{"response":{"docs":[{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1036","title":"\"Little Rock School District Board of Directors' Meeting\" agenda","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["2005-06"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--21st Century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Education--Curricula","Education--Economic aspects","Education--Evaluation","Education--Finance","Educational law and legislation","Educational planning","Educational statistics","School board members","School boards","School improvement programs","School superintendents"],"dcterms_title":["\"Little Rock School District Board of Directors' Meeting\" agenda"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/1036"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["documents (object genre)"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\nThis transcript was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.\nFro Return ~ ~ Keep or Toss D [ Post-It\" 7668 03M 1993 Agenda RECEIVED JUN 2 ~ 2005 OfflCEOf DESEGREGATION MONIJORING Little Rock School District Board of Directors' Meeting JUNE2005 0 \u0026gt;-o\n- ~ r- r-\u0026lt; Oll: oz jg~ !B::\n-\noCz: on r- ... r- i5 oz 'f!! \u0026lt;J) r- I. 11. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS PRELIMINARY FUNCTIONS A. Call to Order B. Roll Call PROCEDURAL MATTERS A. Welcome to Guests REGULAR MEETING June 23, 2005 5:30 p.m. Ill. REPORTS/RECOGNITIONS/PUBLIC COMMENTS: A. Superintendent's Citations B. Remarks from Citizens (persons who have signed up to speak) C. Little Rock Classroom Teachers Association IV. REPORTS AND COMMUNICATIONS: V. A. Remarks from Board Members B. Student Assignment Report C. Budget Update D. Construction Report: Proposed Bond Projects E. Internal Auditors Report F. Technology Update APPROVAL OF ROUTINE MATTERS: A. Minutes: Regular Meeting I 05-26-05 Special Meeting I 06-09-05 n,. .., j- ~ r- r--\u0026lt;- 0~ 0~ !~ll~..,\n- aCz: on ,r.-.-.-~\u0026lt; n,..z,, ~ Regular Board Meeting June 23, 2005 Page 2 VI. ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES VII. VIII. IX. X. XI. XII. A. Recommendations from the Nutrition and Physical Activity Advisory Committee (NPAAC) CURRICULUM \u0026amp; INSTRUCTION A. PRE / Quarterly Update Report B. 2005-06 Evaluation Agenda HUMAN RESOURCES A. Personnel Changes BUSINESS SERVICES DIVISION: A. Proposed Budget for Annual School Election B. First Reading: Policy FA- New Facilities Development Goal C. Resolution for Leasing Authority D. Request for Breakfast and Lunch Meal Price Increase E. Consulting Agreement F. Donations of Property G. Financial Report CLOSING REMARKS: Superintendent's Report: 1. Dates to Remember 2. Special Functions EMPLOYEE HEARINGS ADJOURNMENT :e \"0 mh\" 'g om\ni:C m\u0026lt;= b~ ~~ m::1 --\u0026lt;m \u0026lt;J\u0026gt;\ni:, ~ ,...~ \u0026lt;JIO C:\"' \"0--\u0026lt; ~~ =Im  n .... 8 c5 z z =I (JI_ 0 z (JI !l' \"m' ~ r\u0026gt; $! ,r-,\u0026lt;,.J,\u0026gt;, !:H~  31: n =I l\nl z (JI DATE: June 23, 2005 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRJCT 810 WEST MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK, AR 72201 TO: Board of Directors FROM: Roy G. Brooks, Ed.D. Superintendent of Schools SUBJECT: June 2005 Construction Report - Bond Projects BACKGROUND: The planning for an addition to and the renovation of Forest Heights Middle School continues. The architect has been given a program (a list of items that the staff would like in the addition and remodeled areas) and is in the process of developing the costs, size and potential locations for the new building. Depending on available bond funds, a decision will be made soon regarding the staff requests. Several projects are being done this summer at Pulaski Heights Middle and Elementary Schools to enhance the appearance of the buildings. The outside brick walls of the Elementary School, auditorium and cafeteria are being cleaned and water-proofed . The front doors of the Elementary School are being replaced with new ones. A new ceiling will be installed in the cafeteria and all of the exposed steam piping and heating units will be removed . Another summer project is the . installation of new ceilings in the classrooms and corridors of Southwest Middle School which will improve the interior appearance of the building. When you drive by the school, it is obvious that the work recently completed has improved the exterior appearance of the school. In response to a request for information on projects not yet started, a new category has been added to the attached list entitled 'Bond Projects Not Yet Started .' RATIONALE: Monthly reports are submitted to the Board to keep members up-to-date on construction projects in the District. FUNDING: Bond Funds RECOMMENDATION: Report item\nno action necessary. PREPARED BY: Bill Goodman, District Engineer :n .... ~ ::c % 0 8 -\u0026lt; C: -c C ~ m CONSTRUCTION REPORT TO THE BOARD JUNE 23, 2005 BOND PROJECTS UNDER CONSTRUCTION I I I t:st. t.\nompIetIon Facility Name Project Description Cost Date Carver ~ dia Center Expansion _ $167,490 Dec-05 Aug-05 __ Au~g-05 ~g-05 ~ ug-05 Dec-05 Central Renovation - Interior _____ $10,200,266 Fair Park Remodel $799,000 Fair Park Parking Lot ___ ____ _ __ $185,000 Forest Park Restr~oms ___ __ $152,881 Gibbs Addition __ ______ __ $705,670 -- - Oakhurst (Adult Education) New Windows ___ _ __ $215,000 -- ~ g-05 Pulaski Heights Elem/Middle Cafeteria Ceiling _ ___ $33,378 _ Aug-05 Pulaski Heights Elementary Clean Exterior Walls _ __ $98,660 - ~ g-05 ~ g-05 __ Aug-05 Aug-05 Aug-05 Pulaski Heights Elem/Middle I Replace Entry Doors ______ $13,990 Southwest I New Corridor Ceiling ____ $300,000 Western Hills IElectrical Upgrade \u0026amp; HVAC __ $622,160 Woodruff Parking addition $175,000 BOND PROJECTS CONSTRUCTION - SUMMER/ FALL 2005 I I I t:st. t.\nompIetIon Facility Name Project Description Cost Date Cloverdale Elementary Demolition _ _ __ $520,750 Aug-05 Henderson Skylight Replacement_ ___ $45,00-0~ Aug-05 Meadowcliff  Remodel_________ __ $164,150 Aug-05 Rightsell Renovation $2,494,000 ~ Q-05 BOND PROJECTS PLANNING STARTED CONST. DATE TO BE DETERMINED I I I t:st. ~ompIe11on Facility Name Project Description Cost Date Booker Electrical Upgrade Unknown Unknown Chicot - -- Electrical Upgrade _-_-_-_-~ Unknown Forest H~ghts ====- Remodel ~ --- -- $1 ,547,000 -- - - -Un-known Unknown Mitchell Renovation -- - $2,212,493 - Unknown Pulaski Hgts. MS -- Energy monitoring system installation Unknown - Unknown BOND PROJECTS NOT YET STARTED Facility Name I Project Description I _Adm_inistration Anne_x_ ___ A,,,.D.._A_A.,-daptations -------~E_lectrical Upgrade Adult Education ADA Adaptations __ _ __ ----~S_tr_uctural Repairs -~ __ _ Alternative Learning Center ADA Adaptations ________ _ Electrical Upgrade Booker Cashion Building Dodd Roof Repairs .. Restroom Renovation ---~A_D_A Adaptations ____ A=-D_A Adaptations ______ _ Restroom Renovation I t:si. 1.,ompIeuon Cost Date __ $_3_2,351 Unknown $9,166-- Unknown -- $248,020 Unknown $53,918 Unknown $43,134 - Unknown - $2,696 - Unknown - $26,959 Unknown $37,742 Unknown $107,835 _ Spring 2006 $21,567 Unknown $26,959 Unknown -Fa-cility Services ADA Adaptations $32,351 Unknown ~ ___ ------~~_ _II_ ns_tall Water Metersa!Cooling Towers -.--- - $4,313 Unknown _______ E_m_ergency Lighting Replacem_e_nt _ Land Purchase - Booker Fulbright - Renovate Restroom-s -- ------ -- ~ ADA Adaptations Garland ~ovation -- --- ADA Adaptations ~trical Upgrade __ =~~---\n_- Geyer S~pr_in~g~s ______ R_e~p_lace Restroom Stalls ADA Adaptations I ~ 80,876 - Unknown - $100,000 - Unknown $10,784 Unknown $21 ,567 Unknown $900,000-----i=,artially Complete $188,711 Unknown $6,988 Unknown $4,3_13__ Unknown ----,-- -- $21 ,567 Unknown Facility Name Henderson IRC Mabelvale Elementary McDermott Quigley Rockefeller Transportation - Laidlaw Transportation - LRSD West Little Rock School CONSTRUCTION REPORT TO THE BOARD JUNE 23, 2005 BOND PROJECTS NOT YET STARTED I Project Description I Cost I Renovate Office $10,784 ADA Adaptations $70,093 ADA Adaptations I I $21,567 I Restroom Renovation $21,567 I 1 Electrical Upgrade $6,211 I Restroom Renovation $32,350 1 Restroom Upgrades $53,918 I 'Dressing Room Renovation I $37,742 1ADA Adaptations $26,959 I Electrical Upgrade $1,618 I Interior Renovation $16,175 ADA Adaptations $32,351 Electrical Upgrade $1,294 1New School $11,782,638 Est. Completion Date Summer 2006 Unknown Unknown Unknown Fall 2005 Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown ---- Unknown - Unknown -- Unknown Unk-no-wn Unknown BOND PROJECTS THAT HAVE BEEN COMPLETED I I I Est. Completion Facility Name Project Description Cost Date Administration Asbestos abatement $380,495 Mar-03 Administration Fresh air system $55,000 Aug-03 Administration Fire alarm $32,350 Aug-03 Administration IHVAC - $70,000 Nov-04 --- Administration Annex Energy monitoring system installation May-02 -- --- Alternative Learning Ctr. ~ergy monitoring system installation $15,160 Oct-01 Alternative Learning Ctr. 1Energy efficient lighting $82,000 Dec-01 Badgett I Partial asbestos abatement $237,2~ -- - Jul-01 -- Badgett_ __ Fire alarm --$18~250 Aug-02 Bale --aassroom addition/renovation ~ $2,244,524 Dec-02 Bale I Energy monitoring system Mar-02 I- -- Bale Partial roof replacement - $269,5~ Dec-01 Bale HVAC $664,587 Aug-01 f- ~3,520 - Baselin-e --- Renovation ~ug-04 ~8,525 -- Booker Gym Roof Oct-04 - --$25,000- - Booker ADA Rest rooms Aug-04 -- --- - - -- Booker -- Energy efficient lighting $170,295 Apr-01 -- Energy monitoring system installation .. Booker --$- 23,710-=__ Oct-01 Booker Asbestos abatement $10,900 Feb-02 -- -- -- Booker Fire alarm $34,501 Mar-02 Brady Addition/renovation --- ---- $973,621- Nov-04 -- - Brady_ __ Energy efficient lighting -- - -+ $80,593 Sep-02 Brady Asbestos abatement $345,0~ Aug-02 --- -- $14,480 __ Carver Energy monitoring system installation May-01 -- Carver -- - Parking lot $111,742 - - Aug-03 Central HVAC Renovation - Band Area $225,000 Dec-04 -- Central Reflecting Pond $57,561 Sep-04 Central Parking -+- - Student parking $174,000 Aug-03 Central/Quigley Stadium light repair \u0026amp; electrical repair ~ $265,000 _ Aug-03 -- fentral/Q@ley .Athletic Field Improvement --- $38,000 Aug-03 Central/Quigley Irrigation System -- $14,500 - Aug-03 Central Purchase land for school Unknown Dec-02 ---- Central Roof \u0026amp; exterior renovations $2,000,000 Dec-02 2 ~ \u0026gt;n  C: -.,\n,:\n,\n,:\n,\n,:\n, l!!o 0 C: C: ..... \u0026gt; C: ~:IC m QO j!!z -\u0026lt;!!! '.\" .... ~ :zc 0  C: ~ m CONSTRUCTION REPORT TO THE BOARD JUNE 23, 2005 BOND PROJECTS THAT HAVE BEEN COMPLETED I I Est. Completion Facility Name Project Description Cost Date Central Ceiling and wall repair $24,000 Oct-01 Central Fire Alarm System Design/Installation $80,876 Aug-01 Central Front landing tile repair $22,470 Aug-01 Chicot Drainage $64,700 1 Aug-04 Chicot Sound Attenuation $43,134 Jul-04 ---------------- 1-c,C-lo_v_e_rd_a_le-----,-E---,l..e..,_m_._ ____ __E,,n-_erg.,=y_e--fc-f,i-ci_ent....I,~igch---t-ci-n_.g,~ __________- -$=-_132~,67_8--r-____- ---,- f-C_lo_v_e_rd_a_le_ M_S_ _____ ,_E_n_erg.,=y_e_ff_icie_n_t lig,\"-h-_ting\"-----------'--__$_ 1_89',7-_43~'------ Jul-01 Jul-01 ~C_lov_e_rd_a_le_ M_S_ _____ ,_M_a~jo_r_ren_o_vation\u0026amp;a_d_d_it_io_n_ ________$1_ ,39_3_,82_2--r-----N-ov-02 f-D_o_d_d ________ _,_F_ire_A_la_r~m~Upgrad_e ________ t------c,-$_9~,2_0_0-+-- Dodd I Energy efficient lighting $90,665 Oct-04 Aug-01 Dodd Asbestos abatement-ceiling tile $156,299 Jul-01 Dodd Replace roof top HVAC $215,570 Aug-02 Dunbar Renovation/addition $6,149,023 Nov-04 ------------1- F a c i Ii ties Service Interior renovation $84,672 Mar-01 --------- Aug-03 May-05 Facility Services Fire alarm $12,000 f-F-a-ir-P~a-rk_ _______ _,_R-oof -- ---- $245,784 ~r-02 Aug-01 - Aug-01 Fair Park HVAC renovation/fire alarm -----$-3-15,956 ---- Fair_P_a_rk ______ _,_E_n_ergyefficient lighting __ _-_:_-_ $90,162 - ~F_a_ir_P_a_rk_ _______ ,_A_s_bes_tos abatement-ceiling ____$_ 5_9,31 O_ 6 classroom addition \u0026amp; cafeteria/music j J  A. Fair room addition $3,155,640 Aug-04 J. A. Fair Energy efficient lighting 1 $277,594 ----Apr-01 J. A. Fair Press box , $10,784 r Nov-00 J. A. Fair Security cameras 1 $12,500 - - - Jun-01 ---'-------------+! ----c--- J. A. Fair Athletic Field Improvement $38,000 Jul-03 J. A. Fair Irrigation System $14,000 Jul-03 J. A. Fair Roof repairs --, - - $391,871 ~ -=-- Aug-03 Fores_t_P_a-rk_ ______R_ e_p-la-c~e-w- indow unitsw/centralH VAC l $485,258 Nov-03 Forest Park Diagonal parking 1 $111,742 --Aug-03 Fulbright Energyefficient lighting --- - $134:463 - - Jun-01 Forest Park Energy efficient lighting ~-$119 788 - May-01 Fulbright Energy monitoring system installation $11,950 _-_-_-_-_Aug-01 Fulbright - Replace roof top HVAC units I $107,835 - Aug-02 Fulbright Parking lot --- $140,000 Sep-02 Fulbright Roofrepairs ---r~--~- $200,000 - - Oct-02 Frank_lin_ -- - Renovation 1 $2,511,736 _ _ Mar-03 Geyer Springs Roof Repair ' $161,752 Jun-04 Energy efficient lighting -- -- $76,447 Apr-01 ------- Gibbs Gibbs ---------Energy monitoring s~tem installation __ _ $11 ,770 Jul-01 Hall Major renovation \u0026amp; addition '\" $8,637,709 Sep-03 ------ Asbestos abatement $168,222 Aug-01 Energy efficient lighting --=-- _ _:-=- $42,931 Jul-01 Hall Hall Hall ___In frastructure improvements __ $93,657 Aug-01 Hall Energy efficient lighting _____ _ $296,707 _ Apr-01 1H--a--ll -------- Intercom Feb-01 Hall - Henderson Henderson ---- Henderson Henders-on- ---- Henderson Security cameras ______ _ Lockers --------- Energy efficient lighting - Roof replacement gym Asbestos abatement Phase I Asbestos abatement Phase 2 $10,600 $43,854 $193,679 $107,835 $500,000 $250,000 Jun-01 Dec-04 Jul-01 May-01 Aug-0~ Aug-02 3 CONSTRUCTION REPORT TO THE BOARD JUNE 23, 2005 BOND PROJECTS THAT HAVE BEEN COMPLETED Facility Name I I I Est. Completion Project Description Cost Date ,_IR_C _________E_ ner~g~y_e_ff_ic_ie_n_t_~li g~h_ti~ng $109,136 Jul-02 Jefferson Asbestos abatement $43,639 Oct-01 ,_J_effer_s_o_n _______ R_enovation \u0026amp; fire alarm _____ _____ $1,630,000 Nov-02 Laidlaw !Parking lot $269,588 Jul-01 Mablevale Elem Fire Alarm Upgrade $12,000 Oct-04 Mabelvale Elem. Energy monitoring system installation $12,150 Aug-01 Mabelvale Elem. Replace HVAC units $300,000 _ Aug-02 Mabelvale Elem. Asbestos Abatement $107,000 Aug-02 Mabelvale Elem. I Energy efficient lighting __ $106,598 Dec-02 Mabelvale MS !Renovate bleachers $134,793 I Aug-01 Mabelvale MS Renovation $6,851,621 Mar-04 Mann Partial Replacement $11,500,000 Apr-04 1_M_a_n_n_ ________'A_s,p__h_a_lt wal_ks _________ The total $1_8 million I Dec-01 ,_M_a_n_n __________ W_a_lkw_a~y~ca_n_o~p_ie_s_ ________ is what has been Dec-01 ..,M._a_n_n_ ________ __,1B__o_ile_r_r_e,p_l_a_ce_ment _______ used so far on the Oct-01 ,_M_a_n_n ________ ___,F_encing~---- _______ projects listed Sep-01 Mann 'Partial demolition/portable classrooms completed for Mann. ' Aug-01 .,-----------+-----------'-- Mc CI e II an Parking Lot Overlay $65,000 Apr-05 McClellan Athletic Field Improvement $38,000 Jul-03 McClellan 'Irrigation System $14,750 Jul-03 McClellan Security cameras $36,300 Jun-01 1_M_c_C_lel_la_n_ _______ _E:_n_e\n__r_g,'I-Ly-e':..f...fic:...i..e-'--n_t lighting $303,614 _____M ay-~ McClellan Stadium stands repair ___ - $235,0~ Aug-01 McCle~ - Intercom $46,000 _ _ Feb-02 McClellan Classroom Addition __ $2,155,622 __ Jul-04 McDermott Fire Alarm Upgrade _____ _ $7 ,700 Sep-04 McDermott Energy efficient lighting______ $79,411  Feb-01 McDermott Replace roof top HVAC units $476,000 Aug-02 Meadowcliff Fire alarm $16,175 __ ~ 1 Meadowcliff _ Asbestos abatement ------~-- $253,412 Aug-02 Meadowcliff ___E_ n_g,.,_er,g.,_y efficient lighting___ _ $88,297 Dec-02 Metrop_o_lit_a_n ______ ~ R_e~p_la_ce_c_ooling tower $37,203 ___ Dec-00 Metropolitan Replace shop vent system $20,000 _____ May-01 Metropolitan ~ nergy monitoring system installation $17,145 Aug-01 Mitchell Building Remediation $ 165,000 Jul-04 Mitchell IEnergy efficient lighting. _-_- =_-=__ ---$103,642 -- Apr-01 Mitchell Energy monitoring system installation $16,695~ - Jul-01 Mitch~ --- Asbestos abatement - - - ~ 3,000 --=== Jul-01 Oakhurst HVAC renovation __ $237,237 __ Aug-01 Otter Creek Energy monitoring system installation _ $10,695 __ May-01 Otter Creek _ Energy efficient lighting ___ _,_ _ $81 ,828 _ Apr-01 Otter Creek _ Asbestos abatement ___ + $10,000 _ _ Aug-02 Otter Creek Parking lot ________ + $138,029 __ _ Aug-02 Otter Creek 6 classroom addition ________ $888,778 Oct-02 Otter Creek 'Parking Improvements _____ $142,541 ___ Aug-03 Parkview __ ~ ddition _ ____ __ $2,121,226 Dec-04 Parkview HVAC controls ______ $210,000 Jun-02 Parkview ~of replacement_______ - $273,877- -- Sep-01 Parkview I Exterior ligh~ ____ __ ~ 0)84 _ _ Nov-00 arkview HVAC renovation \u0026amp; 700 area controls $301 ,938 _ Aug-01 Parkview Locker replacement ___ ~ $120,000 _ Aug~ Parkview Energy efficient liqhtinq $315,600 Jun-01 4 ~ \u0026gt;nc -o\n:c\n:c\n:c C!!o De: C: r\u0026gt; C: ~\ns:: mg,o p!z -\u0026lt;l :,, ... Pl ::c z 0 8 -\u0026lt; C: -0 C ~ m CONSTRUCTION REPORT TO THE BOARD JUNE 23, 2005 BOND PROJECTS THAT HAVE BEEN COMPLETED I I I l::.st. c.\nompIetIon Facility Name Project Description Cost Date 1-P_ro_c_u_re_m_ en_t_ ____~ _E_ner__g,,~y_m_o_n_itor_in_g,,_s_y_stem installation _ _$\n_5-,'-2-_9_0_ _____Ju_ n_-0_2-1 Procurement Fire alarm $25,0_00~ ____A_u g\"'---03. Pulaski Hgts. Elem I Renovation - $1,193,2-59- -----No-v-0-4 , Pulaski Hgts. Elem Move playground ___ $17,000 Dec-02 \u0026gt;-P-u-la_s_ki H~g~t-s.-M- S----~I_R_e_n-ov~a-ti~o=n---- - $3,755,041 Nov-04 Rightsell Energy efficient lighting -- $84,898  Apr-01 -R--o'\"c'--ke_f_elle_r_ ______E_ n-er...g,,~y-e-ff-ic-ie_n_t _lig,\"-h-ting - ~ $137,004 - Mar-01 1-R_o_c_ke_f,elle_r_ ______R_ e.,p_la_ce_ ro_o_f_to.2p.. HVAC _ ::_ -$-'-5_3_9-'-'- 17_5_ ____A u,g,,_-_o-11 Rockefeller Parking addition $111,742 Aug-02 t-R_o_m_i-ne_ _______ 1 _A_s-be- s~tos abatement --- - $10,0_0_0 __ -----A~p~r--02-  Romine Major renovation \u0026amp; addition - $3,534,675 Mar-03 \u0026gt;-S_c_ott_F_ie-ld--------T-ra~c-k_R_e_n_o_vations - $289,056 May-05 -- -----~~ Security/Transportation Bus cameras $22,500 Jun-01 Southwest ---A-dd- i-tio_n_________ - - $2,000,000 - Nov-04 - Southwest Asbestos abatem_ent_ __ _ $28,138 _ Aug-00 Southwest New roof $690,000 Oct-03 Southwest Energy efficientlighting ====- ~ $168,719 Jan-02 Southwest 1Drainage / street widening__ _ $250,000 _-- Aug-03 Stude-nt_A_s_s-ig_n_m_e_n_t ____En_ e_r-gy~m-o-nitoring system installation _ $4,830_ _____A~ ug-.Q_2 Student Assignment 'Fire alarm __- -- $9,000 Aug-03 Tech Center Phase 1 Renovation ..- $275,000 - - Dec-01 Tech Ctr/ Metro Renovation Addition/Renovation - Phase II _ : fil79Jmo- Jun-04 Technology Upg~rad_e ___ ---=U~p=gra_d_e~p~hone system \u0026amp;_d_ata__ _ ___ Nov-02 Terry Energy efficient lighting __ _ $73,850 _ _ Fe_b_-01 Terry Driveway \u0026amp; Parking $83,484 Terry 1Media Center addition - $704,932 Wakefield Rebuild ------- - $5,300,000 ------ Wakefield Security cameras $8,000 Wakefield__ 'Energy efficient lighting $74,77El Wakefield -----D- e- molition/Asbestos Abateme~ - $200,000 Washington Fire Alarm Upgrade $11.~Aug- 02 Sep-02 Dec-04 Jun-01 Feb-01 Washington Security cameras $7,900 __ Nov-02 Oct-04 Jun-01 Apr-01 Jul-01 Washing~t_on _______ E_n_e_rg~y_e_fficient lighting Watson Energy monitoring system installation Watson - --Asbestos abatement ---- Watson Watson Watson --____ E_n_ergy efficient lighting Western Hills Western Hills vv'estern Hills Western Hills Western Hills Williams Williams Williams Wilson Wilson Wilson Woodruff Asbestos abatement Major renovation \u0026amp; addition ----- Fire Alarm Upgrade -,\n:oA Rest rooms Asbestos abatement Intercom Energy efficient lighting Renovation Parking expansions __ ~nergy efficient lighting HVAC for Cafeteria --- ---, Renovation/expansio_n ____ _ _ Parking Expansion Renovation $165,281 $8,530 $182,241 $106,868 $10,000 $800,000 $8,400 $25,000 $191,946 $7,100 $106,000 $2,106,492 $183,717 $122,719 $56,000 $1,263,876 $110,000 $246,419 ~ g-01 Aug-01 Aug-02 A~g-02 Oct-04 ----- - Aug-04 Aug-02 Dec-01 Jul-01 Mar-04 Dec-03 Jun-01 Mar-05 Feb-04 Aug-03 Aug-02 5 Vl. ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES A. NPAAC RECOMMENDATIONS VII. CURRICULUM \u0026amp; INS] A. PRE/QUARTERL ~ E. INTERNAL AUDITORS REPORT F. TECHNOLOGY UPDATE V. ROUTINE tMTTERS A. MINUTES Date: June 23, 2005 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS To: Board of Directors @ From: Sandy Becker, Internal Auditor Re: Audit Report - June This is the sixty-eighth communication regarding status of the current year projects and reviews. Activity Funds a) Working with one high school, one middle school and two elementary schools to resolve financial issues in their activity funds. b) Reviewing monthly financial information for all schools and assisting in resolving balance issues. c) Training school staff at schools on financial processes by request. Activities Advisory Board (AAB) a) Assist the Activities Advisory Board in its mission to strengthen the effectiveness and viability of activities in the District. b) The AAB has forwarded a Booster Club Guidelines Package to be included in official publications of the District after review. Board Policy and Regulation a) The amended Out of District Travel regulation is being implemented. Technology a) Monitoring technology plans and technology meetings to determine how use of technology will improve and streamline the workflow for staff persons. b) Facilitating technology upgrade in cooperation with the English Department for Yearbook and ewspaper production staff in LRSD high schools to improve access to tools needed for students and staff. Training a) Served as a trainer for financial portion of uts \u0026amp; Bolts, Bookkeeper \u0026amp; Secretaries Training, Security Guard Training, individual school in-service meetings, and others as needed. Working to facilitate best means to improve financial processes and increase accountability for resources. Training new bookkeepers on bookkeeping procedures as requested. .'..\".\" ~ ::c z 0 8 -\u0026lt; C.. , 0 :!!\nm Audit Report - June 2005 Page 2 of2 b) Placed training material, smart worksheets, and other helpful items on the Teachers Lounge section of the Little Rock School District web page. c) Coordinated guidelines and aids to inform and assist new activity sponsors of specific tasks relating to each activity. Added new checklist for spirit sponsors and smart spreadsheet for fundraiser reconciliation. This information is now in the Teachers Lounge section of the District web page. d) Developed skills test for financial positions. Implementing in coordination with Human Resources. Audit Area Sampling and Review of Financial Procedures Other a) Pulling samples of district expenditures to test for accuracy, accountability, and compliance with District policies. Reviewing district payroll processes for compliance, economy and efficiency, internal controls, and cost control. Working with Financial Services Payroll on internal control and processing b) c) d) e) f) g) h) a) b) c) issues. Working with Financial Services on internal controls and rules for payroll processes and implementation of a new interface system. Monitoring other selected risk areas for efficiency, cost effectiveness, and compliance with District policies. Reviewing grant programs. Working with Child Nutrition on implementation of streamlined information processing system with Information Services and Child utrition Staff. Monitoring cost reduction efforts in the District. Monitoring combined payroll and human resources issues for compliance with board direction and internal controls. Reviewing leave accountability system. Reviewing Teacher School Supply Fund Records for recommendations. Provided technical assistance to school staff on grant writing. Served as co-chair of Strategic Team One - Financial Resources. Served as District coordinator of United Way's Day of Caring (April 17, 2005. Eleven schools participated. Problem Resolution a) I have made myself available to help resolve financial issues, assist in improving processes, and help find solutions to questions that arise. Please let me know if you need further information. My telephone number is 501-447-1115 . My e-mail is sandy.becker@lrsd.org. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK, AR 72201 DATE: TO: June 23, 2005 Board of Directors FROM: Roy G. Brooks, Ed.D. Superintendent of Schools SUBJECT: Board Auditor Report BACKGROUND: Monthly report to School Board. RATIONALE: Summary report of activities. FUNDING: No changes. RECOMMENDATION: None. PREPARED BY: Sandy Becker ~ \u0026gt;n  C: ..,\n,o\n,o\n,o C!!n oc: C:,.... \u0026gt; C: ~ll: m QO p! z -\u0026lt; !!l != ... DATE: TO: FROM: June 23, 2005 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK, AR 72201 Board of Directors Roy G. Brooks, Ed.D. Superintendent of Schools SUBJECT: Technology Report BACKGROUND: Since the last Board meeting the following technology activities took place:  Last month we reported that we had received over $ 1 million in e-rate funds for the 2003-2004 school year. All of the appeals that we filed on the 2003-2004 applications were upheld and fully funded.  This week it was announced that our 2004-2005 application for telecommunications services was funded in the amount of $ 1.2 million, bringing our total this year to $ 1.4 million. Because of e-rate funds, we receive a 73% discount on all services related to the wide area network, local, long distance, paging, and cellular phone service.  Our current Technology Plan covers the years 2003-2006. In order to meet state requirements for approval and to meet E-rate requirements the Technology Plan will have to be revised during the 2005-2006 school year. The new plan will have to be in draft form by the time we file our erate applications for 2006-2007 this December. It will have to be completed and approved by the Board in time for state submission in March 2006. Committees will be formed in August to begin the revision. RATIONALE: To implement the LRSD Technology Plan 2003 - 2006 RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Board accept this report. PREPARED BY: Lucy Neal, Director, Technology and Media Services John Ruffins, Director, Computer Information Services -0 :r me ~~ % z\no ,m.. mis nc :c\"' ~n c\n, m m\"' \"' LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK, AR 72201 DATE: June 23, 2005 TO: Board of Directors FROM: Roy G. Brooks, Ed.D. Superintendent of Schools SUBJECT: Recommendations from the Nutrition and Physical Activity Advisory Committee (NPAAC) BACKGROUND: Act 1220 of 2003 was created to combat the crisis of childhood obesity and associated health problems. In the 2003-04 school year, 36.7% of LRSD students were identified as overweight or at risk of becoming overweight. Act 1220 requires each school district in Arkansas to convene a Nutrition and Physical Activity Advisory Committee by 2004 that includes members from school district governing boards, school administrators, food service personnel, teacher organizations, parents, students and professional groups from the community. Federal legislation was passed in 2004 requiring all school districts with a federally funded school meal program to establish a committee by 2006 to evaluate nutrition and physical education policies and to promote best practices. The LRSD Nutrition Physical Activity Advisory Committee (NPAAC) is charged to:  Annually assist schools in the assessment of each school campus utilizing the School Health index. Outcomes of this assessment will be incorporated into the school improvement plan.  Review and make recommendations to the local school board regarding all food and beverage contracts.  Maintain a list of non-food and healthy food alternatives for fundraisers.  Monitor in-service education for food service staff. RATIONALE: To support compliance with Act 1220, the NPAAC met monthly since August 2004 and put forward recommendations to promote the health of our students. When children's health, nutrition and exercise needs are met, they have the cognitive energy to learn and achieve. Sound nutrition and adequate physical activity are linked to academic achievement, self-esteem, mental health and school attendance - all leading to stronger .., :r m c: ~! z z\nD ,m...m~ (') C: ~ ~ ~~ m CJ) student performance. The LRSD Nutrition Physical Activity Advisory Committee is committed to creating health-promoting schools that support sound nutrition, physical activity and high academic achievement. We strongly support/endorse these recommendations and consider this the beginning of a long process. FUNDING: Funding is needed to meet the recommendations related to improving physical activity for elementary students in the following areas: 1. 2. Personnel FTE Salary - Certified Physical Education Teachers with Fringes 5 @ Total Staff Training Physical Education Aides (25@ 12 hours ea@ $13/hr ea) Child Nutrition Assistants (190@ 12 hours ea)@ 11/hr ea) $ $ Cost 50,000 250,000 3,900 $ 25,080 Legislation, from 2005, states all aides \u0026amp; assistants must have 12 hours of Staff Development annually. 3. Physical Education Curriculum (SPARK Curriculum) Sport, Play and Active Recreation for Kids Cost Curriculum Binders, K-2 \u0026amp; 3-5 Equipment Staff Development Total Grand Total $ 5,759 2,000 - 4,211 x 32 schools 5,198 $145,717.00 $424,697 Recommendations from NPAAC I. Fundraising Projects and Student Rewards Subcommittee 1. 2005-06 Fundraising projects, will achieve at least a 50/50 balance of healthy and less-healthy offerings. For single item fundraising sales, the sales Item must be healthy, for sales of multiple items, (e.g., sales from catalogs offering various products), at least 50% of the items must be either healthy items or non-food items. 2. Each secondary school shall appoint a staff person to monitor fundraisers by all school-related organizations or groups to ensure compliance with established guidelines. 3. Little Rock School District shall designate a representative to serve as a resource for schools in planning and coordinating fundraising activities and to serve as a liaison between the district and vendors to keep them informed of Little Rock School District policies related to fundraisers. 4. All schools are encouraged to sponsor fundraisers that promote physical activity. 5. For ongoing school \"activity fund\" sales, standard definitions, as published by the State Child Health Advisory Committee, for healthy concession stand items and serving sizes are consistent with those used for Little Rock School District vending machines and concession stands. (Table 1) 6. Unhealthy food and beverage items are not to be used as rewards in the classroom or school. The NPAAC will provide updated lists, to schools, annually of approved healthy food rewards\nplan and conduct a series of school-based inservice meetings for school staff, PT A groups, campus leadership teams and other groups on appropriate alternatives to unhealthy beverage/food rewards. II. Nutrition Subcommittee A. Allowable Foods and Portion Sizes 1. At the elementary level, only extra milk (flavored, 1 % or skim milk), 100% juice and water will be sold a la carte. The maximum size will be 8 ounces. A single purchase will be limited to only two of each 4 oz. item. 2. At the middle school level, only extra milk (flavored, 1%, or skim milk), water (fluoridated, caloric sweetener \u0026lt;10 calories), 100% juice and a whole fruit will be sold a la carte. A single purchase will be limited to one of each item. Vended a la carte items will be limited to 100% juices, flavored and unflavored waters and milk. The maximum size will be 12 ounces. 3. High School - A la carte items will include foods that meet the standards for all foods served as a part of a reimbursable meal. Other snack items shall meet the standard and portion size of Table 1 from the Child Health Advisory Committee and Company Vending Guidelines. A single purchase will be limited to one of each item. B. Menu Planning 1. Annually, Child Nutrition will conduct a written survey in selected elementary and secondary schools to solicit suggested menu items for the coming school year. The surveys will be compiled and evaluated for inclusion in the menu planning cycle. 2. The LRSD Child Nutrition Advisory Council will create a forum for receipt of recommendations for menu changes from parents and others through the P.T.A. Council. It is also recommended that parents be surveyed to provide suggested menu items during pre-school registration. The results and analysis of the surveys and recommendations will be submitted to CN for evaluation and inclusion in the menu planning cycle. C. Nutrition Education Nutrition education will be incorporated into the overall curriculum as well as in Health and Science programs in grades K - 6. Wellness and nutrition education should be integrated into the one semester required health course offered in grades 9 - 12 and in other related courses. D. Professional Development for Child Nutrition Professionals 1. The director will be responsible for providing a minimum of twelve hours of annual training to CN assistants, as recommended by the State Child Health Advisory Committee. A record documenting the required in-service training shall be maintained by the CN Director. 2. Each school manager will be required to provide a 30-minute in-service each month. Child Nutrition assistants will be paid their regular hourly rate. Ill. Physical Activity Subcommittee A. Certified Physical Education Teachers There are currently nine certified elementary physical education teachers in the Little Rock School District. To achieve compliance with ADE guidelines it is recommended that: 1. The LRSD incrementally increase the number of certified PE teachers, at the elementary level, based on the following schedule: School Year NewFTE Total Certified FTE 2005-06 5 14 2006-07 5 19 2007-08 5 24 2008-09 5 29 2009-10 3 32 B. Staff Development Provide required training for all paraprofessionals and volunteers who serve as PE teachers. Currently there are 25 paraprofessionals teaching Physical Education under the direction of the classroom teacher. C. Standardized Physical Education Curricula The Little Rock School District will adopt a standard PE curriculum for each organizational level beginning with the elementary level in the 2006-07 school year and the middle and high school levels in the 2007-08 school year. D. Form Multi-disciplinary Community Partnership Addressing and correcting problems related to physical inactivity cannot be limited to the regular school day. We recommend that the district establish a multi-disciplinary community partnership to develop a public awareness campaign that promotes physical activity as a part of family life extending beyond the school day by the beginning of the 2006-07 school year. This campaign would include informing parents of the importance of physical activity after school hours and establishing after school physical activity programs (in addition to athletics) in partnership with neighborhood organizations and groups. E. StudentfTeacher Ratio The student I teacher ratio for PE classes will be consistent as for other academic classes. F. Access to Activity All students are entitled to PE and recess. It is recommended that physical education and recess not be withheld or used as punishment. IV. Vending Subcommittee A. Vending Food \u0026amp; Beverage Sales For all food and beverages sold / vended via machines, school stores and concessions shall follow the recommendations of Act 1220 Child Health Advisory Committee (CHAC) with implementation of all recommendations starting in school year 2005-06: Nutrition Standards for Competitive Food follow allowable Foods and Portion Sizes in Table 1, with the following exceptions: i) Low-fat Milk will follow the FDA Food Labeling regulations and refer to 1 % and fat-free only. ii) Food/snack vending: ~35% of total calories from fat,~ 10% of calories from saturated and trans fat combined and ~ 35% of total weight from added sugar (if added sugar not on label use total sugar). B. Beverage Vending \u0026amp; Concession Contracts 1. In 2005-06, a 50/50 product mix in student accessible machines progressing to 75/25 in 2006-07 and reaching 100% healthy choices by 2007-08 school year. 2. 50/50 product mix for the athletic department, administration facilities and teacher lounges so as to be the same as in other District facilities. 3. 50/50 Product mix for after-hour concessions with the recommendation that individual schools consider moving to 100%. 4. Concessions and other fundraisers may sell bottled water with school name and/or mascot on the label. 5. Beverage container size limited to 12 oz. except water, which may be larger. 6. Sports beverages will be restricted to the immediate area of physical education facilities. 7. Student to beverage machine ratio will be flexible based on the discretion of the building principal (most of the principals and students at our presentations thought the 1 to 100 ratio was too much but would like some flexibility if their physical plant campus expanded). 