacy program on its approved research agenda for the following year. An interim program evaluation was provided to the Board of Education in June 2001, the first analysis of the scores on the Developmental Reading Assessment in grades K-2 for 1999-2000 and 2000-2001. At that time the scores were reported as the percent of students at each grade level, by race, who met the standard for readiness, the level that would predict success at the next grade level (level 2 at kindergarten\nlevel 16 at grade 1\nand level 24 at grade 2), Copies of that report, plus the summary and the slides were immediately sent via e-mail to principals to use in their own analysis and to provide to 1teachers and parents. (See Appendix E.) Elementary principals used these materials in their August 2001 preschool inservice sessions. This Year 2 Evaluation of the Effectiveness of the PreK-2 Literacy Program in the Little Rock School District builds on the information provided in all earlier reports. It is intended to meet the requirements specified in Policy IL for the 2000-01 school year, as well as to fulfill the requirements in Section 2.7.1 of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan for the PreK-3 Literacy Program Plan. The grade levels evaluated include only grades kindergarten through grade 2. Another report will include grades 3 through 5. The curriculum staff received from PRE on July 19, 2001, the report on the mean scores for K-2 students on both the Observation Survey and the Developmental Reading Assessment for 2000-01. Achievement Level Test data were available earlier, but they had not yet been disaggregated by race. This program evaluation, therefore, differs from, but builds upon, the evaluation report that was presented to the Board of Education in June. It includes a much more detailed analysis of data\nit includes the results of the five sub-tests of the Observation Survey\nand it includes the average performance scores for each school on each sub-testnot just the percent of students meeting the standard. It also includes the results of the grade 2 Achievement Level Tests in reading and language usage. The new data permit the staff to calculate and analyze the scores in a different way (mean performance vs. percent readiness), and they permit the calculation of a black to non- black student ratio so that the degree to which the achievement gap in narrowed can be measured, as well as how the gap has changed over the two years of program implementation. One caution in comparing the 1999-2000 and 2000-01 pre-test scores on the Observation Survey and the Developmental Reading Assessment is that some schools did not complete their fall testing by the deadline in 1999 and so their pre-test scores were higher than they would have been had the testing been done in a timely maimer. There were instances when there were several weeks difference in the test date, so this variance\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_466","title":"Facilities Implementation Planning Committee","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":["1995/1996"],"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 management and organization","School improvement programs"],"dcterms_title":["Facilities Implementation Planning Committee"],"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/466"],"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":["52 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\nLittle Rock School District r*\" November 8, 1995 NOV 15 1995 Ms. Ann Brown 201 East Markham Little Rock, AR Office of Oea\nDear Ms, Brown: 72201 The Superintendent and the Board of Education of the Little Rock School District has reqpiested that I extend an invitation to you or your representative to participate in an Implementation Planning Committee that is being drawn together to analyze the recommendations of the 1995 Facility Study and to put together implementation plans for those recommendations that are approved by the Board of Education. Our first meeting will be held at 9:00 a.m., November 9, 1995, in the office of Student Assignments. I apologize for the short notice for that meeting and if you are unable to attend because of this short notice, copies of agendas and minutes and any other documents generated as a result of that meeting will be forwarded to you. Should you have any questions concerning this invitation, please feel free to contact me at 570-4020. Sincerely yours, Djpugllps C. Eaton DIRECTOR FACILITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT DCE/apl/invite 810 West Markham Street  Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  (501)324-2000Little Rock School District J k- f NOV I 51995 Office of Desegregdiion vudy November 10, 1995 Ms. Melissa Guildin Office of Desegregation Monitoring Dear Ms. Guildin: The second meeting of the Facility Study Implementation Planning Committee will be held at 9:00 a.m. on Friday, November 17, 1995, in the Little Rock School District Board Room, 810 West Markham Street. At this meeting we will be continuing our general discussion of the Facility Study and will be trying to define the scope and purpose of the committee and the general plan areas, most respectfully requested. Your attendance is A sincerely yours, D^glas'C. Eaton DI^CTOR FACILITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT DCE/apl/fsm 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  (501)324-2000MINUTES: IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE NOVEMBER 9, 1995 The Facility Study Implementation Committee had their first meeting on November 9, 1995. attached hereto. In attendance were the individuals as listed The meeting began with a general discussion of what the charge was of the committee. We considered and discussed the following areas: Committee Membership - Recommendations were solicited for additional committee members that may be able to serve and provide guidance and research in developing an Implementation Plan. 2. We discussed the draft, scope and purpose of the Committee and decided that this would be an item to be reviewed and finalized at our second meeting. There was a brief overview by Mr. Eaton of the Facility Study which prompted many questions and discussion. We discussed the Implementation Plan outline and began looking at responsibilities. We discussed the considerations. draft Implementation Plan 1. 3 . 4 . 5 . a Dr. Russ Mayo gave the group a brief overview of the Facility Study as it affects Student Assignments. He also answered many questions dealing with the general perceptions of the Study and explained to the members present how student assignment policies generally work and how children are assigned throughout the District. Our next meeting will be Friday, November 17, 1995, at 9:00 a.m. in the Board Room. DCE/apl/minutesDCE/apl/ic Mr. Doug Eaton Director, Facility Services, LRSD 3601 South Bryant Little Rock, AR 570-4020 72204 Ms. Sue Strickland 19 Pear Tree Place Little Rock, AR 374-0123 Work 455-1843 Home 72209 Ms. Melissa Guildin Office of Desegregation Monitoring, LRSD 810 West Markham Little Rock, AR 376-6200 72201 Mr. Skip Marshall Office of Desegregation Monitoring, LRSD 810 West Markham Little Rock, AR 376-6200 72201 Mr. Fred Smith Manager of Support Services, LRSD 810 West Markham Little Rock, AR 324-2003 72201 Mr. Xanier Heard Alltel Information Services 4001 Rodney Parham Road Little Rock, AR 220-5370 72205 Mr. Sammy Mills 7 Conifer Place Little Rock, AR 568-4727 72209 Ms. Diane Vibhakar 3917 South Lookout Little Rock, AR 661-8030 72205 Ms. Suellen Vann Director of -Communications, LRSD 810 West Markham Little Rock, AR 324-2020 72201Ms. Sadie Mitchell Assistant Superintendent, LRSD 810 West Markham Little Rock, AR 324-2007 72201 Dr. Vic Anderson Assistant Superintendent, LRSD 810 West Markham Little Rock, AR 324-2005 72201 Mr. Charles A. Johnson, Jr. 3907 American Manor Little Rock, AR 565-5715 72209 Ms. Betty Mitchell 107 Detonte Drive Maumelle, AR 372-3519 72113 Ms. Linda Young New Futures, LRSD 810 West Markham Little Rock, AR 324-2112 72201 Ms. Margaret Gremillion Assistant Superintendent, LRSD 810 West Markham Little Rock, AR 324-2006 72201 Mr. Leon Modeste Special Assistant to Superintendent, LRSD 810 West Markham Little Rock, AR 324-2011 72201 Dr. Russ Mayo Director, Office of Desegregation Monitoring 810 West Markham Little Rock, AR 324-2271 72201 Mr. John Walker 1723 South Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Mr. Richard Rochelle 401 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201c s Si Little Rock School District November 10, 1995 Ms. Melissa Guildin O^ce HU'I 0^ - '\\ l l Oese9'eaa^'\" VlO'!^-^' ..4 ODM 201 E. Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Ms. Guildin: The third meeting of the Facility Study Implementation Planning Committee will be held at 9:00 a.m. on Friday, December 1, 1995, in the Little Rock School District Board Room, Street. 810 West Markham Your attendance is most respectfully requested. Siijicerely yours. l^bgras C. Eaton ELECTOR FACILITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT DCE/apl/fsm 810 West Markham Street  Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  (501)824-2000a '0 MINUTES IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE NOVEMBER 17, 1995 NOV ^7 /995 OlficQ of ^ssegreg. luui t^oiwomig The Facility Study Implementation Committee had their meeting on November 17, 1995. as listed attached hereto. second In attendance were the individuals The meeting began with a general discussion of the scope and purpose as outlined in our first meeting. There were essentially no comments with regard to the scope and purpose. meantime, until is formally approved by the committee, we will work For the under the charge of the draft, scope and purposes outlined in our first meeting. The second Considerations. item discussed was Implementation Planning A significant addition will be made to the Implementation Planning Considerations to include the securing of public support or any aspect of the recommendations made by the committee. Other discussions centered around the following items: A discussion that we outline committee objectives so that everyone has a clear understanding of what is to be A. accomplished. That a Neighborhood Association list be compiled by committee members so as to insure that we are including the associations in our public meetings at our schools. B. C. Discussions ensued regarding how we structure the committee, how we divide into sub committee's in order to analyze our charge. D. How do we develop a program that clearly emphasizes and supports the strategic plan as adopted by the Little Rock School District Board of Directors? E. Suggestions were made to form a sub committee on how to market the Facility Study to the general public, addition, a list was requested identifying where various copies of the Facility Study are located. In F. Fred Smith gave a briefing and commented on the planning and budget time lines which are Dr. Mayo and Mr. presently being pursued by the District and how the recommendations of this Committee tie in with the budget procedures.Page Two Continued Copies of the District Facility Plan are located at the following locations: 1. 2 . 3 . 4 . 5. Office of Student Assignments (Full Copy) Director of Communications (Full Copy) Manager of Support Services (Full Copy) Office of the Superintendent (Full Copy) Director of Facility Services (Full Copy) Copies of Volume I, Executive Summary, and Volume II, Demographic Analysis are located in the following offices: Office of Human Resources Office of the Federal Court Office of Desegregation Monitoring Attorney for Knight Intervenors Attorney for Joshua Intervenors North Little Rock School District Pulaski County Special School District Office of the Assistant Superintendents Office of Neighborhood and Planning, City of Little 1. ( 2. ( 3. ( 4. . 5. . 6. 1 7. 8. ( 9. I Rock 10. 11. 12 . 13 . Office of Judge Susan Weber Wright Department of Education, State of Arkansas Office of Procurement Each Board Member, Little Rock School District Board of Directors Our next meeting will be at 9:00 a.m., December 1, 1995, Board Room. in the DCE/apl/ininutes2Planning and Budgeting Time Line JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG 1 PROGRAM INVENTORY 2 PROGRAM EVALUATION I I 3 NEEDS ASSESSMENT I 4 GOALS I I 5 PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT I I I 6 BUDGETING I 7 LZ I I I I I I I I MONITORING A REPORTING I I I I I I I I I I I 0 REASSESSMENT OF PLANNING PROCESS A ORGANIZA IION 5 Little Rock School District 1RECEIV an y SCHEDULE OF NOV 1 7 1995 PARENT MEETINGS FOR FACILITIES STUDY^**'' ^sresaticn Mon AND BOARD MEMBERS FOR THOSE SCHOOLS 1. November 29, 1995 3. December 14, 1995 Pulaski Heights Elementary 6:00 p.m. (Judy Magness) Jefferson Elementary 6:30 p.m. (Judy Magness) 2. December 12, 1995 4. January 9, 1996 Mabelvale Jr. High 6:00 p.m. Woodruff Elementary 6:00 p.m. (Sue Strickland) (Michael Daugherty)/ JUL 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Planning and Budgeting Time Line NOV 1 I 1995 \"J -nicR of Daseyreyaiiori Moruoimy AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG PROGRAM INVENTORY PROGRAM EVALUATION I I NEEDS ASSESSMENT I GOALS I I PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT I I I BUDGETING I I I I I I I I I I I I MONITORING \u0026amp; REPORTING I I I I I I REASSESSMENT OF PLANNING PROCESS * ORGANIZATION I I I 3 I LHUe Rock School District I RiCEIV^n OK 2 7 1995 Little Rock School District Office of Desegregajiofl Monitonrig December 21, 1995 Ms. Melissa Guilden 201 E. Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Ms. Guilden: The sixth meeting of the Facility Study Implementation Planning Committee will be held at 6:00 p.m. on January 3, 1996 in the Little Rock School District Board Room, 1996, 810 West Markham Street. Your attendance is most respectfully requested and should you not be able to attend, it is requested that you contact the undersigned prior to the meeting. you not I wish to take this opportunity to ask the committee members to teview the scope of work and the charge of this committee. tendency to be side tracked the last two meetings Oxx j-ooxxca that parallel our charge, but which we are allowing to overshadow our real intent. We have on issues The scope and charge of the Implementation Planning Committee is to analyze the Options in the Little Rock School District Long Range Facility Study to determine whether or not they can be implemented, and if so what other steps to take for implementation. It is not our charge to determine whether or not we agree or disagree with the Options, but rather to use our knowledge to determine what the advantages and disadvantages of the various Options are so as to be prepared to make a recommendation to the Superintendent and Board Education on an Option and what other steps to take for implementing the Option. an Option steps Long Range Beginning with our January meeting, we must focus more on the Option which was determined to be studied by the committee which is Option M Modified Junior High School and determine the steps of implementing that Option. various See you at our next meeting... Sincerely yours. Dd g s C. Eaton DCE/apl/ipcmeet DIRECTOR FACILITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT 810 West Markham Street  Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  (501)324-2000MINUTES RECEIVED DEC 2 7 1995 - IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE Office Of DesefliegtUion MoiWerii'U DECEMBER 20, 1995 The Facility Study Implementation Committee held their fifth meeting on December 20, 1995. The meeting began with comments in regard to the December 13th Minutes. A typographical error was noted and references to Option M in those minutes should reflect that Option M deals with the Junior High Schools and not the High Schools. 1. Special Report Hightower and Ms. Van Light. Public Meetings, Mr. Robert A special report was given by Mr. Hightower and Ms. Light regarding the District's public meetings at Mitchell Elementary, Wakefield Elementary and Jefferson Elementary, with regard to specific comments: Mitchell Elementary comments centered around concerns of intercity schools being closed and that facilities would be allowed to decay. This was the concern around the community that this could be the circumstance with regard to Mitchell. Indications were that the Little Rock School District does not have a good tract record disposing of its intercity schools. All other concerns and statements during the Mitchell meeting were of the same general nature. With regard to Wakefield Elementary, Wakefield, as was Mitchell and Jefferson, was well attended. Members of the City Board (Ms. Adcock, Ms. Joyce and Ms. Wyrick) were present. The concerns at Wakefield centered around the recognition that Wakefield very much considers itself to be a neighborhood school that should not be touched because it was successful in attracting students from its own neighborhood and that the District needed to be more positive in managing its assets as opposed to preparing for restructuring. In addition, concerns were expressed with the possibility of expanding the school and its utilization to support community initiatives by increasing the building and possibly bringing outside entities into our school to operate and that they should be a consideration when schools are looked for possible downsizing. Jefferson Elementary School comments centered around the general building concerns and the future plans for the school in the area. There was many positive comments with regard to the retention of our Superintendent, Dr. Henry Williams. There was also demographic concerns via questions asked as to where children may be reassigned. Concerns raised over the criteria used to establish schools would be considered for restructuring during downsizing and what positive steps the community and the District might take to reserve the trend of decreasing enrollment. meetings are being accepted, primarily on The public a very localized basis\nalthough, the intent is to inform thegeneral public of the overall condition of the District and its direction with regard to student enrollment and demographics. must continue to be stressed. The localized situation in each school 2. Special Report Dr. Middle Schools, Dr. Vic. Anderson. Anderson, Assistant Superintendent for Secondary Schools, gave the committee a briefing on the Middle School Concept. His talk centered around the educational development throughout the nation which thrives on the concept of Middle Schools by stressing community involvement and an active learning in grade grouping as trends for academic achievement. He indicated that the committee, which has worked over a year on the Middle School Concept, appears to be gathering support from the general populace for different grade configuration within the Little Rock Schools. A definite date for implementation or recommendation to the Board has not been made. within this school year. The recommendation is expected to be made We briefly discussed the committee composition and a list of permanent committee members was distributed to all that were present. These are committee members who were requested to serve on the committee or were nominated to serve. Committee membership covers the wide breadth of experience and concerns and should give the committee a broad base on which to conduct its business. A draft Implementation Planning Sub Committee recommendation was presented so that the committee could discuss how it could subdivide to ensure that the multitude of areas necessary to be considered in studying Option M would be achieved. Committee members were asked to volunteer for the various sub committees. It is hopeful that the sub committees will be finalized by our next meeting. A draft recommendation to the Superintendent based on the desires of the committee from previous meetings was presented. In essence, the recommendation stated that the pursuit of Option M Junior High Schools for possible implementation during this school year was not possible. committee members. This draft recommendation brought much discussion from Discussions centered around public involvement in the process and whether or not the committee could solidify the support necessary for these recommendations. We voted three (3) times on whether or not we would make a recommendation to the Superintendent and ended up dead locked in that no majority could be determined as to whether or not to recommend the pursuit of Option M. Our next meeting is scheduled for 6:00 p.m., January 3, 1996 in the Board Room, 810 West Markham. DCE/apl/minutes5eouNnrju I T I W,. .\u0026lt; ^Utu IhM el School CompoMon Auguo(21.1M u9U3f 23. 1995 I I I August 21, 1996 I T Central HS FairHS HallHS McClellan HS Parkview HS Magnet Sub-Total w/o Magnets Cloverdale JH Dunbar JH Forest Heights JH Henderson JH Mabelvale JH Mann jH Magnet Pulaski Heights JH Southwest JH Sub-Total w/o Magnets Badgett Bale Baseline Booker Magnet Brady Carver Magnet Chicot Cloverdale Dodd Fair park Forest Park Franklin Fulbright Carland Ceyer Springs Gibbs Magnet Jefferson______ King Mabelvale McDermott Meadowcliff Mitchell otter Creek Pulaski Heights Pightsell Rockefeller Romine Terry Wakefield Washington Watson Western Hills Williams Magnet Wilson woodruff Sub-Total w/o Magnets Grand Total vtio Magnets u 5 899 591 565 663 411 3129  3 508 214 243 167 361 o  O 41 9 32 11 40 a .0 1448 814 840 841 812 27181 1132 14931 1331 4735 93I 3943 501 433 484 603 306 439 431 381 61 268 152 154 107 362 315 73 9 18 11 14 13 23 9 13 35781 14921 1101 571 719 647 771 426 824 755 467 5180 u m 62.09% 7260% 67.26% 78.83% 50.62% 6530% 68.93% 87.74% 6022% 74.81% 78.21% 71.83% 53.28% 57.09% 81.58% 69.07% u n 978! 508 554 654 453 3 595 116 191 111 351 e  O 45 11 25 15 34 a o 1618 635 770 780 838 u a m 60.44% 80.00% 71.95% 83.85% 54.06% o (8 o o a a a O 31391 11301 87| 43561 7206% 1531 233 236 313 243 319 338 365 187 208 40| 75 64 243 110 281 89 59 91 1 20 7 24 24 18 6 7 7 53i 10 1841 214) 12| 365 247 219 216 165 209 287 282 151 121 253l 121 2 191 68 122' 131 281 Ot 2181 141 1^ 31 1941 328 307 580 xn 618 433 431 285 271 410 392 512 240 289 300 497 519 412 78.87% 71.04% 76.87% 53.97% 64.46% 51.62% 78.06% 84.69% 65.61% 76.75% 44.88% 93.11% 48.24% 9125% 74.74% 55.00% 4205% 5530% 68.45% 2511 2131 201 305 229 132 176 190 229 218 228 94! 51 183! 01 01 71 191! 171 5i 1071 3! 17! 3541 65! 121 2771 261 411 21! 4231 2071 32! 3291 206 253' 290 154' 741 1041 7! 3! 2231 16l 74 771 91 ir 4841 51.86% 3991 76.44%, 234 322 384 198 353 295 531 416 662 410 313 492 373 239 97.86% 40.99% 45.83% 95.96% 64.87% 73.90% 42.94% 85.10% ' 63.90%  80.24% ' 65.81% ' 51.42%  77.75% ' 64.44% ' 87361 4345! 4191135001 64.71% 76861 34761 3481 115101 66.78% 154431 73301 6621 234351 65.90%, 135431 57381 5281 198091 68.37%i 31471 13641 130 26941 10131 96 46411 67.81% 38031 70.84% 4761 411 420 550 315 460 438 353 44 271 121 100 114 355 304 68 21 33 9 16 6 20 8 12 541 715 550 666 435 835 750 433 87.99% 57.48% 7656% 8258% 72.41% 55.09% 58.40% 81.52% 1891! -273 9541 -319 1291 -521 1199^ -419 10001 -162 6335! -1694 5335  -1532 868, -327 812: -97 858! -308 907! -241 614! -179 850! 745 -15 5 34231 1377| 125| 4925 | 6950% 29631 10221 1051 4090! 72.44%| 163 246 226 304 225 293 361 406 148! 1781 36 82 48 239 91 264 119 49 84 451 2081 226! 3981 21 1 19 7 26 43 20 27 10 4 7 5 9 200 347 281 569 359 577 507 465 236 81.50% 70.89% 80.43% 53.43% 6267% 50.78% 7120% 8751% 6271% 737 -304 6391 -1466 5541 -1451 257 401 390 656 -57 -54 -109 -87 467 -108 2301 77.39% 2451 230 11 234i 3 641 16 5 1571 122| 10 201 '317? 2831 282 241 9 19 96! 10 439 428 486 253 284 289 492 577 47.38% 9299% 50.41% 92.49% 75.70% 54.33% 40.85% 54.94% 265i 193! 19 263! 2231 77! 7 128i 165i oj 1 71 2331 197! 19 aef 224? 205| 4! 4 127! 22 76! 17 217! 2611 23 3651 29| 17 414| 2301 47 3571 207! 79 91 2571 221 269! 183! 52 761 11 2 22 13 8 3891 72.75% 4771 55.56% 347! 75.79% 230 i 96.96% 300! 42.67% 4491 51.89% 224 ! 96.43% 3731 60.05% 2981 68.79% 501! 43.31% 4111 88.81% 691! 59.91% 447! 79.87% 300 ! 69.00% 5001 51.40% 334! 80.54% 267! 68.54% 613 558 492 328 351 399 434 540 298 328 353 492 728 515 517 465 298 351 374 258 469 487 515 492 -36 -51 -27 -92 -121 40 -6 -54 45 -44 -64 ____0 -151 -126 -40 -118 -68 -51 75 -34 -96 -189 -14 -81 836. -145 492! 328! 5171 394i 324! -45 -28 -17 60 ' -S7 88341 42261 4971 13557! 65,16% 7823! 33801 4191 116221 67.31% 15717:-2160 13578 -1956 _____________________________________________ 15404! 69671 752| 231231 66.62%! 