8. All beverages sold in vending machines and concessions be priced equally so that cost is not an influence on student purchases. Recommendation We request Board approval to implement all no-cost recommendations provided by the Nutrition and Physical Advisory Committee for the 2005-06 school year. We further recommend that items requiring funding be considered for implementation as the Board reviews the budget anc\nl allocation of resources for the 2005-06 school year. Phase in of recommendations requiring additional personnel will be considered on a case-by-case basis and will require additional consideration by the administration and the Board of Directors. PREPARED BY: Margo Bushmiaer, Coordinator of Health Services, NPAAC Co-Chair Jo Evelyn Elston, Director of Pupil Services, NPAAC Member Junious Babbs, Associate Superintendent Table 1. Elementary/Middle/Junior/Senior High School Allowable Competitive Foods - Maximum Portion Size List Competitive Food or Beverage Chips (regular) Chips (baked or no more than 7.5 grams of fat per ounce), crackers, popcorn, cereal, trail mix, nuts, seeds, dried fruit, ierkv. pretzels Cookies Cereal bars Bakery items (e.g., pastries, muffins, doughnuts) excluding items that count as two-bread components served/sold onJy at breakfast. i Frozen desserts, ice cream(no L___more than l O grams of fat) I r I Whole milk, flavored or unflavored Low-fat milk (2% or less) , flavored or unflavored Fruit Juices or blends of jui-:cs with 100% iuice Sweetened non-carbonated beverages(:S15g sugar/serving) Carbonated beverages (:S 15g sugar/serving) Fruit snacks fortified with vitamin C ~ I Water- non-carbonated, L unflavored Prepared, Ready-to-Serve Maximum Portion Size 1.25 ounces 1.5 ounces 1.5 ounces 2.5 ounces 3 ounces - - 4 ounces --- 8 ounces 8 ounces 16 ounces 12 ounces --  12 ounces 12 ounces 2.5 ounces Unlimited 7 i ~ . ne \"D\n:c\n:c\n:c l!!n Oere  e\n:c~ iri II\" f!!z -~\u0026lt;. ,!.!.l \"D ::c me\n:c~ ~z z::c mm r~ ne i\n~ Zm ~en en NAME Bushmiaer, Margo Co-Chair Wheeler, Gary Dr. Co-Chair NUTRITION McCoy, Morlin, Co-Chair Borne', Eliza Burton, Marvin Cherepski, Stevie Davenport, Christy Dudley, Joan Milam, Debbie PHYSICAL ACTIVITY Scogin, Annette, Co-Chair Lincoln, Lynn, Co-Chair Brown,Sandra,RN Elston, Jo Evelyn McDaniel, Veronica Hickman, Natasha, RN Tollette, Binky Weber, Judy PhD FUND RAISING \u0026amp; AW ARDS Barksdale, Diane, Co-Chair Cox, Dana PhD, RD Co-Chair Smith, Paula Walker Hynes, Stephanie LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 2004-2005 Nutrition Physical Activity Advisory Subcommittee Members Lists REPRESENTING PHONE Coordinator, Health Services 447-7482 UAMS, ACH \u0026amp; Parent, Central Hiw 364-1416 Director, Child Nutrition 447-2450 12th Grade Student, Central 664-2626 Principal, Henderson 447-2800 Nurse, King Magnet 447-5105 ADH, Central Region 280-4950 Parent, Forest Park Elem. 663-4602 Director, VIPS 447-2967 Assistant Director, Athletics 447-2063 ADH, Pulaski County Central Health Unit 280-3369 Baptist Health - Community Outreach 202-1961 Director, Pupil Services 447-7490 ADH, SW Unit 565-9311 ADH \u0026amp; Parent, Central 280-4957 Pfeifer Camp 821-3714 UAMS, ACH \u0026amp; Parent, Terry Elem \u0026amp; Dunbar M.S. 364-3382 Principal, Carver 447-4000 Parent, Williams Magnet Elem. 614-4355 Parent, Williams Magnet Elem. 223-8332 Administrative Supervisor, Child Nutrition 447-2468 June I, 2005 EMAIL ADDRESS margo. bushmiaerra)lrsd. orn wheelerva.rv\u0026lt;@uams.edu morlin.mccov1mlrsd.orn: eborne1msbc11:lobal.net marvin. burtonra)lrsd.org stevanna.cherenskira)lrsd.org cdavenoortra)healthvarkansas.com erikora)aristotle.net debra.milamra)lrsd.org annette.scoginra)lrsd.org llincolnra)healthvarkansas.com sandrabra)baotist-health.org io.elston(a)lrsd.orn vdawsonlmhealthvarkansas.com nhickmanlmhealthvarkansas.com binkvra)ofeifercamo.com weberiudithlra)uams.edu marv.barksdalera)lrsd.orn danacox97 ra)sbcglobal.net ovsmithra)arkansas.net Steohanie.walker.hvnra)lrsd.org VENDING Blaine, Barbara, Co-Chair Counselor, W estem Hills 447-6900 Gamer, Carole RD, Co-Chair UAMS, College of Public Health 526-6606 Buck, Larry Principal, McClellan High 447-2100 Edgerson, Pat Parent, Forest Heights Middle \u0026amp; Central High 686-7981 Hendrix, Julie UALR/ Children International / Health Services \u0026amp; Parent, PHMS 663-5541 Lacey, Marian Dr. Administration, Asst. Superintendent, Secondary 447-1000 Montgomery, Darrel L. Hometown Health Improvement Leader, ADH 280-4963 Wheeler, Gary Dr. Co-Chair UAMS, ACH \u0026amp; Parent, Central High 364-1416 BYLAWS Bushmiaer, Margo - Chair Coordinator, Health Services 447-7482 Hill, Martha P~ent, Forest Park 282-0202 831-3864 Walker Hynes, Stephanie Administrative Supervisor, Child Nutrition 447-2468 Oll:l313100H:\u0026gt;S MO:1130008 11 S3:\u0026gt;l,\\M3S SS3HIS08 xi S30H\\/H:l13HHOSM3d 11 S3:\u0026gt;MOOS3M NVl'IOH 11111 91KOOl \\/OH30\\/ HOll\\/01\\/i\\3 9 'O A 1M31M\\/00/3Md \"\\/ 'llSHI Y wn,n:\u0026gt;IMMn:\u0026gt; 1111 barbara.blaineln'llrsd.orn: GamerCaroleBr@uams.edu Larrv. buckr@lrsd.org oedgersonr@uams.edu JMHENDRIXr@ualr.edu rnarian.lacevr@lrsd.om dmontgomen:(a),healthxarkansas.com wheelernarvr@uams.edu margo.bushmiaerr@lrsd.org j frenchhill(a),aristotle.net Stenhanie. walker.h vn ln'l lrsd.org 1H3Wd013i\\30 S31ll11:\u0026gt;\\/:1 v:1 A:\u0026gt;111od :oHIO\\t3M u~ a DATE: TO: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK, AR 72201 June 23, 2005 Board of Directors FROM: Roy G. Brooks, Ed.D. Superintendent of Schools SUBJECT: Quarterly Update Report BACKGROUND: The third quarterly written update (June 1) by the Planning, Research, and Evaluation (PRE) Department was completed in accordance with the District Court's 2004 Compliance Remedy (Memorandum Opinion of June 30, 2004, pp. 61-67). This report includes descriptions of research activities related to four step-2 evaluations currently being conducted by Ors. Steven Ross and James Catterall, and lists four proposed step- 2 evaluations to be completed by these researchers next school year. Dr. Ross' team has completed nearly all its observations of classes and its surveys of principals, teachers, students, and parents participating in Compasslearning, Reading Recovery, and SMART/THRIVE. Dr. Catterall is conducting interviews and surveys for the evaluation of Year-Round (Extended-Year) Education. Joshua and ODM along with other stakeholders took part in planning discussions for these evaluations. RATIONALE: The Court's remedy requires PRE to perform 8 \"step-2\" evaluations during this and next school years. FUNDING: Not Necessary RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Board accept the Quarterly Update Report. DATE: TO: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK, AR 72201 June 23, 2005 Board of Directors FROM: Roy G. Brooks, Ed.D. Superintendent of Schools SUBJECT: 2005-2006 Evaluation Agenda BACKGROUND: LRSD policy requires an annual Evaluation Agenda proposed to the Board of Directors outlining external evaluation activities with projected costs. During 2004-2005 PRE has engaged two outside consultants to evaluate four District programs. The 2005-2006 Evaluation Agenda consists of five external evaluations:  4 \"Step-2\" program evaluations mandated by Judge Wilson in 2004, and  1 non-mandated evaluation recommended by the PRE department RATIONALE: LRSD is complying with U. S. District Court's 2004 Compliance Remedy (Memorandum Opinion of June 30, 2004, pp. 61-67) to \"devise a comprehensive program assessment process\" which \"must be deeply embedded as a permanent part of LRSD's curriculum and instruction program.\" In December 2004, the Board of Directors approved this process. It provides for a range of educational program evaluations with respect to their scientific rigor and complexity, and it requires participation by LRSD stakeholders in the design and execution of evaluations. In the same Opinion, the Court ordered, \"During each of the next two academic school years (2004-05 and 2005-06), LRSD must hire one or more outside consultants to prepare four (4) formal step 2 evaluations.\" By \"step 2\" the court meant for evaluations to delve into underlying reasons for outcomes. The primary outcome that the Court directed the District to examine is the academic achievement of African-American students. The Opinion also instructs the PRE Department to cooperate with the outside consultants and encourages it to evaluate additional District programs. Court-Mandated Evaluations for 2005-2006: For step 2 evaluations in 2005-2006, Dr. Ross has identified four 2.7 programs, named on the following page. fl\n:c m ~ r .C...:. lz5 !='\n:c m D _mC: ztn n-t\n:c-., ~ l6 m 31: .~., ~ m .., :r me: ~~ z z\n:c mm r~ (\") C: ~~ 25 rn m tn 1. Arkansas A+ Schools Network, at Woodruff Elementary School, incorporates the arts in teaching language and mathematics. Projected Cost: $30,000 2. KnowledgePoints is a Supplemental Educational Service (SES) selected at Bale, Brady, Chicot, Wakefield, and Watson Elementary Schools and offered there as an after-school program. Projected Cost: $30,000 3. 21 st Century Learning Centers offer a broad array of out-of-school support services, programs, and activities designed to help students meet academic standards and to increase student achievement. Projected Cost: $30,000 4. Pre-kindergarten (PreK) literacy development will be evaluated in the 31 schools with classes for 4-year-old children. These young students participate in developmentally appropriate and fun lessons and activities intended to nurture essential language skills. Projected Cost: $50,000 Dr. Catterall will evaluate Arkansas A+, while Dr. Ross will evaluate KnowledgePoints, 21 st Century Learning Centers, and PreK literacy. Data for schools where these programs operated this year (2004-2005) are in the tables below. Additional schools may participate next year, particularly schools chosen per the school choice option of No Child Left Behind regulations. Schools in these tables which are on the Arkansas School Improvement List are so noted by an asterisk(*). Proposed Programs Evaluations 2005-2006 2004-2005 School Data Percent Percent of Number Number of Students Schools of of Students Eligible for Teachers Students African- Free/Reduced American Lunch A+ Woodruff* 21 235 91 86 Knowledge Points Bale* 27 319 82 86 Brady* 28 318 78 80 Chicot* 44 536 73 86 Wakefield* 29 451 78 92 Watson* 34 456 96 93 .21 st Century Community Learning Centers Mabelvale Middle* 57 634 81 75 McClellan* 75 925 92 56 Henderson* 60 630 82 70 Hall* 105 1464 75 52 *These schools are designated for School Improvement. LRSD Schools Offering PreK Classes for !%' Four-Year-Old Students .\u0026gt;., ~\" No. of No. of Max. Enroll- No. of Per cent ~~ School Teachers Aides Students ment AA! AA mz en Cl Bale* 2 1 40 38 32 84.2 o  ~c3 Baseline* 2 1 40 39 32 82.1 6~ Brady* 2 1 40 37 27 73.0 \"D c\"i 31:-\u0026lt; m.., Carver 1 0 20 20 NAt NA .z... \u0026gt; Chicot* 4 2 80 59 46 78.0 Cloverdale* 2 1 40 40 32 80.0 Dodd 2 1 40 36 22 61.1 Fair Park*0 2 1 40 37 28 75.7 Forest Park 2 1 40 40 2 5.0 Franklin* 3 2 60 55 52 94.5 fl :,:, Fulbright 2 1 40 40 8 20.0 m ~ Geyer Springs 2 1 40 36 35 97.2 r- c..:.:. Jefferson 2 1 40 40 5 12.5 l5 z M. L. King* 4 2 60 80 46 57.5\n::: Mabelvale 2 1 40 38 31 81.6 ~ (J) z McDermott 2 1 40 40 27 67.5 \"' Meadowcliff 2 1 40 40 35 87.5 Otter Creek 2 1 40 39 22 56.4 Pulaski Heights 1 0 20 20 6 30.0 !=' Rightsell 1 1 40 38 38 100.0 ill 0 Rockefeller* 2 1 40 39 24 61.5 c:: _m zcn Romine 2 1 40 39 31 79.5 n-\u0026lt; ~~ Stephens* 4 2 80 78 72 92.3 en:,:, m!I: Terry 2 1 40 35 18 51 .4 ~ Wakefield* 2 1 40 39 29 74.4 r- \"D :,:, Washington* 4 2 80 75 67 89.3 c\"i m Watson* 2 1 40 36 34 94.4 Western Hills 1 0 20 37 20 54.1 Wilson* 1 0 20 18 16 88.9 Woodruff* 2 0 40 36 32 88.9 .\u0026gt; ~,... t AA is \"African American\". NA is \"not available\". \"D % me: :,:,5': * These schools are designated for School Improvement. ~z z 0 In the 2005-2006 school year, Fair Park Elementary converts to a preK center with eight or z:,:, mm more classes\nwhile the other elementary schools keep their current preK capacity. r- ~ nc:: ~ ~ Zm ~(J) (J) Non-mandated Evaluations: In addition to four court-mandated studies, PRE recommends a fifth external evaluation that will focus on Magnet Schools and Schools with Specialty Magnet Programs. Projected Cost: $60,000 The proposed Magnet School evaluation includes the study and evaluation of 18 magnet schools and specialty magnet programs within the Little Rock School District -- six Stipulated Magnet Schools, four Magnet Schools Assistance Program (MSAP) Schools and eight Specialty Magnet Programs. Stipulated Magnet Schools and Themes - 2004-2005 Schools in this table which are designated for School Improvement are so noted by an asterisk (*). Percent of Percent of School Magnet School Students Eligible Students Theme African-American Free/Reduced Lunch1 Elementary Schools Booker Arts Magnet 53 63 Carver Basic Skills/Math-Science 52 53 International Studies/ 53 44 Gibbs Foreign Languages Williams Traditional Ma~inet 52 34 Middle Schools Mann Arts and Science 52 37 High Schools Parkview Arts and Science 51 22 Magnet Schools Assistance Program Schools and Themes - 2004-20052 Schools in this table which are desiqnated for School Improvement are so noted by an asterisk (*). School Percent of Percent of Magnet School Students Eligible Students Theme African-American Free/Reduced Lunch3 Middle Schools Cloverdale  Engineering, Multimedia \u0026amp; Economics 8.2 86 Mabelvale  Medical Studies, Environmental Science and 81 75 1 Per cent of students who are eligible for the federal free or reduced-price meals program is a crude indicator of family economic circumstances. 2 2004-2005 was the fourth and last year of MSAP funding for these four schools 3 Per cent of students who are eligible for the federal free or reduced-price meals program is a crude indicator of family economic circumstances. Information Technoloav High Schools J.A. Fair* Science and technology Systems 85 54 McClellan* Engineering, Multimedia and Business Finance 92 56 Special Magnet Program4 Themes - 2004-2005 Schools in this table which are desianated for School Improvement are so noted by an asterisk (*). Percent of Percent of School Magnet School Students Eligible Students Theme African-American Free/Reduced Lunch5 Elementary Schools International, High King Intensity Learning 60 55 Rockefeller Early Childhood 67 66 Computer Science and Romine Basic Skills (lnterdistrict) 76 76 Washington * Basic Skills Math-Science 76 80 MaQnet (lnterdistrict) Middle Schools Dunbar * Gifted and Talented, 61 57 International Studies Henderson * Health Science 82 70 HiQh Schools Central International Studies 51 28 Hall* University Studies 75 52 4 These Specialty Programs are special programs which these schools offer. 5 Per cent of students who are eligible for the federal free or reduced-price meals program is a crude indicator of family economic circumstances. ~\na m ~ r. e...:. z~ -0 :r m c: ~~ zz\na mm r- ~ C') C: :r\na \u0026gt;n Zm ~ en en All five external evaluations will seek to answer the following Primary Evaluation Question: Have the Programs been effective in improving students' academic achievement? How effective have they been among African-American students? To ensure that a full range of quantitative and qualitative data is collected, the evaluators will use a variety of data collection tools and activities. They are:  classroom observations and protocols  surveys of parents, teachers, and students  interviews of students, administrators, parents, teachers  focus groups  student work portfolios  district data, e.g., demographic data, standardized test scores  site- and district-generated program documents The evaluators will be required to adhere to Professional Standards for Program Evaluation and to provide a complete list of standards used. FUNDING: Total projected costs for five studies: $200,000 RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Board will approve the 2005-2006 Evaluation Agenda. DATE: TO: June 23, 2005 Board of Directors LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK, AR 72201 FROM: Roy G. Brooks, Ed.D. Superintendent of Schools SUBJECT: Personnel Changes BACKGROUND: None RATIONALE: To staff allocated positions within the District FUNDING: Operating Fund RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the following personnel changes be approved at the indicated positions, salaries and classifications. In accordance with A.CA 6-17-1502, it is recommended that one additional year of probationary status is provided for all teachers who have been employed in a school district in this state for three (3) consecutive years. Teachers with an effective date of employment after August 19, 2004 for regular schools are considered intern teachers. Teachers with an effective date of employment after August 9, 2004 for EYE are considered intern teachers. PREPARED BY: Beverly William~1nior Director of Human Resources !=' ~ 0 _mC: z en n--\u0026lt;\nJD\"T1 ~ ~ m !C ~\ng n m r,, n 0 z en C: ~ z Cl ~ ~ IT' 31: rr Personnel Changes Page 2 June 23, 2005 NAME START DATE/ POSITION/ SCHOOL END DATE Resignations/Terminations Certified Employees Agnew, April Tutor/ 1-3-05 Reason: Contract ended WILSON 6-6-05 Akdamar, Lynn Elementary IV/ 1-18-05 Reason: Contract ended WAKEFIELD 6-6-05 Anders, Mika Writing/ 9-29-03 Reason: Contract ended MCCLELLAN 6-6-05 Austin, Lori Speech Pathology/ 1-18-05 Reason: Contract ended MABEL VALE 6-29-05 ELEMENTARY Austin, Robert Chemistry/ 11-08-04 Reason: Contract ended MCCLELLAN 6-6-05 Baker, Deborah Reading Recovery/ 9-13-04 Reason: Contract ended STEPHENS 6-29-05 Balmaz, Bettye Elementary II/ 9-9-04 Reason: Contract ended BOOKER 6-6-05 Banks, Cal American History/ 1-23-89 Reason: Contract ended MABELVALE MIDDLE 6-6-05 Beard, Willliam Social Studies/ 9-1-04 Reason: Contract ended MCCLELLAN 6-6-05 Bedell, Lisette Elementary V/ 8-11 -04 Reason: Returning to school WILSON 7-31-05 Boyd, Debbye General Science/ 9-14-04 Reason: Contract ended ADULT EDUCATION 6-6-05 Branch, Samuel Principal/ 7-26-93 Reason: Retired FAIR PARK 6-13-05 Brown, Lori Elementary V/ 1-3-05 Reason: Contract ended FRANKLIN 6-6-05 Brown, Stephen Special Education/ 8-30-04 Reason: Contract ended MABEL VALE 6-29-05 ELEMENTARY SALARY ANNUAL CLASS SALARY 1-01 30040.00 TCH925 1-01 30040.00 TCH925 3-06 37665.00 TCH925 62-06 42576.00 SPE925 4-10 43818.00 TCH925 2-07 37318.00 TCH925 5-20 57276.00 TCH925 1-05 33506.00 TCH925 5-01 36134.00 TCH925 1-05 33506.00 TCH925 2-16 477 17.00 TCH925 69-20 79692.00 ADC11X 4-13 47284.00 TCH925 4-01 34575.00 SPE925 Personnel Changes Page 3 June 23, 2005 !:D ~ \"T1 M ,. ~ START DATE/ SALARY ANNUAL ~~ NAME POSITION / SCHOOL CLASS SALARY mz END DATE \"o'C'l ~~ 5r- Brown, Verlyn Tutor/ 8-11-04 1-10 39283.00 ~l\"i !:: -\u0026lt; Reason: Grantended FAIR PARK 6-6-05 TCH925 ~ .... Broyles, Tommy Examiner/ 10-25-04 61-15 54060.00 Reason: Contract ended HENDERSON 6-6-05 ADC105 Bryant, Sharon Title I/ 8-21-89 6-16 53898.00 Reason: Contract ended HENDERSON 6-6-05 TCH925 r\u0026gt;\na m Buck, Virginia Elementary Ill/ 1-23-89 3-18 51874.00 ~ r- C: Reason: Retired CARVER 6-6-05 TCH925 .... ~ ::: Burleson, Kimberly Elementary I/ 3-8-05 4-08 41507.00 ~ U\u0026gt; Reason: Contract ended MCDERMOTT 6-6-05 TCH925 z \"' Butcher, Angee Elementary Ill/ 1-3-05 4-18 53061 .00 Reason: Contract ended CLOVERDALE 6-29-05 TCH925 !=' ELEMENTARY ~ 0 C: _m Cain, Mary Elementary II/ 8-23-04 1-08 32350.00 ZU\u0026gt; n-\u0026lt; Reason: Contract ended WAKEFIELD 6-6-05 TCH925\na.., ~o \"'\na m!:: Caruth, Phyllis Mathematics/ 8-23-76 6-21 60020.00 ~ ~ Reason: Contract ended IRC 6-6-05 TCH10\na l\"i m Crader, Jason Tutor/ 2-14-05 1-01 30040 00 Reason: Contract ended BALE 6-6-05 TCH925 Crosby, Anne Speech Pathology/ 9-15-76 62-20 64668.00 Reason: Retired SOUTHWEST/ 6-6-05 SPE925 !'\" MCDERMOTT (') 0z U\u0026gt; C: Davis, Marjorie Math Coach/ 10-25-04 4-13 47284 00 !:\nz Reason: Contract ended CLOVERDALE 6-6-05 TCH925 ,C.'l MIDDLE C'l\na ~ ~ rr Debow, Bradley Instrumental Music/ 2-7-05 4-05 38041.00 Reason: Contract ended PARKVIEW 6-6-05 TCH925 '?\" Fakouri, Cathy Social Studies/ 8-12-99 4-19 54561.00 Ill Reason: Retired PULASKI HEIGHTS 6-6-05 TCH925 C: \u0026gt;\u0026lt; 8 MIDDLE m Ill .... C: -.,!!! oz\nam Farrar, Neoma Elementary II/ 1-18-05 1-01 30040.00 !1:1:l :c U\u0026gt; Reason: Contract ended CHICOT 6-6-05 TCH925 ~i mm i\n\"' !:'.l ~ Personnel Changes Page4 June 23, 2005 NAME Fikes, Leslie Reason: Leaving the city Francis, Deanna Reason: Personal Gault, Amy Reason: Contract ended Hamilton, Claudia Reason: Retired Hammond, Terri Reason: Retired Harrison, Brenda Reason: Contract ended Henry, Lauren Reason: Contract ended Hill, Dorothy Reason: Contract ended Holloman, Berlinda Reason: Contract ended Holmes, Jane Reason: Leaving the city Hooper, Ruth Reason: Contract ended Howse, Marion Reason: Contract ended Howard-Klein, Risie Reason: Contract ended Hudgens, Donna Reason: Leaving the city Hughes, Alicia Reason: Contract ended POSITION/ SCHOOL Elementary Ill/ ROMINE 4 Yr Old/ ROCKEFELLER Special Education/ STEPHENS Specialist/ CARVER Elementary V/ JEFFERSON Special Education/ WILSON Kindergarten/ CARVER Elementary II/ MEADOWCLIFF Elementary I/ BOOKER Elementary V/ WILLIAMS Music/ TERRY/FULBRIGHT Guidance Counselor/ VOCATIONAL EDUCATION Biology/ CENTRAL Kindergarten/ MABEL VALE ELEMENTARY Elementary IV/ CHICOT START DATE/ SALARY ANNUAL END DATE CLASS SALARY 8-11-04 1-08 36972.00 6-6-05 TCH925 8-1-01 2-06 36163.00 6-6-05 TCH925 1-24-05 4-14 48439.00 6-29-05 SPE925 8-20-79 4-19 54561 .00 6-6-05 TCH925 8-24-87 6-21 60020.00 6-6-05 TCH925 9-2-04 2-16 47717.00 6-6-05 SPE925 10-4-04 1-01 30040.00 6-6-05 TCH925 10-4-05 4-18 53061 .00 6-6-05 TCH925 2-15-05 1-09 38127.00 6-6-05 TCH925 8-11 -04 1-01 30040.00 6-8-05 TCH925 11 -10-04 2-16 47717.00 6-6-05 TCH925 9-9-03 6-21 60020.00 6-16-04 TCH950 8-18-05 4-09 42662.00 6-6-05 TCH925 8-24-87 4-19 54561 .00 6-30-05 K925 10-6-04 1-09 38127 .00 6-6-05 TCH925 Personnel Changes Page 5 June 23, 2005 ?' - \"Tl M \u0026gt; ~ START DATE/ SALARY ANNUAL ~~ NAME POSITION / SCHOOL CLASS SALARY mz END DATE en C'\u0026gt; c ~~ Hunt, Marietta Music/ 8-29-88 4-19 ........ 54561.00 or\n\"ti-\u0026lt; Reason: Retired FOREST PARK 6-6-05 TCH925 1:..., !::1\u0026gt; -t Jackson, Marion Kindergarten/ 11-20-74 1-17 47715.00 Reason: Retired ROMINE 6-6-05 K925 Joiner-Tatum, Anna Assistant Principal/ 8-3-87 64-20 68652.00 Reason: Retired TERRY 6-13-05 TCH925 f)\n,c m Jones, Frances Assistant 8-24-87 79-20 107424.00 ~.... Reason: Retired Superintendent/ 6-30-05 ADC12 C: -t i5 SCHOOL SERVICES z\n:: ~ Jones, Freddie Arkansas History/ 8-27-74 5-20 57276.00 en z Reason: Retired J. A. FAIR 5-27-05 TCH925 \"' Jones, Vance Elementary V/ 8-24-04 1-01 30040.00 Reason: Contract ended DODD 6-6-05 TCH925 p\n,c m 0 C: Kahler, Mary Lou Assistant Principal/ 8-24-87 64-20 68652.00 _m zen n-\u0026lt; Reason : Retired KING 6-13-05 ADC105\nJC\"TI ~o en\n,c ml: Key, Shawn Spanish I/ 1-18-05 4-05 39196.00 ~ Reason: Contract ended J. A. FAIR 6-6-05 TCH925\n\",tci n m King , Patricia Elementary I/ 11-30-87 2-17 49217.00 Reason: Retired ROMINE 6-6-05 TCH925 Lawrence, Ryan Spanish I/ 8-11-04 1-01 30040.00 Reason None Given MCCLELLAN 6-6-05 TCH925 !\" n 0 Lawson, Karen Art/ 8-31-93 4-11 44973.00 z en C: Reason: Contract ended HALL 6-6-05 TCH925 !::\nz C') \u0026gt; Lloyd, Anna Music/ 10-8-04 1-01 30040.00 C')\n,c Reason: Contract ended DODD 6-6-05 TCH925 m \"ii': \"' Madden, Carrie Kindergarten/ 8-11-04 1-02 30617.00 Reason: Leaving the city WATSON 8-3-05 K925 .,. a, Martinez, Diana Tutor/ 2-7-05 1-01 30040.00 c: x Reason: Contract ended BASELINE 6-6-05 TCH925 8  mm -t C: ...,g? oz McCoy, Morlin Director/ 9-18-95 75-19 92520.00\n,cm ~m Reason: Retired CHILD NUTRITION 6-30-05 ADC12 :r\"' ~~ mm In\"' !:l i5 Personnel Changes Page 6 June 23, 2005 NAME Miller, Monica Reason: None Given Mitchell, Avis Reason: Contract ended Moore, Julianna Reason: Personal Morgan, Keisha Reason: Leaving the city Nauden, Lou Ethel Reason: Retired Nickerson, Vickie Reason: Contract ended Nunez, Teresa Reason: Contract ended Ogren, Kathryn Reason: Contract ended Page, Taranah Reason: Contract ended Parr, Patricia Reason: Contract ended Phillips, Anna Reason: Retired Pinkard, Tawanna Reason: Contract ended Relford, Melvia Reason: Contract ended Rhines, Mico Reason: None Given Richardson , Joyce Reason: Contract ended POSITION/ SCHOOL Health/ HALL Elementary I/ STEPHENS Literacy Coach/ ROMINE Special Education/ MABELVALE MIDDLE Elementary I/ ROMINE Elementary I/ MCDERMOTT Mathematics/ HALL 4 Yr Old/ ROMINE Elementary V/ ROMINE Librarian/ STEPHENS Gifted and Talented/ ROMINE Mathematics/ HENDERSON Special Education/ CENTRAL Elementary II/ BOOKER Special Education/ HALL START DATE/ SALARY ANNUAL END DATE CLASS SALARY 8-14-97 4-07 40351 .00 6-16-05 TCH10 8-23-04 1-01 30040.00 6-29-05 TCH925 8-20-93 4-12 46128.00 6-6-05 TCH11 2-3-03 2-07 37318.00 5-27-05 SPE925 8-13-01 6-21 60020.00 5-24-05 TCH925 3-25-05 4-18 53061.00 6-6-05 TCH925 4-7-05 4-10 43818.00 6-6-05 TCH925 10-08-04 1-01 30040.00 6-6-05 4YR925 9-27-04 1-02 30617.00 6-6-05 TCH925 8-23-04 4-18 53061 .00 6-29-05 LIB950 8-24-87 6-21 60020.00 6-6-05 G\u0026amp;T925 2-3-97 1-01 30040.00 6-6-05 TCH925 1-18-05 1-05 33506.00 6-6-05 TCH925 8-14-95 2-11 41940.00 6-6-05 TCH925 2-22-05 1-16 46215.00 6-6-05 SPE925 Personnel Changes Page 7 June 23, 2005 !ll .., ~.. \u0026gt; ~ START DATE/ SALARY ANNUAL ~~ NAME POSITION / SCHOOL CLASS SALARY mz END DATE o\"'C'l ~\ng Ridley, Ronnie Physical Science/ 8-13-01 6-04 40034.00 5~ ~\u0026lt;\"5 :E:-\u0026lt; Reason: None Given CENTRAL 6-6-05 TCH925 m\"\" .z... \u0026gt; Rodgers, Annette 4 Yr Old/ 9-22-80 4-19 54561 .00 Reason: Retired WASHINGTON 6-6-05 4YR925 Robertson, Martha Elementary II/ 8-27-84 3-18 51874.00 Reason: Retired WESTERN HILLS 6-6-05 TCH925 f')\no m Rybard, Aleta English/ 8-16-93 1-04 32350.00 ~ r- Reason: Contract ended HENDERSON 6-6-05 TCH925 C....:. i5 ~ Sandel, Cathryn Gifted and Talented/ 1-10-05 4-03 35730.00 r- ~ Reason: Contract ended ROCKEFELLER 6-6-05 G\u0026amp;T925 \"' z r:, Scheffer, Casey Elementary Ill/ 8-25-04 1-01 30040.00 Reason: Contract ended CARVER 6-6-05 TCH925 !='\no m Signaigo, Katherine Tutor/ 2-10-05 1-01 30040.00 0 C: Reason: Contract ended BALE 6-6-05 TCH925 _m Z\u0026lt;I\u0026gt; o-t\n,o-., ~o Slater, Carolyn Physical Education/ 8-25-69 4-19 54561.00 \"'' Reason: Retired HENDERSON 6-6-05 TCH925 m! r- ~ ~ Smith, Donald Journalism/ 8-19-92 1-03 31195.00 m Reason: Contract ended MCCLELLAN 6-16-05 TCH10 Smith, Elizabeth Music/ 8-16-93 1-17 47715.00 Reason: Leaving the city JEFFERSON 6-6-05 TCH925 rn Smith, Tunza ESL/ 1-3-05 1-01 30040.00 (\") 0 Reason: Contract ended CLOVERDALE 6-29-05 TCH925 z \"C': ELEMENTARY !:\nz C'l \u0026gt; Smith, Jr., Vernon Principal/ 8-10-87 76-20 98220.00 C'l\no Reason: Retired HALL 6-30-05 ADC12 m l'T' 3C rr Smith, Zachary Elementary II/ 8-2-04 1-03 31195.00 Reason: Leaving the city MITCHELL 6-29-05 TCH925 .,. a, Spearman, Kara Speech Pathology/ 8-9-00 62-09 46572.00 c: x 8 Reason : Accepted another FULBRIGHT 6-8-05 SPE925 mtll .... C: position -.,!!? oz\nom !Ii gi Spears, Marsha Elementary I/ 1-3-05 1-02 30617 .00 :r\"' Reason: Contract ended CARVER 6-6-05 TCH925 ~~ mm fn\"' !:l i5 Personnel Changes Page 8 June 23, 2005 NAME Stanley, Charles Reason: Accepted another position Stephens, Lisa Reason: Accepted another position Sullivan, Martha Reason: Contract ended Thomas, Homer Reason: Contract ended Todd, Tracye Reason: Accepted another position Turner, Marilyn Reason: Retired Turner, Ressie Reason: Contract ended Walker, Sharon Reason: Contract ended Walls, Alyson Reason: Contract ended West, Talisha Reason: Leaving the city Van Alstyne, Vicki Reason: Contract ended Whitby, Jennie Reason: Contract ended Williams, Beverly Reason: Accepted another position POSITION / SCHOOL Music/ ROMINE Kindergarten/ STEPHENS 4 Yr Old/ RIGHTSELL Social Studies/ ALC English/ FOREST HEIGHTS Elementary Ill/ FAIR PARK English/ ALC Mathematics/ ALC Business Education/ PARKVIEW 4 Yr Old/ FAIR PARK Special Education/ FRANKLIN Kindergarten/ BRADY Senior Director/ HUMAN RESOURCES START DATE/ SALARY ANNUAL END DATE CLASS SALARY 8-11-04 1-01 30040.00 6-6-05 TCH925 8-1-00 1-09 38127 .00 6-29-05 K925 11-15-04 1-16 46215.00 6-6-05 4YR925 9-9-04 6-13 50432.00 6-6-05 TCH925 8-17-02 4-03 35730.00 8-01-05 TCH925 8-23-68 6-21 60020.00 6-6-05 TCH925 11-02-04 2-03 32697.00 6-6-05 TCH925 9-13-04 4-05 38041.00 6-6-05 TCH925 8-20-04 1-01 30040.00 6-7-05 TCH925 8-7-03 1-02 30617.00 6-6-05 TCH925 1-3-05 1-10 39283.00 6-6-05 SPE925 2-22-05 1-01 30040.00 6-6-05 K925 7-1-02 79-20 107424.00 6-30-05 ADC12 Personnel Changes Page9 June 23, 2005 !I\" \u0026gt;\"Tl -\"~ START DATE/ SALARY ANNUAL ~~ mz CLASS SALARY NAME POSITION/ SCHOOL END DATE enc, c ~ i3 New Certified Employees 6~ -.,i\"I ii:-\u0026lt; m..., .z... \u0026gt; NONE Resignations/Terminations Non-Certified Employees Brown, Dewayne Custodian/ 8-23-04 31-01 11379.00 Reason: Accepted another BALE 6-1-05 CUS925 r\u0026gt; \"m' position i..s.. C: Collins, Mabel Child Nutrition/ 8-12-03 1-02 8547 .00 .... i5 Reason: Retired ALC 6-6-05 FSH5 z\n: ~ en Cunningham, Shawntell CARE/ 8-28-00 2-04 8.01 z (Co Reason: Personal CARE 6-3-05 CARE per hour Dangerfield, Mary Child Nutrition/ 9-22-97 3-08 9667.00 !=' Reason: Personal PULASKI HEIGHTS 6-3-05 FSH550 \"' MIDDLE m 0 C: _m zn -etn Hamilton, Ronita CARE/ 9-13-04 1-08 8.05 ,,,..., ~o Reason: None Given CARE 6-3-05 CARE per hour en\n,::, mi Harris, Earnestine Child Nutrition/ 10-7-85 3-17 10077.00 .., \"n' Reason: Retired WASHINGTON 6-6-05 FSH550 m McDonald, Keri Instructional Aide/ 10-13-03 33-17 16595.00 Reason: Leaving the city JEFFERSON 6-7-05 INA925 Mondy, Lisa Security Officer/ 1-2-04 36-11 15929.00 !\"Tl Reason: None Given BALE 6-3-05 SOFR9 n 0 z en C: Moore, Regina Secretary/ 8-10-89 44-20 37788.00 ........ z Reason: Accepted another ESL 6-30-05 CLK12 C) \u0026gt; C) position \"m' rr :i:: Neal, Shellie Child Nutrition/ 10-6-03 3-15 7066.00 rr Reason: Retired WILSON 6-6-05 FSH4 Palmer, Gladys Custodian/ 8-11-03 31-03 12085.00 .,,. tXJ Reason: Job Abandonment CENTRAL 5-13-05 CUS928 C: 5\u0026lt; 8  m Dl .... C: Springer, Pamela Instructional Aide/ 11-27-00 33-11 13875.00 ...,!!! oz\n,::, rn Reason: Returning to school WILLIAMS 6-6-05 INA925 ~~ :z: gi ~~ m,n i\n\"' !:l i5 Personnel Changes Page 10 June 23, 2005 NAME Weeks, Peggy Reason: Retired Walker, Matthew Reason: Job Abandonment Wallace, Robert Reason: Retired Young, Valerie Reason: None Given Allen, Donald Brown, Denise Dalsanto, Judy Griffin, Beverly Hudson, Valerie Seahorn, Lora Spears, Anita Taylor, Blondell START DATE/ SALARY ANNUAL POSITION / SCHOOL END DATE CLASS SALARY Secretary/ 11-28-84 39-20 32544.00 WESTERN HILLS 8-1-05 CLK10 Custodian/ 9-3-03 31-03 12085.00 CENTRAL 5-13-05 CUS928 Maintenance/ 12-14-81 46-18 37788.00 FACILITY SERVICES 6-30-05 MAINT Instructional Aide/ 8-12-99 33-17 16595.00 MCCLELLAN 6-6-05 INA925 New Non-Certified Employees NONE Non-Certified Promotions Promoted from Security Supervisor Grade 55 to Security Supervisor Grade 57 Promoted from File Clerk Grade 43 to Administrative Assistant Grade 46 Promoted from Secretary Grade 42 to Secretary Grade 44 Promoted from Executive Assistant Grade 58 to Senior Executive Assistant Grade 60 Promoted from Coordinator Grade 54 to Executive Assistant Grade 57 Promoted from Secretary Grade 42 to Secretary Grade 44 Promoted from Administrative Assistant Grade 46 to Administrative Assistant Grade 56 Promoted from Secretary Grade 42 to Secretary Grade 46 DATE: TO: June 23, 2005 Board of Directors LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK, AR 72201 FROM: Roy G. Brooks, Ed.D. Superintendent of Schools SUBJECT: Appointment of Principal for Hall High School BACKGROUND: To provide leadership to students and staff of Hall High School. RATIONALE: To fill the position being vacated by Vernon Smith, Jr. FUNDING: District Operating Budget RECOMMENDATION: I am pleased to appoint Mr. John Bacon, to the position of Principal at Hall High School. Mr. Bacon's resume and a job description are attached for your review. PREPARED BY: Beverly William~nior Director of Human Resources !J:l !=' ~ D _mC zcn n\no- .\u0026lt;., ~~ en\ns:: m~ ~ m JOHN BACON PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE 1608 Pine Valley Road Little Rock, AR 72207 (501) 663-6153 Feb 1995-Present Little Rock School District Little Rock, AR Principal, Dunbar Gifted and Talented E duattwn/lntemational Studies Magnet Middk Schoo/, Ou! 2001-Present)  Provide strategic, operational, and instructional leadership for a middle school consisting of grades 6-8 with student enrollment of approximately 800 and an 80 member staff. Ass is tant Principal, Dunbar Gifted and Talented E duattwn/ International Studies Magnet Middk Schoo/, Ou! 1999-Jun 2001) Assistant Principal, Omerdalejunior Hiff\nAcademj0an]un 1999)  Managed student discipline referrals.  CDmpleted employee performance appraisals.  Served as a member of the campus leadership team  CDordinated building transportation and athletic programs. EAST Program Coordinator/Vocational Business Teacher, McClellan Business and TedmdugyMagnet Hirfa Schoo/, (Aug-Dec 1998)  Planned and facilitated the Environmental and Spatial Technology program  Instructed several computer applications courses.  Served as a member of the technology committee. Business Teacher, Pulaski Hei,rfats ]umar Hirfa (Aug 1996-Jun 1998)  Instructed courses in computer technology and career orientation.  Provided leadership for a team of related arts teachers.  Served as a member of the campus steering committee.  Provided assistance as a substitute building administrator. Intern/Long Term Substitute Teacher,]. A. Fair Hirfa Schoo/, OanJun 1996)  Taught courses in keyboarding applications and accounting. Substitute Teacher (Feb-Dec 1995)  Served as a substitute teacher at the secondary level. EDUCATION CERTIFICATION Gm-ently pursuing Doctor of Education in Educational Leadership University of Arkansas at Little Rock, Little Rock, AR Graduate hours (21) in education for certification University of Central Arkansas, Conway, AR Master of Education in Secondary Education, May 1996 University of Arkansas at Little Rock, Little Rock, AR Master of Business Administration, May 1994 Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, LA Bachelor of Science in Public Administration, May 1992 University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, AR (cum laude) Arkansas secondary principal, secondary-bus\"Ine\ns education teacher, vocational endorsement, career orientation endorsement RELATED EXPERIENCES RELATED SKILLS  eru\n.ently sexving as 3rd Vice-President fo~ theLittle Rock PTA Council  Gm-ently setving as Chainnan of the Arkansas Commission for Coordination of Educational Efforts (since 2004)  Sexved as C.0-President of Little Rock School District Principals Roundtable (2003-2004)  Sexved as Assistant Principal for the Accelerated Learning Center 12th Grade Summer School program (summer 2000, summer 2001)  Participated as a teacher in the Little Rock School District Vital Link Program - a summer job shadowing program for sixth grade students (summers 1997, 1998, 1999)  Experienced at class instruction .md supetv1S1on within traditional schedule and flexible/block schedule  Assisted in the decision-making process for converting a junior high school to a middle school  Completed training program on the Fred Jones Model for Effective Oassroom Management r\u0026gt; :c rn .i..s.. .C..:. ~ z PLEASE POST LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201 May 11 , 2005 PLEASE POST The Little Rock School District is now accepting applications for the following position for the 2005-06 school year: POSITION: Principal - Hall High School OUALIFICA TIONS: 1. At least five (5) years ' successful teaching experience and/or administration. 2. A master's degree or higher, with eligibility for Arkansas certification as a secondary principal. 3. Knowledge of curriculum development and successful teaching methods. 4. Evidence of strong experience in dealing with student problems. 5. Evidence of ability to set priorities, supervise and train personnel and make appropriate decisions. 6. Evidence of ability to function as a member of an administrative team. 7. Evidence of ability to become a competent educational leader in both curriculum and instruction. 8. Evidence of ability to maintain accurate inventories, records and reports. 9. Evidence of successful experience with parent and staff involvement. 10. Evidence of strong skills in meeting and dealing with the public in a manner that will promote a positive image of the Little Rock School District. 11 . Evidence of strong commitment to quality integrated education. 12. Strong interpersonal skills. 13. Evidence of strong organizational skills. 14. Evidence of strong oral and written communication skills. 15. Demonstrates the conviction that all children can and will learn in the Little Rock School District. NOTE: APPLICANTS MUST BE PREPARED TO SHOW EVIDENCE OF THESE QUALIFICATIONS IN THE INITIAL SCREENING INTERVIEW. JOB GOAL: To successfully plan, organize, implement, supervise, and evaluate the total operation of the school. ACCOUNTABILITY: Reports directly to Associate Superintendent - Secondary Education ESSENTIAL FUNCTIONS/ RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE POSITION: 1. Assumes responsibility for the management and monitoring of his/her school, and serves as the chief advisor to the Assistant Superintendent on matters pertaining to administration and program implementation in his/her school. 2. Implements the process whereby school-level educational program needs are identified, alerts Assistant Superintendent regarding needed logistical and consultative support in order to accomplish this task. 3. Works with staff and patrons to determine educational program priorities and goals for his/her school. 4. Oversees the development of educational programs and the plans for implementing them on the school level. 5. Seeks the necessary consultative and logistical support to assure effective educational program implementation. 6. Monitors program implementation in his/her school. 7. Works with supervisor and building staff to make the necessary changes. 8. Assumes responsibility for conducting the performance evaluation of assigned personnel. 9. Assumes responsibility for all record keeping and other administrative tasks normally assigned to the principal. I 0. Performs other duties as may be assigned. SALARY AND TERMS: Pay 01 - Grade 76 - $55,704 - $98,220 - Twelve (12) month, 250 day contract, plus benefit package. NOTE: Precise placement within the salary range will be determined based upon experience and education. EVALUATIO : Performance of this job will be evaluated annually in accordance with provisions of the Board's Policy on Evaluation of Professional Personnel. !='\n,\n:, m D _mC: z U) n--\u0026lt;\n,\n,-n ~~ U) !I: m~ .r., 2n:! m !\"Tl n 0 z U) C: ~ z Cl ~ ~ m 31: rr APPLICATION DEADLINE: May 30, 2005, or any time later until a satisfactory applicant is recommended and approved. SEND WRITTEN LETTERS OF INOUIRYTO: Beverly Williams - Director HUMAN RESOURCES DEPARTMENT Little Rock School District 810 W Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 Phone 501-447-1100 Fax 447-1162 NOTE: INDIVIDUALS WHO ARE INTERESTED IN THE ABOVE POSITION MUST COMPLETE A VERY RIGOROUS SELECTION PROCESS. THEREFORE, BECAUSE AN INDIVIDUAL APPLIES FOR A POSITION DOES NOT NECESSARILY MEAN THAT AN INTERVIEW WILL BE CONDUCTED. The Little Rock School District is an Equal Opportunity Employer. Equity concerns may be addressed to the Associate Superintendent for Administrative Services. It is the policy of the Little Rock School District not to discriminate on the basis of age, sex, race, color, religion, national origin, or disability in its educational programs, activities or employment practices. DATE: TO: June 23, 2005 Board of Directors LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK, AR 72201 FROM: Roy G. Brooks, Ed.D. Superintendent of Schools SUBJECT: Appointment of Assistant Principal for Martin Luther King Elementary BACKGROUND: To provide leadership to students and staff of Martin Luther King Elementary. RATIONALE: To fill the position being vacated by Mary Kahler. FUNDING: District Operating Budget RECOMMENDATION: I am pleased to appoint Ms. Diane Rynders, to the position of Assistant Principal at Martin Luther King Elementary. Ms. Rynders' resume and a job description are attached for your review. PREPARED BY: Beverly Williams~ior Director of Human Resources ~ ::0 m D _mC: ~ !!l ::0\"T1 ~~ Ch ii: m~ ,- ~ m r\" (\") 0 z (JI C: !:\nz C\"l ~ ~ :I: rr Education : Certification: Employment: Diane Rynders 1212 Dortch Loop , North Little Rock, Arkansas 72117 501-590-0389 or 501-447-7474 MED - University of Arkansas at Little Rock Gifted and Talented MED - University of Arkansas at Little Rock Reading Specialist BSE - University of Arkansas at Fayetteville Elementary and Early Childhood Education K-6 Elementary Reading Specialist K-12 Gifted and Talented K-12 Elementary Principal Supervisor 1989- Present - Coordinator of Gifted Programs - LRSD 1985 - 1989 - Adjunct Instructor - UALR 1985 - 1989 - Supervisor of Gifted Programs - O.U.R. Co-op 1980 - 1984 - Fifth Grade Teacher - LRSD 1978 - 1980 - Second/Third Grade Teacher - Fort Campbell, KY Professional Experience: Odyssey of the Mind State Director AGATE State Conference Chair NAGC National Conference Chair Director of (7) AEGIS Residential Summer Programs for HS students Arkansas Governor's Academic Quiz Bowl Site Host Professional Organizations: Arkansans for Gifted and Talented Education (AGATE) AGATE Board of Directors AGATE Council of Educators Odyssey of the Mind Board of Directors National Association of Gifted Children Arkansas Assoc. of Gifted Educational Administrators Charter Member Awards: 1995 AGATE Martha Ann Jones Service Award 1990 AGATE Challenger Award 6/8/2005 Experience as LRSD Gifted Coordinator: As Gifted Coordinator in the LRSD, I hove supervised the 34 elementary gifted specialists and coordinated the elementary gifted program. I have been instrumental in the development of the gifted and talented curriculum and in the designing and implementation of a defensible identification process. I have provided and guided the gifted specialists through staff development in the areas of gifted and general education and have monitored gifted programs at the building level. I have established and successfully implemented the District Quiz Bowl Competitions, the Fifth Grade Challenges, and the District Wide Chess Tournament. I have also served on various LRSD curriculum teams/committees including school audits, professional development, and curriculum alignment/development. Curriculum Areas of Expertise:  Differentiation of Instruction  Constructivist Approach to Instruction  Instructional Strategies/Multiple Intelligences  Curriculum Alignment with District/State Standards  Portfolio Assessment  Integration of Technology in the Curriculum  Enrichment/Acceleration  Thematic Units/Essential Questions  Curriculum Mapping  Integration/Product Development through Instruction  Current Trends in Gifted Education References: Mable Donaldson, Supervisor, LRSD Gifted Programs Ann Biggers, Gifted and Talented Program Director, ADE Lauro Beth Arnold , Social Studies Grant Director, LRSD Kristen Laughlin, GT Specialist, Forest Park, LRSD Cynthia Collins, GT Specialist, Jefferson/McDermott, LRSD Personal : Married to Michael Rynders Two sons: Jonathan (18) and Nicholas (14) Arkansas Race for the Cure Survivor Parade Chairperson Past Youth Director , All Souls Church Past Boord of Directors , All Souls Church !1 .. .. : l  6/8/2005 rn (\") 0z (/) C !:\nz G'l ~\no m m 3: m PLEASE POST LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 7220 I June I, 2005 PLEASE POST The Little Rock School District is now accepting applications for the following position for the 2005-06 school year. POSITION: Assistant l\n'rincipal - King Elementary OUALIFICA TIONS: 1. Master's degree (minimum) or higher with Arkansas License as an elementary principal. 