28443! -5320 134801 54151 6201 195151 fiS.OSy.l 244541 -4939 Offlca of OtMQrvgattonLITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FACILITIES STUDY COMMITTEE Dr. Delbra Caradine P. O. Box 164229 Little Rock, AR 72216 B. J. McCoy 2417 S. Marshall Little Rock, AR 72206 Rohn Muse 822 Lewis Little Rock, AR 72204-2016 Lou Ethel Nauden 4400 w. 22nd * Little Rock, AR 72204 Diane Vibhakar 3917 S. Lookout Little Rock, AR 72205 Kris Baber 2519 N. Fillmore Little Rock, AR 72207 Andy Carpenter 6 Van Lee Little Rock, AR 72205 Terry Paulson 2613 Wentwood Valley Dr. Little Rock, AR 72212 Patricia Davenport 502 Green Mtn. Circle, #22 Little Rock, AR 72211 Latricia Henderson 1724 Marlyn Drive Little Rock, AR 72205 Joa Humphrey 5022 W. 56th St. Little Rock, AR 72209 Arthur Locke 3515 LeHigh Drive Little Rock, AR 72204 Tom Brock 8207 Crystal Valley Cv. Little Rock, AR 72210 Gregg Stutts * 13005 Lemoncrest Lane Little Rock, AR 72209 John Walker 1723 S. Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Joy Springer 1723 S. Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Betty Mitchell CTA Office Frank Martin CTA Office * Skip Marshall, Monitor ODM - 201 E. Markham Brady Gadberry * LRSD Administration Heritage West Bldg-Suite 510 Little Rock, AR 72201 * indicates newly nominated members of the committee(7. Z - Bloc 0111 0112 0121 0122 0123 0124 0125 0126 0127 0210 0220 0232 0240 0301 0412 0413 0420 0431 0432 0433 0434 0435 0436 0437 0438 0439 0440 0441 0442 0443 0444 0445 0446 0448 0449 0450 0451 0452 0453 0454 0455 0456 0457 8/27/96 K-3 17 26 7 26 21 60 15 25 9 48 55 3 17 4 6 2 15 24 28 19 10 7 16 31 35 48 16 7 22 17 8 13 8 54 38 31 7 22 18 12 32 35 20 G3 -6 6 14 5 13 17 30 10 19 4 29 34 1 14 2 3 2 8 11 10 16 8 5 20 19 14 23 9 7 12 16 7 4 2 36 20 24 7 18 10 10 14 24 17 G7-9 7 16 5 15 23 25 12 15 6 43 50 8 14 4 1 0 9 19 11 12 3 9 23 18 17 29 21 11 14 13 8 7 7 25 20 30 10 14 8 17 26 18 22 GlO-12 6 9 7 13 15 19 11 26 7 23 49 0 6 4 2 0 13 15 9 13 7 12 23 12 12 25 16 9 16 9 6 4 6 29 17 14 6 12 9 8 17 23 26 Litlie Rock School District Zone Block Count August 23, 1996 Total 36 65 24 67 76 134 48 85 26 143 188 12 51 14 12 4 45 69 58 60 28 33 82 80 78 125 62 34 64 55 29 28 23 144 95 99 30 66 45 47 89 100 85 Black 35 63 24 67 76 134 48 85 26 138 173 11 51 14 11 3 22 66 52 59 27 17 82 79 73 124 52 34 61 53 29 28 23 142 91 98 29 66 44 47 68 70 85 Page 1 of 8 6' hit Non-Black 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 15 1 0 0 1 1 23 3 6 1 1 16 0 1 5 1 10 0 3 2 0 0 0 2 4 1 1 0 1 0 21 30 0 B Pin 1 3 1 3 3 5 2 3 1 6 7 0 2 1 0 0 1 3 2 2 1 1 3 3 3 5 2 1 2 2 1 1 1 6 4 4 1 3 2 2 3 3 3 W Pins 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0Z - Bloc 0458 0459 0460 0461 0462 0463 0464 0471 0472 0473 0474 0475 0476 0477 0478 0479 0480 0481 0482 0483 0484 0485 0511 0512 0513 0521 0522 0523 0524 0525 0526 0527 0528 0530 0531 0532 0533 0534 0535 0586 0537 0538 0539 8/27/96 K-3 16 35 27 25 37 22 21 7 18 28 9 29 26 21 20 29 15 65 46 55 10 24 4 2 34 26 40 39 41 0 __n 241 3 0 41 25 15 23 20 43 41 20 4 G3 -6 7 10 20 12 26 13 18 7 12 20 4 22 7 13 15 15 10 27 12 34 10 10 7 5 36 12 26 23 31 0 _____7 11 2 0 26 20 13 12 19 29 24 7 4 G7-9 12 12 16 21 21 13 20 7 18 15 5 37 16 9 16 9 11 23 11 30 10 18 4 6 32 24 ___ ___ ___ 1 7 15 1 0 24 24 13 7 12 19 26 13 4 GlO-12 13 20 10 13 11 10 15 12 16 27 10 17 13 5 7 16 14 21 19 14 6 15 3 5 33 ____ ____n 26 34 0 9 8 2 1 16 23 12 8 18 24 32 16 6 Little Rock School District Zone Block Count August 23, 1996 Total 48 77 73 71 95 58 74 33 64 90 28 105 62 48 58 69 50 136 88 133 36 67 18 18 135 90 135 121 132 1 ___ 58 ____8 1 107 92 53 50 69 115 123 56 18 Black 48 74 69 62 91 57 73 33 64 88 28 100 61 48 57 69 50 131 84 132 36 67 13 16 129 70 121 120 126 1 ___ 56 8 1 91 85 51 41 61 105 116 55 18 Page 2 of 8 Non-Black 0 3 4 9 4 1 1 0 0 2 0 5 1 0 1 0 0 5 4 1 0 0 5 2 6 20 14 1 6 0 1 0 0 16 7 9 8 10 7 1 0 B Pin 2 3 3 2 4 2 3 1 3 4 1 4 2 2 2 3 2 5 3 5 1 3 1 1 5 3 5 5 5 0 ____2 2 0 0 4 ____3 ____2 ____2 2 4 5 ____2 1 WPins 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 _____0 _____0 0 _____1 _____0 _____0 _____0 _____0 ____0 ____0 ____0 0Z - Bloc 0540 0552 0553 0554 0556 0561 0562 0563 0571 0572 0573 0574 0575 0581 0582 0583 0584 0585 0586 0587 0591 0592 0610 0620 0630 0640 0641 0650 0651 0660 0662 0670 0710 0811 0821 0910 0920 1010 1020 1110 nil 1120 1121 8/27/96 K-3 5 40 49 31 24 31 29 32 34 19 24 34 7 28 37 32 40 42 15 18 34 5 14 25 4 23 14 9 37 55 13 59 28 18 44 37 29 8 20 24 54 6 6 G3 -6 1 20 45 17 11 26 18 19 25 17 15 15 8 18 22 15 34 25 16 13 14 1 18 16 7 3 8 3 33 40 12 49 12 18 22 33 17 4 15 14 11 3 2 G7-9 5 27 37 14 24 26 30 18 29 21 21 18 10 16 20 21 35 31 9 16 20 2 20 20 6 6 7 2 28 54 18 36 27 16 25 42 27 5 ___17 7 23 5 6 GlO-12 4 25 27 21 16 33 20 25 31 14 15 16 12 17 25 24 36 27 8 17 18 1 13 21 6 4 0 10 26 41 13 28 13 15 24 34 25 4 ____ n ____ 6 2 Little Rock School District Zone Block Count August 23, 1996 Total 15 112 158 83 75 116 97 94 119 71 75 83 37 79 104 92 145 125 48 64 86 9 65 82 23 36 29 24 124 190 56 172 80 67 115 146 98 21 68 62 113 20 16 Black 8 105 152 80 74 116 96 93 113 71 74 83 36 76 103 92 141 102 48 62 81 5 0 10 1 3 0 13 3 148 51 90 16 0 2 12 15 10 20 0 41 4 1 Page 3 of 8 Non-Black 7 7 6 3 1 0 1 1 6 0 1 0 1 3 1 0 4 23 0 2 5 4 65 72 22 33 29 11 121 42 5 82 64 67 113 134 83 11 48 62 72 16 15 B Pin 0 4 6 3 3 5 4 4 5 3 3 3 1 3 4 4 6 4 2 2 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 6 2 4 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 ____2 0 0 W Pins 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 3 3 1 1 1 0 5 2 0 3 3 3 5 5 3 0 2 2 3 1 1Z - Bloc 1210 1220 1230 1231 1240 1310 1311 1312 1331 1332 1405 1410 1420 1421 1430 1440 1510 1511 1512 1515 1520 1530 1531 1532 1541 1550 1610 1620 1630 1711 1712 1713 1714 1715 1716 1717 1721 1722 1723 1724 1725 1726 1727 8/27/96 K-3 16 8 28 18 122 37 20 11 23 4 13 74 18 16 105 21 27 68 20 50 19 10 17 17 15 37 12 9 __ 8 __ 9 92 40 39 44 29 27 17 44 16 23 50 G3 -6 9 4 26 14 92 17 11 2 17 5 12 43 23 20 59 13 13 46 15 41 5 2 3 12 12 20 10 3 22 6 26 2 50 21 23 33 18 29 14 ____30j ____B ____11 29 G7-9 13 7 33 22 96 11 18 2 15 2 8 47 17 23 65 8 22 36 10 40 6 6 6 11 12 17 7 6 22 9 30 9 ___ ___ ___ 44 31 31 20 26 10 14 20 GlO-12 22 7 31 22 61 14 18 7 18 7 18 74 26 25 48 18 15 25 11 40 10 2 8 8 10 23 5 6 17 6 38 5 60 37 20 43 ___ 18 22 29 14 21 28 Little Rock School District Zone Block Count August 23, 1996 Total 60 26 118 76 371 79 67 22 73 18 51 238 84 84 277 60 77 175 56 171 40 20 34 48 49 97 34 24 91 29 122 25 248 127 100 164 121 105 73 129 53 69 127 Black 8 0 4 1 10 41 63 0 10 0 9 32 10 10 109 7 14 49 14 11 8 12 6 28 13 18 3 5 ___ 7 110 15 239 123 80 160 108 71 71 111 50 46 118 Page 4 of 8 Non-Black 52 26 114 75 361 38 4 22 63 18 42 206 74 74 168 53 63 126 42 160 32 8 28 20 36 79 31 19 68 22 12 10 9 4 20 4 13 34 2 18 3 23 9 B Pin 0 0 0 0 0 2 3 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 4 0 1 2 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 ____0 1 ____0 4 1 10 5 3 6 4 3 3 4 ____2 2 5 WPins 2 1 5 3 14 2 0 1 3 1 2 8 3 3 7 2 3 5 2 6 1 0 1 1 1 3 1 1 3 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 _____0 _____1 _____0 1 0Z - Bloc 1728 1810 1811 1812 1813 1821 1822 1823 1824 1910 1921 1922 1923 1924 1925 2010 2015 2020 2110 2120 3201 3250 3251 3253 3301 3312 3316 3330 3401 3405 3406 3410 3415 3420 3425 3430 3435 3440 3464 3601 3605 3615 3620 8/27/96 K-3 31 33 12 36 33 47 48 85 39 11 20 28 30 47 7 22 32 17 72 48 1 32 15 14 34 30 23 21 49 43 52 13 19 14 18 6 14 11 36 24 8 14 15 G3 -6 14 19 10 30 24 25 32 50 21 9 15 19 14 32 6 16 36 15 51 35 2 29 13 13 40 22 11 19 30 26 35 12 18 8 7 7 12 10 20 21 12 14 10 G7-9 16 12 15 19 38 26 30 66 31 10 17 18 15 38 5 12 32 15 49 36 0 24 11 9 22 13 10 18 30 28 33 8 17 2 12 4 12 8 15 23 10 10 10 GlO-12 28 15 16 44 50 30 35 59 22 14 20 19 16 40 9 17 27 16 47 23 2 24 17 14 34 16 16 16 18 34 26 6 14 5 7 3 12 5 7 11 7 9 4 Little Rock School District Zone Block Count August 23, 1996 Total 89 79 53 129 145 128 145 260 113 44 72 84 75 157 27 67 127 63 219 142 5 109 56 50 130 81 60 74 127 131 146 39 68 29 44 20 50 34 78 79 37 47 39 Black 82 68 53 112 121 109 126 198 76 41 48 36 31 123 12 26 56 29 109 86 5 63 31 44 37 19 10 13 93 110 135 20 64 22 38 7 26 25 33 59 24 38 21 Page 5 of 8 Non-Black 11 0 17 24 19 19 62 37 3 24 48 44 34 15 41 71 34 110 56 0 46 25 6 93 62 50 61 34 21 11 19 4 7 6 13 24 9 45 20 13 9 18 B Pin 3 3 2 4 5 4 5 8 3 2 2 1 1 5 0 1 2 1 4 3 0 3 1 2 1 1 0 1 4 4 5 1 3 1 2 0 1 1 1 2 1 2 1 W Pins 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 2 1 0 1 2 2 1 1 2 3 1 4 2 0 2 1 0 4 2 2 2 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 2 1 1 0 1Z - Bloc 3625 3630 3635 3640 3645 3646 3647 3648 3649 3650 3651 3652 3654 3655 4001 4010 4015 4020 4025 4046 4048 4049 4052 4053 4401 4405 4410 4415 4420 4429 4430 5401 5402 5405 5406 5407 5408 5415 5452 5455 5460 5462 5465 8/27/96 K-3 15 0 39 12 25 13 26 34 18 46 12 7 40 8 13 30 5 15 7 6 11 14 6 0 37 22 14 12 __n 24 17 4 __14 ___9 6 9 __ 6 ___ ___4 15 3 13 G3 -6 13 1 37 4 19 7 9 15 12 20 11 7 23 9 4 21 6 7 14 7 15 19 9 2 29 10 9 5 13 13 7 2 13 8 6 5 19 5 11 1 13 2 5 G7-9 10 0 30 8 16 17 8 15 10 11 9 7 24 11 4 32 7 6 13 6 16 22 6 1 23 15 ___16 ____7 14 20 10 3 ___ ____8 8 10 ___ 6 2 1 21 0 7 GlO-12 18 0 24 7 9 14 12 7 8 15 5 3 12 6 7 57 4 4 22 8 17 11 7 2 26 19 8 6 11 17 7 1 3 9 2 8 18 3 6 2 10 2 8 Little Rock School District Zone Block Count August 23, 1996 Total 56 1 130 31 69 51 55 71 48 92 37 24 99 34 28 140 22 32 56 27 59 66 28 5 115 66 47 30 69 74 41 10 40 34 22 32 86 20 28 8 ____ 7 33 Black 28 1 113 30 61 47 47 57 32 85 33 18 81 19 3 118 12 3 53 2 19 44 4 0 106 54 32 13 59 61 28 0 2 14 2 18 73 5 0 2 4 0 9 Page 6 of 8 Non-Black 0 17 1 8 4 8 14 16 4 6 18 15 25 22 10 29 3 25 40 22 24 5 9 12 15 17 10 13 13 10 38 20 20 14 13 15 28 6 55 7 24 BPin 1 0 5 1 2 2 1. 1 3 1 1 3 1 0 5 0 0 2 0 1 2 0 0 4 2 1 1 2 2 1 0 0 1 0 1 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 W Pins i 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 2 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 2 _____1 1 1 1 1 1 0 2 0 1Z - Bloc 5467 5470 5475 5476 5477 5478 5492 6110 6115 6120 6122 6125 6171 6188 7201 7210 7220 7230 7235 7240 7245 7250 7276 7277 7279 7280 7281 7301 7305 7310 7315 7325 7330 7375 7377 7378 7380 7381 7382 7383 7384 7385 7387 8/27/96 K-3 2 4 30 29 19 23 19 58 30 1 12 9 13 26 59 15 11 18 37 17 54 34 14 22 17 7 15 40 5 7 38 19 5 15 45 6 40 25 67 4 28 22 98 G3 -6 0 0 22 18 18 8 10 28 16 0 6 6 10 23 45 13 5 23 19 10 40 22 19 17 6 9 13 30 6 6 26 8 5 10 25 7 20 15 27 4 20 8 48 G7-9 2 1 18 18 23 9 9 13 10 0 19 4 12 14 34 10 7 17 22 9 18 22 22 20 16 6 14 26 18 5 30 9 9 17 42 6 20 8 6 8 29 ___10 37 GlO-12 0 2 12 28 23 5 7 24 24 0 11 5 6 16 39 9 3 18 18 19 12 16 10 12 15 8 7 35 8 8 22 10 3 5 23 7 39 15 7 8 29 18 29 Little Rock School District Zone Block Count August 23, 1996 Total 4 7 82 93 83 45 45 123 80 1 48 24 41 79 177 47 26 76 96 55 124 94 65 71 54 30 49 131 37 26 116 46 22 47 135 _______ 119 _______ 107 24 106 58 212 Black 0 3 11 31 13 4 10 12 23 0 8 3 5 17 146 36 15 57 83 45 106 79 47 35 46 19 33 115 22 24 93 46 16 36 114 ________ 108 51 102 22 86 54 199 Page 7 of 8 Non-Black 4 4 71 62 70 41 35 111 57 1 40 21 36 62 31 11 11 19 13 10 18 15 18 36 8 11 16 16 15 2 23 0 6 11 21 4 11 12 5 2 20 4 13 B Pin 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 6 1 1 2 3 2 4 3 2 1 2 1 1 5 1 1 4 2 1 1 ________ 1 ____4 2 4 1 3 2 8 W Pins 0 0 3 2 3 2 1 4 2 0 2 1 1 2 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1Z - Bloc 7388 7390 7401 7405 7410 7415 7420 7425 7467 7468 7469 7470 7471 7474 7475 7476 7479 7480 7490 7495 Totals K-3 14 17 64 15 28 29 7 12 5 25 11 9 11 19 27 18 1 5 3 10 7718 G3 -6 9 25 24 11 25 26 13 16 9 13 10 7 4 22 21 4 0 9 4 9 5086 G7-9 14 21 28 17 26 24 17 23 13 18 2 16 12 11 18 17 1 9 4 11 5384 GlO-12 13 19 27 16 27 25 16 18 7 18 10 14 15 17 27 20 0 6 0 14 5188 Little Rock School District Zone Block Count August 23.1996 Total 50 82 143 59 106 104 53 69 34 74 33 46 42 69 93 59 2 29 11 44 23376 Black 48 77 80 52 88 82 46 53 32 50 31 36 38 55 80 53 1 20 4 34 16331 69.86% Non-Black 2 5 63 7 18 22 7 16 2 24 2 10 4 14 13 6 1 9 7 10 7045 30.14% B Pin 2 3 3 2 4 3 2 2 1 2 1 1 2 2 3 2 0 1 0 1 653 WPins 0 0 3 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 282 8/27/96 Page 8 of 8Arkansas Democrat T3'(0azcllc  FRIDAY. MAY 10, 1996 LR panel on closing schools is reborn \u0026lt; BY CHRIS REINOLDS Democrat-Gazette Staff Writer 'AyLittle Rock School District committee created to make recommendations about renovating and possibly closing schools to cut costs is back in business with new faces. -The Little Rock School Board voted, unanimously at its agenda-setting meeting Thursday to recreate the Facilities Study Committee, dis- Ijanded in February. 