2. At least three (3) years successful experience as a teacher and/or administrator in an urban school district. 3. Evidence of a strong commitment to quality desegregated education. 4. Knowledge of curriculum development and instruction. 5. The ability to apply this knowledge when working with faculty, students, parents, administrators, community members, and support staff. 6. Commitment to staff development demonstrated by a willingness to initiate, participate in, monitor, and maintain in-service activities. 7. Demonstrates the conviction that all children can and will learn in the Little Rock School District. 8. Evidence of successful experience with parent and staff involvement in decision making. 9. Evidence of successful experience in being a strong disciplinarian and conflict manager. I 0. Completion of State Evaluation Workshop. 11. Ability to evaluate instructional program and teacher effectiveness. 12. Ability to interpret policy, procedures and data. 13. Strong interpersonal skills. 14. Evidence of strong organizational skills. 15. Evidence of strong oral and written communication skills. NOTE: APPLICANTS MUST BE PREPARED TO SHOW EVIDE CE OF THESE OUALIFICATIO SIN THE INITIAL SCREENING INTERVIEW. JOB GOAL: To relieve the Principal of such impediments as prevents him/her from fulfilling chief responsibilities of promoting the educational well-being of each student in the school, and to demonstrate the capacity to perform the responsibilities of an assistant principal. ACCOUNTABILITY Reports Directly to the Principal ESSENTIAL FUNCTIONS I RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE POSITION: 1. Assumes responsibility of coordinating custodial, transportation, cafeteria, and other responsibilities. 2. Supervises conducts within the school, and oversees disciplinary procedures, keeping records of any disciplinary action. 3. Requisitions supplies and equipment, conducts inventories, maintains records, and checks on receipts for such materials. 4. Cooperates in conducting of safety inspection and safety drill activities. 5. Works with the principal in the preparation of the Parent/Student Handbook and the Staff handbook. 6. Assists in the administration of school rules regarding attendance. 7. Assists the principal in the general administration of the school. 8. Assumes the responsibility for conducting the performance evaluation of assigned personnel. 9. Assists in parent recruitment for the PT A and other parent involvement activities. 10. Support and participate in the unique year-round program for Stephens Elementary School and Recreation Center. 11. Attends staff meetings, serve on committees, and assumes responsibility for extracurricular activities as assigned by the principal. 12. Fosters collegiality and team building among staff members. 13. Communicates and promotes expectations for high-level performance to staff and students. 14. Makes commitment and time necessary for participation in district/school sponsored staff development and become computer literate. 15. Performs such other responsibilities as the principal may assign. fl\n,\n, m ~,... C: -\u0026lt; i5 z ,... ~ \"z' \"' !=' ~ D _mC: ~ ~\n,\n,-n ~ l6 \"'!I:: m~ .,...,.\n,\n, n m rn n 0 z \"C': !:j z C) l\n~ m 31: rr SALARY AND TERMS: Payl0 - Grade 64 - $38,928 - $68,652 - A ten and one-half (10.5) month contract (210 days), plus benefits package. NOTE: Precise placement within the salary range will be determined based upon education and experience. EVALUATION: Performance of this job will be evaluated annually in accordance with provisions of the Board's Policy on Evaluation of Professional Personnel. APPLICATION DEADLINE: June 1, 2005, or any time later until a satisfactory applicant is recommended and approved. SEND RESUMES/INQUIRES: Beverly Williams - Director HUMAN RESOURCES DEPARTMENT Little Rock School District 810 W Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 Phone 501-447-1100 Fax 501-447-1162 NOTE: INDIVIDUALS WHO ARE INTERESTED IN THE ABOVE POSITION MUST COMPLETE A VERY RIGOROUS SELECTION PROCESS. THEREFORE, BECAUSE AN INDIVIDUAL APPLIES FOR A POSITION DOES NOT NECESSARILY MEAN THAT AN INTERVIEW WILL BE CONDUCTED. The Little Rock School District is an Equal Opportunity Employer. Equity concerns may be addressed to the Associate Superintendent for Administrative Services. It is the policy of the Little Rock School District not to discriminate on the basis of age, sex, race, color, religion, national origin, or disability in its educational programs, activities or employment practices. DATE: TO: June 23, 2005 Board of Directors LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK, AR 72201 FROM: Roy G. Brooks, Ed.D. Superintendent of Schools SUBJECT: Appointment of Assistant Principal for Rockefeller Elementary BACKGROUND: To provide leadership to students and staff of Rockefeller Elementary. RATIONALE: To fill the position being vacated by Becky Ramsey. FUNDING: District Operating Budget RECOMMENDATION: I am pleased to appoint Ms. Sandra Register, to the position of Assistant Principal at Rockefeller Elementary. Ms. Register's resume and a job description are attached for your review. PREPARED BY: Beverly William~nior Director of Human Resources !D ~ ::0 m ~..... .C...: ~z !=' ~ 0 _mC: z en n--\u0026lt; ::O\"TI ~~ en !I:: m~ ..... -0 ::0 n m Sandra L. Register # 6 Lisawood Court Little Rock, Arkansas 72227 501224-8105 CAREER OBJECTIVE To obtain employment in an elementasy administrative position where opportunities for professional development and advancement exist. EDUCATION Bachelor of Science in Elementary Education, Certification in Early Childhood, University of Arkansas Little Rock, August 1978. Master of Science in Early Childhood, University of Central Arkansas, August 1980. CAREER RELATED EXPERIENCE Student Teacher, Franklin Elementary School, Little Rock. Arkansas, Spring,. 1978. Math Lab Teacher, Williams Elementary School, Little Rock, Arkansas, 1978-1979. Taught math instruction to students in K-3rd grade. Math Lab Teacher, Jefferson Elementary School, Little Rock, Arkansas, 1979-1981. OTHER EXPERIENCE Kindergarten Teacher, Jefferson Elementary School, Little Rock, Arkansas, January 1979 to June 1995. Kindergarten Teacher, Hugh Goodwin Elementary School, El Dorado, Arkansas August 1995 to June 1998. Principal, Hugh Goodwin Elementary, El Dorado, Arkansas, September 2002 to January 2003. Principal, Retta Brown Elementary, El Dorado, Arkansas, July 1998 to June 2003. Second Grade Teacher, Terry Elementary, Little Rock, Arkansas, August 2003 to June 2004. Assistant Principal, Rockefeller Elementary School, Little Rock, Arkansas, August 2004- present. HONORS AND ACTIVITIES Delta Kappa Gamma Society Internacional, 1996-Present Arkansas Reading Association, 1995-Present Arkansas Association of Educational Administrators, 1998-Present Arkansas Association of Elementary School Principals, 1998-Present REFERENCES WILL BE FURNISHED UPON REQUEST PLEASE POST LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201 May 5, 2005 PLEASE POST The Little Rock School District is now accepting applications for the following position for the 2005-06 school year. POSITION: Assistant Principals (2) -(1) Terry Elementary School ( 1) Rockefeller Elementary QUALIFICATIONS: 1. Master's degree (minimum) or higher with Arkansas License as an elementary principal. 2. At least three (3) years successful experience as a teacher and/or administrator in an urban school district. 3. Evidence of a strong commitment to quality desegregated education. 4. Knowledge of curriculum development and instruction. 5. The ability to apply this knowledge when working with faculty, students, parents, administrators, community members, and support staff. 6. Commitment to staff development demonstrated by a willingness to initiate, participate in, monitor, and maintain in-service activities. 7. Demonstrates the conviction that all children can and will learn in the Little Rock School District. 8. Evidence of successful experience with parent and staff involvement in decision making. 9. Evidence of successful experience in being a strong disciplinarian and conflict manager. 10. Completion of State Evaluation Workshop. 11. Ability to evaluate instructional program and teacher effectiveness. 12. Ability to interpret policy, procedures and data. 13. Strong interpersonal skills. 14. Evidence of strong organizational skills. 15. Evidence of strong oral and written communication skills. NOTE: APPLICANTS MUST BE PREPARED TO SHOW EVIDENCE OF THESE QUALIFICATIONS IN THE INITIAL SCREENING INTERVIEW. f)\na m is ~_, i5 z r\"' ~ en z \"' JOB GOAL: To relieve the Principal of such impediments as prevents him/her from fulfilling chief responsibilities of promoting the educational well-being of each student in the school, and to demonstrate the capacity to perform the responsibilities of an assistant principal. ACCOUNT ABILITY Reports Directly to the Principal ESSENTIAL FUNCTIONS/ RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE POSITION: 1. Assumes responsibility of coordinating custodial, transportation, cafeteria, and other responsibilities. 2. Supervises conducts within the school, and oversees disciplinary procedures, keeping records of any disciplinary action. 3. Requisitions supplies and equipment, conducts inventories, maintains records, and checks on receipts for such materials. 4. Cooperates in conducting of safety inspection and safety drill activities. 5. Works with the principal in the preparation of the Parent/Student Handbook and the Staff handbook. 6. Assists in the administration of school rules regarding attendance. 7. Assists the principal in the general administration of the school. 8. Assumes the responsibility for conducting the performance evaluation of assigned personnel. 9. Assists in parent recruitment for the PTA and other parent involvement activities. 10. Support and participate in the unique year-round program for Stephens Elementary School and Recreation Center. 11. Attends staff meetings, serve on committees, and assumes responsibility for extracurricular activities as assigned by the principal. 12. Fosters collegiality and team building among staff members. 13. Communicates and promotes expectations for high-level performance to staff and students. 14. Makes commitment and time necessary for participation in district/school sponsored staff development and become computer literate. 15. Performs such other responsibilities as the principal may assign. SALARY AND TERMS: Payl0 - Grade 64 - $38,928 - $68,652 -A ten and one-half (10.5) month contract (210 days), plus benefits package. NOTE: Precise placement within the salary range will be determined based upon education and experience. EVALUATION: Performance of this job will be evaluated annually in accordance with provisions of the Board's Policy on Evaluation of Professional Personnel. APPLICATION DEADLINE: May 20, 2005, or any time later until a satisfactory applicant is recommended and approved. SEND RESUMES/INQUIRES: Beverly Williams - Director HUMAN RESOURCES DEPARTMENT Little Rock School District 810 W Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 Phone 501-447-1100 Fax 501-447-1162 NOTE: INDIVIDUALS WHO ARE INTERESTED IN THE ABOVE POSITION MUST COMPLETE A VERY RIGOROUS SELECTION PROCESS. THEREFORE, BECAUSE AN INDIVIDUAL APPLIES FOR A POSITION DOES NOT NECESSARILY MEAN THAT AN INTERVIEW WILL BE CONDUCTED. The Little Rock School District is an Equal Opportunity Employer. Equity concerns may be addressed to the Associate Superintendent for Administrative Services. It is the policy of the Little Rock School District not to discriminate on the basis ofage, sex, race, color, religion, national origin, or disability in its educational programs, activities or employment practices. !Jl r\u0026gt; :,0 m ,~.... C...:. ~ z !=' ~ 0 _mC: ~~ :,o-n ~~ (/)~ m~ .,....,. :,0 n m !Tl n 0 z (/) C: !:\nz Cl ~ ~ m :,,I.:. DATE: June 23, 2005 TO: Board of Directors LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK, AR 72201 FROM: Roy G. Brooks, Ed.D. Superintendent of Schools SUBJECT: Appointment of Assistant Principal for Terry Elementary BACKGROUND: To provide leadership to students and staff of Terry Elementary. RATIONALE: To fill the position being vacated by Anna Joiner-Tatum. FUNDING: District Operating Budget RECOMMENDATION: I am pleased to appoint Ms. Eloise Booth, to the position of Assistant Principal at Terry Elementary. Ms. Booth's resume and a job description are attached for your review. PREPARED BY: Beverly Williams~:r Director of Human Resources Eloise Jeannette Booth 12606 Timber Hill Drive Little Roci\u0026lt;, Arkansas 72211 501-312-1317 eloise. booth@lrsd.org ===-================--==========-==-=--====--=-=------------- Experience: Little Rock School District- Little Rock, Arkansas Rockefeller Elementary- July 1999-2001 Stephens Elementary- July 2001-2004 Terry Elementary-October 2004-Preaent Camden-Fairview School District.Camden, Arkansas July 1986-1999 5th Grade Middle School Teacher, Assistant Principal, \u0026amp; Principal El Dorado School District 1979-1985 6th \u0026amp; 4th Grade Teacher Ouachita Area Development Corporation (YMCA)- Camden, Arkansas 1969-74 Payroll/Bookkeeper Education: Southern Arkansas University- Magnolia, Arkanaae Bachelor of Science, Elementary Education, 1979 Ouachita Baptist University-Arkadelphia, Arkansas 72193 Master of Science, Elementary Education, 1982 Henderson State University-Arkadelphia, Arkaneae 72193 Master of Science, Educational Administration and Supervision, 1985 rn n 0 z \"c:': !:j z Cl li ::,) m m ~ Certification: Arkansas Deparbnent of Education Professional Teaching Licenee Arkansas Department of Education Elementary Principal Certification Leardership: Camden-Fairview School District-HIPPY Board President.. Equity Committee, Camden City Planning Commission, International Paper Advisory Board, Kiwanae, COE Chair, ACSIP Team, Outstanding Young Women of America, Nominated Principal of the Year, District Discipline Committee, Leadership Adcademy. Rockefeller and Stephens Elementary- Administrative Team, Teacher and Staff Evaluations, School-Wide Discipline Committee, TAP Certification, Parent and Student Handbook, Supervision and Scheduling of Instructional Aides, Transportation (Bus) Coordinator, 504 Coordianator, ESL Training, EYE Intersession Director, Campus Leadership Tean References: Avallable upon Request PLEASE POST LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201 May 5, 2005 PLEASE POST The Little Rock School District is now accepting applications for the following position for the 2005-06 school year. POSITION: Assistant Principals (2) -(1) Terry Elementary School ( 1) Rockefeller Elementary QUALIFICATIONS: 1. Master's degree (minimum) or higher with Arkansas License as an elementary principal. 2. At least three (3) years successful experience as a teacher and/or administrator in an urban school district. 3. Evidence of a strong commitment to quality desegregated education. 4. Knowledge of curriculum development and instruction. 5. The ability to apply this knowledge when working with faculty, students, parents, administrators, community members, and support staff. 6. Commitment to staff development demonstrated by a willingness to initiate, participate in, monitor, and maintain in-service activities. 7. Demonstrates the conviction that all children can and will learn in the Little Rock School District. 8. Evidence of successful experiencewith parent and staff involvement in decision making. 9. Evidence of successful experience in being a strong disciplinarian and conflict manager. 10. Completion of State Evaluation Workshop. 11. Ability to evaluate instructional program and teacher effectiveness. 12. Ability to interpret policy, procedures and data. 13. Strong interpersonal skills. 14. Evidence of strong organizational skills. 15. Evidence of strong oral and written communication skills. NOTE: APPLICANTS MUST BE PREPARED TO SHOW EVIDENCE OF THESE QUALIFICATIONS IN THE INITIAL SCREEN! G INTERVIEW. !='\n:c m 0 _mC zcn (\")-\u0026lt;\n:c-.. !j!\n!l5 \"m'!:j!1\n:! r- ~ m rn (\") 0z \"C ' !:j z Cl a\n:c ~ :ii: \"' JOB GOAL: To relieve the Principal of such impediments as prevents him/her from fulfilling chief responsibilities of promoting the educational well-being of each student in the school, and to demonstrate the capacity to perform the responsibilities of an assistant principal. ACCOUNTABILITY Reports Directly to the Principal ESSENTIAL FUNCTIONS I RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE POSITION: 1. Assumes responsibility of coordinating custodial, transportation, cafeteria, and other responsibilities. 2. Supervises conducts within the school, and oversees disciplinary procedures, keeping records of any disciplinary action. 3. Requisitions supplies and equipment, conducts inventories, maintains records, and checks on receipts for such materials. 4. Cooperates in conducting of safety inspection and safety drill activities. 5. Works with the principal in the preparation of the Parent/Student Handbook and the Staff handbook. 6. Assists in the administration of school rules regarding attendance. 7. Assists the principal in the general administration of the school. 8. Assumes the responsibility for conducting the performance evaluation of assigned personnel. 9. Assists in parent recruitment for the PT A and other parent involvement activities. 10. Support and participate in the unique year-round program for Stephens Elementary School and Recreation Center. 11. Attends staff meetings, serve on committees, and assumes responsibility for extracurricular activities as assigned by the principal. 12. Fosters collegiality and team building among staff members. 13. Communicates and promotes expectations for high-level performance to staff and students. 14. Makes commitment and time necessary for participation in district/school sponsored staff development and become computer literate. 15. Performs such other responsibilities as the principal may assign. SALARY AND TERMS: Payl 0 - Grade 64 - $38,928 - $68,652 -A ten and one-half (10.5) month contract (210 days), plus benefits package. NOTE: Precise placement within the salary range will be determined based upon education and experience. EVALUATION: Performance of this job will be evaluated annually in accordance with provisions of the Board's Policy on Evaluation of Professional Personnel. APPLICATION DEADLINE: May 20, 2005, or any time later until a satisfactory applicant is recommended and approved. SEND RESUMES/INQUIRES: Beverly Williams - Director HUMAN RESOURCES DEPARTMENT Little Rock School District 810 W Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 Phone 501-447-1100 Fax 501-447-1162 INDIVIDUALS WHO ARE INTERESTED IN THE ABOVE POSITION MUST COMPLETE A VERY RIGOROUS SELECTIO PROCESS. THEREFORE, BECAUSE AN INDIVIDUAL APPLIES FOR A POSITIO DOES OT NECESSARILY MEAN THAT AN INTERVIEW WILL BE CONDUCTED. The Little Rock School District is an Equal Opportunity Employer. Equity concerns may be addressed to the Associate Superintendent for Administrative Services. It is the policy of the Little Rock School District not to discriminate on the basis of age, sex, race, color, religion, national origin, or disability in its educational programs, activities or employment practices. !ll fl \"m' ~ re:..... \u0026lt;5 z !\"' n 0 z U\u0026gt; C: !:j z Cl ~ ~ m ~ DATE: June 23, 2005 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK, AR 72201 TO: Board of Directors FROM: Roy G. Brooks, Ed.D. Superintendent of Schools SUBJECT: Proposed Budget for Annual School Election BACKGROUND: In order to satisfy various legal requirements concerning school elections, budget publication, and school tax rates, the Board of Directors must approve a proposed budget for the 2006-2007 school year together with a rate of tax levy sufficient to provide such funds. RATIONALE: The requirement for publication of the budget shall be discharged by the board of directors of each school district by publication of its budget one (1) time ... not less than sixty (60) days before the annual school election. (Ark. Code Ann .  6-13-622) FUNDING: Operating Budget RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Board of Directors approve the proposed budget of expenditures and tax levy for 2006-2007 as attached for publication in accordance with State law. PREPARED BY: Mark D. Milhollen Chief Financial Officer !Tl n 0 z C/) C: !:\nz C) ~ Rl \"31': rr PROPOSED BUDGET OF EXPENDITURES TOGETHER WITH TAX LEVY FOR FISCAL YEAR BEGINNING JULY 1, 2006 TO AND INCLUDING JUNE 30, 2007 The Board of Directors of the Little Rock School District No. 60-01 of Pulaski County, Arkansas in compliance with the requirements of Amendments No. 40 and No. 7 4 to the Constitution of the State of Arkansas and of Arkansas Code Ann.  6- 13-622 (1993 Repl.) has prepared, approved, and hereby makes public the proposed budget of expenditures together with a supporting tax rate as follows: 1. Salary Fund Expenditures 2. Instructional Expense 3. Maintenance \u0026amp; Operation Expense 4. Pupil Transportation Expense 5. Other Operating Expense 6. Non-bonded Debt Payment 7. Bonded Debt Payment 8. Building Fund Expense 9. Dedicated Maintenance \u0026amp; Operation $111,529,328.00 $ 25,881,109.00 $ 14,611,898.00 $ 14,396,284.00 $ 36,274,934.00 $ 655,000.00 $ 12,000,030.00 $ 12,000,000.00 $ 5,200,000.00 The total tax levy proposed includes 32.0 mills for the maintenance and operation of schools, 12.4 mills for debt service previously voted as a continuing levy pledged for the retirement of existing bonded indebtedness, and 2.0 mills for current expenditures/dedicated maintenance and operation expenditures. Surplus revenues produced each year by debt service millage may be used by the District for other purposes. The total proposed rate includes the uniform rate of tax to be collected on all taxable property in the State and remitted to the State Treasurer pursuant to Amendment No. 74 to the Arkansas Constitution to be used solely for maintenance and operation of schools in this District. The proposed rate includes no increases. Given this 23rd day of June, 2005. Little Rock School District No. 60-01 of Pulaski County Larry Berkley, President Katherine Mitchell, Secretary DATE: June 23, 2005 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK, AR 72201 TO: Board of Directors FROM: Roy G. Brooks, Ed.D. Superintendent of Schools SUBJECT: First Reading - Board Policy FA: New Facilities Development Goal BACKGROUND: The promotion of buildings that are environmentally responsible is at the forefront of planning for energy and resource conservation at the local, state and national levels. The District is committed to contributing to the environmental and economic sustainability of our City and State. RATIONALE: In an effort to promote a positive effect on the City's environment and healthy places for students to learn and employees to work, the attached policy is presented for the Board's approval. New construction of District buildings will utilize sustainable design practices that will decrease the negative impact of buildings on the environment and occupant health while reducing operating and maintenance costs. FUNDING: Bond Account RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended the Board approve Policy FA as attached. PREPARED BY: Mark D. Milhollen Chief Financial Officer r\u0026gt; ~ ~ E.... iz5 8 z ~ 0z \"' ..0.. ,, ~ \"C IT' ::c LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPN CODE: FA New Facilities Development Goal The Board of Education is committed to promoting the conservation of energy and natural resources for new construction of District facilities. This approach will provide a positive effect on the City's environment and ensure healthy places for students to learn and employees to work. The promotion of buildings that are environmentally responsible is at the forefront of planning for energy and resource conservation at the local, state and national levels. The District will join in this effort through planning, designing, constructing and operating District-owned buildings and facilities by utilizing sustair:,able design practices that will decrease the negative impact of building on the environment and occupant health while reducing operating and maintenance costs. The District will adopt the U.S. Green Building Council's Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED-NC) rating system for new construction of District-owned facilities (or other nationally recognized rating system). Adopted: References: U.S. Green Building Council's Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design system DATE: TO: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK, AR 72201 June 23, 2005 Board of Directors FROM: Roy G. Brooks, Ed.D. Superintendent of Schools SUBJECT: Resolution for Leasing Authority BACKGROUND: Verizon Communications Corporation, in conjunction with Excell Communications, Inc., has requested that the Little Rock School District lease to them three small parcels of property at Central, Parkview, and McClellan High Schools for the sole purpose of erecting communications relay towers to support their telephone systems. The three tower-sites, shown on the attached drawings, are as follows: A. Central High School - inside the stadium wall near the seating area on the east side of Quigley Field. B. Parkview High School - approximately 150 feet west of the Performing Arts Building. C. McClellan High School - east of the football stadium and approximately 150 feet from the south property line. Each of these sites will support a 150-foot monopole. RATIONALE: The Little Rock School District has granted to Excell Communications, Inc., entry and testing agreements through which this corporation is testing the sites to determine their suitability for situating a monopole in these locations. The leasing of these properties has been coordinated with the school principals, and it has been determined that the sites will not impact any of the operations presently ongoing at the schools. Other private locations and school districts are entertaining similar leases to support this nationwide communication system. ~?\u0026lt; me-, :IC,-, a- o (/) 0-\u0026lt; z- m c, m\na :i::m ~~ !\"\" n 0 z (/) C: !:\nz C) l!i ~ 31: rr FUNDING: The proposed term of the leased property would be twenty-five years, consisting of a five-year initial term and four five-year extensions. The overall revenue of $1,213,628 to be received by the District consists of a monthly rent of $1 ,000 per site beginning at construction with 15% increases after each five-year term. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Board approve the attached resolution allowing the Administration to enter into lease negotiations with Verizon Communications Corporation. PREPARED BY: Douglas Eaton, Director of Facility Services Mark D. Milhollen, Chief Financial Officer RESOLUTION A RESOLUTION OF THE LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT BOARD OF DIRECTORS FOR LEASING AUTHORITY TO THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT WHEREAS, Arkansas Code Annotated Section 6-13-620 authorizes the board of directors for each school district to lease property as lessor\nand WHEREAS, Arkansas Code Annotated Section 6-21-108(c) requires that the execution of all contracts and conveyances and lease contracts shall be performed by the president and confirmed by the secretary of the school board when authorized by a resolution in writing and approved by a majority vote of the school board\nand WHEREAS, Verizon Wireless Tennessee Partnership, d/b/a Verizon Wireless, has requested the school district to lease to Verizon wireless Tennessee Partnership, d/b/a Verizon Wireless, real property at the Central International Studies High School, McClellan Magnet High School and Parkview Arts and Science Magnet High School locations for the purpose of locating towers and certain equipment that will facilitate wireless communications and other related transmissions\nand WHEREAS, the Little Rock School District will receive rent from Verizon Wireless Tennessee Partnership, d/b/a Verizon Wireless, for such leases. NOW, THEREFORE, be it resolved by the Little Rock School District Board of Directors that: The Administration is hereby authorized to enter into leases with Verizon Wireless Tennessee Partnership, d/b/a Verizon Wireless, related to the Central International Studies High School, McClellan Magnet High School and Parkview Arts and Science Magnet High School locations. Given this 23rd day of June, 2005 Larry Berkley, President Katherine Mitchell, Secretary rn n 0 z en C: !:\nz Cl ~ ~ 3: IT' I lll ~-EXISTING STADIUM SEATING --- --- ~---- /1 \\\\ I EXISTING FOOTBALL FIELD \\ / ---- - EXISTING TRACK EXISTING STADIUM SEATING Ill D  EXISTING _/ BRICK BUILDING PROPOSED BRICK WALL TO MATCH EXISTING BRICK BUILDING ~ / ~ ~ - PROPOSED MONOPOLE CENTRAL HIGH NOT SCHOOL SITE TO SCALE EXISTING FOOTBALL FIELD PLAN EXISTING PROPERTY UNE/F'ENCf [7 - EXISTING STADIUM SEATING  EXISTING FOOTBALL flELD EXISTING - POWER PO!S PROPOSED. 75'x75' f1:NC0 COMPOUNQ PROPOSED NEW 150 MONOPOLE EXISTING STADIUM SEATING 75' o EXISTING PRACTICE FlflD _G-= _-- - - -- -=-=:::L.-==--=-=-=----=-=-=--==--==--===--===--==--==-===--==--==------'-----------_j U:13d0Md ~O SNOll VNOO '~ MCCLELLAN HIGH NOT SCHOOL TO SCALE SITE 3S\\/3H:\u0026gt;NI 311i33MlV lNlllOSNO:\u0026gt; 3 3:\u0026gt;IMd 7\\f3W HO~ 1S3003H o J\\f3H 33A07dW3 \"IX JVW3H ONIS07:\u0026gt; x PLAN lHOd3H 1'9'1:\u0026gt;NVNI~ o VERIZON PARKVIEW HIGH SCHOOL A LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NORTH QL__ ________ ___,, er: 1-------R_rv_E _____: i s\n0 - , er: I ' er: \u0026lt;{ co I' I I ' , ,' I' I I z I 0  / ,: UNPAV ED PARKING AREA -, r 0 l[) N    175' telco 8771.W2ah LTRLARRB HHGB67 DSA2124 ,7775' r PROPOSED NEW150' MONOPOLE NOTTO SCALE , , : I I I' I I I I : : I I I I 'I I I : 1 Ac i: cess lat 34 43 51.42 long -92 22 19.3 AMSL 410' I I I I ' I I I I I I Auditorium I I UNPAVED PARKING AREA CITY OF LITTLE ROCK PARKVIEW ARTS/SCIENCE MAGNET HIGH SCHOOL PHONE 501 447-2300 p arcel ID 44L-082-00-033-00 30ACRES athletic bldg n LRPVHSA G. FINANCIAL REPORT t: ~_f' . X. CLOSING REMAf XI. EMPLOYEE HEAi ,J :\ni D. REQUEST FOR MEAL PRICE INCREASE E. CONSULTING AGREEMI: F. DONATIONS Or PROPl:R r DATE: TO: FROM: June 23, 2005 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK, AR 72201 Board of Directors Roy G. Brooks, Ed.D. Superintendent of Schools SUBJECT: Request for Breakfast and Lunch Meal Price Increase BACKGROUND: The Little Rock School District Child Nutrition Department supports the School Meals Program from funds received from the service of reimbursable meals. The prices for the meals claimed at the reduced rate are set by USDA, and the prices for the meals claimed in the full-paid category are set by the Board of Directors for the school district. The Child Nutrition Department works to operate basically as a self sufficient entity of the district. RATIONALE: For the Child Nutrition meals program to remain basically self supporting and continue to provide high quality service for our customers, the meal prices must be raised. Food and labor costs increase at a rate of 3% to 5% each year, and, for Child Nutrition, labor costs increased at a rate of 10% the past year. Traditionally, manufacturers pass on to the customer any economic impact that they are experiencing due to gas wars or food production restrictions and other variables. The USDA reimbursement rates for Child Nutrition programs are based on program costs exclusive of a fringe benefit package. The present funds to the program are not adequate for sufficiency and growth. We propose that the breakfast meal price is increased by $.25 at each level and that the lunch meal price is increased by $.50 at each level. For the 2005-2006 school year the meal prices will be as follows: BREAKFAST Elementary - $1.00 Secondary - 1.00 Adults - 1.25 LUNCH Elementary - $2.00 Secondary - 2.25 Adults - 2.75 The current meal prices for Little Rock School District Child Nutrition have been in effect since the 2002-2003 school year. ~ \u0026gt; 0 5 C:\n:o z\nc zm ..... FUNDING: At the present level of participation, the proposed price increases will generate approximately $340,000.00 additional revenue for the program. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended the Board approve the prepared meal prices for School year 2005- 2006. PREPARED BY: Morlin M. McCoy, Director of Child Nutrition Mark D. Milhollen, Chief Financial Officer DATE: TO: FROM: June 23, 2005 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK, AR 72201 Board of Directors Roy G. Brooks, Ed.D. Superintendent of Schools SUBJECT: CONSUL TING AGREEMENT BACKGROUND: The Board approved the recommendations of the organizational audit on March 24, 2005, completing Phase I of the process to restructure the District's administration. Phase I recommendations are being implemented and administrative staff is being assigned to fill the vacancies and positions that will result in a more streamlined and efficient operation. RATIONALE: Phase II and 111 of the reorganization will provide the support systems necessary to ensure an efficient transition to the restructured operations. Technical assistance and support is required in order to affect the most orderly and effective use of our resources. Exhibit A of the proposed contract has been revised to take into consideration your input and comments. The exhibit provides specific details of services to be rendered by the consultants, Dr. Dennis Smith and Mr. Bob Klempen. RECOMMENDATION: I recommend approval to enter into the consulting agreement with Dr. Dennis Smith and Mr. Bob Klempen from July 1, 2005 through June 30, 2006. FUNDING: Payment of consulting fees and expenses are specified in the attached agreement. PREPARED BY: Mark Milhollen, CFO ~ \u0026gt; C a C\nc z !I: zm --, CONSULTING AGREEMENT This CONSUL TING AGREEMENT (this \"Agreement\") is executed effective as of this 23rd day of June, 2005, by and between the Little Rock School District (the \"District\"), and Dr. Dennis Smith and Mr. Bob Klempen (collectively, the \"Consultant\"). W I T N E S S E T H: WHEREAS, District oversees the operation of the City of Little Rock, Arkansas public school system\nWHEREAS, Consultant has significant experience and expertise in defining organizational structure, standardized protocols and procedures, governance and management, results-based strategic planning, performance and accountability systems, and issue resolution/ decision-making procedures focused on improving student achievement and will be based upon effective school practices for schools\nand WHEREAS, the District desires to retain the services of Consultant as a consultant and independent contractor to District to focus the District, the Board and administration on more effective use of resources, increased accountability, enhanced community perception, improved morale and increased student achievement, all upon the terms and conditions contained herein\nNOW, THEREFORE, in exchange for the mutual promises and covenants contained herein, and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and adequacy of which are hereby acknowledged, the parties hereto, intending to be legally bound, agree as follows: 1. ENGAGEMENT. The District hereby engages Consultant as a consultant and independent contractor, and Consultant  hereby accepts such engagement, upon the terms and conditions contained herein. 2. TERM. The term of this Agreement shall be for a period of one year beginning July 1, 2005, and ending June 30, 2006, subject to Paragraph 8 below. The foregoing notwithstanding, either party may terminate this Agreement on not less than 90 days prior written notice to the other party specifying the effective date of such termination. 3. CONSULTING SERVICES. During the term hereof, Consultant agrees to provide the consulting and advisory services to the District described on Exhibit A attached hereto and made a part hereof (the \"Services\"), and, upon request, assist the District in the implementation and management of certain programs relating to the District's educational objectives. Consultant shall work with the District's Superintendent and other personnel and shall report to the District's Board of Education as needed. The exact nature of the Services shall be defined from time to time by the District and the Consultant. 4. INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR. In performing the services described herein, Consultant shall be an independent contractor and shall have no power or authority to bind District or to create any obligation or responsibility, express or implied, in the name or on behalf of the District. Consultant shall be solely responsible for payment of federal, state and local income taxes on all payments to him hereunder, and the District shall have no responsibility whatsoever therefor. 5. COMPENSATION. In consideration for the consulting and advisory services to be provided hereunder by the Consultant, the District agrees to pay the Consultant a total fee of$65,000 for services rendered from July 1, 2005 through June 30, 2006. The Consultant will invoice the district each month, and the District shall pay such invoices within thirty (30) days. Consultant shall be responsible for paying Consultant's expenses incurred in performing the consulting and advisory services hereunder. The foregoing notwithstanding, the District will pay on behalf of Consultant ( or reimburse Consultant for) all reasonable expenses incurred by Consultant at the request of District in traveling to and from Little Rock, Arkansas, lodging and expenses incurred in connection with the Services\nprovided that such trip was approved in advance and the request for reimbursement is in accordance with the District's normal expense reimbursement policies. 6. DISCLOSURE OF INFORMATION. Consultant agrees that he will not, during or after the term of this Agreement, disclose, make public or otherwise utilize any proprietary or other confidential information relating to the District or its business, except as required by applicable law. Consultant shall deliver to the District no later than thirty (30) days after the date of termination of this Agreement all tangible forms of such information in his possession or control. 7. TERMINATION. (a) Consultant may, at his option, terminate this Agreement at any time upon ten ( 10) days prior written notice to the District if the District fails to make any payment hereunder to Consultant and such failure continues for a period of more than thirty (30) days following receipt of written notice of such default. (b) The District may terminate this Agreement upon ten (10) days prior written notice to Consultant if Consultant fails to perform his services hereunder in any material respect and such failure continues for a period of ten (10) days following receipt of such written notice from the District. (c) Upon termination of this Agreement, the District shall not be obligated to make any further payments to Consultant except amounts accrued, due and payable as of the date of termination. 2 ~ \u0026gt; ~ 0 C,,: z 3::: zm .... 8. MISCELLANEOUS. (a) Assignment. This Agreement and the rights, obligations and duties of the parties hereunder shall not be assignable or otherwise transferable without the prior written consent of each party. (b) Modification. No provision contained herein may be modified, amended or waived except by written agreement signed by the party to be bound thereby. ( c) Binding Effect and Benefit. This Agreement shall inure to the benefit of, and shall be binding upon, the parties hereto, and their respective heirs, executors, administrators, personal representatives, successors and permitted assigns. (d) Headings and Captions. Subject headings and captions are included for convenience purposes only and shall not affect the interpretation of this Agreement. ( e) Notice. All notices, requests, demands and other communications permitted or required hereunder shall be in writing, and shall be deemed to have been duly given upon delivery if delivered in person, or on the date postmarked if mailed, registered or certified United States mail, postage prepaid as follows: If to Consultant, addressed or delivered in person to: Dennis M. Smith 2800 Park Place Laguna Beach, Ca. 92651 Ifto the District, addressed or delivered in person to: Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Attn: Dr. Roy Brooks, Superintendent Or to such other address as either party may designate by notice. (f) Severability. If any portion of this Agreement is held invalid, illegal or unenforceable, such determination shall not impair the enforceability of the remaining terms and provisions herein. 