'The panel will consist of two res- idents from each school board zone\ntwO representatives of the Joshua intervenors, who represent the black children in the district\nand twb people from the Knight intervenors, representing the teachers. The old panels composition had drawn complaints from board member Sue Strickland, who helped disband tlie committee. She will be the new committee's chairman. Strickland said the old committee included district administrators but not residents who would actually be affected by school closings. She also said that she disagreed with what she believed was the committee's sole intent  closing Mabelvale Junior High School in Southwest Little Rock. School district officials calls for closing some schools with low enrollments have continued during the conuiiittee's absence. The old committee began meeting in November after a consulting firm from San .Antonio issued a 13- volume study of district demographics and tire condition of school buildings. The study said the schools need S77 million in repairs, renovations and modernization. The consultants recommended closing as many as 11 schools because of poor physical condition and declining student population. The distncfs 50 school buildings have as many as 5,000 vacant seats. Bob Morgan, a member of the district's financial advisory committee. has said the districts student-to- employee ratio is below average when compared with districts of similar size. Maintaining schools not filled to capacity contributes to the low ratio and extra costs, Morgan said. The board also voted Thursday to allow, but not require, individual schools to determine the dress code for students, including the use of uniforms. Board member Judy Magness said Watson and Forest Park ele- i inentaries plan to use unifoi^ next I school year. Those schools join sev- | eral other elementary schools in the district that have a voluntary or mandatory' uniform policy./ 810 West Markham Street  Little Rock, Arkansas 7300 100LRSD plant SERyiCES TEL:501-570-4027 Nov 08,95 12:05 No.003 P.02 5?-* I I Little Rock School District I November 8, 1995 I Ms. Ann Brown 201 East Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 I I Dear Ms. Brown: I I The Superintendent and the Board of Education of the Little Rock School District has requested that I extend an invitation to you or your representative to participate in an Implementation Pleuining Committee that is being drawn together to analyze the recommendations of the 1995 Facility Study and to put together implementation plans for those recommendations that are approved by the Board of Education. I I I I Our first meeting will be held at 9:00 the office of Student Assignments. a.m., November 9, 1995, in _ I apologize for the short notice for that meeting and if you are unable to attend because of this short notice, copies of agendas and minutes and any other documents generated as a result of that meeting will ba forwarded to you. I i I Should you have any questions concerning this invitation, please feel free to contact me at 570-4020. Sincerely yours. ^ugl^s C. Eaton DIRECTOR :rector FACILITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT DCE/apl/invxte I I ) iAGENDA IMPLEMENTATION PLANNING COMMITTEE 9 NOV. 1995 1. Welcome \u0026amp; Introductions 2. Committee Membership Discussion received 3. Scope \u0026amp; Purpose of Committee NOV 9 199S Ql 4. Facility Study Overview (Optional) Discussion 5. Implementation Plan Outline, Responsibilities 6. Implementation Plan Considerations 1. Ne?d MeetingRECOMMENDATIONS : To the Board of Directors of the Little Rock School District Recommendation No 1 Establish Preventative Maintenance Capital Fund  Policy Protected Escrow  Annual Incremental Funding 9 9 9 Separate from Maintenance Budget Maintenance Operating Budget Surpluses to Fund Planned Capital Replace/Repair Disbursements Board Oversight Recommendation No 2 Establish Capital Program 9 9 9 9 Five Year Building Program Preferable Strategic Plan for Capital Program Design, Estimates and Planning Decisions Sale of Bonds Supported by Millage Increase Include Seed for Preventative Maintenance Fund Complete a Representative Program Recommendation No 3 Establish School Database  Zone Block System for LRSD School Boundaries 9 On Site Survey to Establish Accurate Census  Consider Attendance/Mapping/ Software System  Include Magnet Information  Include Record of Private School Attendees  Maintain System for Best Results (Forecasting)RECOMMENDATIONS : To the Board of Directors of the Little Rock School District Recommendation No 4 Achieve Unitary Status e 9 Continuing Quality of Education Complete Capital Program Effective Maintenance Plan and Budget Reduce Burden of Bussing Eliminate Funding of Non Productive Programs Taxpayer Dollars for Students, not Lawyers Provide Flexible Educational Opportunities for Ali Recommendation No 5 Consolidation and Re-use 9 9 9 Establish New Attendance Zones Closure of Seven Elementary Schools Closure of One Jr. High School One to Four Elementaries out of Service Requires Completed Alterations, Additions and New Construction Operational Savings Pays for New Construction Recommendation No 6 Option C Preference  Enhanced School Experience for Children  Favorable Opportunity for Parent Participation  Development of Community Identities  Diminished Burden of Bussing  Comparable Cost to the District  Does Not Affect Special Education Opportunities  More Student Value for the DollarRECOMMENDATIONS : To the Board of Directors of the Little Rock School District Recommendation No 7 Reviev\\/ of Options  Representative Review Team for Options  Evaluation of Strengths and Weaknesses  Include the Court  Reach a Conclusion for Best Interest of Children Recommendation No 8 Develop Critical Initiatives  Form Broad Based Dedicated Citizen Task Force  Support of Educational Programs \u0026amp; Achievements Support of Capita! Programs and Bond Offering Support of Adult Educational Programs via LRSD Support of Preventative Maintenance Recommendation No 9 Develop Leadership Core  Board Initiative  Community Representation Professional Men and Women Leaders from Area  Include Industry and Commerce Leadership  Commuter Assignments  Encourage Board Service (subject to election)RECOMMENDATIONS : To the Board of Directors of the Little Rock School District Summary: Recommendation No 1 Establish Preventative Maintenance Capital Fund Recommendation No 2 Establish Capital Program Recommendation No 3 Establish School Database Recommendation No 4 Achieve Unitary Status Recommendation No 5 Consolidation and Re-use Recommendation No 6 Option C Preference Recommendation No 7 Review of Options Recommendation No 8 Develop Critical Initiatives Recommendation No 9 Develop Leadership CoreBia an OPTION C JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL Closed School Primary Affect Cost Secondary Affect Cost Mablevale Cloverdale Southwest Pulaski Heights Dunbar Forest Heights Henderson OPTION M JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL Mablevale Cloverdale Southwest Forest Heights Henderson Dunbar SouthwestEBfiH OPTION C ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS Closed Schools Primary Affect Cost Secondary Affect Cost 1. Fair Park Brady $0 Franklin $1,300,596 Forest Park $2,086,500 2. Garland RightseU $1,996,085 RockefeUer $1,731,795 New School $4,190,120 3. Ish N/A 4. Stephens New School $4,190,120 5. Jefferson Badgett $938,925 RightseU $1,996,085 ML King $0 Brady $0 Mcdermott Bale $271,245 Cloverdale $549,445 Dodd $681,590 Romine $1,432,730 Western HiUs $1,571,830 6. Mitchell RightseU $1,996,085 RockefeUer $1,731,795 7. Wakefield Geyer Springs $2,566,395 8. Woodruff Forest Park $2,086,500 SUBTOTAL: $16,896,916 $3,092,193Closed Schools 1. Fair Park 2. Garland 3.1sh 4. Stephens OPTION M ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS Primary Affect Cost Secondary Affect Cost__ New School $3,778,170 New School $3,625,160 N/A Terry $1,008,475 McDermott $375,570 Bale $159,968 Cloverdale $111,280 Otter Creek $452,075 Watson $111,280 5. Jefferson New School $3,778170 Western Hills $326,885 Rockefeller $0 Rightsell $389,480 Washington $0 ML King $0 6. Mitchell New School $3,625,160 7. Wakefield Baseline $1,189,305 Geyer Springs $1,057,160 8. Woodruff Forest Park $236,470 SUBTOTAL: $11,659,790 $1,161,488 SB anBsan IMPLEMENTATION PLAN CONSIDERATIONS 1. Cost (Renovation, New construction. Relocation, Equipment, Supphes, Organization) 2. Funding Considerations (Operational Budget, Multiple yr. Funding, MiUages, Bond Issues, Program impact) 3. Personnel (Reductions, Reassignments, New personnel. Organizational Changes) 4. Student Assignment Changes (Policies , Start dates, Academic Program Changes) 5. Desegregation Plan Changes (Racial balance definition. Student Assignment pohcy Changes, Multiple Areas) 6. Grade Structure Change (Middle school concept) I. Support Function Changes (Transportation, Procurement, Facihty Services) BganPURPOSE AND SCOPE FACILITY STUDY IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE This document outlines the purpose and scope of the Little Rock School District Implementation Committee which is being staffed to analyze and make recommendations on the Long Range Facility Study completed in 1995 by 3D International Corporation. The Committee will consist of persons from the Little Rock School District staff and local community who will be charged by the Superintendent to make recommendations to him and the Little Rock School District Board of Education on the various aspects of the Facility Study. Their charge may also be extended to put together implementation plans and time lines once recommendations have been approved by the Board. PURPOSE: The purpose of this Committee is to devise an implementation plan and schedule based upon approved recommendations by the Little Rock School District Board of Education. The Committee will work within the frame work of the study analyzing the study recommendations for possible adaptations by the Little Rock School District. Those recommendations will comprise the final reports submitted to the Superintendent and Board of Education on which aspects of the Long Range Facility Study should be implemented by the School District along with recommendations as to an implementation schedule, time line and staffing of other areas of consideration. The Committee derives its authority from the Superintendent and is to work within the confines of the purposes and scope of the Facility Study as outlined in the contractual agreement between the Little Rock School District and 3D International Corporation. SCOPE\nThe scope of this Committee is to put together recommendations for the Superintendent and Little Rock School District Board of Education based on the nine (9) recommendations as made in the Long Range Facility Study. The Committee has the authority to consider and recommend or not recommend any and all aspects of the Facility Study for implementation. The scope of this Committee will be centered around the various aspects that run parallel to the basic recommendations in the Study by drawing them together as points of consideration and present recommendations to the Superintendent and Board. The Committee has the authority to deal directly with other staff members in making requests of them for information and cooperation should sub committees be formed under this general committee. It is intended that those recommendations whether they specifically impact the financial programming of the District would be made in such a way and at such a time that implementation can possibly BBaO'Page Two Bsan Continued occur during the next budget cycle. Recommendations dealing with closures and expansions, both cost saving and cost expanding, items in the study will be included in the recommendations. The Committee will work closely with the office of Program Review and Evaluations to ensure that its time lines accurately in project and budget documents. are reflected DCE/apl/lrfsBESaO COMMITTEE RESPONSIBILITIES: LONG RANGE STUDY IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE The Implementation Committee that is being drawn together to analyze and make recommendations on the Long Range Facility Study will consist of the following individuals by job title and general subject area. 1. Associate Superintendent, Office of Desegregation and Student Assignment\nwill oversee the aspects of student assignment policies and compliance with the Desegregation Plan. 2. Director of Facilities Services: will oversee cost analysis and facility related matters dealing with expansions and closing of facilities. 3. Director of Communications: to oversee the public affairs efforts and public notifications dealing with meetings and the general public. 4. Special Assistant to the Superintendent: responsible for coordinating meetings in conjunction with the Director of Communications. 5. Manager Resources and School Support: to oversee financial planning and provide financial and fiscal guidance with regard to recommendations. 6. Assist ant Superintendent: to provide information regarding academic implementation and program changes with regard to the recommendations. 7. Human Resources Representative: to provide information regarding general knowledge of the District history and human relation aspects of the recommendations. 8. Board Members: to provide input and guidance from the Little Rock School District Board of Education. 9. Strategic Planning Committee Members: to provide input, analysis and guidance with regard to the tie in of the Long Range Facility Study to the Strategic Planning Process. 10. Representatives of the Intervenors, Knight). Desegregation parties (Joshua 11. Representatives from the office of Desegregation Monitoring. DCE/apl/crlrfsBsao FACILITY STUDY IMPLEMENTATION PLAN 1. Facility Study Review 2. Superintendents Guidance. 3. Implementation Committee Assignments, Purpose and Scope 4. Implementation Planning - Plan of Action - Analysis of Facility Study - Recommendations, Submittal - Approvals - Implementation Plan, Schedule, Time lines - Oversight Responsibility'2 '* . .. -hzt^-\nSchoolV- BADGETT S 2 124 BALE 1 221 II w MO W' ItalilaS ! 2 5 1 i 3 BASELINE 220 1 17 ! o fiH ii\" 26^ 3 BOOKER 10 15 19 ' 12 14 20 BRADY 11 i 199 CARVER 15 8 b'i I 3 5 CHICOT 5 CLOVR EL DODD FAIR PRK 2 FORST PK 1 FRANKLIN FULBRIGH  GARLAND GEYER SP . GIBBS 2 JEFFRSN M L KING MABEL EL . MCDERMOT MEADCLIF MITCHELL\nOTTER CR PUL HT E 2 KIGHTSEL ROCKFELR 13 ROMINE TERRY WAKEFIEL WASHNGTN 5 WATSON WEST HIL WILLIAMS WILSON WOODRUFF TOTAL 15 18 I 9 4 . 302\n13 3 18 j 1 2 i!8 30 ! 318 7 3 1 10 4 11 3 3 5 8 3 6 4 5 8 2 1 7 1 2 9 6 1 I 2 6 5 7 2 12 2 15 J I 2 6 2 2 11 2 14 7 10 10 1 i 3 ziz: 2 1 i 2 2 1 2 i 13 11 4 2 8 6 2 8 3 4 4 7 2 I 2 J------- 8 I 11 ! 2 5 2 I I 1 3 23 { 20 3 2 2 1 1 8 2 34 ' i 8 2 16 6 4 14 1 I 4 2 8 1  f 1 tS *\"1...14 12 12 38 I 11 8 6 j 3 1 1 LIHLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT SCHOOL ATTENDANCE ZONE SUMMARY OCTOBER 2. 1995 Bi ip\ni 180 1 6 2 1 3 5 1 2 1 5 1 1 28 7 4 2 6 9 8 ffi o 1 5 1 9 4 1 165 4 9 1 2 4 6 3 9 11 } 8 3 9 11 5 286 11 7 5 1 1 7 6 5 2 6 2 3 2 15 5 52 2 2 4 249 8 I 4 1 8 1 9 0 6 I 2 - r....... 7 1 6 1 5 1 2 2 10 30 15 6 1 6 0 4 2 10 1 4 ...i....... 3 6 ! 14 10 17 6 I 160 I 413 I 357 I 380 j 557 | 506 1 306 | 320 | 412 [ 464 ifi LsiOllaiij o U Isii 2 5 2 1 3 5 11 1 12 17 i 19 2 5 2 6 4 385 3 1 9 6 10 21 2 3 1 5 15 18 16 S 12 13 6 605 4 2 2 1 3 2 8 24 164 3 2 7 7 1 2 IS 6 2 1 4 8 5 4 1 6 1 2 6 303 3 8 7 1 4 203 9 2 3 9 4 3 4 9 9 4 3 2 310 HJ 10 19 8 41 1 1 3 17 2 6 1 5 352 6 1 4 9 25 2 3 16 1 5 3 6 551 1 4 1 1 1 1 3 2 1 18 2 1 1 B\n18 14 2 4 4 1 s 1 5 1 1 42 2 1 2 5 2 6 7 2 4 9 7 3 11 18 1 11 11 15 5 102 ? 210 59.05% 2 4 4 11 5 6 3 i 347 327 144 9 6 3 2 13 18 26 11 1 24 3 63.69% 67.28% ! 26 1(f Ti6~ 23 5 6 5 604 1 5 14 7 29 6 1 10 2 5 10 9 6 3 2 7 14 221 4 1 4 5 6 13 14 3 2 2 4 9 1 9 1 11 418 1 1 1 1 3 2 4 329 4 5 3 7 1 4 12 19 1 5 4 482 14 4 2 IS 1 8 6 10 2 318 2 S 4 4 3 5 4 11 11 2 14 6 519 4 2 5 2 6 4 6 7 10 12 2 2 3 173 2 11 ..b\" 2 2 3 2 8 1 4 4 9 323 105 186 1 2 1 7 1 2 9 1 4 9 5 2 1 4 2 5 8 1 13 2 1 11 3 27 2 5 3 8 3 1 4 5 5 5 45 2 35 3 22 2 2 2 1 2 1 15 3 8 8 IS 3 4 3 7 1 12 34 14 2 7 5 17 8 10 1 5 6 5 24 1 394 629 50.51% 22 19 2 4 2 3 5 4 3 3 1 3 3 8 3 4 3 7 4 452 453 294 270 46 67 18 5 5 1 4 8 15 62 1 3 354 6 9 4 5 140 6 25 4 2 39 2 139 2 774 7 6 2 1 6 10 3 9 161 2 1 4 15 2 3 6 1 317 1 2 3 2 4 3 \\20 2 15 4 1 5 2 285 2 1 8 2 2 4 190 26 8 10 24 19 394 2 5 1 13 6 3 1 7 6 2 1 6 2 12 5 188 4 5 3 8 13 23 2 19 3 3 6 4 392 16 18 2 6 614 2 4 1 8 2 2 2 4 1 1 340 14 5 2 495 14 11 3 6 16 13 3 2 17 2 2 295 5 2 7 9 618 2 2 17 4 6 2 1 5 1 12 16 349 12 4 3 528 5 4 1 2 9 3 2 2 2 4 17 66.81% 70.20% 61.22% 61.11% 2 8 2 2 435 431 518 255 310 307 501 531  i 460 2 487 400 257 339 11 8 406 219 406 65.75% 57.77% 74.32% 64.31% 65.48% 70.26% 41.62% 71.52% 65.30% 68.50% 67.32% 79.06% 59.11% 73.52% 41.87% 3 7 213 8 15 2 296 16 3 21 20 20 226 476 2 2 1 302 536 429 j 656 114  444 315 508 384 62.91% 73.13% 79.25% 44.97% 78.60% 67.62% 58.85% 254 ' 44.88% 162 I 14O7o\"T OFFICE OF STVOENT ASSIGNMENTCLOVR JR 494 DUNBAR 38 FORST HT 23 HENDERSN 21 MABEL JR 73 MANN M/S 90 PUL HT J 21 SOUTHWST 17 JR TOTAL 777 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT SCHOOL ATTENDANCE ZONE SUMMARY OCTOBER 2, 1995 62 3 4 23 1 6 1 15 609 81.12% 443 64 64 3 15 9 22 21 53 732 60.52% 45 36 50 57 21 23 737 483 50 20 72 7 59 759 63.64% 34 4 54 36 18 696 588 4 114 48 20 8 892 f 3 1 7 11 1 19 11 71 792 74.24% 333 66 15 25 508 7 3 17 491 67.82% 109 2 1 123 67 570 4 767 220 8 271 67 59 504 847 781 612 845 15623 72.98% 82.35% OFFICE OF STUDENT ASSIGNMENTLU ILfc HOCK SCHOOL DISTRICT SCHOOL ATTENDANCE ZONE SUMMARY OCTOBER 2. 1995 OFFICE OF STUDENT ASSIGNMENT 1 Q X BZEHBi Little Rock School District receivst^ (3 JAN 1 6 1996 Office of Desegregacon fviontojn,^ January 11, 1996 Ms. Melissa Guilden 201 E. Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Ms. Guilden: The Implementation Committee recently held their Enclosed please find a copy of those minutes. sixth meeting. Our next meeting has not been scheduled due to scheduling conflicts\nhowever, I hope to contact you this month to request your selection on which subcommittee that you would like to serve. Once our next meeting has been scheduled, you will be notified. Sincerely yours, V D^ DIR] I [TOR C. Eaton FACILITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT DCE/apl/ipcmeet 810 West Markham Street  Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  (501)324-20004 A 5 JAH J 6 ^9% MINUTES IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE JANUARY 3, 1996 The Facility Study Implementation Committee held their sixth meeting on January 3, 1996. At that meeting, a revised scope was presented to the Committee for consideration so as to realign the direction of the Committee. A recommended change was made by committee members in reference to the Little Rock School District Board of Directors as opposed to Board of Education\nhowever, the scope was not voted upon and the committee is still not clear on what the general scope of their authority is. A Draft Implementation Planning Sub-Committee list was also prepared which initially divided LRSD employees and some members who have volunteered for specific committees to assist in drafting the various phases of an implementation plan assessment of the Facility Study. and because of The sub-committees have still not been firmed up, this the specific charge. obligations requirements of those sub-committees has not been defined. and An agenda item of a plan time line was not discussed due to lack of time. A special report was made by Ms. Lowe, who is working on the subcommittee dealing with public affairs. They have began holding sub-committee meetings and have taken a first step of holding their own public meeting on January 10, 1996. We had a long, involved discussion regarding what the aspects are of our committee and how we are to develop an implementation plan. Of many items discussed. highlights centered around how the configuration of the middle schools would be impacted or would impact the Facility Study\nhow do we secure public reaction to the various aspects of the downsizing\nand how do we involve public acceptance? We have yet to develop any kind of a firm guideline or plan as to how we should approach the public. At the direction of the Superintendent, informal meetings have begun in various communities simply to inform Little Rock School District patrons and the general public on what the study encompasses and to assure them that a group of LRSD employees and the general public are looking at how the various options in the Facility Study could be implemented if necessary, but that no decisions have been made. It is becoming obvious that specific sub-committees will have to be formed out of the realm of the general committee by securing volunteers and that specific areas of implementation will have to be examined.Page Two Continued covers. At the present time, the only thing that we are comfortable going to the public with is the general parameters of the study and what it Detailed questions regarding whether or not the District is going to implement the Study, and how it will affect the children and the education system have yet to be determined. This leaves many unanswered questions at many of these public meetings. DCE/apl/minutes6! Arkansas Demi  locrat I SATURDAY, JANUARY 13, 1996------- \u0026lt;*\u0026lt; Ulto  Committee on LR school closings sets forum A Little Rock School District committee charged with developing a plan that could lead to some schools being closed will hold a community forum at 10 a.m today at the Adult Leisure Center, 6401W. 12th St The Facilities Committee, made up of district administrators and commimity members, has been studying the recommendations of a Texas consoling firm that evaluat- No decisions have been made by ii J.i 1 1- ujg committee although members have indicated they dont believe ed all district schools. The consultants recommended closii^ at least eight schools and redrawing attendance zones as a way to oSset a projected loss of more any schools should be closed in the 19^97 school year. than 3,000 students by the year 2005. f The facilities conunittee has been meeting with parents at each of the schools that the consultants named as candidates for closure.RECEIVED JUN  1996' FACILITIES COMMITTEE NOMINEES Zone 1 Mitchell Dr. Delbra Caradine B. J. McCoy of O' OOi! :i: i\"cni\ncrinc,^ Zone 2 Daugherty Rohn Muse Zone 3 Magness Diane Vibhakar 3917 S. Lookout Little Rock, AR 72207 661-8030 Kris Baber 2519 N Fllmore Little Rock, AR 72207 663-5443/682-2479 Zone 4 Riggs Andy Carpenter 6 Van Lee Little Rock, AR 72205 221-9632 Terry Paulson 2613 Wentwood Valley Dr. Little Rock, AR 72212 225-8155/569-8868 Zone 5 Pondexter Patricia Davenport 502 Green Mtn. Circle, #22 Little Rock, AR 72211 221-0876/570-4100 Latricia Henderson 1724 Marlyn Drive Little Rock, AR 72205 227-9498/982-9436 Zone 6 Gee Joa Huphrey 5022 W. 56th Little Rock, AR 72209 565-4110 Arthur Locke 3515 LeHigh Drive Little Rock, AR 72204 225-9035/225-5534 Zone 7 Strickland Tom Brock 8207 Crystal Valley Cv. Little Rock, AR 72210 455-4754 Phil Wyrick 11001 Alexander Rd. Alexander, AR 72103 455-4073 JOSHUA INTERVENORS: John Walker 1723 Boadway Little Rock, AR 72206 374-3758 Joy Springer KNIGHT INTERVENORS: Betty Mitchell Frank MartinVAN N. LIGHT 15 Sunset Drive Little Rock, Arkansas 72207 663-9287 aa: c/ - mar 7 4- 1996 March 5, 1996 of Oeje\nar\nn. Ms. Sue Strickland Member, Little Rock School Board 19 Pear Tree Lane Little Rock, Arkansas 72204 Re: February' 22, 1996 School Board Meeting\nFacility Study Committee Dear Sue: Thank you for having lunch with me yesterday to discuss my concern regarding your failure to advise members of the Facility Study Committee of your intention to call for the suspension of the Committees work at the February 22, 1996 school board meeting. As I indicated at lunch, in my view, the community members who had volunteered so much of their time to this committees work deser'/ed prior notice of your intention out of courtesy and respect for their efforts. While you and I disagreed on whether the Committee should have been informed of your intentions prior to the meeting, I did appreciate your apology. I think your apology has the potential for healing some of the frustration felt by the community members of the Committee and plan to share it with the Committee by copy of this letter. There