3 (g) Waiver. No waiver of a breach or violation of any provision of this Agreement shall operate or be construed as a waiver of any subsequent breach or limit or restrict any right or remedy otherwise available. (h) Rights and Remedies Cumulative. The rights and remedies expressed herein are cumulative and not exclusive of any rights and remedies otherwise available. (i) Gender and Pronouns. Throughout this Agreement, the masculine shall include the feminine and neuter and the singular shall include the plural and vice versa as the context requires. G) Entire Agreement. This document constitutes the entire agreement of the parties and supersedes any and all other prior agreements, oral or written, with respect to the subject matter contained herein. (k) Governing Law. This Agreement shall be subject to and governed by the laws of the State of Arkansas. (1) No Joint Venture or Partnership, This Agreement shall not be considered to create any type of joint venture, partnership, or any other legal relationship between the parties in which either party shall share or be responsible for the debts or liabilities of the other party. 10. APPROVAL OF DISTRICT. The obligations of the District under this Agreement are expressly conditioned upon the ratification and approval of the Agreement by the Board of Education of the District. 4 ~ :,,. ~ 0 C:\no z le zm -\u0026lt; IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement effective as of the day and year aforesaid. DISTRICT: Little Rock School District By: ___________ _ Dr. Roy Brooks, Superintendent CONSULTANT: Dr. Dennis Smith Robert Klempen Ratified and Approved by the Board of Education of the Little Rock School District at the meeting held the 23rd day of June, 2005 . 5 Exhibit A Services Covered:  Advise the Superintendent on operational best practices and related matters during implementation of the LRSD administrative restructuring\n Assist (Advise) the (Deputy) Superintendent and (Government/Legislative/Public Affairs Officer) executive level staff in developing (regarding their) roles and responsibilities that are consistent with the objectives of the LRSD administrative restructuring and which make a clear differentiation between line and staff authority\no Specifically, consult with the (Advise) the Associate Superintendents of Elementary and Secondary Education regarding their roles as direct \"line\" supervisor. to principals\no Consult with (Advise) the Associate Superintendent of Education Services, Senior Director of Human Resources and Chief Financial Officer/Support Services regarding their role. as support staff to schools and principals\n Prepare (Advise) executive staff ( district leaders,) selected by the Superintendent to assume leadership roles (designated as Project Managers on) for work projects assigned by the Superintendent, including staff training and development, performance accountability and evaluation, effective communication, governance and management and results based strategic planning\n Provide continuous feedback (on progress) to the Superintendent on the progress being made during (the) successive phases of the (implementation) administrative restructuring\n Review written communications regarding the implementation of the (LRSD reorganization) administrative restructuring as directed by the Superintendent\n (Consult with Human Resources executive staff and the school attorneys in the implementation of the organizational audit\n)  (Plan with the Superintendent\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_697","title":"\"\"Quarterly Update to the Office of Desegregation Monitoring (ODM) and Joshua,'' Planning, Research, and Evaluation, Little Rock School District","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["2005-03-01/2005-12-01"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Educational planning"],"dcterms_title":["\"\"Quarterly Update to the Office of Desegregation Monitoring (ODM) and Joshua,'' Planning, Research, and Evaluation, Little Rock School District"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/697"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["documents (object genre)"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\nLittle Rock School District (LRSD) QUARTERLY UPDATE to Office of Desegregation Monitoring (ODM) and Joshua RECEIVED FEB 2 8 2005 March 1, 2005 OFFICE OF desegregates MONITORING LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, PLAINTIFF V. PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. I ET AL., DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ETAL., INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL., INTERVENORS 1 Planning, Research, and Evaluation (PRE) Little Rock School District 3001 South Pulaski Little Rock, AR 72206Introduction This is the second quarterly written update by the Little Rock School District (LRSD) and its Planning, Research, and Evaluation (PRE) Department, submitted in accordance with the District Courts 2004 Compliance Remedy (Memorandum Opinion of June 30, 2004, pp. 61-67). The organization of this report is that of the Compliance Remedy\nA. B. C. LRSD must promptly hire a highly trained team of professionals to reinvigorate PRE. The first task PRE must perform is to devise a comprehensive program assessment process, which must be deeply embedded as a permanent part of LRSDs curriculum and instruction program. During each of the next two academic school years (2004-05 and 2005-06), LRSD must hire one or more outside consultants to prepare four (4) formal step 2 evaluations. 9 D. PRE must (1) oversee the preparation of all eight of these step 2 evaluations\n(2) work E. closely with Dr. Ross and any other outside consultants . . . and (3) provide the outside consultants with any and all requested assistance and support... Evaluations will contain numbers and grade levels of teachers and administrators who contributed data, recommended program changes necessary for improved academic achievement by African-American students, and brief explanations of how each change will increase a programs effectiveness. F. . . . PRE must notify the ODM and Joshua in writing of the names of those eight programs. In addition, after PRE and Dr. Ross have formulated a comprehensive program assessment process and reduced it to a final draft, PRE must provide a copy to the ODM and Joshua at least thirty days before it is presented to the Board for approval.. . by December 31,2004. G. PRE must submit quarterly written updates on the status of the . . . four step 2 program evaluations . . . during the 2004-05 school year and the four step 2 program evaluations that will be prepared during the 2005-06 school year ... to ODM and Joshua on 9? December 1, March 1, June 1, and September 1...' H. [ODMs responsibilities.] 1. [Joshuas responsibilities.] J. Four step 2 program evaluations due to the Court October 1, 2005 and four more due October 1,2006. K. Compliance Report due October 15,2006. L. [This Compliance Remedy supersedes earlier one.] Page 2 of 19Status as of March 1, 2005 A. Hire a highly trained team of professionals. LRSD hired a highly trained team of professionals in 2004 and reported its action in the first quarterly written update, December 1, 2004. This team has continued its duties as described below, in this second quarterly written update. B. Devise and embed a comprehensive program assessment process. At its December 16, 2004 session, LRSD Board of Directors approved the comprehensive program assessment process devised by PRE. The final draft was in Appendix B of the first quarterly written update. C. Hire outside consultant(s) to prepare four formal step 2 evaluations. Credentials of Drs. Catterall and Ross were in this section and Appendix C of the first quarterly written update. Both agreed to prepare step 2 evaluations of LRSD programs. Their progress is described below in Section D. D. PRE (1) oversees the preparation of the step 2 evaluations, (2) works closely with Drs. Ross and Catterall, and (3) assists them. PRE continued discussions with Dr. Steven Ross of step 2 evaluation designs for the three LRSD programs which he will conduct, reported December 1, 2004Compass Learning (CL), Reading Recovery (RR), and Smart/Thrive (S/T). By January 14, PRE and Dr. Ross agreed on evaluation designs, whose descriptions are in the appendix of this second quarterly written update. Negotiations also continued in January with Dr. James Catterall regarding evaluation of Year- Round Education (YRE), the fourth step 2 evaluation for 2004-2005. Its design, too, is in the appendix of this second quarterly written update. At the monthly Leadership Team (school principals) meeting, on January 19, PRE staff alerted LRSD principals about the four evaluations and answered their questions. At the February 16 Leadership Team session. Dr. Ross and his team described designs of his three evaluations and answered questions. After his presentation to the principals on February 16, Dr. Ross and his team met with PRE. each program director, and two other outside experts (Drs. Linda Dom and Gail Weems, both of UALRs College of Education). During these discussions, ODM officials and counsel for Joshua Intervenors provided feedback and assisted with the final design of data collection instruments. Page 3 of 19PRE has established four evaluation teams, led by PRE members and composed of people with skills and experiences appropriate to their respective evaluations. Parent and teacher represent- tatives are also members of these teams, whose first formal meeting was arranged for February 24. Dr. DeJamette will lead the evaluation of Compass Learning\nMs. Malcolm, Smart/Thrive\n)r. Williams, Year-Round Education\nand Mr. Wohlleb, Reading Recovery. Members names and results of that meeting will appear in the third written quarterly update, due June 1. E. Evaluation will have (1) numbers and grade levels of teachers and administrators who submit data for evaluations, (2) recommended program changes necessary for improved achievement by African-American students, and (3) succinct explanations of how each change will increase its respective programs effectiveness. Designs of the evaluations, furnished in the appendix to this report, will include records of the teachers and administrators who furnish data, opinions and guidance, and 1) 2) 3) their grade levels and positions\ndata in addition to race/ethnicity and test scores that will enable the evaluators to find reasons for differences in academic achievement and recommend changes\nbases for explanations of how these other factors impact on academic achievement and how program changes will bring about improved academic achievement. F. Delivery of names of programs to be evaluated and the comprehensive program assessment process to ODM and Joshua. Names of the four programs evaluated during 2004-2005 and the process were delivered before they were due last year and so reported in the first written quarterly update. G. PRE must submit quarterly written updates on the status of step 2 evaluations. PRE submitted its first written quarterly update on December 1, 2004. PRE submits this one on or before March 1, 2005 and will submit its third by June 1,2005. Page 4 of 19Appendix C. Designs of Step 2 Evaluations of 20042005 Reading Recovery (RR) Compass Learning (CL) Smart/Thrive (S/T) Year-Round Education (YRE) Evaluation Schedule 2004-2005 Page 5 of 19 oReading Recovery Program Description RR is one of the eight literacy programs, interventions, and/or models used by various LRSD schools. Restricted to the first grade, it provides systematically designed, individual tutoring to students identified as having the highest need for supplemental support. LRSD funds are used to support the RR Program. Currently, 17 elementary schools are implementing RR: School Booker______ Carver_______ Chicot_______ Dodd________ Franklin Geyer Springs Gibbs_______ Meadowcliff Mitchell Otter Creek Rightsell Wakefield Watson______ Williams Wilson ___ Number of Reading Recovery Teachers 4 2 3 1 2 1 2 1 1 I I 2 1 2 1 Number of Teachers 55 43 44 27 35 23 30 24 22 31 25 29 34 36 27 Number of Students 496 496 536 261 387 299 310 349 156 511 262 451 456 461 285 Percent African- American Students 53 52 73 54 96 88 53 78 96 60 100 78 96 52 89 Percent Free/Reduced Lunch Students 63 53 86 69 94 81 44 85 92 56 88 92 93 34 92 RR Evaluation Questions and Design A mixed-methods design will address the research questions as follows: Primary Evaluation Question: 1. Has the RR program been effective in improving and remediating the academic achievement of African-American (AA) students? A. Whole School Sample: A treatment-control school, pretest-posttest design will be employed in Grades 1-3. The analysis will control for pretest, gender, ethnicity, and SES. The analysis will possibly examine (a) all 17 schools relative to the entire district elementary-school database or (b) a stratified random sample of RR schools relative to matched control schools. Pretests: DRA or DIBELS (whichever has the more usable database), administered in Kindergarten. Page 6 of 19Posttests\n2004-05 Iowa Test of Basic Skills (ITBS) Reading and Math Subtests. B. RR Subsample: Within each of the RR schools, first- to third-grade students who participated in RR as first graders will be identified and their achievement gains compared to predicted scores based on school status (RR vs. non-RR), and student pretest, gender, ethnicity, and SES. ^^PPlemental (Qualitative/Step 2) Evaluation Questions: 1. What are the quality and level of implementation of RR at the 17 schools implementing it in 2004-05? RR teachers will be interviewed by phone. First-grade teachers and other grade-level teachers will be surveyed. Observations of RR sessions will be at a sample of schools. A minimum of 10 observations will be conducted. To the extent resources are available, an attempt will be made to observe at all 17 sites. What is the level of participation in RR by AA students relative to other ethnic groups at the school? Student records/archival data for 2003-04 and 2004-05 will be analyzed. What is the progress demonstrated by AA and other student participants in RR in improving achievement, as demonstrated on program-specific measures? What percent of students are discontinued or not discontinued? RR teachers will be asked to complete Achievement Profiles (to be developed) for each 2004-05 RR student. The Achievement Profiles will be one-page forms designed to require only a few minutes to complete. Procedures will be written through consultation with PRE and RR experts in LRSD. 4. What are the perceptions of RR teachers regarding RR program implementation, impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? The RR teacher interview will directly address this question. 5. What are the perceptions of non-RR first-grade teachers and other teachers in the schools regarding RR program implementation, impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? The RR School Teacher survey will address this question via closed-ended and open-ended items. Respondents will identify their status by grade and role. 6. What are the perceptions of parents/guardians of RR students regarding program impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? A RR Parent survey will be conducted via a questionnaire including closed- and open-ended items. Page 7 of 19Summary of RR Data Sources and Participants by Evaluation Question _______Evaluation Question Primary Question______ I Participants Data Sources 1. What are the effects of participation in RR on AA student achievement?  All grades 1-3 students at 17 RR schools and other elementary schools  RR student participants within above samples  DRA or DIBELS (pretest in K)  2004-05 ITBS Reading and Math subtests (posttest in grades 1-3) Step 2 Questions 1. What is the quality and level of implementation of RR at the 17 schools implementing it in 2004-05? All RR teachers All teachers at RR schools 2. What is the level of participation in RR by AA students relative to other ethnic groups by school?____________ 3. What is the progress demonstrated by RR students in improving achievement, as demonstrated on programspecific measures? What percentage of students are discontinued or not discontinued?_______________ 4. What are the perceptions of RR teachers re: RR program implementation, impacts, strengths, and weaknesses?____ 5. What are the perceptions of regular first-grade teachers and other teachers re: RR program implementation, impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? 6. What are the perceptions of parents/guardians of RR students re: program impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? All RR schools All RR teachers All RR teachers All RR school teachers Parents of RR students Page 8 of 19  RR Teacher Phone Interview  RR School Teacher Survey (faculty meeting)  RR Achievement Profiles  One-hour RR Tutoring Observation (min. of 10 schools)  School records/archival data RR Achievement Profile RR Teacher Interview RR School Teacher Survey (disaggregated by r' grade V5. other grades) RR Parent SurveyCompass Learning Program Description Compass Learning (CL) is a computer-based program designed to develop students skills in reading, writing, and spelling. Additional purposes are to support teacher management of student performance, personalize instruction, and connect communities of learners. The themebased lessons and activities provided by CL take a cross-curricular approach and offer a real world context for learning. The Compass Management system assessment is either automatic or customizable. Technology Specialists assist classroom teachers with any technology question or need. In the 2004-05 school year, 21 LRSD elementary schools, two middle schools, and the Accelerated Learning Center (high school) utilize CL programs: Schools Bale Elementary Booker Elementary Brady Elementary Carver Elementary Chicot Elementary Fair Park Elementary Forrest Park Elementary Franklin Elementary Fulbright Elementary Geyer Springs Elementary Gibbs Elementary Mabelvale Elementary______ McDermott Elementary Mitchell Elementary________ Otter Creek Elementary Rightsell Elementary_______ Rockefeller Elementary Stephens Elementary_______ Wakefield Elementary______ Williams Elementary_______ Cloverdale Middle School Henderson Middle School Accelerated Learning Center Number of Teachers 27 55 28 43 44 19 25 35 38 23 30 25 26 22 31 25 35 39 29 36 59 60 14 Number of Students 319 605 318 496 536 187 361 387 554 299 310 257 406 156 511 262 453 499 451 461 682 630 178 Percent African- American Students 82 53 78 52 73 75 20 96 26 88 53 80 62 96 60 100 67 95 78 52 82 82 92 Percent Free/Reduced Lunch Students 88 63 80 53 86 73 14 94 17 81 44 88 88 92 56 88 66 91 92 34 66 70 15 Page 9 of 19CL Evaluation Questions and Design A mixed-methods design will be employed to address the research questions as follows: Primary Evaluation Question-. 1. What are the effects of participation in CL on the achievement of African-American (AA) students? A. Quasi-experimental design: Due to the insufficient sample size and unique nature of the high school {n = 1), the quasi-experimental analysis will be conducted with the elementary ( = 21 schools) and middle (n = 2) school samples only. A descriptive examination (see below) of test scores for the high school will also be conducted to determine trends and patterns at that site. Specifically, the quasi-experimental design will compare CL elementary and middle schools to other schools in the district, most likely by multiple-regression analyses in which the dependent variable is posttest (2004-05) scores (Arkansas Benchmarks in grades 3-8, and Iowa Test of Basic Skills in grades K-8) and covariates are pretest (pre-program) test scores, gender, ethnicity, and SES. Pretests: Iowa Test of Basic Skills (ITBS) (for grades K-8), Arkansas Benchmarks (for grades 4-8) Posttests: 2004-05 ITBS Reading and Math Subtests (for grades 1-8)\nArkansas Benchmarks (for grades 3-8). B. Descriptive design: For the one high school using CL, whole-grade pretest and posttest means on Arkansas Benchmarks, ITBS, Grade 11 Literacy Exam, and Algebra I and Geometry End-of-Course (EoC) exams will be compared to district norms. The purpose will be to assess absolute and relative performance as possible conelates of CL implementation. Supplemental (Qualitative/Step 2) Evaluation Questions: 1. What are the quality, nature, and level of implementation of CL at the 24 schools implementing the program in 2004-05? Phone interviews will be conducted with (a) the LRSD CL Coordinator and (b) a sample of 10 school Technology Specialists (the 1 high school, the 2 middle schools, and a random sample of 7/21 elementary schools). All teachers at the 24 schools will be surveyed so that site-specific data regarding implementation will be available. Observations of CL laboratory sessions will be conducted at a sample of 10 schools (the 1 high school, the 2 middle schools, and 7 of 21 elementary schools). At half of the observed schools (n = 5), a brief (20-minute) student focus group ( = 5 to 7 students) will be conducted to ascertain students perspectives on their experiences in using CL (nature of activities, usefulness, enjoyment, etc.). 2. What is the level of participation in CL by AA students relative to other ethnic groups at the schools involved? Page 10 of 19Student records/archival data for 2003-04 and 2004-05 will be analyzed. 3. What are the perceptions of teachers and Technology Specialists regarding CL program implementation, impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? This question will be addressed via the Technology Specialist Interview and closed-ended and open-ended items on the CL Teacher Survey. 4. What are the perceptions of parents/guardians of CL students regarding program impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? A CL Parent survey will be conducted to address this question via a questionnaire including closed- and open-ended items. Page 11 of 19Summary of CL Instruments and Participants by Evaluation Question ______Evaluation Question Primary Question I Participants Data Sources 1. What are the effects of participation in CL on the achievement of AA students?  Students at 23 CL elementary and middle schools and comparison schools  Whole grade-level means at the CL high school.  ITBS as pretest for Grades K-9  Arkansas Benchmarks as posttest for 3-8)  2004-05 ITBS Reading and Math subtests (grades 1-9 posttests)  2004-05 Grade 11 Literacy Exam (as posttest)  2004-05 Algebra I and Geometry EoC Exams (as posttest) Step 2 Questions 1. What are the quality, nature, and level of implementation of CL at the 21 schools implementing the program in 2004-05?  All CL school teachers  10 Technology Specialists (1 high school, 2 middle schools, and 7 randomly selected elementary schools)  District CL Program Coordinator  5 student focus groups (1 high school, 1 middle school, 3 elementary schools) 2. What is the level of participation in CL by AA students relative to other ethnic groups at the schools concerned?________________ 3. What are the perceptions of teachers and Technology Specialists regarding CL program implementation, impacts, strengths, and weaknesses?_______________ 4. What are the perceptions of parents/guardians of CL students regarding program impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? All CL schools  All CL school teachers  10 Technology Specialists Parents of CL students Page 12 of 19  CL Teacher Survey (faculty meeting)  Technology Specialist Phone Interview  District CL Program Coordinator Phone Interview  Two-hour CL Laboratory Observations (10 schools: 1 high school, 2 middle schools, 7 randomly selected elementary schools)  20-min. Student Focus Groups (n = 5-7 students), one each at 5 of the 10 observation schools  School records/archival data  CL Teacher Survey  Technology Specialist Interview  CL Parent SurveySmart/Thrive Programs Program Description The Smart/Thrive (S/T) program was designed as an intervention for 8*- and 9*-grade African- American students who are lacking the knowledge, skills, and/or confidence required for success in Algebra I. S/T currently (2004-2005) engages approximately 10 percent of the total African- American student population enrolled in Algebra I classes. During the 2003-2004 academic year, 264 students participated, studying pre-algebra for two weeks during the summer (Smart Program) and 10 Saturdays across the school year (Thrive Program). Various local grants have funded this program since 1999. Currently, S/T serves students from all eight LRSD middle schools: Middle Schools Cloverdale Dunbar Forest Heights Henderson Mablevale Mann Pulaski Heights Southwest Number of Teachers 59 58 59 60 57 64 57 55 Number of Students 682 747 688 630 634 873 708 493 Percent African- American Students 82 61 77 82 81 52 57 94 Percent Free/Reduced Lunch Students 86 57 62 70 75 37 47 87 S/T Evaluation Questions and Design A mixed-methods design will be employed to address the research questions as follows: Primary Evaluation Question: 1. Have the S/T programs been effective in improving and remediating the academic achievement of African-American (AA) students?  A treatment (2 levels)-control student, pretest-posttest design will control for pretest, gender, ethnicity, and SES. Three types of Algebra 1 students will be compared depending on their program enrollment: i. No program ii. Smart program only iii. Both Smart and Thrive programs  Pretests: 2002-2003 and 2003-2004 6* and 8* grade Benchmark tests. Page 13 of 19 Posttests: 2004-05 (ITBS) Math Subtests\nAlgebra I EoC Supplemental (Qualitative/Step 2) Evaluation Questions: 1. What is the level of participation in Smart and Thrive by AA students? Student records/archival data of 2003-04 and 2004-05 will be analyzed. In addition to descriptive information, levels of participation will be gathered as a potential variable for the student achievement analyses. 2. What instructional strategies are used during the tutoring sessions? Approximately five random observation visits will be conducted during the Saturday Thrive Program sessions in 2005. 3. What are the perceptions of S/T Tutors regarding program impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? A questionnaire will be administered to S/T Tutors. 4. What are the perceptions of Algebra I teachers regarding program impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? A questionnaire will be administered to Algebra 1 teachers. 5. What are the perceptions of participating students regarding program impacts, strengths, and weaknesses of S/T? A questionnaire will be administered to student participants. A sample of them will also be selected to participate in approximately 3-5 student focus groups, each comprised of approximately 5 students. 6. What are the perceptions of parents/guardians of S/T students regarding program impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? An S/T parent survey will be conducted to address this question via a questionnaire including closed- and open-ended items. Page 14 of 19 oSummary of S/T Data Sources and Participants by Evaluation Question Evaluation Question Primary Question Participants I Data Sources 1. What are the effects of participation in the Smart and/or Thrive Programs on AA student achievement? Supplemental Questions 1. What is the level of participation in Smart and Thrive by AA students? 2. What instructional strategies are used during the tutoring sessions? 3. What are the perceptions of S/T Tutors regarding program impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? 4. What are the perceptions of Algebra I teachers regarding program impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? 5. What are the perceptions of participating students regarding program impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? 6. What are the perceptions of parents/guardians of S/T students regarding program impacts, strengths, and weaknesses?  All 8'' and 9\" grade Algebra I students 2003-2004 benchmark 2004-05 ITBS Math subtests\nAlgebra I EoC  All program participants S/T teachers and students All S/T Tutors  All Algebra 1 teachers  Program participants Parents of S/T students Page 15 of 19 School records/archival data  Qbservations of tutoring sessions  S/T Tutor Questionnaire  Algebra 1 Teacher Questionnaire  S/T Student Questionnaire  Focus Groups  S/T Parent QuestionnaireYear-Round Education Programs Program Description Year-Round Education (YRE) rearranges instruction and vacations so that they occur throughout the year, for more continuous learning and frequent breaks. YRE has emerged nationally as a way to educate all students better, regardless of ethnic backgrounds, social strata, or academic performance. LRSDs design is a single-track, 45-10 calendar where all students and teachers in the school are in class or on vacation at the same time. (The 45-10 means 45 days in a quarter, then 10 days of intersession/vacation. Intersession is a five-day program and attendance is voluntary.) Currently, five elementary schools are implementing YRE: Elementary Schools Cloverdale Mablevale Mitchell Stephens Woodruff Number of Teachers 26 25 22 39 21 Number of Students 360 257 156 499 235 Percent of Students African- American 77 80 96 95 91 Percent Eligible for Free/Reduced Lunches 89 88 92 90 86 YRE Evaluation Questions and Design Primary Evaluation Question: 1. Has the Year-Round Education (YRE) Program effectively improved and remediated the academic achievement of African-American (AA) students? Whole-school sample: In a treatment vs. control school, pretest vs. posttest design, the analysis will control for pretest scores, gender, ethnicity, and family income (eligibility for free or reduced lunch program). Subsample: Within each YRE school, evaluators will compare achievement gains of students who participate in intersession to predicted gains (based on category of school, pretest scores, gender, ethnicity, and family income). Supplemental (Qualitative/Step 2) Evaluation Questions: 1. What are the quality and level of implementation of intersession instructional strategies? 2. What are the quality and level of implementation of instructional strategies during regular session? Page 16 of 19 o'Evaluators will interview YRE teachers by phone and observe YRE classrooms (during both the regular session and intersession). 3. What is the level of participation in YRE Programs by AA students relative to other ethnic groups at the school? Student records/archival data for 2003-04 and 2004-05 will be analyzed. 4. What are the perceptions of YRE teachers regarding program impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? The YRE teacher interview and the YRE teacher survey will address this question via both closed- and open-ended items. 5. What are the perceptions of participating students regarding program impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? Evaluators will administer a survey to YRE program participants. 6. What are the perceptions of parents/guardians of YRE students regarding program impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? A Parent survey will address this question via a questionnaire including both closed- and open-ended items. Page 17 of 19 'o'Summary of YRE Data Sources and Participants by Evaluation Question Evaluation Question Primary Question: I Participants Data Sources 1. What are the effects of YRE participation on achievement of AA students? Supplemental (Step 2) Questions: 1. What are the quality and level of implementation of intersession instructional strategies? 2. What are the quality and level of implementation of instructional strategies during regular session? 3. What is the level of participation in YRE Programs by AA students relative to other ethnic groups? 4. What are the perceptions of Year Round Education teachers regarding program impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? 5. What are the perceptions of participating students regarding program impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? 6. What are the perceptions of parents/guardians of YRE students regarding program impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? All grades at YRE schools and other elementary schools. Year Round Education intersession student participants within above samples. All YRE teachers Selected teachers and students All YRE schools All YRE teachers YRE students grades 4 and 5 Parents of YRE students Page 18 of 19 Benchmark and ITBS Teacher phone interview Classroom observations School records/archival data YRE teacher interview and survey YRE student survey YRE parent surveyRR January Planning, refining, and consulting with PRE and RR experts\nand developing instruments with PRE review. CL Planning, refining, and consulting with PRE and CL experts\nand developing instruments with PRE review. S/T YRE Evaluation Schedule 2004-2005 February Begin observations and March-April Survey RR School Teachers, complete RR interview RR. teachers, teacher interviews. Begin observations, phone interview of program coordinator\nselect tech, specialist \u0026amp; school samples\nphone interview of tech, specialist. Planning, refining, Observe Thrive and consulting with PRE and S/T experts\nand developing instruments with PRE review. sessions. Planning, refining. Develop instruments and consulting with PRE and YRE specialists. with PRE review. May-June Profile RR achievement\nanalyze records/archival data analyses. Survey CL Teachers (at Analyze faculty meetings), complete technology specialist interviews and observations\ncomplete student focus groups. Administer teacher, tutor, and student questionnaires\nbegin focus groups. Administer teacher, tutor, and student questionnaires\nbegin focus groups. Page 19 of 19 July-September October Analyze achievement data, survey, \u0026amp; interviews. Draft reports for review. PRE review draft reports. November PRE submit reports to LRSD for approval. records/archival data analyses. Complete focus groups and observations\nanalyze records/archival data. Complete focus groups and observations\nanalyze records/archival data. Analyze achievement data, survey, \u0026amp; interviews. Draft reports for review. Analyze achievement data, survey, \u0026amp; interviews. Draft reports for review. Analyze achievement data, survey, \u0026amp; interviews. Draft reports for review. PRE review draft reports. PRE review draft reports. PRE review draft reports. PRE submit reports to LRSD for approval. PRE submit reports to LRSD for approval. PRE submit reports to LRSD for approval.Little Rock School District (LRSD) QUARTERLY UPDATE to the Office of Desegregation Monitoring (ODM) and Joshua June 1, 2005 received may 2 7 2005 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, PLAINTIFF V. PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. I ETAL., DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ETAL., INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ETAL., INTERVENORS /I Planning, Research, and Evaluation (PRE) Instructional Resource Center (IRC) Little Rock School District 3001 South Pulaski Little Rock, AR 72206 V Jil A. il fi An Individual Approach to a World opKnoivledge May 27, 2005 John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206-1220 Dear Mr. Walker: We received your letter of May 24 as a facsimile on the same day acknowledging your ( receipt of lists of programs from us. Primarily from them, we selected the four programs which Drs. Catterall and Ross are evaluating this year. Your recommendation, in your May 24 letter, to evaluate the 21 Century Community Learning CentersJ iiiniutveirie-osLtso uuos.. rAtXfLtecri udiissLcuussssiinngg IiTt wwiitmh uDrr.. RKoossss aanndd ootthheerrss., we propose to evaluate it rather than PLATO Learning during the coming school year. Because our quarterly update for June 1 has already been printed (which we are delivering to you with this letter), the next update can report this change for next years evaluations. We understand that 21 Century Community Learning Centers will end within I I iw J v/viiiiuujuiy i-zcdriung Centers will end within a year or so at several of the sites you named. Limiting our evaluation to a few sites where the program s support is secure for at least a couple more years makes sense to us. We will keep you informed of our progress and invite your further ideas. Please do not hesitate to contact us with any further comments or questions. Sincerely yours, 1 ? I  ) KKaarreenn DeJame^, Ph.D. Director, PRE Ph.D. L.  I ill ,1 xc: Mr. Gene Jones \u0026amp; Ms. Marjorie Powell, ODM Mr. Chris Heller, Friday Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark k 810 W Markham OU Little Rod: l-22e-2(iir Ancansar 7\ni Little Rock School District (LRSD) QUARTERLY UPDATE to the Office of Desegregation Monitoring (ODM) and Joshua June 1, 2005 n^Fil'^OCKSCHOOLDIS^^ PLAINTIFF V. PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NOT ET AL., DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ETAL., INTERVENORS K athf.rine knight, ET al., INTERVENORS_ Planning, Research, and Evaluation (PRE) Instructional Resource Center (IRC) Little Rock School District 3001 South Pulaski Little Rock, AR 72206Introduction the third quarterly written update by the Little Rock School District (LRSD) and its ~ ' ______ 1 -,.1 ________________fko nictnnt This is t - -1----- . . . Planning, Research, and Evaluation (PRE) Department, submitted m accordance with the District Courts'2004 Compliance Remedy (Memorandum Opinion of June 30, 2004, pp. 61-67). The organization of this report is that of the Compliance Remedy\nA. LRSD must promptly hire a highly trained team of professionals to reinvigorate PRE. B. The first task PRE must perform is to devise a comprehensive^pro^mn assessment process which must be deeply embedded as a permanent part of LRSDs curriculum c. D. and instruction program. During each of the next two academic school years (2004-05 and 2005-06), LRSD must outside consultants to prepare four (4) formal step 2 evaluations. hire one or more outside consultants to prepare lour loniwi 4 PRE must (1) oversee the preparation of all eight of these step 2 evaluations, (2) wor closely with Dr. Ross and any other outside consultants . . . and (3) provide the outside consultants with any and all requested assistance and support. . . VUlloUlUvllltO Willi 4*1*^ UllU ----------------------- XX E. Evaluations will contain numbers and grade levels of teachers and administrators who recommended program changes necessary for improved academic contributed data, recommended program changes necessary lor uiipiuvcu atauviuv achievement by African-American students, and brief explanations of how each change F. will increase a programs effectiveness. .  PRE must notify the ODM and Joshua in writing of the names of those eight programs In addition, after PRE and Dr. Ross have formulated a comprehensive program assessment process and reduced it to a final draft, PRE must provide a copy to the ODM and Joshua at least thirty days before it is presented to the Board for approval ... by December 31, 2004. G PRE must submit quarterly written updates on the status of the . . . four step 2 program evaluations . . . during the 2004-05 school year and the four step 2 program evaluations that will be prepared during the 2005-06 school year ... to ODM and Joshua on December 1, March 1, June 1, and September 1... H. [ODMs responsibilities.] 