remains one open issue relating to the actions taken at the February 22, 1996 LRSD Board meeting with regard to the Committee having to do with a reason you expressed for wanting to suspend the Committees work. I reviewed the tape of the board meeting last week and believe you misstated the present status of the Committee when you stated: Excuse me. I am on that committee. The only thing that we are challenged to address is closing Mabelvale Junior High. As you know, the foregoing statement is simply not true. I advised you by phone on Monday, February 19 and by fax (copy enclosed) the next day that the committee leadership had been restructured and that the Committee was searching for a facilitator to assist the Committee in coming to an agreement regarding its scope, purpose, composition, subcommittee structure, decision timeline and decision framework. The information conveyed to you before the February 22nd Board Meeting clearly indicated that the Committee was no where near making a recommendation of any sort-much less a recommendation to close Mabelvale Junior High. Had you been at the February 14th Committee meeting (minutes enclosed) you would have witnessed the expression of dissatisfaction with the course of the Committee and appreciated the strong desire of theMs. Sue Strickland March 5, 1996 Page 2 community members of the Committee to set the Committee on an agreed upon course. Unfortunately, this information was not relayed to the Board and it was forced to make a decision without knowing all the facts. Of course, if I or a member of the Committee had been informed of your intention to seek suspension of the Committee at the February 22nd meeting the Board could have been informed of the current status of the Committee. The failure to portray accurately the status of the Committee is particularly puzzling in light of the concern you expressed at the February 22nd meeting about recruitment of students and families to the Little Rock School District. How can the Board expect to instill trust and involvement in the District when the efforts of people, like the volunteer members of the Committee, are summarily dismissed based on inaccurate information? Volunteers who take time away from other priorities to serve the public school system deserve more. The very least you owe the Committee members is to set the record straight regarding the work of the Facility Study Committee. The Board and the public should know that the committee members were determined to set the Committee on a correct course, had taken steps to do so and did not have the single issue agenda of closing Mabelvale Junior High. I would hope that you would make this information available to the Board. If you wont correct the record, then I will at the next available opportunity address the Board. I care very deeply about the future of the Little Rock School District and have been actively involved since my children began attending public schools. I also care about getting other parents involved in the District. I hope you will help insure that the efforts of those who do get involved will not be taken for granted or misinterpreted by accurately conveying the work of the Facility Study Committe to the Board. Thanks again for taking the time to meet with me. Sincerely, inht Van N. Light Co-Chair Facility Study Committee cc: Facility Study Committee MembersDELIVERED BY FAX 9 V DATE: February 20, 1996 TO. Facilities Study Committee Members OJSce ^4i-' 7 FROM: RE: Van Light, 663-9287 Co-chair, Facilities Study Committee Facilitator Selection/Critical Questions Input for Facilities Study Committee At the Facilities Committee meeting on Wednesday, February 14, 1996, the committee decided to restructure the committee leadership with a co-chair format, one chair from the community and one chair from the LRSD staff. I was elected as a co-chair representing the community and Doug Eaton will continue as the LRSD staff co-chair. In addition, pursuant to Committee action on February 14th, a facilitator is to be identified and selected to assist our committee in developing committee goals, scope, decision timeline and framework. Several other critical questions were compiled at this meeting. They are enclosed for your review. Please call me with additions or corrections. These questions will be given to the facilitator. Selection of Facilitator The Committee agreed to seek the assistance of a facilitator for a limited time and as a volunteer. Suggested work parameters are at most 2 committee workshops of up to four hours each. Please submit your suggestions by the end of the week. I contacted as many of you as I could by phone on Monday, February 19th in advance of this memo. Two suggestions have been made so far: Judith Foust and Max Snowden. Since we are asking candidates to volunteer his/her time, several suggestions are required. Thanks very much. If you do suggest someone, please provide a short profile. Once all suggestions have been made, then I will contact you again by letter/phone/fax with names and profiles. You will have the opportunity to rank preference and/or express concern about a candidate. Remember the facilitator will not make decisions but help us to formulate our own committee structure and framework for the committee members to make the decisions. Thank you for your time and support.DRAFT Facility Study Implementation Planning Minutes, February 14, 1996 Committee Members Present Doug Eaton, chair Nancy Acre Brady Gadberry Melissa Guildin Charles Johnson Van Light Nancy Lowe Leon Modeste Rohn Muse Fred Smith Diane Vibhakar Connie Whitfield Linda Young Members Not Present Sadie Mitchell Sue Strickland Sammy Mills Vic Anderson Russ Mayo Betty Mitchell Xavier Heard Margaret Gremillion Suellen Vann John Walker Donna Creer Robert Hightower Kathy Wells Skip Marshall Frank Martin Richard Roachell 1  ** ~ \" y,  MAR 7- 'i5?3 D Mr. Doug Eaton, chair, called the meeting to order at 5:00 pm. Mr. Eaton asked for a report from the Outreach Subcommittee. This report was defered to the next meeting because certain members necessary to make the full report were not present at the meeting. Nancy Lowe did state that she had presented the overview of the Facility Study to the Area School Advisory Committee on Monday, February 12, 1996 and circulated the \"Public Schools at the Crossroads\" document (attached) compiled by the Outreach Subcommittee. Rohn Muse, who is on a Greater Little Rock Chamber of Commerce committee, stated that the Chamber's Executive Committee had requested through him that the Outreach Subcommittee brief the Executive Committee. After discussion the Facility committee agreed that future requests for Facility Study briefings should be requested through the Communications Office under the direction of Suellen Vann. Since the Chamber briefing had already been scheduled for the next day, February 15, the committee agreed that only the \"Public Schools at the Crossroads\" document be circulated and that any questions or requests for more information concerning the Facility Study should be directed through the Communications Office.DRAFT Minutes, February 14, 1996 Page 2 Mr. Eaton announced that the Bi-Racial Committee had been given a Facility Study Briefing on February 6, 1996. Additional briefings are scheduled for Wilson Elementary on March 8, 1996\nFair Park Elementary on March 11, 1996\nand, Garland Elementary on March 25, 1996. Mr. Eaton circulated to members the Special Report\nFacility Study Implementation Planning Committee Memo and School Closing Timeline (attached) which had been presented to the LRSD Board of Directors on January 25, 1996. Van Light noted that Number 2 of the memo should read \"Option M\" instead of \"Option C.\" Further discussion occured concerning these documents. Van Light made a motion that written Facility Committee progress reports to the LRSD board should be reviewed, if time permitted, by all committee members prior to submission to the LRSD Board of Directors. The motion was discussed and passed. It was agreed on occasions when LRSD Boardmembers and/or the Superintendent requested information from Mr. Eaton as the Plant Services Director and required immediate response then the commmittee would be apprised after the fact. Linda Young requested that Rohn Muse's name be added on the committee membership list. Mr. Eaton agreed to do so. As Mr. Eaton was circulating a draft Revised Scope for this committee to discuss, the members discussed and agreed that the Agenda Item dealing with Committee Structure should be addressed first. Van Light then circulated a letter (attached) signed by Charles Johnson and herself requesting two agenda items for the February 14th meeting. The first item addressed committee leadership. The letter attached explains the committee situation. The community members recommended that a facilitator should be asked to run the meetings. After discussion and specifically Fred Smith noting that there was no budget to hire a facilitator, a compromise approach was reached. It was agreed that the committee should have co-chairs, one from the community who would run the meetings, and a LRSD staff member as the other co-chair. In addition, a facilitor would be asked to come on a voluntary basis for a limited time to help the committee develop an agreed uponDRAFT Minutes, February 14, 1996 Page 3 scope, purpose, committee structure, composition, and other organizational needs. The members agreed that a facilitator would be more likely to help if it was a short term commitment. Fred Smith nominated Van Light to be the community co-chair. It was seconded. She was elected to the position. The members then listed serveral critical questions (attached) that are to be given to the facilitator once identified. It was noted that a committee member, instead of the chairperson, should become the official secretary for future meetings. Mr. Eaton had been taking the minutes of all the meetings previously. The second agenda item requested by the community members in the above referenced letter concerned requesting 3D1 to make a formal presentation to the committee. This would allow all questions that committee members had to be anwered and understood fully. No specific action was recommended because it was deferred for the next meeting when the facilitator would be present. The revised scope statement and subcommittee composition agenda items were tabled until the next meeting when the facilitator will be present. Mr. Eaton did state that he had asked three LRSD staff to begin forming subcommittees in order to get issues surfaced that would assist the general committee in its thought process with regard to studying the options. Mr. Eaton passed out, as general information, a document entitled \"School Closing Information Paper\" (attached) to assist committee members in trying to understand the multiple steps necessary in deciding school closings. The meeting adjourned about 6:15 pm. The next meeting would be determined once a facilitator had been identified and an agreed upon date set. Minutes prepared by Van Light with assistance from Mr. Eatons Memorandum for Record, Implementation Planning Committee Meeting - 2/14/96, dated March 1, 1996 and Nancy Lowe's recording the list of critical questions.TO: TKR! q-[jc -r LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT DIRECTORATE OF FACILITY SERVICES 3601 S. BRYANT LITTLE ROCK, AR 72204 January 25, 1996 Vittle Rock School District Boar FROM : a Sat on, Director of Special Sucerintendent T ommr tie Rock School District Faci Ccmmi tee xS charged Wltl\" he various restru uring options as presenter The committee administration membership consists staff, Desegregaticr community individuals. d of Directors y Sezn-ices V o do 1 y stU\narty ers ccmmlttee has casi t this point has made the following pre iminary det ns an ions\ncommittee focus Fa will only be on -mendati rents. ty restr'ucturing to meet projected stu^ 7 T 2 . Tha ths specifi e Wi' lT 7 be Optz.cn C.as it ertains to J nior i--ab schools. 