1. [Joshuas responsibilities.] J. Four step 2 program evaluations due to October 1, 2006. the Court October 1, 2005 and four more due K. Compliance Report due October 15, 2006. L. [This Compliance Remedy supersedes earlier one.] Page 2Status as of June 1, 2005 A. Hire a highly trained team of professionals. LRSD hired a highly trained team of professionals in 2004 and reported this action in its first quarterly written update, December 1, 2004. This team has continued its duties as described below, in this third quarterly written update. B. Devise and embed a comprehensive program assessment process. At its December 16, 2004 session, LRSD Board of Directors approved the comprehensive program assessment process devised by PRE. The final draft was in Appendix B of the first quarterly written update. Through program evaluation teams, stakeholders (any people who are variously responsible for and/or vitally interested) participate in the LRSDs comprehensive program assessment process. These four teams (one for each step 2 evaluation) formed when the PRE Department and outside consultants commenced designing the step-2 evaluations. The teams met on February 24, March 4 and 18, and May 6 and 20 for dialog on evaluation designs, issues, and progress. A Joshua representative attended May 6, while ODM officials attended February 24, May 6, and May 20. A table of members of the four teams and their affiliations appear in Appendix B of this third quarterly written update. General composition of those attending is in the following table: Meetings of Program Evaluation Teams FebruaryMay 2005 Dates February 24 March 4 March 18 May 6 May 20 Places Stephens Elem. IRC Fulbright Elem. IRC Stephens Elem. Teachers 4 1 3 4 1 Admin 6 3 3 8 4 Parents 1 1 1 2 0 Others 2 2 0 4 1 C. Hire outside consultant(s) to prepare eight formal step 2 evaluations. Credentials of outside evaluators Drs. Catterall and Ross were in this section and Appendix C of the first quarterly written update. They agreed to undertake step 2 evaluations of four LRSD programs during 2004-2005, and D below describes their progress. For step 2 evaluations in 2005-2006, Dr. Ross has identified four 2.7 programs, named below. (Please see Appendix C for his letter stating this.) Page 3Arkansas A+ Schools Network, at Woodruff Elementary School, incorporates the arts in teaching language and mathematics. KnowledgePoints is a Supplemental Educational Service (SES) selected at Bale, Brady, Chicot, Wakefield, and Watson Elementary Schools and offered as an after-school program. PLATO Learning is a computer-based program at the Accelerated Learning Center. Pre-kindergarten (PreK) literacy development will be evaluated in the 31 schools with classes for 4-year-old children. These young students participate in developmentally appropriate and fun lessons and activities intended to nurture essential language skills. Dr. Catterall will evaluate A+, while Dr. Ross will evaluate KnowledgePoints, PLATO Learning, and PreK literacy. Their supporting letters are in Appendix C. Data for schools where these programs operated this year (2004-2005) are in the tables below. Additional schools may participate next year, particularly schools chosen per the school choice option of No Child Left Behind regulations. Schools in these tables which are on the Arkansas School Improvement List are so noted by an asterisk (*). I I Proposed Programs Evaluations 2005-2006 2004-2005 School Data. Schools Number of Teachers Number of Students Perctitr \"i SiuJmis -IfricuH- 'inieiican PerreHt of Srudeiirs Lti)\niblefrr b'rtV.Neduced l.tinch Woodruff* I 21 A+ I 235 I Ml I Hh KnowledgePoil ints Bale* Brady* Chicot* Wakefield* * Watson^ 27 28 44 29 34 319 318 536 451 456 82 78 73 78 96 86 81) 86 92 93 ACC PLATO I 17 I 136~~T X I iS These schools are on the School Improvement list. Page 4II LRSD Schools Offering PreK Classes for Four-Year-Old Students School Bale* Baseline* Brady* Carver Chicot* Cloverdale* Dodd Fair Park* Forest Park Franklin* Fulbright Geyer Springs Jefferson M. L. King ,* Mabelvale McDermott Meadowcliff Otter Creek Pulaski Heights Rightsell Rockefeller* Romine Stephens Terry * Wakefield* Washington* Watson* Western Hills Wilson* Woodruff* No. of Teachers 1 1 1 1 4 1 1 1 1 3 1 2 1 4 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 4 1 2 4 1 1 1 1 No. of Aides 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 0 0 0 Max. Students 40 40 40 20 80 40 40 40 40 60 40 40 40 60 40 40 40 40 20 40 40 40 80 40 40 80 40 20 20 40 Enroll- No. of . \u0026lt;111 ment 38 39 37 20 59 40 36 37 40 55 40 36 40 80 38 40 40 39 20 38 39 39 78 35 39 75 36 37 18 36 AAf 32 32 27 NAt 46 32 11 I'i, 1 52 8 35 5 46 31 27 35 22 6 38 24 31 72 18 29 67 34 20 16 32 84.2 82.1 7.3.0 N 7 78.0 80.0 61.1 5.0 94.5 20.0 97.2 12.5 8! ' hl.3 5\u0026lt;\u0026gt;.4 .30.0 IPi.U 61.5 -u 5 9 2..3 51, 74.4 X9..\n94.' 54.1 88.9 88.9 No. of Hispanic 2 1 0 NA 11 6 3 0 0 0 1 1 0 3 3 1 1 2 0 0 1 5 0 1 11 1 1 0 0 0 ('er evDl lliSDHII.. '.3 0.(1 \\ \\ 18.6 15. 8.3 fi.\" 0.(1 0.0 \u0026gt; c 5.0 II. C 5.0 5.0\n3.1 (1.0 0.0 5.1 .4.8 (1.0 2.9 28.2 2.7 2.8 0.0 0.(1 No. of Per will White 3 5 10 NA 1 2 12 7 36 4 30 1 3^ 13 1 9 3 16 12 0 13 0 6 16 0 9 1 0 1 4 Whii.- 12.8 \u0026gt; .P .4 5.0 33.3 tS,9 90.(1 ' .3 85.0 31..5 5..3 22.5 7.5 41.0 00,0 0.0 3.\u0026lt;.3 :.o 0.0 12.0 2.8 0.0 Pl I \u0026lt; 1 t AA is African American. NA is not available\". * These schools are on the School Improvement List of Arkansas Public Schools.  In the 2005-2006 school year, Fair Park Elementary converts to a preK center with eight or more classes\nwhile the other elementary schools keep their current preK capacity. Page 5D. PRE (1) oversees the preparation of the step 2 evaluations, (2) works closely with Drs. Ross and Catterall, and (3) assists them. PRE continued working closely with Dr. Steven Ross and his team at the Center for Research in Educational Policy (CREP), University of Memphis, and with Dr. James Catterall of UCLA. Dr. Ross team is conducting three step 2 evaluations of LRSD programs, reported March 1, 2004 Compass Learning (CL), Reading Recovery (RR), and Smart/Thrive (S/T)\nwhile Dr. Catterall completed data collection instruments and instructions for his step 2 evaluation of Year-Round Education (YRE). In this section of this third quarterly written update, PRE reports progress for all four step 2 evaluations. Appendix D exhibits data collection instruments and instructions. Progress on the three evaluations conducted by Dr Ross: CompassLeaming (CL) CL evaluation activities for this quarter included the following\n CL Teacher Technology Questionnaire went to all 20 CL Elementary schools on March 9. As of April 27, 17 schools returned them.  All seven CL school observations were completed by Drs. Gail Weems and Dan Strahl.  All four Student Focus Group Interviews have been completed by Dr. Gail Weems after permission letters were distributed to parents and five to seven fifth-grade students were randomly chosen from the returned permissions.  Parent surveys have been returned from all five (randomly selected) schools. Parent participation appears to have been very good.  Drs. Deborah Lowther, Gail Weems, and Dan Strahl completed interviews of all lab attendants, technology specialists, district CL Coordinator, and designated principals.  Data analysis began after data collection ended in May. Reading Recovery (RR) Dr. Anna Grehan led RR data collection: o o o o o 16 RR teachers were observed by Drs. Melissa Schulz of Ohio State University and Cliff Johnson of Georgia State University in March and April, respectively, in 10 schools. 22 RR teachers returned the Teacher Questionnaire (RRTQ) in 14 schools. 141 non-RR teachers returned the Classroom Teachers Questionnaire (RRCTQ) 86 Parent Survey (RRPS) in English language came from 15 elementary schools, and 9 Parent Survey (RRPS) in Spanish language from 4 elementary schools were collected. Page 6SMART/THRIVE (S/T) The S/T evaluators, coordinated by Dr. Lyle Davis, completed collection of qualitative and survey data in April:  They observed six tutoring sessions (2 per day on February 19, March 5, and March 19).  They distributed 190 student surveys on March 5 and received 144 completed ones.  Two student focus groups met on March 5, and another met on March 19. Their results have been summarized but not yet analyzed.  Of 24 S/T teacher surveys, distributed on March 5, 18 were completed and returned.  45 algebra I teacher surveys were distributed March 5 to both S/T and non-S/T algebra I teachers during the school week. Approximately 45 have been returned in roughly equal numbers from non-S/T and S/T teachers.  190 parent surveys went to their homes on March 5, and more were collected during the carnival on April 23. In total, 37 were completed.  Dr. Davis group conducted a mentor focus group on April 25 and collected data from it. Progress on the evaluation conducted by Dr. Catterall: Year-Round Education (YRE) YRE evaluation included the following:  Review of all existing LRSD reports on YRE.  Detailed review of the longitudinal YRE student test-score database, provided by LRSD, and construction of trial models for analysis of longitudinal scores accommodating 2005 scores.  Alternative data cells and alternative data formats have been specified for 2005 student longitudinal achievement assessment.  Review of 2003 and 2004 student survey data and presentations from participating YRE schools.  Planning for 2005 student surveys.  Development of the 2005 parent interview protocol and discussion and exploration of work agreements with professional personnel who may conduct parent interviews. PRE sent Dr. Catterall a list of all 4***- and 5'^-grade teachers at YRE schools and a list of parents and students in both YRE and traditional year schools. E. Evaluation will have (1) numbers and grade levels of teachers and administrators who submit data for evaluations, (2) recommended program changes necessary for improved achievement by African-American students, and (3) succinct explanations of how each change will increase its respective programs effectiveness. j The evaluations will address these requirements when prepared for PREs review later this year. Page 7F. Delivery of names of programs to be evaluated and the comprehensive program assessment process to ODM and Joshua. Names of the four programs evaluated during 2004-2005 and the LRSD comprehensive program assessment process were delivered before they were due last year and reported in the first written quarterly update. This third written quarterly update names the four LRSD programs selected for step 2 evaluations during 2005-2006. (Please see C above.) PRE has now notified both ODM and Joshua of all eight LRSD programs selected for step 2 evaluations and furnished both parties with the comprehensive program assessment process per F of the June 30, 2004 remedy by the US District Court (page 65). G. PRE must submit quarterly written updates on the status of step 2 evaluations. Per F of the June 30, 2004 remedy by the US District Court (page 65), PRE submitted its first written quarterly update on December 1, 2004 and its second on March 1, 2005. PRE submits this third written quarterly update before June 1, 2005, to date meeting due dates of this remedy. S' (J i r Page 8Quarterly Update Appendix June 1,2005 Appendices B. Program Evaluation Teams C. Letters of Outside Evaluators D. Data Collection Instruments for Step 2 Evaluations of 20042005 Evaluation Schedule 2004-2005Quarterly Update Appendix June 1,2005 B. Program Evaluation Teams Members Names and Affiliations CompassLeaming (CL) Reading Recovery (RR) SMART/THRIVE (S/T) Year-Round Education (YRE)Quarterly Update Appendix June 1, 2005 Program Evaluation Teams Team Role Team Leader Program Specialist Statistician Programmer______ Technical writer External consultant External consultant External consultant External reviewer PRE reviewer PRE reviewer PRE reviewer Parent \u0026amp; teacher Teacher Principal Program Evaluation Name Karen DeJamette, PhD Travis Taylor________ Jim Wohlleb Ken Savage__________ Deborah Lowther, PhD Dan Strahl, PhD Aaron McDonald Steve Ross, PhD James Catterall, PhD Yvette Dillingham Maurecia M Robinson Ed Williams, PhD Amy Thompson______ Thelma Watson Deborah Mitchell Team: CompassLeaming Position or Title Director of PRE Dept.____________ Instructional Technology Specialist Statistical Research Specialist Programmer Analyst Researcher Researcher Research Coordinator Evaluator \u0026amp; Professor Evaluator \u0026amp; Professor Evaluation Specialist Statistical Research Specialist Statistical Research Specialist Elementary teacher IV Elementary teacher IV___________ Principal Location PRE Info Technology PRE Info services CREP CREP CREP CREP UCLA PRE PRE PRE Fulbright Elem Fulbright Elem Fulbright Elem team Role Team leader Program specialist Program specialist Statistician Programmer______ Technical writer External consultant External consultant External consultant External reviewer PRE reviewer PRE reviewer Parent Teacher Program Evaluation Team: Reading Recovery Name Jim Wohlleb Pat Busbea Linda Dom, PhD Ed Williams, PhD Ken Savage__________ Deborah Lowther, PhD Anna Grehan, PhD Aaron McDonald Steve Ross, PhD James Catterall, PhD Yvette Dillingham Maurecia M Robinson Michelle Bonds-Hall Michelle Dorsey Position or Title Statistical Research Specialist Reading Coordinator Professor Statistical Research Specialist Programmer Analyst________ Researcher Researcher Research Coordinator Evaluator \u0026amp; Professor Evaluator \u0026amp; Professor Evaluation Specialist Statistical Research Specialist Reading Recovery teacher Location PRE Early Child. Ed. UALR PRE Info services CREP CREP CREP CREP UCLA PRE PRE Chicot ElemQuarterly Update Appendix June 1,2005 Program Evaluation Teams (continued) _____Team Role Team leader______ Program specialist Program specialist Statistician_______ Programmer______ Technical writer External consultant External consultant External consultant External consultant External reviewer PRE reviewer PRE reviewer Parent___________ Teacher ____ Program Evaluation Team\nSMART / THRIVE Name Maurecia M Robinson Vanessa Cleaver______ Marcelline Carr_______ Ed Williams, PhD Ken Savage__________ Deborah Lowther, PhD  Lyle Davis, PhD______ Aaron McDonald_____ Steve Ross, PhD Gail Weems, PhD James Catterall, PhD Yvette Dillingham Jim Wohlleb Rose Cook___________ Tonjuna Iverson Program _____Team Role______ Team leader_________ Program specialist Program specialist Statistician Programmer_________ Technical writer External consultant External consultant External consultant External consultant External reviewer PRE reviewer_______ PRE reviewer_______ Parent_____________ Teacher ______ Position or Title Statistical Research Specialist Math - API Math - API Statistical Research Specialist Programmer Analyst Researcher Researcher Research Coordinator Evaluator \u0026amp; Professor Professor Evaluator \u0026amp; Professor Evaluation Specialist Statistical Research Specialist Reading Recovery teacher Location PRE IRC Math. IRC Math PRE Info services CREP CREP CREP CREP UALR UCLA PRE PRE Parkview Evaluation Team: Year-Round Education Name Ed Williams, PhD Janice Wilson Sophia Parchman Ed Williams, PhD Ken Savage_________ Catterall \u0026amp; Associates Lyle Davis, PhD Aaron McDonald Steve Ross, PhD Gail Weems, PhD James Catterall, PhD Yvette Dillingham Jim Wohlleb________ Diana Layne-Jordan Judy Harbour_______ Position or Title Statistical Research Specialist Principal Assistant Principal__________ Statistical Research Specialist Programmer Analyst Evaluatorr Researcher Research Coordinator Evaluator \u0026amp; Professor Professor Evaluator \u0026amp; Professor Evaluation Specialist Statistical Research Specialist PTA President Grade 5 Location PRE Woodruff Mann Magnet PRE Info services UCLA CREP CREP CREP UALR UCLA PRE PRE Stephens StephensQuarterly Update Appendix June 1, 2005 C. Letters Dr. Steven M. Ross Approval of four 2005-2006 step 2 evaluations Commitment to perform three of them Dr. James Catterall Commitment to perform step 2 evaluation of Ad-THE UNIVERSITY OF Center for Research in Educational Policy MEMPHIS A Tennessee Center of Excellence 325 Browning Hall Memphis, Tennessee 38152-3340 Office: 901.678.2310 Toll-Free\n866.670.6147 Fax\n901.678.4257 www.memphls.edu/crep May 17, 2005 Dr. Karen DeJamette Director, PRE Little Rock School District 3001 S. Pulaski Little Rock, AR 77206 Dear Dr. DeJamette: I have reviewed the four programs selected for Step 2 evaluations in the 2005- 2006 school year: (a) Knowledge Points, (b) PLATO Learning, (c) Pre-K Literacy Program, and (d) A+. These programs presently or potentially serve large numbers of African American students, but have not yet been evaluated with regard to implementation or student achievement. I believe that these are appropriate choices for the Step 2 evaluations. 1 look forward to working with you and PRE personally on the first three studies (a-c). Please feel free to contact me if any additional information is needed. Sincerely, Steven M. Ross, Ph.D. Faudree Professor and Director Center for Research in Educational Policy A Tennessee Board of Regents Institution An Equal Opportunity  Affirmative Action UntversKyUNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, LOS ANGELES BERKELEY  DAVIS  IRVINE  LOSANCEl.ES  RIVERSIDE  SANDIECO * SAN FRANCISCO SANTA BARBARA  SANTA CRUZ UCLA Graduate School of Education \u0026amp; Information Studies P.O. Box 951521 Los Angeles, CA 90095-1521 May 10, 2005 Karen DeJamette, Ph.D. Director, Planning, Research, and Evaluation Department Little Rock School District 3001 South Pulaski Little Rock, AR 72206-2873 Dear Dr. DeJarnette: The A+ Program, along with certain other arts-academics programs, has shown effects on motivation and learning of elementary students who read below grade level and are otherwise at-risk of school failure. The A+ program now operating in the Little Rock School District may be making contributions to the Districts interest in improving achievement of its African-American students. 1 have extensive experience with evaluating curricula that serves to integrate the arts and academic learning. 1 have some familiarity with the A+ program particularly - its history and previous efforts to assess effects of its large scale projects, 1 will be pleased to join you in designing and implementing an formal evaluation of this program during the 2005-2006 school year. Sincerely, dProff les S Catterall, Ph.D. 'rofessor, Graduate School of Education \u0026amp; Information Studies (310)825-5572/455-078.5 Fax:(310)455-0795 E-mail: jamesc@gseis.ucla.edu I-J Quarterly Update Appendix June 1, 2005 D. Data Collection Instruments for Step 2 Evaluations of 20042005 CompassLeaming (CL) District Coordinator Interview Protocol Middle and High School Principal Interview Protocol Technology Specialist Interview Protocol Lab Attendant Interview Protocol Parent/Guardian Consent Form Encuesta para los padres de fam ilia Parent Survey Survey of Computer Use Student Focus Group Protocol Teacher QuestionnaireLittle Rock School District (LRSD) CompassLearning-. District Coordinator Interview Protocol District Coordinator Responsibilities  What are your primary responsibilities with regard to CompassLearning?  How were you chosen as the district coordinator for the CompassLearning program? Level of Implementation  How long has CompassLearning been implemented in LRSD?  Why is the use of CompassLearning determined by each school rather than by the district?  What guidance was given to schools as to which students should use CompassLearning, when they should use it, and how they should use it? In what document(s) would these guidelines be found?  To what degree are teachers actively involved with using CompassLearning resources (e.g., student performance reports) to improve teaching and learning activities? How do you obtain this type of information?  To what degree do school administrators use CompassLearning reports as the basis for school improvement efforts? How do you obtain this type of information? How do you obtain this type of information?  To what degree do district administrators use CompassLearning reports as the basis for school improvement efforts? How do you obtain this type of information? Evaluation of the Software  How would you evaluate the CompassLearning software and the support provided by the vendor?  What are the strengths of the CompassLearning product?  What are the weaknesses of the product? Nature and Quality of Implementation  How would you evaluate the way in which CompassLearning has been implemented in the district?  What are the best aspects of how the district and its schools have implemented the CompassLearning program? In what ways could the implementation process be improved?  How and to what extent is CompassLearning integrated into the curriculum?  What are the Districts goals with regard to the CompassLearning program? When and how are those goals evaluated?  How does CompassLearning fit in with other LRSD initiatives being implemented?  How is equitable student access to CompassLearning ensured?  How is appropriate implementation of CompassLearning activities ensured? Support  What types of CompassLearning training and support have been requested from and/or provided by the district? Overall  Overall, what are the strongest aspects of the CompassLearning Program in the LRSD?  Overall, what are the weakest aspects of the CompassLearning Program in the LRSD?  To what degree do you think use of CompassLearning has increased (or decreased) student learning?  Do you think your district should continue using CompassLearning? Why?Little Rock School District CompassLeaming: Middle and High School Principal Interview Protocol Past Use of CompassLeaming  How many years did your school use the CompassLeaming program?  What was your overall impression of the program?  How was the program implemented?  Where did students most frequently use the program?  Which students used the program?  How frequently did they use it?  How were teachers involved?  Why did your school quit using CompassLeaming? Current Program  Is your school currently using an integrated learning system? If no, why not? If yes, o o o o Which one? What are your overall impressions of the new program? In what ways is the new program better than Compass? In what ways is the new program worse?Little Rock School District CompassLeaming: Technology Specialist Interview Protocol Technology Specialist Responsibilities  What are your primary responsibilities with regard to CompassLeaming?  How were you chosen for your position?  Who, besides you, provides technical support for the schools? How do their responsibilities differ from yours? Evaluation of the Software  How would you evaluate the CompassLeaming software and the support provided by the vendor?  What are the strengths of the CompassLeaming product?  What are the weaknesses of the product? Implementation  How long has CompassLeaming been used at your school?  How would you evaluate the way in which CompassLeaming has been implemented in your school?  What are the best aspects of how your school has implemented the CompassLeaming program? In what ways could the implementation process be improved?  How and to what extent is CompassLeaming integrated into the curriculum?  At your school, which students use the CompassLeaming system? When do they use it? How do they use it?  What aspects of the CompassLeaming program do teachers most frequently use? Customizing tests, generating reports?  To what degree are teachers actively involved with using CompassLeaming resources (e.g., student performance reports) to improve teaching and learning activities?  To what degree do school administrators use CompassLeaming reports as the basis for school improvement efforts?  How is equitable student access to CompassLeaming ensured?  How is appropriate implementation of CompassLeaming activities ensured? Technical Aspects and Support  Where is CompassLeaming used in your school? Classrooms? Computer labs? Library or media center?  How would you rate the capacity of your schools computers and networking to fully implement the CompassLeaming program? Specifically with regard to the server, student computers, and teacher computers.  What process is used to solve technical problems related to CompassLeaming? About how long does it typically take for the problems to be resolved?  What types of CompassLeaming training and support has been requested and/or provided to your school by the District? By the vendor? By others? Overall  Overall, what are the strongest aspects of the CompassLeaming Program?  Overall, what are the weakest aspects of the CompassLeaming Program?  To what degree do you think that CompassLeaming has increased or decreased student learning?  Do you think your school should continue using CompassLeaming? Why?Little Rock School District CompassLearning: Lab Attendant Interview Protocol Lab Attendant Responsibilities  What are your primary responsibilities with regard to CompassLearning?  How were you chosen for your position?  Who, besides you. provides technical support for the schools? Evaluation of the Softvyare  How would you evaluate the CompassLearning software and the support provided by the vendor?  What are the strengths of the CompassLearning product?  What are the weaknesses of the product? Implementation  How long has CompassLearning been used at your school?  How would you evaluate the way in which CompassLearning has been implemented in your school?  What are the best aspects of how your school has implemented the CompassLearning program? In what ways could the implementation process be improved?  How and to what extent is CompassLearning integrated into the curriculum?  At your school, which students use the CompassLearning system? When do they use it? How do they use it?  What aspects of the CompassLearning program do teachers most frequently use? Customizing tests, generating reports?  To what degree are teachers actively involved with using CompassLearning resources (e.g., student performance reports) to improve teaching and learning activities?  To what degree do your school administrators use CompassLearning reports as the basis for school improvement efforts?  How is equitable student access to CompassLearning ensured?  How is appropriate implementation of CompassLearning activities ensured? Technical Aspects and Support  Where is CompassLearning used in your school? Classrooms? Computer labs? Library or media center?  How would you rate the capacity of your schools computers and networking to fully implement the CompassLearning program? Specifically with regard to the server, student computers, and teacher computers.  What process is used to solve technical problems related to CompassLearning? About how long does it typically take for the problems to be resolved?  What types of CompassLearning training and support has been requested and/or provided to your school by the District? By the vendor? By others? Overall  Overall, what are the strongest aspects of the CompassLearning Program?  Overall, what are the weakest aspects of the CompassLearning Program?  To what degree do you think that CompassLearning has increased student learning?  Do you think your school should continue using CompassLearning? Why?Parent/Guardian Consent Form Dear parent or guardian, As part of a study conducted by the Center for Research in Educational Policy, The University of Memphis, and endorsed by the Little Rock School District, we are requesting permission for your child to participate in a group interview of 5 to 7 students from your childs school. During the group interview (focus group), a trained researcher will ask your child questions regarding his/her participation in the CompassLeaming (computer lab) program. The questions are designed to help us find out how well the CompassLeaming program is helping to improve student learning. The focus group should take approximately 20 minutes and will only pertain to the computer lab or CompassLeaming program that your child participates in. The focus group will be conducted during a computer lab session. Individual responses to the questions will not be seen by anyone at the school, and the identity of individuals participating in the focus group will remain confidential. The responses to the focus group will be reported together in summary form to school personnel. Please note that your child is not required to participate in the focus group. Your permission is required to participate. If you give permission, please have your child return the completed form to his/her school. If you have questions you may contact Dan Strahl, Project Manager, The Center for Research in Educational Policy, The University of Memphis, toll free at 866-670-6147. I give my permission for my child, group as described above. (Childs Name) , to participate in a focus Signed Date (Parent or Guardian)Distrito escolar de Little Rock: Encuesta para los padres de familia sobre CompassLearning Estimado Padre de familia /Tutor: Quisieramos conocer que op ma acerca de que sufs) hijo(s) utilice(n) e! programa CompassLearning (e! programa que sufs) hijofs) utiHzafn) en e! laboratorio de computadoras). Strvase tomar unos minutos para completar la siguiente encuesta. Solo complete 1 funa) encuesta si tiene mas de un hijofa) en e! distnto escolar. Instrucciones:  Encierre su respuesta en circulo o complete la informacion solicitada en el espacio en bianco.  No coloque su nombre en la encuesta.  Comparta con nosotros sus opiniones honestas para ayudar a mejorar este programa. Informacion acerca de su(s) hijo(s) Encierre en circulo los niveles de su(s) hijo(s): K 1 23456789 10 11 12 Encierre en circulo la etnia de su(s) hijo(s): Caucasico(s) Afroamericano(s) Hispano(s) Asiatico(s) Mestizo(s) Programa de laboratorio de computadoras (CompassLearning) iConoce usted acerca del programa de laboratorio de computadoras (CompassLearning) en la escuela de su(s) hijo(s)? I Si No S\nla respuesta es si, sirvase responder las preguntas restantes. Si la respuesta es no, sirvase hacerque su hijo(a) entregue la encuesta a su profesor(a). tComo se entero de las actividades del laboratorio de computadoras? Escuela Profesor(a) Mis hijos Otros padres de familia / amigos iQue entusiasmo muestra(n) su(s) hijo(s) con el laboratorio de computadoras? Mucha___________Poca__________Ninguna_______No esta seguro__________________________________________ tCree usted que el tiempo en el laboratorio de computadoras es una parte importante de la educacion de su(s) hijo(s)? Si Ligeramente No No esta seguro cCree usted que el uso del laboratorio de computadoras ha mejorado en su hijo(a)\nel interes en la escuela? aorovechamiento en la lecture y matematicas? Si Si Ligeramente Ligeramente No No No esta seguro No esta seguro Sus comentarios acerca del programa de laboratorio de computadoras (CompassLearning): j Responda en el espacio en bianco y utilice el reverso de la hoja si necesita mas espacio. ____ cQue es Io mejor acerca de que su(s) hijo(s) utilice(n) el programa de laboratorio de computadoras? cQue es io peor acerca de que su(s) hijo(s) utilice(n) el programa de laboratorio de computadoras? iQue cambios quisiera ver en el programa de laboratorio de computadoras? J Tennessee Bonn! of Regain hissilufion pn t I M IJ 4 a Etfua! Opporiunin  Affirmiitivc Action UniversityLittle Rock School District: CompassLeaming Parent Survey DIRECTIONS use NO t pewa. ON.T DARk MARKS EX O =\u0026gt;\u0026lt;=  == ERASE COMPLETELY TO CHANGE  2005 f (\\nier lor Hescan h in Educaiional Policy. All Righls lie-ien eil. Dear Parent/Guardian: We would like to know what you think about your child or children using the CompassLeaming program (the program your child or children work on in the computer lab). Please take a few minutes to complete the H ^11 IC piu^iaill JUUl VIIIIU VI VIIIIUIVII vvs^iix wn m iiiw wa-/11 j-/wvwi ........................................................................- - r Bl following survey. Only complete 1 (one) survey even if you have more than one child in the school district. Directions: - Indicate your response or fill-in the requested information in the space provided. - Do not put your name on the survey. - Share with us your honest opinions to help improve this program. Information about your Child/Children Indicate the grade levels of your child/children. K 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Indicate the ethnicity of your child/children. Caucasian African-American Hispanic Asian Multi-Ethnic Computer Lab Program (CompassLeaming) Do you knotw about the computer lab (CompassLeaming) program at your child's/children's school? Yes No If Yes, please answer the remaining questions. If No. please have your child return the survey to his/her teacher. I = How did you learn about the computer lab activities? School Teacher My kids other parents/friends How excited do your child/children get about using the computer lab? A lot Some Not at all Not sure Do you think time in the computer lab is an important part of your child's/children's education? Yes Somewhat No Not sure Do you think use of the computer lab has improved your child's/children's: interest in school? achievement in reading and math? Yes Somewhat No Not sure Yes Somewhat No Not sure Your comments about the Computer Lab Program (CompassLeaming)  Please respond in the space provide and use the back of this sheet if more space is needed. \" What is the BESTthing about your child/children using the computer lab program?________ H__________________________________________________________________________________________  What is the WORST thing about your child/children using the computer lab program? r . I - I \" What CHANGES would you like to see in the computer lab program? k ACL ArytllC '* Tennessee Board of Regents tnsrttnlion M t M r n ! An EqimI Oppormnin  Affirinaiire Action Unnersin Page 1 of 2Survey of Computer Use for CompassLearning 2-HOUR DATA SUMMARY FORM DIRECTIONS use no JOeNtXONLV DARK MARKS IB School 2005c ('enterfar Research tn Educational Policy. ______________All Rights Resetved.______________ Observer Name ERASE COMPLETELY TO CHANGE Observer Date Indicate all grade(s) observed. K 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 2-Hour Begin Time End Total number of classes observed during the 2-hours: [ ] Total number of students using CompassLearning (by ethnicity): Total number of teachers present: African American Non-African American Classroom Teacher(s) Lab Attendant(s) Technology Specialist(s) I Computer Configuration and Use How many computers were available for CompassLearning? One 2-4 5-10 11 or more How frequently did malfunctions occur on computers used for CompassLearning? Never Rarely Occasionally Frequently Extensively Most of the computers used for CompassLearning were: Up-to-date Aging but adequate Outdated/limited capacity During the observation, what percentage of the African American students in the class used CompassLearning? Only a few (less than 10%) Some (about 10-50%) Most (about 51-90%) Nearly all or all (about 91-100%) During the observation, what percentage of the Caucasian students in the class used CompassLearning? Only a few (less than 10%) Some (about 10-50%) Most (about 51-90%) Nearly all or all (about 91-100%) CompassLearning Activities u u il VI s u Indicate the extent you agree with the following statements.____________________ Subject Areas of observed CompassLearning Activities Language Arts Mathematics Reading Science Social Studies Writing Cross-Cultural Types of Questions Students Asked Whiie Using CompassLearning Content area (e g. howto solve a problem, the meaning of a word). Software use (e g. how to log in\nhow to move to the next section\nhow to take a test) Computer use (e.g. how to get the mouse or keyboard to work properly) Non-CompassLearning questions (e g. Do I have to sit next to John? Can I go to the restroom?) o z I i S' s u 'R c X UJ Continue to the next page. MEMPHIS. A Tennessee Board of Regents Institution .-In Equal Opportunity - Affirmative Action University Page 1 of 2 bSurvey of Computer Use for CompassLeaming continued CompassLeaming Activities V u V! (3 C Indicate the extent you agree with the following statements.___________________ Types of Instruction Given to Students at the Start of the Lesson Content area review (e.g. reading, math) Software use (e g. how to log in, find correct lesson) Computers use (e.g. locate software, use mouse) Classroom Behavior Rules No instruction given Types of Teacher Activities Teachers continuously moved among students to actively monitor student work and answer questions. Teachers occasionally moved among students to monitor student work and answer questions. Teachers rarely moved among students to monitor student work and answer questions. Teachers remained at one location (e.g. desk) rather than moving among the students. HIGH Level of Student Attention and Academic Focus HIGH level of African American student attention, interest, and engagement while using CompassLeaming HIGH level of NON-African American student attention, interest, and engagement while using CompassLeaming HIGH level of academically focused class time V n ai c t c 3 u c w ui Tennessee Board of Regents Institution MCMl 111,4w Equal Opportunity - Affirmative Action University Page 2 of 2Little Rock School District CompassLearning: Student Focus Group Protocol Nature of the Activities 1. How long have you been using CompassLearning? a. What kinds of activities do you do when using CompassLearning? b. Have you been using it in your classroom or in a lab? 2. 3. 4. What do you think about the amount of time that you spend using CompassLearning? a. Is it enough - or too much? b. Why? What kinds of problems have you experienced when using it? What types of changes would you like to see in the CompassLearning program? Usefulness of CompassLearning 5. 6. 7. 8. Do you think CompassLearning helps you to do better in school? a. Why? Do you think CompassLearning ever makes you do worse in school? a. Why? What do you think are some of the disadvantages to using CompassLearning? What have your parents said about CompassLearning? 9. What have your friends said about using CompassLearning? 10. Which types of students do you think are benefiting the most from using CompassLearning? 11. Which types of students are benefiting the least? Enjoyment of CompassLearning 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. Do you like or dislike using CompassLearning? How much? Whats your favorite thing about using Compass? What's your least favorite thing? Would you like to keep on using it or would you like to stop using it? Why? What else can you tell me about using CompassLearning that we havent discussed?Teacher CompassLeaming Questionnaire DIRECTIONS USE NO ZKNOL ONLY ] 2OI\u0026gt;3r Center for Reseanh m Kdiicaiional I'olicy. All Righix Reserved. MAKE DARK MARKS EX \u0026lt;=\u0026gt; cs-o  \u0026lt;=\u0026gt; ERASE COMPLETELY TO CHANGE School Name: r 1 Your Ethnicity Caucasian African-American Hispanic Asian Other (Describe) Do you know about the CompassLeaming (computer lab) program at your school? Yes No If YES. please describe your understanding of the CompassLeaming Program in your school, then please answer the remaining survey questions. If NO, please stop here and return the survey when they are collected. Your Gender Male Female Il\u0026gt; s O) O) c o OT in 0) S O) 2 3 o z \u0026lt;*) o  O) (0 OT b  o\u0026gt; TO \u0026lt;2 b \"ct c o th 1. Most of our school computers that are used for CompassLeaming are kept in good working condition. 2.1 can readily obtain answers to questions about CompassLeaming. 3. The use of CompassLeaming has increased the level of student attention, interest, and engagement in learning. 4. Parents and community members support our school's use of CompassLeaming. 5. The use of CompassLeaming has increased student learning and achievement. 6.1 routinely align CompassLeaming with my lessons and the district's standards-based curriculum. 7. Overall, this program seems valuable for improving the achievement of African American students. 8.1 have received enough training to address student learning needs through the use CompassLeaming resources. 9. My computer skills are adequate to access CompassLeaming resources. 10. The administration fully supports teacher use of CompassLeaming resources. 11.1 routinely customize CompassLeaming activities to meet the individual needs of students. 12. Our school has a well-developed plan that guides the CompassLeaming program. 13.1 routinely provide academic review of content covered during student use of CompassLeaming. 14. Teachers in this school are generally supportive of the CompassLeaming program. 15.1 routinely modify my instructional practices on the basis of student performance in CompassLeaming. 16. The use of CompassLeaming has improved the quality of student work. 1 Directions: Please use the space provided to write a brief response to the following questions. 1. How many years of experience do you have with CompassLeaming? 2. Circle the grade level(s) you currently teach that use CompassLeaming: Years 8 6 7 4 5 2 3 K 1 3. How are the subject areas and performance levels of CompassLeaming activities selected for each of your students? V J r- It DU IC Tennessee Board of Regents Institution M C MI II lO Jn Equal Opportunity - Affirmative Action University Page 1 of 2Teacher CompassLearning Questionnaire continued c 0) CT P E o 2 \u0026lt;D Vi fM \u0026lt;u o z 4. How frequently do you use the followingCompassLearning reports ? Whole Class Individual Student Class by Ethnicity Class by Gender Other _____________________________ 5. a. If you use CompassLearning reports, what is your primary reason? b. If you do NOT use CompassLearning reports, what is your primary reason? 6. What are the strongest aspects of the CompassLearning Program? 7. What are the weakest aspects of the CompassLearning Program? 8. Do you think your school should continue using CompassLearning? Why? Yes No 1 iPk jryiJIC Tennessee Board of Regents Instrniiion M t M r n 10 tn F.gal Opporltinin - Af/irmaltve Action L'ntrersity Page 2 of 2 n i L I I iQuarterly Update Appendix June 1,2005 D. Data Collection Instruments for Step 2 Evaluations of 20042005 Reading Recovery (RR) Implementation Assessment Instrument Teacher Questionnaire Teacher Questionnaire Demographic Information Classroom Teacher Questionnaire (K-3) Parent Survey Cuestionario de recuperacion de lectura para los padres de familialittle rock public schools program evaluation READING RECOVERY IMPLEMENTATION ASSESSMENT INSTRUMENT School Observer Reading Recovery Teacher # Date Student Gender Student Ethnicity Time In Time Out I. Please check: Observed: O Not Observed: N II. Please rate each of the following items in terms of the quality of implementation by using the appropriate number according to the folloz/ing scales: Quality 1 = Poor or unacceptable\n2 = Below average in comparison to other programs observed\n3 = Above average in comparison to other programs\n4 = Meets nearly all standards of program quality. O N DNA Quality o  O \"S z \" o z (O a O \u0026lt; Q Reading Recovery Program Components o o Q. o 2 O 0) 5 O) o S  3 o \u0026lt; w \"s 5 = S w (A Reading familiar stories___________________________________________________ Reading a story that was read for the first time the day before - incorporates running record ______________________________________________________ Working with letters and /or words using magnetic letters___________________ Writing a story__________________________________________________________ Assembling a cut-up story__________________________________________________ Introducing and reading a new book Overall rating: Follows the Reading Recovery lesson frameworksI. Pleasecheck: Observed: O Not Observed: N II. Please rate each of the following items in terms of the quality of teacher instructional strategies by using the appropriate number according to the following scales: Quality 1 = Poor or unacceptable\n2 = Below average in comparison to other programs observed\n3 = Above average in comparison to other programs\n4 = Meets nearly all standards of program quality. o OBSERVED N NOT OBSERVED Reading Recovery Program Strategies POOR Quality BELOW AVERAGE ABOVE AVERAGE MEETS STANDARDS During tutoring lesson________________________________________________ Appropriate pacing of lesson components___________________________________ Appropriate text selected throughout the lesson___________________ Appropriate prompts are used for scaffolding the child to problem solve______ ChiId is engaged in constructive problem solving________ Echo of focus throughout the lesson ____________________________________ Procedures are adjusted according to childs needs _____________________ Balance of fluency phrasing practice and problem solving____________________ Opportunities to develop phonological awareness within the lesson__________ After tutoring lesson: observer questions and examination of student records Accurate up-to-date records______ Articulates childs strengths and needs______________________________________ Has high expectations for the child__________________________________________ Overall Rating\n_________________________________________________Please provide any comments related to the extent or quality of implementation of any of the above components that would elucidate your overall rating. Observer perceptions of Reading Recovery program implementation. 1. Do they Reading Recovery materials (books, magnetic letters, writing, book, etc.) appear to be well organized for each child? _____________________________________________________________________________ 2. Do Reading Recovery teachers appear to be fully supportive of the program? 3. Do administrators appear to be fully supportive of the program? i Does the program receive an adequate allocation of time, material, and other resources? Summary of findings:School Reading Recovery Teacher Questionnaire 2005T- Cenierfor Research in Educational Policy. All Rights Reserved. DlRECTfONS 2PCNCL0M.* make DARK MARRS EX o ERASE COMPLETELY TO CHANGE Indicate the extent to which you agree with each of the following items as they are currently reflected in your school. _________ u QO \u0026lt; qo B O s U) \u0026lt; es is B z u u (Q V) 2 P3 (O 5 qc B  (Zi 1. 2, 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 1 have a thorough understanding of the school's Reading Recovery program. I have received adequate initial and ongoing professional development/training for implementation of the Reading Recovery program. Our Reading Recovery program has positively impacted student achievement. Because of Reading Recovery, Literacy Group interventions occur for students in grades K-3. Overall, this program seems valuable for improving the achievement of African-American students. Reading Recovery teachers are given sufficient planning time to implement the program. Our school has enough tutors to fully implement its Reading Recovery program. The administration protects the lime for daily uninterrupted Reading Recovery tutoring and O 0 o  O H Literacy Small Group interventions.  9. Because of our Reading Recovery program, parents are more involved in the literacy program of B this school. H 10. This school has a plan for evaluating all elements of our Reading Recovery program. 11. Teachers in this school are generally supportive of the Reading Recovery program. H supponivc oi uic nwumg H 12. Ongoing communication exists between Reading Recovery tutors and classroom reading teachers. _ 13. Reading Recovery teachers are encouraged to communicate concerns, questions, and constructive ideas regarding the program.  14. Our Reading Recovery program adequately addresses the requirements of children with special needs. H 15. Reading Recovery teachers participate in the special education referral process to provide early  literacy intervention.  16. Because of Reading Recovery, teachers in this school spend more time working together to plan H instruction and review student progress.  17. Reading Recovery monthly meetings (continuing contact) are effective and useful. H 18. Instructional materials (books, assessments, and other resources) needed to implement our Reading H Recovery program are readily available.  19. The faculty, staff, and administration believe that all children can read at grade level or above by the end of third grade. 20. The Reading Recovery program is aligned with state and district reading and language arts standards. Please provide one rating for each of the following items. B 1. To what degree did your school administration support your efforts as a Reading Recovery teacher? I 2. To what degree did your school Reading Coach support your efforts as a Reading Recovery teacher? 3. To what degree does the district support your efforts as a Reading Recovery teacher? 3. 10 wnai uegree uoes inc uibuivi suppun juui viivno  iwuwu j I 4. To what degree did your schedule allow the time to routinely monitor first grade students' progress after they were discontinued from Reading Recovery tutoring? ntJ IC Tennessee Board of Begems Instiimion M t MI n I b /In gua\nOppominily - Affirmalree Action University Page 1 of 2 G  G G G 0  G G Q G  o o o  o o       O O O O G O O O o Q o G G   o o o o o o G G   O G O G G o o o o G G G G G G o o o o o O G o O G G o o o o O O o o o 4) K B u s G G G O O G o G G eS | E o (/} \u0026lt;s o o  O o o o O O a o Z o o o OReading Recovery Teacher Questionnaire DEMOGRAPHIC INFORMATION How many years of experience do you have as an employee in this school? How many years of experience do you have working in any school? How many years experiences have you had as a Reading Recovery teacher? O Less than one year 01-5 years 0 6-10 years 011-15 years O More than 15 years O Less than one year 01-5 years 0 6-10 years 011-15 years O More than 15 years O Less than one year 01-5 years 06-10 years 011-15 years O More than 15 years What is the highest level of education you have completed? O Bachelor's O Master's O Master's plus 20 hrs O Education Specialist's O Doctoral What best describes your cuitural background? O Asian or Pacific Islander O American Indian or Alaskan Native O Black, not of Hispanic origin O Hispanic, regardless of race O White, not of Hispanic origin O Multi-racial / Other What are the strongest aspects of the Reading Recovery program? 1 What are the weakest aspects of the Reading Recovery program? 1 I Do you think your school should continue the Reading Recovery program? Why? O Yes ONo JNiVESSnViV LinkjniJlC Tennessee Board of Regents Institution M t MI fl I O' An Equal Opportunity  Affirmative Action University Page 2 of 2Reading Recovery Classroom Teacher Questionnaire (K-3) DIRECTIONS USCMO JPEJ*a.QM.Y Dark Marks' ] School 2005Z Center for Research in Educational Policy. All Rights Reserved. . ERASE COMPLETELY TO CHANGE Grade Level Please describe your understanding of the Reading Recovery program in your school. DEMOGRAPHIC INFORMATION How many years of experience do you have as an employee in this school? How many years of experience do you have working in any school? What is the grade level of the majority of children you work with? O Less than one year 01-5 years 06-10 years 011-15 years O More than 15 years O Less than one year 01-5 years 06-10 years 011-15 years O More than 15 years O O o o K 1 2 3 I i What is the highest level of education you have completed? What best describes your cultural background? O Bachelors O Master's O Masters plus 20 hrs O Education Specialists O Doctoral I I O Asian or Pacific Islander O American Indian or Alaskan Native O Black, not of Hispanic origin O Hispanic, regardless of race O White, not of Hispanic origin O Multi-racial! Other T4rOF L i C k 4 D LJ1C Tennessee Board of Regents Institution M U M r 11 li- Equal Opportunity - AJftrmative Action University Page 1 of 2Reading Recovery Classroom Teacher Questionnaire (K-3) (Continued) \u0026lt; 'Sb Indicate the extent to which you agree with each of the following items as they are currently | reflected in your school. \u0026lt; s 3 z Of) S o K bO cn Q 5) c o 55 tn I 1.1 have a thorough understanding of this school's Reading Recovery program. H 2. Our Reading Recovery program has positively impacted student achievement.  3. Because of Reading Recovery, Literacy Group interventions occur for students in grades K-3. H 4- Overall, this program seems valuable for improving the achievement of African-American students. 5. Our school has sufficient faculty and staff to fully implement our Reading Recovery program. H . sunicieni lacuiiy ano siaii lo luiiy iinpicniciu uui jvcauiug rcwvwj pugiwu. B 6. The administration protects the time for daily uninterrupted Reading Recovery tutoring and Literacy Small Group interventions.  O  o     o   o o    o       o o O 7. Because of our Reading Recovery program, parents are more involved in the literacy program of this school^  8. Teachers in this school are generally supportive of the Reading Recovery program.  9.1 routinely modify my classroom reading instructional practices on the basis of student performance in  Reading Recovery tutoring and Literacy Small Groups.  10. Teachers are encouraged to communicate concerns, questions, and constructive ideas regarding the B Reading Recovery program.  11. Our Reading Recovery program adequately addresses the requirements of children with special needs.  12. Because of Reading Recovery, teachers in this school spend more time working together to plan  instruction and review student progress.  13. The faculty, staff, and administration believe that all children can read at grade level or above by the I end of third grade. o o   o o   o   o    O   o o   o 0 o o o o o o     o o  o Your Comments: Please respond in the space provide and use the back of this sheet if more space is needed. What are the strongest aspects of the Reading Recovery program? Do you think your school should continue the Reading Recovery program? Why? O Yes No r-\" kJCkiDLIIC Tennessee Board of Regents Institution M t M r n IJ Eifual Opportunity - Affirmative Action University Page 2 of 2 1Little Rock School District Reading Recovery Parent Survey 2005V Center for Research in Educational Policy. All Rights Reserved. Dear Parent/Guardian: We would like to know what you think about your child's Reading Recovery tutoring sessions. Please take a few minutes to complete the following survey. Directions:  Circle your response or fill-in the requested information in the space provided. - Do not put your name on the survey. ~ Share with us your honest opinions to help improve this program. DIRECTIONS use NO SPENCLONLY : DARK MARKS------------- m' \\ ERASE COMPLETELY TO CHANGE Ethnicity of your Child: Information about your child:  Caucasian O African-American  Hispanic  Asian  Other Grade OK  1  2  3 Age  5  6  7  8 (Describe Reading Recovery Program Do you know about your child's involvement in the Reading Recovery tutoring program at their school?  Yes If YES, please answer the remaining questions. If NO, please have your child return this survey to his/her teacher.  No Please describe your understanding of the Reading Recovery tutoring program at your child's school. ' A Tennessee Board of Regents institution I- An Equal Opportunity - Affirmative Action University MEMPHIS. Page 1 of 2Little Rock School District Reading Recovery Parent Survey (Continued) Indicate the extent to which you agree with each of the following items as they are currently reflected in your school. If you cannot answer an item, please mark \"Don't Know.\"________________________________________ o o \u0026amp; \u0026lt; 'oa c o CZ3 V s 00 2 1 Z co (A s (N (U OJO co (A 5 ob c o is c/o o 12 \"c o O o 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Reading Recovery tutoring has improved my child's reading skills. Learning to read is the highest priority at my child's school. My child enjoys and looks forward to their daily tutoring sessions. I have many opportunities to talk with the Reading Recovery teacher about my child's progress. Because of Reading Recovery tutoring, I believe my child will be successful 03 03 03 CD CD 03 CD CD CD CD CD CD O 03 CD CD CD 03 03 03 CD CD  03 in school. 6. My child reads books at home daily. CD 03 Q CD CD CD CD  Your Comments: Please respond in the space provide and use the back of this sheet if more space is What is the BEST thing about your child's involvement with Reading Recovery tutoring program? What CHANGES would you like to see in the Reading Recovery tutoring program? kJCkjtDLIIC Tennessee Board of Regents Institution M U M r n 10 An Equal Opportunity - Afftrmatne /(ction University Page 2 of 2 CD CD 03 03Distrito escolar de Little kock Cuestionario de recuperacion de lectura para los padres de familia Estimado Padre de familia /Tutor: Quisieramos saber cual es su opinion sobre las sesiones guiadas de recuperacion de lectura de su hijo(a). Sirvase tomar unos minutos para completar el siguiente cuestionario. Instrucciones: -- Enciene su respuesta en circulo o complete la informacion solicitada en el espacio en bianco.  No coloque su nombre en la encuesta. -- Comparta con nosotros sus opiniones honestas para ayudar a mejorar este programa. Etnia de su hijo(a) Informacion acerca de su hijo(a) Caucasico(a) Afroamericano(a) Hispano(a)______ Asiatico(a)______ Otra___________ Grado Edad K 1 2 3 5 6 7 8 Programa de recuperacion de lectura ^Conoce usted sobre la participacion de su hijo(a) en el programa de clases guiadas de recuperacion de lectura en su escuela? Si No Si la respuesta es si, si'rvase responder las preguntas restantes y luego haga que su hijo(a) entregue el cuestionario a su profesor(a). Si la respuesta es no, sirvase hacer que su hijo(a) entregue la encuesta a su profesor(a). Si'rvase describir su comprension del programa de clases guiadas de recuperacion de lectura en la escuela de su hijo(a). THE UNIVERSITY OF   . /rS'll IC Temtessee Bwil of Httgenis Insiiimiott. M t M r H IO- An Equal Oppornmiiy  Affirmative At tion University. Pagina 1 de 2 feDistrito escolar de Little Rock Encuesta sobre recuperacion de lectura para los padres de familia (Continuacion) Indique su grado de acuerdo con las siguientes opciones tai como se reflejan actualmente en la escuela. Si no puede responder una opcion, si'rvase marcaria como No sabe.___________________________ \u0026lt;u o (U c E S o o 3 O K3 o 3 3 (U Q I 3 3 O I o V 3 u 3 (/) o c u I CM c c \u0026lt;u E o  I o u 3 Vi o X) 3 CZ) O Z I o u. I 1. La clase guiada de recuperacion de lectura ha mejorado las destrezas de lectura de mi hijo(a).___________________ 2. Aprender a leer es la mayor prioridad en la escuela de mi hijo(a).________________________________________ 3. Mi hijo(a) goza y espera con ansias sus sesiones guiadas diarias._______ 4. Tengo muchas oportunidades de hablar con el(la) profesor(a) acerca del avance de mi hijo(a).____________________ 5. A causa de las clases guiadas de recuperacion de lectura, creo que mi hijo(a) tendra exito en la escuela__________ 6. Mi hijo(a) lee los libros en casa a diario. Sus comentarios: Si'rvase responder en el espacio en bianco. Use el reverse de la hoja si necesita mas espacio. iQue es lo MEJOR de la participacion de su hijo(a) en el programa de clases guiadas de recuperacion de lectura? ____________________________________________________________________ /,Que CAMBIOS quisiera ver en el programa de clases guiadas de recuperacion de lectura? TetUKssee Board Regenis Jnsiiiuiimi. M t MI II Io. All Equal Opportuniry  Affirmalive Acliou University. Pagina 2 de 2 kQuarterly Update Appendix June 1,2005 D. Data Collection Instruments for Step 2 Evaluations of 20042005 SMART/THRIVE (S/T) Rubric for Observation of Select NCTM Standards in Teaching Mathematics School Observation Measure (SOM) Data Summary Teacher Questionnaire Algebra I Teacher Questionnaire Parent Questionnaire Student Questionnaire Mentor Focus Group ProtocolRUBRIC FOR OBSERVATION OF SELECT NCTM STANDARDS IN TEACHING MATHEMATICS* School Name___ Observation Date, Observer Name____ Extension of SOM # Directions\n NCTM Standard: Mathematical concepts, procedures, and connections The teacher\no o o o o Demonstrates a sound knowledge of mathematical concepts and procedures\nRepresents mathematics as a network of interconnected concepts and procedures\nEmphasizes connections between mathematics and other disciplines and connections to daily living\n. , Engages students in tasks that promote the understanding of mathematical concepts, procedures, and connections\nEngages students in mathematical discourse that extends their understanding of mathematical concepts, procedures, and connections. Emphasizes conceptual understanding over rote learning Demonstrates connections between math and daily living, (or authenticates math in real life).  NCTM Standard: Mathematics as problem solving, reasoning, and communication o The teacher\n. , Models and emphasizes aspects of problem solving, including formulating and posing problems, solving problems using different strategies, verifying and interpreting results, and generalizing o o o o solutions\nDemonstrates and emphasizes the role of mathematical reasoning\nModels and emphasizes mathematical communication using written, oral, and visual forms\nEngages students in tasks that involve problem solving, reasoning, and communication. Engages students in mathematical discourse that extends their understanding of problem solving and their capacity to reason and communicate mathematically. Engages students in problem solving activities. Demonstrates and emphasizes the role of mathematical reasoning (from yours) NCTM Standard: Promoting mathematical disposition The teacher\na o o o Models a disposition to do mathematics\nDemonstrates the value of mathematics as a way of thinking and its application in other disciplines and in society\n, Promotes students confidence, flexibility, perseverance, curiosity, and inventiveness in doing mathematics through the use of appropriate tasks and by engaging students in mathematical discourse. , , This one is toucih fora LB Specialist (me)....needs a real math person...in a sentence, how does one develop a math disposition? If I can learn this, years of frustration will melt away (insert smile here). I gathered that we could communicate it in a similar vein to thinking in a foreign language, but I am having a tough time adeguatelv putting it into words. a NCTM Standard: Learning Environments The teacher\n. . Conveys the notion that mathematics is a subject to be explored and crated both individually o o o and in collaboration with others\nRespects students and their ideas and encourages curiosity and spontaneity\nEncourages students to draw and validate their own conclusions. 1o o o o Selects tasks that allow students to construct new meaning by building on and extending their prior knowledge\nMakes appropriate use of available resources\nRespects and responds to students diverse interests and linguistic, cultural, and socioeconomic backgrounds in designing mathematical tasks\nAffirms and encourages full participation and continued study of mathematics by all students. Integrates themes of diversity into mathematical experiences. (????Yuck) Promotes appreciation for math within diverse learning environments (???Yuck yuck).RUBRIC FOR OBSERVATION OF SELECT NCTM STANDARDS IN TEACHING MATHEMATICS NOTES PAGE NCTM Standard: Mathematical concepts, procedures, and connections NCTM Standard: Mathematics as problem solving, reasoning, and communication NCTM Standard: Promoting mathematical disposition NCTM Standard: Learning Environments Source: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (1991). Professional standards forteaching mathematics. Reston, VA: NCTM.DiRECnONS km M/ \u0026lt;. PLEASE 1)0 NOT FOLD OR Sl AlLK THIS FORM.  MB .MAM: DARK MARKS fcX EHASF COMM STl l Y TO CHANCiF School Observation Measure (SOM) Data Summary S.M. Hosa, L.J. Smith i: M J. Aibcri\nCenter for fteivarrh n Educctinnal Piiltcy. The Vnitrrstiy nfMemphi.3 Ail Rights Re^rted.   School Name Observer Name:   n Date of Observation: SOM # Obser\\'er Role/Afilliation\nNumber of classroom observations comprising this SOM. D\\nectxon'. tioe your class-opecifie nofe# to reflect upon the extent to which each of the following its present in the ochttol: Instructional Orientation Direct instruction (lecture) Team teaching Cooperative/coUaborative learning -------------------------- - Individual tutoring (teacher, peer, aide, adult volunteer^^ \\ Classroom Organization Ability groups Multi-age grouping Work centers ''t ((7? n uping t (toT individuals or groups) Instructional Strategies Higher level instructional feedback (v^ten or verbal) to enhance student learning Integration of .subject areas (interdisciplinarv/themalic units) Project-based learning ) Use of higher-level questioning strategies * Teacher acting as a coach/facilrtator Parenl/community involvement in learning activi^s \u0026lt; ! : Student Activities Independent seatwork (self-paced worksheets, individual assignments) Experiential, hands-on learning Systematic individual instructioti assignments geared to individual needs) Sustained wriling/composition (seH\nelect^ or teacher-generated topics) Sustained reading \\ - Independent inquiry/research on the part of students Student discussion Technology Use Computer for instructional delivery (e.g. CAI, drill \u0026amp; practice) Technology as a learning tool or resource (e.g. Internet research, spreadsheet or database creation, multi-media, CD Rom, Laser disk) Assf.ys/npn/ Performance assessment strategies Student self-assessment (portfolios, individual record books) Summary Items High academically focused class time High level of student attention/interest/engagement Rubric for SOM Scoring (0) Not Observed: (1) Rarely: (2) Occasionally: (3) FrxKiuently: (4) Extensively: I I  Q Q  'Mil- 0 o  0  0 0 0 0  0 Oy O 0 0 0' 0 0 0 0 C 0 ' 0 t 0 K S ,l I  2. 2 J'- 2  2~ 1   2 2 2- 1 2 2 2  2  2 2  2   2  2 i s J 3 _ 3 7  3 4  3 - 3 3 3  3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 J Strategy was never observed. \u0026lt;)l).sen-ed in nnh- one or two dassc.s. Receives isolated use and/or little time in classes Clearly not a prevalent/cniphasized component of teaching and learning acros.s cla.s.ses. Observed in some classes. Receives minimal or modest time or emphasis in clas,se8 Not a prevalent/cmphaaized comiionent of teaching and learning across classes. Obsened in many but not all classes. Receives substantive time or emphasis in classes A prevalent component of teaching and learning across classes. Observed in must or all classes Receives substantive lime and/or emphasis in classes. A highly prevalent component of teaching and learning across cla.sses. I ,, I O'^ FORM NO F-17021-UM e JU**)** -xw*u*o* WAKI WF3 3102-532-54 3 2 1What are perceptions of participating students regarding program impacts  Tell me about Thrive. How would you describe it to a student who asked how you were spending Saturday morning.  Why do you think they have the Thrive program?  How does Thrive work? Tell me about what you do during your Saturday mornings here.  Do you like Thrive? Why or why not.  Would you recommend Thrive to other students? Why? Why not?  Has what you have learned in Thrive changed how you approach math problems?  Have you learned any new ways to study math. Could you tell me about them? What are the effects of participation in the Thrive program?  How is Thrive helping you in algebra? o o o PROBE: What makes using a calculator special? PROBE: How do the games help\ndo they help? PROBE: How do you use what you learn here in your weekly Algebra classes?  How do you think you will do on your Benchmark tests (????does this raise anxiety?)...do you think your performance has anything to do with Thrive?  Do you like algebra? Math in general? Have you always felt this way?  What do you think algebra would be like without Thrive?SMART/THRIVE Teacher Questionnaire DiRFcnoisrs ~ jia n I EX \u0026lt;=\u0026gt; csc=\u0026gt; * o j SSL6SEC.OM?5Jm.TTDai\u0026lt;^\u0026gt;^' Dear SMART/THRIVE Teachers: Please take a moment to answer these questions about the SMART and THRIVE programs. Please do NOT put your name on the questionnaire. Your honest opinions will be important to help , us assess this program.__________________________________________________________________ SMART THRIVE Cj C C3 DIRECTIONS: Please indicate the extent to which you agree with the tollowing items. If you cid not serve as a SMART instructor last summer (summer 200^), then only respond using the Thrive column. If you have no basis to respond, indicate (Don't Know). I Irava received adequate protessxxial devetopmenl to imoiemant -.. thss program, 'r, G IJJ CD I have a thorough undefBtarxSng cf the objectives of sh.a prcgrarr _ Q tf J G2 j) CD The students enjoy the planned acdvttles. \u0026lt; O J CD G3 CD  The (ad ity a! which the classes are held is adeq^le. f.h CJ I, L. 3 (Materials (books, copies, equipment) needed tor this program are  read ly available. C Zi CD CD GC Tne da ly bnefmg and deCneftng ses\u0026amp;^rts are va. uable. CC c G Cj c:^ - The program has improved my ability to use graphing calculators\n~r. L\n_ dunng math Instruction. \u0026gt; f  C-J The program has Imo roved my students' abflity to use groph ng ( ) (1) catoulatom In their math lessons. 1 (J t?0 3 CD I t') l.-'J -D t.D  .1 The program is aligned with state arsd district madi standards. j  1 r 1 ( i CJ C3 The co-leacher (THRIVE) and Mentor (SMART) aporoachas are Pectve instrucbonal .methods (or teaching and reinlox-ng Algebra concapa. fl CJ DEMOGRAPHICS How many total years of teachlrig experience do you have? \u0026lt;1 -5 years C 6- lOyears \u0026lt; 11 -15 years 2 16-20 yea'S 20 or mo'S years Hovr many years have you worked in the THRIVE PfOflram? i 1 year G 2 years \u0026gt; I 3 yea'S ~i 4 years  J 5 or more years If you have worked with the SMART program, for how many years?   1 year G 2 years T T 3 years  I 4 years  5 or more years What is your eltnicfty? ' Caucas'an A'rican-American : I Hispanic . 2 Asan j Muti-E-Jnic C? Other J J Continue to page 2. MuMi nD  A/Rn\u0026gt;wa:7r Araos Page 1 of 2 SMART/THRIVE Teacher Questionnaire Continued What SMART/THRIVE strategies do you use In your classroom? 1 ! What are the most/toast beneficial aspects ol the professional development component of SMART and/or THRIVE. i t L  Ara there any additional comments that you would like to make about the THRIVE Program? 1 If you were a teacher for SMART during the past summer, ere there any additional comments that you would like to make about the SMART Program?__________________________________________________________________ Thank you (or your input! rhi.s'-'EJjITf MEMPHIS A TrrotcUcr hutOMliiM Page 2 of 2* DTBEC71O5 Algebra I Teacher Questionnaire _   A .A f\"..) . _ TAB . J Ql. B *A tJC o e=-sa  =\u0026gt; Dear Algebra I Teacher Please take a few minutes to complete the following survey. We would like to know what you think about the SMART and THRIVE programs. Thank you for your time and attention. - Please do NOT pul your name on the questionnaire. - Your honest opinions will be important to help us assess this program. Please enclose your completed questionnaire in the attached pre-paid envelope and mail by March 18. 2005. Piease briefly descnbe your undefstanding of :hG SMART Program Please briefly describe your understanding of the THRIVE Program: SMART THRIVE l i73 G' Z~J DIRECTIONS\nPlease indicate the extent to which you agree with the following flems related to the Smart and Thr.ve Programs. If you do na have a basis to respond, please bubble in 'Doni Krxjw.' The program has..._________________________ Positvely impacted student ach evemen: in math He oed dose tne achievement gap between African G3 American and Caucasian stuoerts ____________ He ped students become more confdem of meir ab' it-es G-i in Algebra________________ __________ ___________ _ Effectively enab ed studerTiS to use technology to solve Algebra problems__________________________ Fadliiated students' meaningful unoerstandirg of aisetei'c gpncepa------------------------ ----------------- GD Gj Ej \"~i Gj CJ L-j GJ Ci Z O X'! ftiftUi ^faiwWMMXts^ hjiiry. r \u0026lt; I Q  I t 1 j , Ohered me strateg es that I use in my own classroom  O Continue to page 2. k jQk 4 r^ssn^aee bfjcrd MtMl nl^ I'lU^rna) Page 1 or 2 Algebra I Teacher Questionnaire Continued DEMOGRAPHICS What is your gender? What is your ethnicity? How many years of teaching I Have you worked for ths SMART\n:T: Male CT Fema'e LJ Caucasian O African-American I ' Hispanic G Asian MuKl-Eihnic experience do you have? F\" 1-5 years 3 6-10 years i 11 -15 years 2? 16-20 years (2i more than 20 years Of TTiRIVE programs at the past? | i Yes O No I What do you see as the most effective aspects of the SMART and/or THRIVE Programs? What do you see as the least effective aspects or areas in need of improvement? Thank you for your inputl \"\nLHV?FTfCr MEMPHIS A RfftKV [n2ri:^ien An Eqaai Opp\u0026gt;^Janin  AcJtvn bMvtntt. Page 2 or 2SMART/THRIVE Parent Questionnaire tHRCT!C^5' .VI ' Dear ParenVGuardian\nYour child has participated in either the SMART and/or THRIVE program and we would like your impressions of the programs. Please take a moment to answer these questions about the programs. Please DO NOT put your name on the questionnaire. Your honest opinions will be important to help us assess this program. Please give the completed form to your child to return lo the next THRIVE class. What is the gender of your child? f ,i Mate O Female P ease tel' us yt/ur i'lipression of .he THRIVE p'ojrain What do yo.. see as\nak ng olaoe dt.iirg ihc sess arc? What is the ethnicity of your child? G Caucas an i ' A'rican-Amercar G' Hispanic i._ Asian ~ Mjlti-Elnnic O Other Please indicate your agreement with the following items related lo tlie THRIVE Progiam. _______ H 1, The teachers in this program ma^e my Ofld tees that ha/sho can succeed. Because of this program, my cniid is more mofvated to compieie a-^ebra homework. 1 i 3. Thia program has hsfped improve my chiJds attrtude about math. a 4.1 am comlonab e having my crTd aitand classes on Saturdays. H 5. Because of tfiis orogram. I have seen an improvement In my child's Algebra I grades. I 6. Overall. I th-hk this is a good program._______________________________________  T. How dd you find out about THRIVE?_____________________ __________________  , ( i C, ( J \u0026lt;  C .z~!. T3 . I 1 i. J  8. What oo you tike about the THRIVE program? I 9. What, if Miythkig. woukt you change about the THRIVE program? f------ ------ -  10. Was transportation a problem? Please explain. If your child attended SMART last summer, please respond to the following Hems. If your child has NOT attended SMART, please stop here and send this form with your child to the next THRIVE session. 1 I SMART/THRIVE Parent Questionnaire Continued P ease Id us your i''i[jcssio'i cl IIic SMART pro\njra-n. 'I d.3 yyj S2e as tak nc\nolact- (lir ng (lie s\nSIOIIS? 1 I i I J Please indicate youi agreement SMART Program. ilh tlie loitowing items relaleti to Ilie 1, Became c\u0026lt; tf^TXDgwn, my cniW fen WWshe oouid sucxeed In Math. 2. The summer classes *ere easy tor my child to atterd. 3. This program helped improve my chfitfa arttode abosA Main, 4. I am comforlab  havng my cnild anerxJ c-asses during the summer. 5. TWs program \u0026lt;gd a pood job of fxaparihg jny child (or begmning Atgetxa Hn the faB. 8. Hoim dM you find out a\u0026amp;oot SMART?___________________________________ L 7. Wa did you like ifecwt 8MAHT? 8. What, if an\niTiiiu?. !, wotrfd you chffixy about SMART? 9. Was tranaponation a prooletn? Plaaae expialn. ! I, 0^.0 -. O ' X ! I t ( 3 o : g Thank you (or your input! Please send this form with your child to the next THRIVE session. p.T LH.flSrV MEMPHIS A rfKKfUrt bfiarit of As /.pr-* Artioii L'-Kj^mity Page 2 of 2SMART/THRIVE Student Questionnaire DiHKrnoxjT WAXC UAjtXt 2005^ Ceobtr^^ UtitNffvh rt CdasiXiiWii P-sitf)- aS Dear Student: Please take a few minutes to complete the following survey. We would like to know what you think about THRIVE. Thank you lor your time and attention. - Please DO NOT put your name on the questionnaire. -- Your honest opinions will be important to help us assess this program. What Is your age? j What is your gender? O Male O Fema'e What is your ethnicity? f ' Cairasian r.. Afca'^Araccin Hsqarw LJ Asiar? J J MuR\u0026gt;-Eirr: 1 O O(fiaf .9 Ploabc inuicaie tiie exicnl to Lvhicti you agiee will: the {ollov.'irig items related to tlic THRIVE Program. 1.  2.  3.  4. I 5. H 6.  7.  8.  9.  to. Because of THRIVE, I have learned how to use a calculator to help solve algebra problems. THRIVE makes algebra more enjoyable. THRIVE has helped me get good grades in Algebra. I think I will Cto well on the Algebra Benchmark Exam because ol THRIVE. tn THRIVE, I have learned how algebra can be used in real life. THRIVE has made me more confident about math. My THRIVE teacher helps me with problems I am having in my algebra class. I feel comfortable asking quesbons In THRIVE class. Team competitions make THRIVE classes fun. What do you like about THRIVE?__________ ________________________ fU L*r (Z) 3 P' I J '3 CD pl O rj \u0026lt;_L\u0026gt; I I f::) co I - r- C\nC' L- ' L-- I. ' L.  3 n r I 11. 'What woutd you change about theTTifflVE progratnT 12. 13. If THRIVE has helped you, describe HOW H helped you How is THRIVE different from your regular Algebra I class? ! If you DID NOT attend the SMART Program last summer, STOP HERE. rr you DID attend SMART last summer, go to the next page. SMART/THRIVE Student Questionnaire Continued Complete (his seclicn CJNLY il you weio enrolled in SMART ou'iiiy the summer of 2G04. 1. SMART helped me remember the math skills I learned last school year. C'i 1 2. SMART made algebra more fun. 3. In SMART, we learned how to use math to solve real-life problems. c'-5 L 4. I was motivated to go to my SMART class Airing ths summer. 5. Because of SMART, I was prepared to begin Algebra I in the fall. n GJ (?) 6. What do you like about SMART? 7. What would you change about the SMART program? 8. It SMART helped you, describe HOW. Thank you for your input! MEMPHIS Aa UntvffMr, ) 03 G CO KI G I \nI V} t ' l I Page 2 of 2 SMART Mentor Focus Group Protocol Due to the small number of mentors, all mentors will be invited to attend the focus group. The focus group sessions will be tape-recorded only, no video-taping, and mentors will be asked not to give their names. What are perceptions and perceived impacts of participating mentors regarding SMART impacts?  Tell me about SMART. How would you describe it to a student who asked you what it was?  How does the mentoring work? Tell me about what you do for SMART.  Do you think SMART is helping students? If so, how? o o Prompt: Do you think it is improving their math skills? Prompt Do you think it is improving their attitude toward math?:  Would you recommend SMART to other students? Why? Why not?  What have you learned through working with SMART?Quarterly Update Appendix June 1,2005 D. Data Collection Instruments for Step 2 Evaluations of 20042005 Year-Round Education (YRE) Teacher Survey Student Survey Parent SurveyLITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Student Survey Extended-Year Schools Please bubble in your opinion of the statements listed as they relate to the extended-year school project, comparing your school situation before extended-year school began. -Use a No. 2 pencil only -Fill in a bubble completely -Erase completely to change -Do not fold or staple I No Opinion [ I Disagree Agree 1. I have been more interested in my education this year. a o 2. I like having a number of short vacation periods. o J 3. 1 think I have learned more on the extended year calendar than I did in the regular 9-month calendar. o 4. The extended-year-educational program should be offered to all Little Rock School District students. a 5. My teachers have been more patient and helpful. 6. I have had more time to learn and time to get extra help when I've needed it. 7. I look forward to coming to school. J 8. I have liked the intersessions. 9. My parents like the extended-year program. o 10. I want my school to continue with this program. 11. Intersession has helped me be a better student. o (Answer #11, only if you have attended at least one intersession) School Cloverdale Mabelvale _\u0026gt; Mitchell _ Stephens Woodruff Grade r 3rd 7 4th 3 Sth Gender Male Female Ethnicity Black White OtherLITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PARENT SURVEY FOR EXTENDED-YEAR SCHOOL -Use a No. 2 pencil only -Fill in bubble completely -Erase completely to change -Do not fold or staple A. Number of Children in Extended-Year I r B. Grade School 1 2 3 4 or more K 1 2 3 4 5 Please indicate the grade level(s) of each of your children. C. Other Children Please indicate if you have other children attending school on a regular August to May school calendar. O Elementary O Middle School Senior High D. School Cloverdale Mabelvale Mitchell Stephens Woodruff O o o o o o a O O 1 r E. Race F. Gender O Black O White C, other O Male O Female I No Opinion I Disagree Agree 1. My children show a greater interest in their educational program. Please bubble in your opinion of the statements listed as they relate to the extended-year school project, comparing your school situation before extended-year school began. [ O 2. My children like having a number of short vacation periods. O 3. A wider variety of educational programs has been provided for my children. 4. My children have achieved at a higher level than in their previous 9- month school. O 5. Our personal family life activities such as church, ...__X AHorfon o I./UI uciownw ----- .er X J scouts, clubs, etc., have not been effected. 