3 . a school closin reccmmen\n:s .b-e his budget year cue to the estimated time of F 4 . Tha a primary focus will be :ubli and rmation sessions to secure public t and sun 5 . That additional subcommittees will be ether aspects o school restructuring and they ecome to analyte identified. There are no set timelines to implement a school closing, but rather a backward planning process starting with the desired closing date and student assignment effective date and then prorating your time over the identified steps and procedures necessary. The following is a list of significant events and suggested dates\n1. Prior to January: - Completed all data collection and analysis - Comprise list of facilities to be considered - Conduct public information meetings 2. January: - Finalize recommended action to board(Business case) - Secure board decision on closure - Begin support planning - Tentative assignment notification to students Begin support) definitized planning(personnel, students, 3 . Febr-uary: - Request court date - Conduct pre-registration 4. March: - Complete support planning (support staff) - Complete student plans - Complete public hearings - Complete personnel plans - Court hearing 5. June: - Close school - Final notification to students on assignments 6. August: - Reassign students This is a very condensed list and does not include he multitude of specific staff considerations with regard to this type action. CLCB2HPTFebiuaiy 12, 1996 Delivered in Person by Charles Johnson and Van Liuhl Mr. Doug Eaton Director, Plant Services LRSD 3601 S Bryant Little Rock .AR 72201 RE. Aaenda Items for 2'14/96 Facility Study Implementation Planning Committee (FSIPC) Meeting Dear Doug Persuant to your most recent letter in which you offered to receive agenda item suggestions from committee members, we respectfully submit the following agenda items A) B) Committee Leadership Structure Request for Facility Study Presentation by 3D! Last Friday '9/96, five FSIPC members from the community, Charles Johnson. Van Light. Kathy Wells. Nancy Lowe. Rohn Muse, met for 1 1. hours to discuss the FSIPC and its fiiture direction. The group agreed to recommend the above agenda items We also want to recommend that Rohen S Rules of Order be followed in future meetings. A. Committee Leadership Structure Problem Statement. In its present leadership structure the committee has not been able to progress as it should due to members and committee leadership not agreeing on committee purpose and scope. Symptoms of Problem. These symptoms suggest that a change is needed. a) 2 V2 - 3 hour meetings conducted with little or.no progress made or action taken, b) Committee Chairperson forming subcommittees outside the committee structure. c) Poor attendance at last two meetings. d) Expression of frustration by all membersdeadersiiip on lack of committee progress. Discussion This group discussed several strategies to address this problem. In the discussion of all strategies it was aareed that a neutral person was needed to run the meetings. The strategies discussed were. 1. Co-chairs, one community member\none LRSD staff member. The community member tunning the meeting, , 2. One chairperson - a community member 3. One chairperson - an experienced facilitator. This group by consensus agreed to recommend Strategy ^3, to find an experienced facilitator as soon as possible who might donate his/her time.Rationale for Selection of Strategy #3 Due to the obvious public interest and sensitivity/volativity with issues concerning facility changes, it is imperative that the public perception and, indeed, the reality be that this committee be one in which a) the leadership of the committee is neutral, b) the committee membership representation is city-wide, c) the evaluation process is fair and logical and is agreed upon by the committee, and, d) decisions are based on a shared vision by the committee using the Strategic Plans beliefs, mission and objectives as a guide. Due to the various perspectives of the committee members and the complexitv of issues relating to facilitv changes, having an experienced facilitator would be a needed asset. t. B) Facilitator Recommendations. The group did brainstorm on possible facilitators. Of course, other names can and should be considered. Those mentioned were. Ken Hubbell Earl Moore Joyce Springer Williams Mary F Dillard Dr David Sink Judith Foust Cliarlev Crawford Request for Faciiit\u0026gt; Study Presentation by 3DI Problem Statement. The inability of the members to understand the reasons and iustificaiii recommendations that per to facility changes. Reasons for Inability to Understand. 1) Contradictory messages: :ueen sections of studc 2) Insufficient narrative to support and.'or explain recommendations. Discussion. The group agreed that it w before decisions impacting on for the s essential that the integrity and validity of the study had to be upheld 'acilities by the committee could be made. This group agreed it could not and did not want to move fonvard until that point was reached. Therefore, it is recommended that a one-on- one session with the consultant be arranged. Specific information requests from consultant can be determined at the Wednesday meeting. This group recognizes the seriousness of the agenda items recomm.ended in this letter. We are earnest in our desire to make informed decisions We are committed in being supportive of the LRSD and its staff as we work together to recommend changes concerning the Districts facilities We pledge our good faith efforts to make decisions based on the overall good of the District. We await your comments and would be glad to discuss further any issue With regards, Charles Johnson 565-5715   \\ Van N. Light 663-9287'\" y cc: Mr. Fred Smith FSIPC Members (at W'ednesdays meeting) FACILITIES COMMITTEE Little Rock School District Critical Questions 1. 2 3. 4. 5. What is the scope of the committee? Do we need to revisit establishing goals? How can committee set forth a planning framework for itself with goals and timelines and benchmarks? Determine committee composition and numbers. Determine best tune to meet. 6. Vanong levels of trust w ith school district within committee. 7. 8. 9. Wdiat are the specific subcommittees? Determine subcommittee composition and numbers. Wdiat are the subcommittees tasks? 10. 11. 12. 13. Are we satisfied wdth the facilities study as a piece to begin decision making\"? Do we need to have 3 DI make a presentation? Varying levels of understanding about facility study wtliin committee. How did decision to close identified schools within recommendations get done? 14. 15. How do we communicate internally within the committee and with and between subcommittees? How are we going to communicate committee decisions to the general public? 16. Others? SCHOOL CLOSING PROCEDURES INFORMATION DOCUMENT 1) INTRODUCTION: 2) RSCEJVED MAR 7 199$- Office cf Desegrajefien Monitoring School closings are generally examined using the same criteria established by planners for the location and construction of new schools. Such general areas as student populations, demographic trends, economic analysis are the same general areas of consideration to be used when the predetermined goal is consideration of closing a school. Because there are no defined guidelines for decision-makers, nor definitive brackets of cost and population against which an objective analysis can be made to lose a school, we WP can establish research data but not clearly define will fully support a closing, will be heavily subjective. WXiCil that Therefore, our final decision We must understand that School Districts must operate financially by maximizing costs on a per capita basis. Only through maximum economies of scale, by going to maximum class size and facility capability. while meeting students' individual needs for achievement can we hope to operate in an economically efficient manner. In examining a particular school as a candidate for closing. we must certainly examine the entire school system. or at least a cluster of schools which would be immediately impacted by the closing. Basic economic decisions considered in facilities planning include decisions to incrementally add to schools as student numbers go up, and the fact that we design and build for future use, and not just current needs. This leads us to consider projected student populations and current and expected costs as the two (2) main considerations in school closings. WHEN DO WE CONSIDER A SCHOOL FOR CLOSING: I've identified five (5) areas of consideration that would support a decision to examine whether or not a specific facility should be closed: A) Consideration should be given to closing a acility when the repair costs can not be amortized economically. Examples would be when emergency repair costs exceed the value of the school, such as damage due to f 1 fire, 1earthquake, etc., or when the deferred maintenance costs on any major component would exceed a certain value of the overall costs of the facility. This deferred maintenance must include replacement to include costs to upgrade to current standards of such major components of the school as the heating/ventilation system, structural repairs, roof, and grounds. B) We should consider closing the facility when the operational maintenance costs of the facility begins to exceed the norm of all other similar facilities or when it can be shown that the operational maintenance cos C) D) would far exceed the life cycle costing of a new f as compared to the remaining life of the original. This can be done through a life cycle cost analysis of a new facility of equitable size. One must consider here that a replacement facility of larger size can better capitalize on economies of scale and will tend to show a lower operational cost on a per capita basis than the ole facility. This is used as the strength of an argument for normal facility replacement simply due to age and operational costs. We should consider closing a facility when the student population decreases to the point that consolidation or redistribution of students must occur,- or when student projections show a steady decline over a determined period of time. The determined period of time should exceed the number of years of one (1) cycle of the school\nfor example, if the school encompasses K - Sth Grade, we should look, at least, at one (1) full cycle, or seven years, as the projected length and time to fully determine whether or not student projections are rising or falling. This should allow a slight increment in any given year due to a rise in birth rates but not skew the final data. We should consider closing a facility when general demographic trends of the entire area surface indicate a movement or shift in population, away from an existing 2E) 3) school. As population centers shift within the School District, it can be expected that as student populations decline in older areas. that per capita cost increase, that the closing of schools must be considered to meet the demands of the moving population. Many times, this will result in the Board of Education examining older schools. areas in more established areas, yet these established predominantly house older populations which do not tend to move with demographic trends within the city. We should consider closing a facility when the cost analysis of the school shows a disproportionate spending on a per capita basis for all other items not including operations and maintenance. We must closely examine this area. If operational costs on a per caoita basis are increasing due to decreasing student e rising operational costs of the program, be examined in support of school closing, must be cautioned that operational programs, newer technology. then nis However, osts for ust W6 new to achieve higher academic standards are not to be considered in this analysis per capita costs. RESEARCH AREAS: of The research area list is not all-inclusive, but meant to identify those key areas of consideration that will produce objective data. and those answers that will produce subjective answers. The following are areas which can be clearly defined objectively: A) A current operational cost analysis will proouce hard figures showing the operational costs on B) C) either a per school. or per capita basis. against the norm. We should consider both maintenance costs and academic costs. One time costs to bring the facility in line with current academic demands and current physical requirements such as bringing the building in line with current city codes. Examining student projections will clearly show a rise or fall in the anticipated enrollment over a 3given number of years. D) The costs associated with the transfer of students and the costs associated to adapt surrounding schools school. to incorporate students from the closed The following areas of examination will produce subjective answers: A) Trying to determine the impact on student's education if we move the student from a familiar environment to an unfamiliar environment. a B) Examining whether or not the closing of a school is not in contravention to t Laws. Fe C) Whether or not the closing of a facility is in line with the Little Rock School District's Desegregation Plan, or intent thereof. A subjective analysis will raise further questions such as: A) When do we physically close the school and move children? the B) How long will it take the children to go to, or be acclimated. in their new school? C) What would be the racial balance of the schools to which the children are redistributed? 