6. My children have attended one or more intersessions this year. O 7. This program should be expanded to other schools in this district on an optional basis. I 8. I want my children to continue in this program.LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Teacher Survey Extended-Year Schools Please bubble in your opinion of the statements listed as they relate to the extended-year school project, comparing your school situation before extended-year school began. -Use a No. 2 pencil only -Fill in a bubble completely -Erase completely to change -Do not fold or staple I  1 1. 2. 3. I No Opinion [ I Disagree Agree My students show a greater interest in their educational program. My students like having a number of short vacation periods. A wider variety of educational programs has been provided for my students. 4. My students have achieved at a higher level than they would have in their previous 9-month school calendar. 5. Parents are more involved in their children's education on the extended-year schedule. 6. This program should be expanded to other schools in this district on an optional basis. 7. 8. 9. 7) O O a 3 I want my school to continue with this program. My students benefit from their intersession more than they have in their past regular summer school experiences. The extended-year-educational schedule provides continuity in academic instruction and more time on task. 10. The extended-year-educational schedule has been better for my attitude and stress reduction. 11. The absence of a long summer break reduces the need to reteach skills and rules. 12. Teachers benefit from the opportunity to earn stipends during optional intersession employment. School Cloverdale Mabelvale Mitchell Stephens Woodruff Gender Male Female o o I j Ethnicity Black White Other ilRR January Planning, refining, and consulting with PRE and RR experts\nand developing instruments with PRE review. CL Planning, refining, and consulting with PRE and CL experts\nand developing instruments with PRE review. S/T Planning, refining, and consulting with PRE and S/T experts\nand developing instruments with PRE review. YRE Planning, refining, and consulting with PRE and YRE specialists. Evaluation Schedule 2004-2005 February Begin observations and interview RR teachers. Select technical specialist \u0026amp; school samples, observe classes, interview program coordinator \u0026amp; tech, specialist by phone. Observe Thrive sessions. Develop instruments with PRE review. March-April Survey RR School Teachers, complete RR teacher interviews. Survey CL Teachers (at faculty meetings), complete technology specialist interviews and observations\ncomplete student focus groups. Administer teacher, tutor, and student questionnaires\nbegin focus groups. Develop instruments with PRE review \u0026amp; review archival data. May-June Profile RR achievement\nanalyze records/archival data analyses. Analyze records/archival data analyses. July-September Analyze achievement data, survey, \u0026amp; interviews. Draft reports for review. Analyze achievement data, survey, \u0026amp; interviews. Draft reports for review. Complete focus groups Analyze achievement and observations\nanalyze records/archival data. data, survey, \u0026amp; interviews. Draft reports for review. October Final report due to the Court Oct. 1. Final report due to the Court Oct. 1. Final report due to the Court Oct. 1. Administer teacher, tutor, student questionnaires, lead focus groups, \u0026amp; observe classes. Analyze achievement, survey, \u0026amp; interview data. Draft reports for review. Final report due to the Court Oct. 1.Little Rock School District (LRSD) QUARTERLY UPDATE to the Office of Desegregation Monitoring (ODM) and Joshua September 1, 2005 received AUG 2 9 2005 BESEQREGMWHSjMIflW# LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, PLAINTIFF V. PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1 ET AL., DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ETAL., INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ETAL., INTERVENORS Planning, Research, and Evaluation (PRE) Instructional Resource Center (IRC) Little Rock School District 3001 South Pulaski Little Rock, AR 72206Introduction This is the fourth quarterly written update by the Little Rock School District (LRSD) and its Planning, Research, and Evaluation (PRE) Department, submitted in accordance with the District Courts 2004 Compliance Remedy (Memorandum Opinion of June 30, 2004, pp. 61-67). The organization of this report is that of the Compliance Remedy: A. B. LRSD must promptly hire a highly trained team of professionals to reinvigorate PRE. 99 c. D. The first task PRE must perform is to devise a comprehensive program assessment process which must be deeply embedded as a permanent part of LRSDs curriculum and instruction program. During each of the next two academic school years (2004-05 and 2005-06), LRSD must hire one or more outside consultants to prepare four (4) formal step 2 evaluations. PRE must (1) oversee the preparation of all eight of these step 2 evaluations\n(2) work closely with Dr. Ross and any other outside consultants . . . and (3) provide the outside E. consultants with any and all requested assistance and support. . 99 F. Evaluations will contain numbers and grade levels of teachers and administrators who contributed data, recommended program changes necessary for improved academic achievement by African-American students, and brief explanations of how each change will increase a programs effectiveness. . . . PRE must notify the ODM and Joshua in writing of the names of those eight programs. In addition, after PRE and Dr. Ross have formulated a comprehensive program assessment process and reduced it to a final draft, PRE must provide a copy to the ODM and Joshua at least thirty days before it is presented to the Board for approval ... by December 31, 2004. 99 G. H. 1. J. K. PRE must submit quarterly written updates on the status of the . . . four step 2 program evaluations . . . during the 2004-05 school year and the four step 2 program evaluations that will be prepared during the 2005-06 school year ... to ODM and Joshua on December 1, March 1, June 1, and September 1... [ODMs responsibilities.] [Joshuas responsibilities.] Four step 2 program evaluations due to the Court October 1, 2005 and four more due October 1,2006. Compliance Report due October 15, 2006. L. [This Compliance Remedy supersedes earlier one.] Page 2Status as of September 1, 2005 A. Hire a highly trained team of professionals. LRSD hired a highly trained team of professionals in 2004 and reported this action in its first quarterly written update of December 1, 2004. This team continues its activities, as stated in this fourth quarterly written update. B. Devise and embed a comprehensive program assessment process. The comprehensive program assessment process, devised by the PRE Department and approved by LRSD Board of Directors December 16, 2004, includes school portfolios among a spectr\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_57","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":["2002-09","2002-10"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Education--Arkansas","Little Rock (Ark.). Office of Desegregation Monitoring","School integration--Arkansas","Arkansas. Department of Education","Project managers--Implements"],"dcterms_title":["Arkansas Department of Education's (ADE's) Project Management Tool"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/57"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["documents (object genre)"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\nLittle Rock School District, plaintiff vs. Pulaski County Special School District, defendant.\nXVIII. WORK WITH THE PARTIES AND ODM TO DEVELOP PROPOSED REVISIONS TO ADE'S MONITORING AND REPORTING OBLIGATIONS (Continued) On August 2, 2000, the ADE met with the parties to discuss the Desegregation Monitoring and Assistance Plan and see where there was disagreement. The LRSD requested sixty (60) days to respond to the review of the plan. The ADE gave the parties 60 days to review the plan and submit written responses to it. The next meeting date was scheduled for October 2, 2000, at the ADE. On October 2, 2000, the ADE met with the parties to discuss the Desegregation Monitoring and Assistance Plan. LRSD submitted a list of items concerning technical assistance. The ADE will respond to the items in the next meeting scheduled for November 15, 2000, at 1 :30 PM in the ADE auditorium. On November 16, 2000 the parties rescheduled the regular meeting at the request of the LRSD. Responses to the LRSD were presented in accordance with the time frame outlined. ADE staff from the School Improvement and Professional Development Section were present to answer questions regarding responses. Representatives from the PCSSD presented a list of modifications at that time. On February 12, 2001 , the ADE Director provided the State Board of Education with a special update on desegregation activities. On April 9, 2001 , the ADE Assistant Director for Accountability provided the State Board of Education with an update on the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee meeting held on April 3, 2001 . The Board supported and approved the report. On June 26, 2001 , Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, attended the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee meeting. Mr. Mark Hagemeier, Assistant Attorney General, reported on the status of the Pulaski County Desegregation Case. On September 14, 2001 , the ADE met with the parties to discuss the Desegregation Monitoring and Assistance Plan, and to identify new and retiring members of the committee. The next meeting is scheduled for October 17, 2001, at 2:30 p.m. in 303A at the ADE. On October 17, 2001 , the ADE met with the parties about the Desegregation Monitoring and Assistance Plan. Issues that had been brought up previously by the PCSSD were discussed. The next meeting is scheduled for November 27, 2001, at 2:30 p.m. at the ADE. On November 27, 2001 , the ADE met with the parties about the Desegregation Monitoring and Assistance Plan. Issues discussed included receiving a written response from the LRSD and the PCSSD with changes they want the ADE to include in the plan. Other issues dealt with technical assistance available through ORME and ACT for the three districts. In December, 2001 , the ADE made informal contacts with various committee members about the Desegregation Monitoring and Assistance Plan. The next meeting with the parties about the Desegregation Monitoring and Assistance Plan is scheduled for February 27, 2002, at 2:30 p.m. at the ADE. 1 56 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 September 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. 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 September 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. 15 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of September 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 for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Mr. Mark Hagemeier, Assistant Attorney General, discussed the court case involving the LRSD seeking unitary status. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for July 11 , 2002 in room 201-A at the ADE. 16 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of September 30, 2002 (Continued) On July 18, 2002, the ADE Implementation Phase Working group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Dr. Charity Smith, Assistant Director for Accountability, talked about section XV in the Project Management Tool (PMT) on Standardized Test Selection to Determine Loan Forgiveness. She said that the goal has been completed, and no additional reporting is required for section XV. Mr. Morris discussed the court case involving the LRSD seeking unitary status. He handed out a Court Order from May 9, 2002, which contained comments from U.S. District Judge Bill Wilson Jr., about hearings on the LRSD request for unitary status. Mr. Morris also handed out a document from the Secretary of Education about the No Child Left Behind Act. There was discussion about how this could have an affect on Desegregation issues. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for October 10, 2002 at 1:30 p.m. in room 201-A at the ADE. 17 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 September 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 September 30, 2002 To date, no action has been taken by the LRSD. 18 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 September 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. C. 1. Projected Ending Date November, 1994 2. Actual as of September 30, 2002 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 September 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 September 30, 2002 The information for this item is detailed under Section IV. E. of this report. 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. 2. Actual as of September 30, 2002 A committee with in 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. 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 September 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 final ize 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. 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 September 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. 22 IV. REPEAL STATUTES AND REGULATIONS THAT IMPEDE DESEGREGATION (Continued) E. Submit proposals to the Legislature for repeal of those laws that appear to be impediments to desegregation. (Continued) 2. Actual as of September 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. 2 3 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 September 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 17 48 and Act 1667 passed during the 83rd Legislative Session which may impede desegregation. These laws will be researched to determine if changes need to be made. A letter was sent from the NLRSD on March 19, noting that the district did not find any laws which impede desegregation. On April 26, 2002, A letter was sent for the PCSSD to the ADE, noting that the district did not find any laws which impede desegregation except the \"deannexation\" legislation which the District opposed before the Senate committee. 24 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 September 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 September 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 September 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 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 September 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. 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 September 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 PMTwas 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. 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 September 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 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. 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 September 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 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. 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 September 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 revised plan would be submitted to the board for approval. 30 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of September 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. 31 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of September 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. CJn 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. 32 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of September 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 Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of March. On May 13, 2002, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of April. On June 10, 2002, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of May. On July 8, 2002, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of June. On August 12, 2002, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of July. 33 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of September 30, 2002 (Continued) ll~~~tA%.f~~lii~ii~\\1i.JKl-~!iil~~~~~Y!tE.l~~@Br~Yt~w~~'iin~:~P.Rr.QY~~ 34 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 September 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. 35 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 September 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. 36 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) A. Through the Extended COE process, the needs for technical assistance by District, by School, and by desegregation compensatory education programs will be identified. (Continued) 2. Actual as of September 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. 37 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) A. Through the Extended COE process, the needs for technical assistance by District, by School, and by desegregation compensatory education programs will be identified. (Continued) 2. Actual as of September 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 September 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 38 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) C. Through the ERIC system, conduct a literature search for research evaluating compensatory education programs. (Continued) 2. Actual as of September 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 ER IC 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 September 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 September 30, 2002 The information for this item is detailed under Section VI.F. of this report. 39 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of September 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. 40 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of September 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. 41 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of September 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, 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. 42 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of September 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 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 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 ACT AAP program, and ACT 999 of 1999. However, Southwest Middle School administrators had a need to reschedule, therefore the workshop will be rescheduled . 43 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of September 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. 44 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of September 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. 45 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of September 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. 46 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of September 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. 47 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of September 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. 48 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of September 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 . 49 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of September 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 administrators at the middle school level, as well as additional materials and assistance to the state's middle school teachers. The event began with opening remarks by Ray Simon, Director of the ADE. Carl Boyd, a longtime educator and staff consultant for Learning 24-7, presented the first keynote address on \"The Character-Centered Teacher\". Debra Pickering, an education consultant from Denver, Colorado, presented the second keynote address on \"Characteristics of Middle Level Education\". Throughout the Smart Step conference, educators attended breakout sessions that were grade-specific and curriculum area-specific. Pat Davenport, an education consultant from Houston, Texas, delivered two addresses. She spoke on \"A Blueprint for Raising Student Achievement\". Representatives from all three districts in Pulaski County attended. Over 1,200 Arkansas teachers and administrators attended the Smart Start Conference on July 12, 2001 , at the Little Rock Statehouse Convention Center. Smart Start is a standards-driven educational initiative which emphasizes the articulation of clear standards for student achievement and accurate measures of progress against those standards through assessments, staff development and individual school accountability. The Smart Start Initiative focused on improving reading and mathematics achievement for all students in Grades K-4. The event began with opening remarks by Ray Simon, Director of the ADE. Carl Boyd, a longtime educator and staff consultant for Learning 24-7, presented the keynote address. The day featured a series of 15 breakout sessions on best classroom practices. Representatives from all three districts in Pulaski County attended. On July 18-20, 2001, the ADE held the Math/Science Leadership Conference at UCA. This provided services for Arkansas math and science teachers to support systemic reform in math/science and training for 8th grade Benchmark. There were approximately 300 teachers from across the state in attendance. 50 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of September 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. 51 VI. REM ED IA TION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of September 30, 2002 (Continued) On December 3-7, 2001 the ADE conducted grade 6 Benchmark scoring training for reading and math. Each school district was invited to send a math and a reading specialist. The training was held at the Holiday Inn Airport in Little Rock. On December 4 and 6, 2001 the ADE conducted Mid-Year Test Administrator Training for Algebra and Geometry. This was held at the Arkansas Activities Association's conference room in North Little Rock. On January 24, 2002, the ADE conducted the Smart Start quarterly meeting by ADE compressed video with Fred Jones presenting. On January 31, 2002, the ADE conducted the Smart Step quarterly meeting by NSCI satellite with Fred Jones presenting. On February 7, 2002, the ADE Smart Step co-sponsored the AR Association of Middle Level Principal's/ADE curriculum, assessment and instruction workshop with Bena Kallick presenting. On February 11-21, 2002, the ADE provided training for Test Administrators on the Primary, Intermediate, and Middle Level Benchmark Exams as well as End of Course Literacy, Algebra and Geometry Exams. The sessions took place at Forrest City, Jonesboro, Mountain Home, Springdale, Fort Smith, Monticello, Prescott, Arkadelphia and Little Rock. A make-up training broadcast was given at 15 Educational Cooperative Video sites on February 22. During February 2002, the LRSD had two attendees for the Benchmark Exam training and one attendee for the End of Course Exam training. The N LRSD and PCSSD each had one attendee at the Benchmark Exam training and one attendee for the End of Course Exam training. The ADE conducted the Smart Start quarterly meeting by compressed interactive video at the South Central Education Service Cooperative from 9:30 a.m. until 11 :30 a.m. on May 2, 2002. Telecast topics included creating a standards-based classroom and a seven-step implementation plan. The principal's role in the process was explained. The ADE conducted the Smart Step quarterly meeting by compressed interactive video at the South Central Education Service Cooperative from 9:30 a.m. until 11 :30 a.m. on May 9, 2002. Telecast topics included creating a standards-based classroom and a seven-step implementation plan. The principal's role in the process was explained. 52 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of September 30, 2002 (Continued) The Twenty-First Annual Curriculum and Instruction Conference, cosponsored by the Arkansas Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development and the Arkansas Department of Education, will be held June 24-26, 2002, at the Arlington Hotel in Hot Springs, Arkansas. \"Ignite Your Enthusiasm for Learning\" is the theme for this year's conference, which will feature educational consultant, Dr. Debbie Silver, as well as other very knowledgeable presenters. Additionally, there will be small group sessions on Curriculum Alignment, North Central Accreditation, Section 504, Building Level Assessment, Administrator Standards, Data Disaggregation, and National Board. The Educational Accountability Unit of the ADE hosted a workshop entitled \"Strategies for Increasing Achievement on the ACTAAP Benchmark Examination\" on June 13-14, 2002 at the Agora Center in Conway. The workshop was presented for schools in which 100% of students scored below the proficient level on one or more parts of the most recent Benchmark Examination. The agenda included presentations on \"The Plan-Do-Check-Act Instructional Cycle\" by the nationally known speaker Pat Davenport. ADE personnel provided an explanation of the MPH point program. Presentations were made by Math and Literacy Specialists. Dr. Charity Smith, Assistant Director for Accountability, gave a presentation about ACTAAP. Break out sessions were held, in which school districts with high scores on the MPH point program offered strategies and insights into increasing student achievement. The NLRSD, LRSD, and PCSSD were invited to attend. The NLRSD attended the workshop. The Smart Start Summer Conference took place on July 8-9, 2002, at the Little Rock Statehouse Convention Center and Peabody Hotel. The Smart Start Initiative focuses on improving reading and mathematics achievement for all students in Grades K-4. The event included remarks by Ray Simon, Director of the ADE. After comments by the Director, Bena Kallick presented the keynote address \"Beyond Mapping: Essential Questions, Assessment, Higher Order Thinking\". This was followed by a series of breakout sessions on best classroom practices. On the second day, Vivian Moore gave the keynote address \"Overcoming Obstacles: Avenues for Student Success\". Krista Underwood gave the presentation \"Put Reading First in Arkansas\". This was followed by a series of breakout sessions on best classroom practices. 53 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of September 30, 2002 (Continued) The Smart Step Summer Conference took place on July 10-11 , 2002, at the Little Rock Statehouse Convention Center and Peabody Hotel. Smart Step focuses on improving student achievement for Grades 5-8. The event included remarks by Ray Simon, Director of the ADE. After comments by the Director, Vivian Moore presented the keynote address \"Overcoming Obstacles: Avenues for Student Success\". This was followed by a series of breakout sessions on best classroom practices. On the second day, Bena Kallick presented \"Beyond Mapping: Essential Questions, Assessment, Higher Order Thinking\". Ken Stamatis presented \"Smart Steps to Creating a School Culture That Supports Adolescent Comprehension\". This was followed by a series of breakout sessions on best classroom practices. On August 8, 2002, Steven Weber held a 'workshop at Booker T. Washington Elementary on '.'Best- Practices in Social Studies'\\)t was presented to.the 4th grade teachers in thelittle Rock Sch6ol District, ihewbrkshop fpcus~d aroLlr}d tiiehve them~~ of-geograpt:Jy\\:1hdthe:s6cf~(studies (foorth'grade) framework/standards3 Several lntem:et web siles 'were shared with the ~tq_fo iullih~ graid~e sodic~1J~tt}1di1e~s .te~ttii::~e.ts a~nf!JintieIrn~t.~veI wtefbf si~te s: tfoir f:ou:rth\n: fJ:g~Jtu\n:f!s~c!~~i~i!v1~~l:1~1~~w!~iJ,rvice.workshop{\n,The 54 VII. TEST VALIDATION A. B. Using a collaborative approach, the ADE will select and contract with an independent bias review service or expert to evaluate the Stanford 8, or other monitoring instruments used to measure disparities in academic achievement between black students and white students. 1. Projected Ending Date March, 1995 2. Actual as of September 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 (SA T-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 September 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 validated test as a monitoring instrument. 1. Projected Ending Date March 1995 and ongoing 55 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 September 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 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. 56 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 September 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 SA T-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. 57 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 September 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. 58 VII. TEST VALIDATION (Continued) C. Upon completion of test validation procedures by the bias review service or expert, the ADE will adopt and use a validated test as a monitoring instrument. (Continued) 2. Actual as of September 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. 59 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 September 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. C. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of September 30, 2002 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 September 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 September 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. 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 September 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. 61 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 September 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 train ing 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. 62 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 September 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. 63 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 September 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 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. 64 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 September 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. 65 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 September 30, 2002 (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. 66 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 September 30, 2002 (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. 67 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 September 30, 2002 (Continued) 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. 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. 68 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 September 30, 2002 (Continued) 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. 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. 69 VIII. IN-SERVICE TRAINING (Continued) D. Evaluate in-service training programs developed and executed to address in-service tra\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_316","title":"Compliance hearing exhibits: ''Curriculum Documents''","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":["2001/2002"],"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","Educational law and legislation","Education--Evaluation","School management and organization","Education--Curricula"],"dcterms_title":["Compliance hearing exhibits: ''Curriculum Documents''"],"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/316"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["exhibition (associated concept)"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\nCURRICULUM DOCUMENTS2o^\u0026gt; zoo zmm (Z) o Curriculum Documents 1. Examples of refrigerator curriculumgrade-level curriculum documents published for parents to delineate the requirements of each grade level and to outline the assessment program. LRSD has a document for each grade level, grades K-8. High school students receive a comprehensive student/parent handbook on graduation requirements and course selections. A. Kindergarten B. Grade 4 C. Grade? 2. Sample pages from the 2001-02 Student/Parent Guide to Middle School Course Selections (includes middle school definition, middle school program standards, list of grade-level requirements, advice to parents on various topics, including Pre-AP courses). 3. Sample pages from the 2001-02 Middle School (Grades 6-8) Curriculum Catalog published for principals, counselors, registrars, and department chairs or team leaders (includes District mission statement, middle school mission statement, directive to principals about the construction of the master scheduleincluding an emphasis on enrollment in Pre-AP courses, and the Placement Criteria for Pre-Advanced Placement and Advanced Placement Courses.) 4. Copy of the 2000-01 High School Student and Parent Guide to Course Selection and Graduation Requirements (the first such publication in LRSD). 5. 7/ Sample pages from the 2001-02 High School Student and Parent Guide to Graduation Requirements and Course Selections (includes letter to all LRSD high school students with advice about taking challenging courses, making no excuses for not learning, choosing a Career Focus of interest, taking all the tests seriously, and getting involved in co/extra-curricular activities and a copy of the Districts graduation policy and regulations). 6. Sample pages from the 2001-02 High School (Grades 9-12) Curriculum Catalog published for principals, counselors, registrars, and department chairs (includes Instructional Division mission, directive to principals relating to the construction of the master schedulewith emphasis on student enrollment in Pre-AP and AP courses, copies of the policy and regulations relating to Pre-AP and AP courses, and Placement Criteria for Pre-AP and AP courses). ^731 A Kindergarten Standards. Benchmarks November 1999 Dear Kindergarten Parents or Guardians: This publication includes the Little Rock School Districts newly developed curriculum content standards and grade-level benchmarks. The benchmarks describe the specific knowledge and skills that your child is expected to learn in kindergarten. We are providing you this information not only for you to be able to check frequently on your childs progress in learning, but also so that you can help reinforce at home what your child is learning at school. We are confident that if the school and home work together in partnership, every student will improve his or her academic performance, and most, if not all, students will meet the Districts standards. You may be interested as well in how we will know if your child is meeting the curriculum standards and benchmarks. The following measurements will be used at the elementary school level:  daily observations and frequent grading of the childs work by the classroom teacher\n teacher-made tests and examinations\n administration of the State Benchmark examinations in grade 4\nadministration of the Stanford 9, a norm-referenced examination, at grade 5, and  LRSD progress examinations administered at least twice a year In grades K-5. Performance on the State Benchmark examinations and the LRSD progress tests will be defined according to one of the following levels: Below Basic, Basic, Proficient, and Advanced. The Little Rock School Districts goal is that a minimum of 90 percent of the students will score at or above the Profi- cienf level. Schools (staff, students, and parents) are challenged to assume collective responsibility to ensure that the goal is met. We encourage you to stay in close touch with your childs teacher. If you cannot go visit the school, you may call the teacher to discuss how your child is doing. Some questions you may want to ask are as follows: 1. Is my child learning at an appropriate rate? How do you know? 2. What are my childs academic strengths? Weaknesses? 3. How can I help my child build on his or her strengths? Help in areas of weakness? If you have questions about the information in this publication, please ask your childs teacher or the principal of the school. Sinrtrely, Dr. Bonnie A. Lesley, Associate Superintendent for InstructionLanguage Arts READING  Recognize that print carries the message.  Know where to begin and which way to go when reading (left to right and return).  Recognize the difference between capital and lowercase letters.  Identify and produce pairs of spoken rhyming words.  Name and identify each letter of the alphabet.  Associate letters with the sounds they represent.  Retell the important parts of a story (including beginning, middle, and end) read by the teacher.  Recognize that a sentence is a group of words expressing a complete thought.  Use personal experience to make predictions and to understand what is read by the teacher.  Recognize different kinds of texts: fairy tales, poems, animal books, etc.  Put stories in order using pictures or diagrams.  Participate in shared reading of books, poems, and songs.  Choose to read familiar books.  Respond through talk, art, or drama to a variety of stories and poems from many cultures.  Use technology to practice reading.  Check out books in the library.  Recognize and appreciate the works of a single author. 9 M LISTENING/SPEAKING/VIEWING  Understand different purposes for listening (information, persuasion, and enjoyment).  Show respect for the speaker.  Listen to and enjoy patterns, rhyming words, and phrases.  Understand stories told or read aloud.  Ask appropriate questions\nmake comments after listening.  Follow simple spoken directions, and give simple directions.  Enjoy and respond to stories, speakers, and musical performers.  Share ideas\nrespond in discussions.  Participate in shared reading, simple plays, and story retellings.  Speak clearly in complete sentences and with appropriate grammar. * WRITING  Understand that print is speech written down.  Understand the difference between letters, words, and sentences.  Follow the pattern in a predictable, repetitive book.  Use pictures, talking, and role playing to develop ideas for writing.  Dictate stories for others to write down, write\" labels, and draw pictures to communicate.  Draw or write in response to stories read by others.  Participate in a teacher-led revision.  Attempt to write lists, labels, letters, and stories.  Develop a collection of writings.  Choose to write stories, notes, etc. on his/her own.  Participate with the class to write a list, thank-you note, invitations, and stories.  Look with the teacher at his/her own written work to see progress.  Demonstrate growing awareness of relationship between letters and sounds in writing.  Use capital letters correctly in first and last name. Mathematics NUMBER SENSE  Demonstrate one-to-one correspondence using manipulatives.  Count to 20 and beyond.  Identify numerals to 20 and beyond.  Connect numerals and names to quantities.  Explore counting many kinds of things.  Count and create sets of a given size.  Record quantities using numerals and pictures.  Develop a strategy for counting and keeping track of quantities.  Solve problems with many possible solutions.  Manipulate objects to demonstrate addition and subtraction to and from 10.  Compare quantities (larger, smaller, more than, less than). GEOMETRY  Identify geometric shapes.  Explore geometric shapes in our surroundings and in literature.  Identify, describe, and sort shapes by likenesses and differences.  Use shapes to identify, create, and extend patterns and designs. MEASUREMENT  Demonstrate an understanding of more/less, big/1 ittle, full/empty, heavy/light, long/short in relationship to length, mass, and quantities.  Explore and identify use for a clock, scale, thermometer, and calendar.  Identify and use units of time, day, and week.  Order leastto greatest.  Measure using nonstandard units (cubes, teddy bear counters, etc.). sr T h\" I $a0 October r r r n sr 55\" I T-w \u0026gt;r IT r-r \"b 9 7 u  r 40 w s* TT I*  f II DATA, PROBABILITY, AND STATISTICS  Collect and record data and/or information.  Develop and use language to describe and compare amounts.  Interpret and record ideas using pictures, numerals, and/or graphs. ALGEBRA (PATTERNS AND RELATIONSHIPS)  Recognize and describe a pattern.  Create, extend, and record a pattern. Science CONNECTIONS AND APPLICATIONS  Apply various thinking/problem-solving strategies to scientific issues.  Explore the world of work and science-related careers. SCIENTIFIC INQUIRY  Follow oral instructions.  Examine the techniques of scientific inquiry: problem solving, questioning, reasoning, and creative decision making.  