4) WHEN DO YOU CLOSE A FACILITY: As Stated before, there are no hard, fast guidelines which would produce checklists that say. if you meet four (4) or five (5) criteria, the school will be closed\". It is more a subiective evaluation based on II It subjective objective data, and as such, will allow the decision-maker the ability to determine the nrioritv of the to determine priority listing considerations, and the specific criteria which will determine that the facility will be closed. In general, if a 45) combination of any of the following factors are present, a s A) B) ) D) then chool should be considered for closing: when the operational specified amount\ncosts exceeds the norm by a when the costs to upgrade the facility to current educational and code standards is cost-prohibitive against either new construction or the facility\nthe expected life of when you are considering realigning attendance zones just support student populations, or have to transport simply to maximize the facility. to children into an area or to spend funds to support educational attract students, all of which are intended to offsec L co rograms 11 c W student population and decreasing trends\nand, if schools are examined on a regional cluster. total combined facility space and exceeds the current projected needs and redistribution economic sense, or social considerations. consideration. PLANNING FACTORS: procedure which is does not and violate then closing is The following planning steps formulate a intended to be used as a guide vzhen school closing is contemplated. The procedure is set forth in a logical manner\nhowever, uniformly as local conditions require. its sections may be used separately or uniformly as locai i\nuuuii,j.uuo It is primarily intended to identify the various kinds of information as well that should be considered before as the particular activities It is intended that this procedure will be closing a school. the _______________to provide an organized structure for decision-makers when a school closing is being contemplated. followed so as A) acili.tx Evaluations t Facility evaluations are undertaken only when it is apparent that physical condition school. will influence the decision to close the This evaluation should properly identify the 5general condition of the facility and detail any special problems relating to age, structure or utility systems. The evaluations should include an estimate of useful life be made if the facility is continued in service. expectancy and, in particular, an accounting of repairs to Some schools will need to be closed regardless of age and condition. B) Capacity of Facility: Useful capacity should be C) calculated in terms of the numbers of students the facility can accommodate using criteria as established by *  . Each either the Local or State Board of Education. administration must establish its own formula capacity calculations. Suggested methods include: Capacity as ietermined J* Itiplying pupil.'t ratio times the number of classrooms Capacity as determined by dividing square footage in an instructional area by the per pupil square a footage recommended for the purpose for which the area is being used Capacity determined by physical determination cr each academic space as compared to the Board of Education standard capacity may not exceed the class any case, non cue cj-obo size limits as established by the State Board of Education. In Student Enrollments: Present and projected student enrollments should be a necessary part of any decision uO close a school. To decrease the margin of'error, {7) years should minimum period of time of at least seven be established upon which to base population projections. This should be done for the school system as a whole, all schools included. One should be aware of two (2) factors * *  a in projecting populations: a) The relationship between increases or decreases in the general population and school enrollment\nand. 6D) E) b) The need to project enrollment in a given attendance area where it is anticipated that a school may close. would be appropriate to establish an enrollment figure such that if the school falls below this number, that the school will be closed after due process, and all pupils It and school personnel reassigned. A proposal to close Organization of the School SYStemu should consider the organizational needs of the a school including reorganization of particular school system, schools which otherwise might have been closed. examole, be subtracting grades at an elementary level For consideration might facility could be continued in service. add such that o..e Within this context, one examines the long-range programmatic ntc-s of the school system before deciding to close a s\u0026gt;_hool. In doing so, it may be appropriate to close a school for some temporary purpose, which, in the final analysis will seirve the permanent goals of the school system. Cost of operationL To be explicit in one's assessment to close a school, we must calculate the financial costs of operating the facility, and more especially, the funds to    These costs m.ay be be saved by closing the facility. compared to per capita costs of operating other similar schools in the school system. or just simply on the basis that a given amount of money will no longer be spent if the facility is closed. These financial assessments normally include, but are not restricted to the areas of: a) Personnel reassign or eliminated\nb) Utilities for a period of time such as a year\nc) Maintenance and repair costs for a period of t ime\nd) Custodial costs\n7e) Transportation costs,- and, f) Miscellaneous costs. such as insurance. If the facility is to be closed, and not replaced, then obviously a substantial capital outlay may be avoided. If the facility is to be replaced, then a comparison must be made to the expected operational costs which will be determined from a cost analysis of the new facility. Obviously, if the per capita costs decrease. or the same general operational costs remain approximately the for a larger number of students in a more modern facility, then closing would be advantageous to the District. then F) Transportation: It is not 1 T. ays possr 1 o o.a G) H) savings in transportation by closing a school since ass .sporta' ignment of students sometimes increases transportation However, one may well reduce costs in responsibilities. this area by school closing, and it is incun-ibent upon us to assess this accurately. Specifically, rerouting should be buses, plus its effect upon time and distance, A corollary is the need for additional or examined. fewer buses. distance, issue. The relationship among routing, t ime, number of buses, and concomitant costs is the Racial Balance: racial balance enrollment. which so school The administration must recognize that IS a sensitive factor in No administration should take an school action seriously affects pupil assignment as closing a without being completely aware of its ramifications on racial balance. The probability is that racial balance alone will not likely determine whether or not a school is closed. However, it is a sensitive matter that may not be overlooked, this factor carefully. We must calculate Alternative Uses: Alternative uses of the facility must be examined during the analysis process to insure that the facility may not be compatible with the education process in an alternative use. Instructional programs, as well as auxiliary services, should be in an alternative use. as 8considered. Possible alternatives include: a) Special education\nb) Special purpose schools,- c) Social and community purposes\nd) Maintenance and repair services\ne) Storage\nand, f) Office space. irrrent expense to provide the aroremer and capital outlay costs should be me 1 jded 'Vices 1 any assessment of alternative uses. i) Program Considerations.:. In considering a school closing, the administration should determine where students will be reassigned, and what effect closing will have on j) k) program opportunities which result from staff reassignments and the relocation of resources. Tentative Decision: studies school After the administration carefully the facility evaluations. facility capacity. projections. school organizations, cost operation, effect on transportation, alternative uses the facility, effect on racial balance. of for and effect on local governmental planning, the administration should make a tentative decision. If the tentative decision is to close the school, then informal meetings and hearings should be scheduled. Informal MeetinQSu The administration. in conjunction with the Board of Education, should hold public hearings prior to the closing of the school. The administration should, in order to cement good public relations. hold certain informational meetings with their various publics prior to closing. These activities are strictly for the purpose of providing information. answering questions. and most important of all. establishing in the' minds of those affected. that their reactions and opinions are 96) 1) m) being evaluated, public support. School closings are much easier with These meetings should involve, should not necessarily be restricted to: a) b) c) d) but Parents\nSchool-related groups\nLocal government officials\nand, Other local interest groups. Additionally, the administration should keep a displaced faculty-as well informed as can be. Personnel reass ignm.ent plans should prepared and given to soon as possible. Closing Decisions: d c After all essential info: ion has been obtained and evaluated by the administration, and after all essential activities have been carried out, then the administration should approach the Board of Education, in an official session, regarding closing the school. If a school closing is voted upon. then it should be as specific as to termination date, and should be accomplished in conjunction with applicable general statutes regarding property disposal. Disposition of Surplus Property.:. If the closing of the school results in the property being surplus o the District's needs, then applicable laws should be followed regarding this disposition. Final disposition is. of course, at the determination of the Board, and may include the options of demolition, sell, or leasing. SUMMARY: The following checklist summarizes the school closing procedure. EVALUATION OF FACILITY  * * Report on physical condition State useful life expectancy Identify specific maintenance or code problems 10CAPACITY OF FACILITY  Determine formula useful, pupil capacity by approved STUDENT ENROLLMENT  * Project enrollment five {5} years as a minimum Identify minimum enrollment for automatic closing Project enrollment for specific attendance area ORGANIZATION OF SCHOOL SYSTEM if if  if Needs of total school system Reorganization required by closing Cost of operation Current expense in capital outlay of closing S S' r.crs ?er capita costs in compari to Oti TRANSPORTATION if if Rerouting needs including additional i Cost savings, if any RACIAL BALANCE ALTERNATIVE USES  * Total school system, program needs Auxiliary uses PROGRAM CONSIDERATIONS TENTATIVE DECISION INFORMATIONAL MEETINGS if Parents, local government officials, local interest groups School related groups, others DISPOSITION OF SURPLUS PROPERTY  Other school system needs Sell Lease 11\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":22,"next_page":23,"prev_page":21,"total_pages":27,"limit_value":12,"offset_value":252,"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}}]}}