Leam about the natural world by observing, collecting data, using tools, describing, and hypothesizing. LIFE SCIENCE  Identify the five senses (tasting, smelling, hearing, seeing, touching) and use them to leam about the environment.  Identify main parts ofthe human body.  Identify things as living or nonliving.  Explore life cycles of animals and plants.  Be aware of ways that people use and misuse the environment.  Understand that all living things need natural resources. PHYSICAL SCIENCE  Identify physical properties such as color, shape, texture, and ability to float.  Measure length (using rulers), volume (using different sized containers), and weight of objects (using scales).  Observe the light spectrum passing through a prism.  Observe the vibration of objects that make sounds. EARTH AND SPACE SCIENCE  Understand that the day-night cycle and seasonal cycle occur in an observable pattern.  Identify the factors that make up weather.  Explore uses of materials taken from the earth.  Explore characteristics of the sun, earth, moon, and stars. Social Studies CITIZENSHIP II  Recognize George Washington as the first United States President.  Recognize the White House and the United States flag.  Recognize our National Anthem and the Pledge of Allegiance.  Recognize the state symbol and important places in Arkansas. INTERDEPENDENCE  Determine simple location and directions\nfollow directional terms.  Understand layout of the school.  Recognize the shape of Arkansas and the United States.  Read simple map symbols\nidentify north and south poles on a globe.  Give personal information (full name, age, family members, state, city, and county).  Recognize people and places in the community.  Identify common safety symbols (traffic signs, lights).  Match people with the work they do. CTO Board of Education Sue Strickland, President Larry Berkley H. Baker Kurrus Dr. Katherine Mitchell Mike Daugherty Judy Magness Mike Kumpuris Dr. Leslie Gamine, Superintendent of Schools Dr. Bonnie Lesley, Associate Superintendent, Division of Instruction Ms. Patricia Price, Director of Early Childhood Education and Elementary Literacy Mr. Dennis Glasgow, Director of Mathematics and Science Ms. Marie McNeal, Director of Social Studies Special Thanks to Kris Huffman, IllustratorB 4* SRAOE Standards, Benchmarks November 1999 Dear Grade 4 Parents or Guardians: This publication includes the Little Rock School Districts newly developed curriculum content standards and grade-level benchmarks. The benchmarks describe the specific knowledge and skills that your child is expected to learn in fourth grade. We are providing you this information not only for you to be able to check frequently on your childs progress in learning, but also so that you can help reinforce at home what your child is learning at school. We are confident that if the school and home work together in partne rship, every student will improve his or her academic performance, and most, if not all, students will mee- the Districts standards. You may be interested as well in how we will know if your child is meeting the curriculum standards and benchmarks. The following measurements will be used at the elementary school level: daily observations and frequent grading of the childs work by the classroom teacher\nteacher-made tests and examinations\nadministration ofthe State Benchmark examinations in grade 4\nadministration ofthe Stanford 9, a norm-referenced examination, at grade 5\nand LRSD progress examinations administered at least twice a year in grades K-5. Performance on the State Benchmark examinations and the LRSD progress tests will be defined according to one ofthe following levels: Below Basic, Basic, Proficient, and Advanced. The Little Rock School Districts goal is that a minimum of 90 percent of the students will score at or above the Profi- cienf level. Schools (staff, students, and parents) are challenged to assume collective responsibility to ensure that the goal is met. We encourage you to stay in close touch with your childs teacher. If you cannot go visit the school, you may call the teacher to discuss how your child is doing. Some questions you may want to ask are as follows: 1. Is my child learning at an appropriate rate? How do you know? 2. What are my childs academic strengths? Weaknesses? 3. How can I help my child build on his or her strengths? Help in areas of weakness? If you have questions about the information in this publication, please ask your childs teacher or the principal of the school. Sincerely, Dr. Bonnie A. Lesley, Associate Superintendent for InstructionLanguage Arts READING  Use context clues, picture cues, knowledge of sentence structure, and phonics to decode and to understand text.  Expand personal vocabulary through reading.  Understand that the goal of reading is to construct meaning.  Recognize purpose for reading (enjoyment, information, persuasion, and investigation).  Use relationships between words and sentences, sentences and paragraphs, and paragraphs and whole pieces to understand text.  Use specific strategies such as analyzing, predicting, and determining important ideas to understand text.  Use functional print (schedules, catalogs, directories, charts, maps, graphs, and directions) to complete tasks.  Recognize features of familiar types of literature including biographies, historical and realistic fiction, narratives, tall tales, and mysteries.  Select appropriate reading material from library/media centers to read independently - at least 30 books each year.  Read, listen and respond to a variety of literature from diverse cultures.  Read more than one work by an author.  Maintain a reading portfolio (reading log, record of conferences, etc.).  Use available technology to conduct research about an assigned or self-selected topic. LISTENING/SPEAKING/VIEWING  Listen attentively to speakers.  Confirm understanding in discussion, notes, and summaries.  Follow/give oral directions, contribute to class and small group discussions, and discuss current events.  Give reasons for personal opinions.  Select and retell a story using descriptive language and elements of a story.  Participate in group speaking activities (choral reading, plays, recitation of poetry).  Read orally with expression and meaning.  Work with others to solve and resolve problems.  Use technology (videos, pictures, recordings, computers) to enhance and evaluate presentations and performances.  Speak in complete sentences, and use clear, concise, organized language when speaking.  Accept contributions of the group or teacher and set goals to improve speaking performance.  Participate in discussion by taking turns respectfully when speaking and listening.  Speak in complete sentences, using increasingly correct grammar.  Use clear, concise, organized language when speaking and responding to questions.  Demonstrate an awareness of the presence of media in daily life. OE r WRITING  Write reactions to personal and school-related experiences in a variety of ways (journal, notes, descriptions, stories, etc.).  Write an informational piece of at least three paragraphs on one topic using at least three sources of information.  Write organized paragraphs with topic sentences with some supporting details and concluding sentences.  Write stories that include well-developed story elements (character, setting, etc.), with a recognizable beginning, middle, and end, in chronological order.  Follow patterns to compose a poem, play or informational text.  Generate ideas for writing by brainstorming, using reference materials, books and charts.  Write a personal narrative of at least three paragraphs that relate ideas, observations, and memories.  Write in one or more subject areas daily.  Recognize and express cultural diversity in writing of others.  Access information for writing, using computer software, videos, etc.  Write in a variety of forms (journals, stories, poems, letters, interviews, notes).  Write for peers, parents, teachers, and community for a variety of purposes (to persuade, entertain, inform, respond, and solve problems).  Develop a collection of writings.  Write independently on self-selected topics.  Develop a piece of writing by categorizing ideas.  Work in cooperative groups to produce a written product.  Accept responsibility for completing writing tasks.  Edit writing for appropriate spelling, usage, mechanics, grammar, vocabulary, handwriting, and content accuracy.  Refine and publish selected writing (bulletin boards, class books, oral reading, newsletter, sharing in a group, etc.). l(o Abou+ ity by 16 9 I Mathematics NUMBER SENSE  Explore a variety of strategies to understand multiplication.  Recognize prime numbers.  Explore a variety of strategies to understand division.  Understand that division notation represents a variety of situations.  Identify and use factors and multiples of 100 and 1000.  Read, write, and sequence numbers in the thousands.  Estimate quantities to 1000.  Solve addition and subtraction problems by reasoning from known relationships through thousands.  Explore the relationship among halves, fourths, and eighths\nthirds, sixths, and twelfths.  Combine fractions to make a whole.  Sequence fractions.  Identify equivalent fractions.  Compare and combine decimals.  Develop the relationship between fractions and decimals (example\n0.5=72). I I GEOMETRY  Use geometric perspective to draw views of three-dimensional figures.  Communicate effectively about three-dimensional figures.  Use coordinates to name and locate points on a grid.  Use symmetry (turns and mirror images) to design patterns.  Describe geometric figures in several ways. DATA, PROBABILITY, AND STATISTICS  Collect and organize data using categories.  Represent and analyze data.  Describe and compare data using fractions. ALGEBRA (PATTERNS AND RELATIONSHIPS)  Explore number patterns that represent geometric situations.  Identify multiplication patterns of numbers.  Use positive and negative coordinates to name and locate points on a grid. Science CONNECTIONS AND APPLICATIONS  Understand that science is interwoven into the structure of all disciplines.  Understand that decision making in the area of science and technology involves choices and risks.  Recognize that mathematics is the basis of communication in science.  Understand that tools allow tasks to be done more easily.  Explore the world of work and science-related careers. SCIENTIFIC INQUIRY  Follow written and oral instructions.  Use problem solving, questioning, reasoning, and creative decision making.  Leam about the natural world by observing, collecting data, using tools, describing, hypothesizing, and investigating.  Understand that culture, experiences, and prior knowledge influence logical thinking.  Understand that scientific explanations may change due to the discovery of new information.  Communicate successfully with others about investigations.  Use lenses and mirrors to alter light beams.  Classify materials according to the way light passes through them.  Combine colored light to produce new colors. LIFE SCIENCE  Describe the process by which plants make food.  Identify plant parts that are used as food around the world.  Identify commercial plants grown in Arkansas.  Describe ways that plants are used for clothing, shelter, decoration, and medicine.  Describe how farming practices have changed over time.  Understand that the kinds of forests and other plants in an area are determined by climate. PHYSICAL SCIENCE  Construct a simple electric circuit using only a wire, bulb, and D-cell.  Construct series and parallel circuits.  Classify materials as conductors or insulators.  Know that electricity can produce light and heat.  Describe the purpose of circuit components such as switches and diodes.  Demonstrate that light travels in a straight line. EARTH AND SPACE SCIENCE  Diagram the rock cycle.  Identify minerals by testing color, streak, and hardness of materials.  Identify uses of rocks and minerals.  Identify major landforms on Earth.  Describe weathering, erosion, and other processes that create or change landforms.  Describe the process of soil formation.  Understand that much of Earths history is recorded in fossils found in rock layers.  Describe the importance of oceans as a habitat for living things.  Describe the importance of oceans, along with rivers and lakes, as routes of transportation.  Compare and contrast salt water and fresh water.  Contrast waves and currents.  Locate major rivers, lakes, and oceans.  Describe the characteristics of estuaries, tidal communities, and mangrove swamps.  Identify resources that come from the ocean. Social Studies CITIZENSHIP  Explain how Americans share in and participate in government.  Develop and apply behaviors consistent with liberty, justice, and equal opportunity.  Identify and distinguish areas of responsibility among major government authorities at the local, state, and national levels.  List services the state and national government provide for the people.  Identify examples of responsible citizenship. INTERDEPENDENCE  Identify and label the 50 states and capitals in the United States.  Prepare a map of U.S. regions with their major places and describe their importance.  Compare and contrast regions of the United States.  Distinguish between tropic, temperate, and polar climate zones.  Compare times in different parts of the United States.  Describe a river system and its function.  Describe how people live and work in regions of the United States.  Locate Arkansas and neighboring states on an outline map of the United States.  Compare and contrast the geographic features of the six regions in Arkansas.  Analyze the interdependence of people in various communities and regions within the United States and Arkansas (past and present). Use various resources and processes to analyze how communities in Arkansas vary in land use, vegetation, wildlife, climate, population, and architectural services.  Use varied news sources to gain information and communicate current events.  Determine fact/opinion and cause/effect as they relate to current events. CONTINUITY AND CHANGE  Describe the changes in the United States from an agricultural to an industrial economy.  Compare and contrast cities of today with cities in the past.  Explain why the U.S. is called a Nation of Immigrants and determine why people migrate.  Describe ways people maintain ties with the past.  Explain how past history influences and affects current traditions.  Analyze how changes in Arkansas natural resources influence development (decline and growth of communities, job opportunities, transportation, and tourism).  Explore and explain the technological changes in the U.S. and Arkansas, such as agriculture, transportation, and communication.  Analyze ways people have damaged and protected the environment. CULTURAL PERSPECTIVE  Explore cultures using a variety of resources.  Use a variety of resources and processes to understand and appreciate the racial, ethnic, and religious make-up of the United States.  Use various resources and processes to examine and analyze cultural perspectives. SCARCITY AND CHOICE  Describe the basic economic system of regions in the United States.  Identify and give examples of basic economic terms, such as supply and demand, opportunity costs, trade-offs.  Illustrate consumer rights and responsibilities.  Distinguish between service and manufacturing jobs.  Assess whether or not all people have the same needs and the same opportunities to meet them.  Identify, locate and write descriptions of major industries in the United States  Evaluate economic decisions.  Illustrate and explain how water, soil, and forests influence the development of Arkansas.  Identify and locate mineral and fossil fuel resources of Arkansas and their influence on the development of Arkansas. COOPERATION AND CONFLICT  Explore conflict and cooperation within the U.S. and between the U.S. and other regions.  Examine conflict and cooperation using a variety of resources.  Analyze problems people in cities encounter and ways used to solve them.Board of Education Sue Strickland, President Larry Berkley H. Baker Kurrus Dr. Katherine Mitchell Mike Daugherty Judy Magness Mike Kumpuris Dr. Leslie Gamine, Superintendent of Schools Dr. Bonnie Lesley, Associate Superintendent, Division of Instruction Ms. Patricia Price, Director of Early Childhood Education and Elementary Literacy Mr. Dennis Glasgow, Director of Mathematics and Science Ms. Marie McNeal, Director of Social Studies Special Thanks to Kris Huffman, Illustrator c 7*'' GRADE Standards, Benchmarks November 1999 Dear Grade 7 Parents or Guardians: This publication includes the Little Rock School Districts newly developed curriculum content standards and grade-level benchmarks. The benchmarks describe the specific knowledge and skills that your child is expected to learn in grade 7. We are providing you this information not only for you to be able to check frequently on your child's progress in l- jaming, but also so that you can help reinforce at home what your child is learning at school. We are confident that if the school and home work together in partnership, every student will improve his or her academic performance, and most, if not all, students will meet the Districts standards. You may be interested as well in how we will know if your child is meeting the curriculum standards and benchmarks. The following measurementswill be used at the middle school level: daily observations and frequent grading of the childs work by the classroom teacher teacher-made tests and examinations administration of the State Benchmark examinations in grades 6 and 8. administration of the Stanford 9, a norm-referenced examination, at grade 7. LRSD progress examinations administered at least twice a year in grades 6-8. Performance on the State Benchmark examinations and the LRSD progress tests will be defined according to one of the following levels: Below Basic, Basic, Proficient, and Advanced. The Little Rock School Districts goal is that a minimum of 90 percent of the students will score at or above the Profi- cienf level. Schools (staff, students, and parents) are challenged to assume collective responsibility to ensure that the goal is met. We encourage you to stay in close touch with your childs teacher. If you cannot go visit the school, you may call the teacher to discuss how your child is doing. Some questions you may want to ask are as follows: 1. Is my child learning at an appropriate rate? How do you know? 2. What are my childs academic strengths? Weaknesses? 3. How can I help my child build on his or her strengths? Help in areas of weakness? If you have questions about the information in this publication, please ask your childs teacher or the principal of the school. Sil sreiy. Associate Superintendent for InstructionLanguage Arts READING Practice reading individually and in groups. Gain information from reading. Put material read into own words. Draw conclusions and make inferences in regard to reading material. Identify different purposes of reading and writing. Identify styles of authors. Identify kinds of literature and their purposes (literary^elf-expressive, persuasive, and informative). Follow written directions. Use logic to follow directions. Use word-attack skills to read accurately and to understand information. Determine word meaning from clues in the reading material. Use information from previously learned information to evaluate new information. Use headings, italics, footnotes, and other printed features to sort and organize information. Identify and compare elements of reading such as setting and characterization. Select reading materials representing a variety of cultures. Read orally with expression and ease. Increase vocabulary from reading. Use reference aids such as a dictionary, thesaurus, and computer. Select reading materials appropriate for reading for pleasure, finding information, and for use to help in writing. Use compare and contrast skills in reading. Understand metaphor, simile, personification, and other figurative language techniques. Use examples to support opinions and conclusions about reading material. Read graphs, tables, maps, and diagrams. V A', rC',C' dic-tion-ar-y 0 1 I WRITING  Write in personal journals, logs, and in other assigned ways in both formal and informal assignments.  Write in class for uninterrupted periods of time on topics from personal experiences and topics assigned in class..  Use freewriting, brainstorming, and other methods for prewriting and beginning activities.  Create a first draft with a central idea and with paragraphs containing a topic sentence, supporting details, and a closing sentence.  Use appropriate outlines and organizing methods to practice thinking and analyzing skills.  Use appropriate skills in mechanics, spelling, and usage in writing.  Proofread writing in peer groups and with teacher for information, organization, and style.  Use a dictionary, thesaurus, and other resources to correct spelling, grammar, punctuation, and usage.  Use internet, reference books, library materials, and personal interviews to collect information.  Produce polished pieces of writing to be shared or published and collected in a writing portfolio.  Use computers and technology to produce a final piece of writing.  Write for different audiences.  Produce and collect multiple works of writing in various forms and styles as discussed in class. LISTENING, SPEAKING, VIEWING  Follow and give oral directions using logic.  Speak clearly and effectively.  Listen and participate in group discussions.  Evaluate and analyze information gained through listening to others.  Summarize and put into own words what is said by others.  Read orally with expression and understanding.  Classify examples of bias, propaganda, and censorship.  Plan, put together, and present a visual demonstration or project which delivers a message to an audience.  Make oral presentations before a group, using effective body language and speaking voice.  Conduct an interview with someone to find specific infonnation.  Greet and make appropriate introductions of visitors to the class.  Respond appropriately to an introduction. Mathematics NUMBER  Reason proportionally using ratios, rates, and percents to express comparisons.  Use ratios, percents, rates, and fractions to make larger or smaller scale models.  Compare, order, and solve problems using integers.  Represent integers on a number line.  Graph coordinates on a quadrant plane. GEOMETRY  Recognize and create similar figures.  Explore scale factors and the relationship between scale factor, area, and perimeter.  Compare similar figures to leam about scale factors and ratios.  Solve real world problem using the concept of similarity. I MEASUREMENT  Develop the concept of volume as a measure of filling an object.  Develop the concept of surface area as a measure of wrapping an object.  Find the volume and surface area of regular and irregular solids.  Compare the volumes of a cone, a sphere, and a cylinder with equal radius and height. DATA, PROBABILITY, AND STATISTICS  Interpret and analyze data in graphs and tables.  Use graphing calculators to create and compare tables and graphs. ALGEBRA (PATTERNS AND RELATIONSHIPS)  Understand the concept of variable.  Use variables to represent relationships in graphs, tables, written rules, and equations. Social Studies CITIZENSHIP  Describe the difference between democracy and other forms of world governments.  Compare and contrast the rights, privileges, and responsibilities of citizens in diverse political systems.  Analyze the characteristics of citizenship as it relates to different countries.  Identify and describe the qualities of citizenship needed to solve todays global problems and issues. INTERDEPENDENCE  Use various geographic and reference materials to acquire, organize, analyze, and interpret geographic information and issues.  Identify, locate, and describe physical regions, countries, and major cities of the U.S.A., Canada, Latin America. Europe, Russia, Southwest and East Asia, Africa, and Australia.  Identify continents by outlines and compare and contrast physical features of continents.  Describe ways people and nations interact with each other and with the environment.  Read and analyze current event global issues and problems. CONTINUITY AND CHANGE  Describe and analyze the impact of human changes to the environment  Demonstrate an understanding of technological changes and the impacton how people live.  Relate an event in history with social change.  Use a variety of processes and appropriate methods and tools to explore and understand continuity and change in the global society. CULTURAL PERSPECTIVES  Describe the elements and factors that distinguish cultures.  Compare and contrast cultural features of regions.  Identify and describe the major cultural regions of the U.S.A., Canada, Latin America, Europe, Russia, Southwest and East Asia, Africa, and Australia.  Determine ways that culture influences people's perceptions of places and regions.  Identify and evaluate different viewpoints regarding the use of resources.  Examine the relationship between historical events and cultural development.  Demonstrate a respect for different cultural perspectives. COOPERATION AND CONFLICT  Examine effects of prejudice and discrimination against racial, cultural, ethnic, and religious groups of the world.  Examine ways people attempt to combat world prejudice and discrimination.  Identify and explain reasons for conflict within and between regions and countries.  Give examples of global conflicts and cooperation.  Relate competition for resources to conflict and cooperation between regions and countries.  Draw conclusions about how regional differences or similarities may lead to cooperation and conflict. SCARCITY AND CHOICE  Explore how factors such as technology, population growth, and resources are related to economic development of nations.  Analyze the distribution of goods and resources among nations of the world.  Describe major industries and businesses in the United States.  Describe and compare the economic systems of the world.  Use various methods, tools, and resources to understand, explain, and analyze scarcity in the world. Arkansas Studies CITIZENSHIP  Identify and explain the purposes of Arkansas government  Discuss and evaluate the concepts of good citizenship, and practice forms of civic participation.  Explain the historical and current impact of American public policy on Arkansas' racial, religious, geographic, ethnic, economic, and linguistic diversity.  Know and understand the organization, function, and operation of local, county, and state governments, and examine methods of influencing policy in a democratic government.  Analyze the characteristics of effective leadership in Arkansas today and in the past.  Analyze and compare opposing viewpoints in creating and effectively communicating solutions to public issues in Arkansas.  Describe and analyze the use, abuse, and limits of power and authority in Arkansas.  Demonstrate a sound knowledge of the geography of Arkansas as it relates to politics. SCARCITY AND CHOICE  Describe the various Arkansas institutions at local, state, and national levels that make up economic systems, such as households, business firms, banks, government agencies, labor unions, and corporations.  Examine existing data and research from various viewpoints showing how technology, population growth, resource use, and environmental quality are related to economic development within the state.  Describe the role that location, supply and demand, prices, incentives, and profits play in determining what is produced and distributed by Arkansas companies in a competitive market system.  Propose and evaluate alternative uses of environments and resources in Arkansas.  Analyze and explain how choices made with respect to scarcity in the past have profound influences on choices available today. COOPERATION AND CONFLICT  Demonstrate areas of inequity and discrimination based on race, sex, age, physical condition, and socioeconomic status in Arkansas.  Examine the contribution ofthe arts, literature, media, technology, and languages in fostering cooperation and in causing conflict in Arkansas.  Analyze how disparities in power and economic status lead to conflict.  Compare and contrast the causes and consequences of conflict within the state, the nation, and the world.  Identify, explore, and analyze conflict among individuals and groups as well as various methods used to resolve conflict.  Evaluate the role of technology in contributing to the creation and resolution of conflict in Arkansas. INTERDEPENDENCE  Analyze how decisions and events in Arkansas and the world affect each other.  Use various methods to illustrate interactions between the people of Arkansas and their environment.  Relate the evidence of historical and cultural languages to the development ofthe state.  Analyze and evuiuate the history, causes, consequences, and possible solutions to present-day issues and emerging global issues, such as health, security, resource distribution, economic development, and environmental quality.  Understand spatial relationships and locate places on Arkansas, U.S., and world maps.  Describe and evaluate the role of Arkansas in the global arena. CONTINUITY AND CHANGE  Investigate the processes and evaluate the impact of change over time in Arkansas.  Explore and explain the changes in developments such as technology, transportation, agriculture, and communications that affect Arkansas social and economic activity.  Investigate how political events, technological changes, and cultural diffusion have affected literature, languages, and arts overtime in Arkansas.  Analyze continuity and change in concepts of individual rights (race, ethnic, and gender issues) and responsibilities over time in the state.  Explore, interpret, analyze, and evaluate various viewpoints within and across cultures related to events and issues. CULTURAL PERSPECTIVES  Examine information and developments in Arkansas and explain how they may be viewed differently by people from diverse cultures.  Analyze the historical perspectives that contribute to the development and transmission of Arkansas cultures through language, literature, the arts, architecture, traditions, beliefs, and values,  Compare and contrast various cultures in Arkansas.  Describe the ways family, religion, gender, ethnicity, socioeconomic status, and other group characteristics contribute to developing an appreciation of Arkansas heritage.  Identify and describe the various movements or periods of significant historical change within and across cultures.  Explore ways that Arkansas natural and built environments interact with culture.  Analyze and demonstrate the value of both cultural diversity and cohesion within and across groups.  Examine and explain belief systems underlying Arkansas traditions and laws.Science CONNECTIONS AND APPLICATIONS  Understand that science is interwoven into the structure of all disciplines.  Understand that decision-making in the area of science and technology involves choices and risks.  Recognize that mathematics is the basis of communication in science.  Understand that tools allow tasks to be done more easily.  Explore the world of work and science-related careers. SCIENTIFIC INQUIRY  Follow written and oral instnictions.  Use problem solving, questioning, reasoning, and creative decision making.  Learn about the natural world by observing, collecting data, using tools, describin'j, hypothesizing, and investigating.  Understand that cultures, experiences, and prior knowledge alter logical thinking.  Understand that scientific explanations may change due to the discovery of new infonnation.  Communicate successfully with others about investigations. EARTH SCIENCE  Describe how moving water affects the formation of the earth, both on the surface and under the ground.  Distinguish between erosion and deposition.  Describe how a glacier is formed.  Describe how wind and water erode the surface of the earth.  Explain how the Earths and Moons motions causes moon phases, eclipses, and tides.  Know the reasons for the seasons. LIFE SCIENCE  Describe the major characteristics and activities of monerans, protists, and fungi.  Describe the ways that monerans, protists, and fungi affect other living things.  Describe the characteristics all animals have in common.  Classify animals using their characteristics.  Explain the differences between sexual and asexual reproductions. . Draw and explain the stages in the life cycle of animals (such as egg-caterpillar-butterfly and egg-tadpole-frog).  Explain how changes within animals help them survive on Earth (give specific examples).  List the characteristics of plants.  Describe the structure and function of roots, stems, leaves, and flowers.  Describe methods of reproduction in plants.  Understand how plants make food and oxygen through photosynthesis and use oxygen during respiration.  Classify plants based on their characteristics.  Know how the ecology of the environment is organized, such as population\u0026gt;community\u0026gt;ecosystem\u0026gt;biosphere.  Describe how energy moves through an ecosystem (example: sun helps grass to grow, grasshoppers eat the grass, frogs eat the grasshoppers, etc.).  Describe how the amount of food, water, or other environmental factors affect organisms.  DUeessccnriboee hnooww doiifnfeerreennti ppliaaniutss cuhiaainiygce iInII aanil aariceaa over twimiiev.. . Identify the different types of relationships between plants and animals in an environment (such as mutualism, commensalism, parasitism).  Describe the process of color vision. PHYSICAL SCIENCE  Understand time, distance, and displacement form the basis for motion.  Distinguish between velocity and speed.  Distinguish between velocity and acceleration.  Understand acceleration along curves.  Calculate the acceleration of a falling object.  Describe projectile motion.  Describe how a satellite is a projectile in free-fall.  Understand factors related to the motion of a pendulum.  Describe the characteristics of waves.  Identify the different types of waves (transverse and longitudinal).  Explain the relationship between frequency, wavelength, and speed in a wave.  Explain constructive and destructive wave interference.  Describe how sound waves are fonned, transmitted, and received. . Understand the Doppler Effect (such as how the sound changes as it comes towards you or goes away from you).  Describe the waves caused by earthquakes.  Identify how light travels.  Describe reflection and refraction of light.  Compare and contrast opaque, translucent, and transparent materials.  Examine the visible light spectrum. . Explain the differences between substances, elements, compounds, and mixtures.  Describe the physical properties of matter.  Distinguish between physical and chemical changes and properties.  Understand solutions and factors that affect solubility.  Describe the properties of acid and base.  Explain how a reaction between an acid and a base produces a salt. Board of Education Sue Strickland, President Larry Berkley H. Baker Kurrus Dr. Katherine Mitchell Mike Daugherty Judy Magness Mike Kumpuris Dr. Leslie Gamine, Superintendent of Schools Dr. Bonnie Lesley, Associate Superintendent, Division of Instruction Ms. Suzanne Davis, Middle School Reading/Writing Workshop Specialist Mr. Dennis Glasgow, Director of Mathematics and Science Ms. Marie McNeal, Director of Social Studies Special Thanks to Kris Huffman, Illustrator 2 A Student/Parent Guide to Middle School Course Selections 2001-2002 Little Rock School District Division of Instruction 3001 S. Pulaski Little Rock, AR 72206 501/324-2000 www.lrsd.org A Student/Parent Guide to Middle School Course Selections Little Rock School District 2001-2002 What Is a Middle School? The middle school years are a transition period from elementary to high school. In the Little Rock School District, the middle schools encompass grades 6, 7, and 8. In October 1998 as we were planning for the transition in fall 1999 from junior high schools to middle schools, the Board of Education approved a set of Middle School Program Standards that defined for students, parents, staff, and community our vision of what our middle schools should become. We worked hard at both the District and individual school levels to implement as many of the standards as possible during the first year of the transition. Others were implemented in fall 2000. And others will be priorities in fall 2001. Those program standards follow: LRSD Middle School Program Standards (Adopted by the Board of Education on October 22,1998) Teaching and Learning All LRSD Middle Schools will:  Align all parts of grades 6-8 academic programming with grades K-5 and 9-12 academic programming to ensure appropriate learning readiness, growth, and transition at the middle school level.  Establish a district-wide set of rigorous standards for content to direct the teaching and learning of language arts/reading, mathematics, science, and social studies. Establish a district-wide set of clear and challenging standards for student performance in language arts/reading, mathematics, science, and social studies.  Enrich academic learning for all students through age and skill appropriate study of visual and performing arts and foreign languages. Provide all students with health and fitness education that promotes the development of a life-long healthy lifestyle and offers a variety of recreation, personal fitness, and individual and team sport activities.  Use integrated and thematic teaching as a method for helping all students to make connections across the curriculum, and in ways that make it possible for all students to: -think critically and creatively and problem solve\n-participate as empowered and engaged hands-on learners\n-make real-world connections and school-to-work applications (career education)\n-use technology as a tool for learning and for skills building practice\n-collaborate with their peers and teachers\n-develop socialization skills and cultural awareness through opporhmities to interact with others beyond the classroom and into the community\nand -demonstrate evidence of learning in a variety of ways.  Assess and report individual and/or group learning in relation to the performance standards. 1 Organization and Accountability All LRSD Middle Schools will:  Organize teaching staff into interdisciplinary teams that serve a common group of students of manageable size for appropriate periods of time during the school day, throughout the school year, and throughout the Middle School experience.  Structure required and elective course offerings to fit the interdisciplinary team approach, as well as the learning interests, abilities, and needs of all students, including those with identified giftedness, those in need of special education services, and those in need of English-as-a-Second Language (ESL) services. Provide all students with access to interest clubs, scholar clubs, student government participation opportunities, intramural sports, and competitive athletics to provide opportunities for healthy interaction with peers and adults.  Use flexible scheduling to provide appropriate periods of time for thematic teaching and learning and provide extended learning opportunities beyond the school day and the school year to enhance and support the leamin'\nsuccess of all students.  Ensure that adequ':.te time is provided for common planning for teams, for professional development, for interaction with specialized teaching and support services staff and student families, and for staff participation in campus-based decision-making.  Commit to campus-based leadership and decision-making to chart and customize the educational course of the school, using student achievement data and proven practices.  Develop opportunities for families and the community-at-large to support the school and to participate in the educational processes of the school. Governance and Resources All LRSD Middle Schools will:  Ensure through an ongoing professional development program that all middle school staff are specifically prepared for middle school work and are committed to the education of all young adolescents in a culturally diverse community.  Empower each middle school principal to be a leader of leaders for whom a primary task is to develop leadership in teachers.  Empower all middle school teachers to perceive themselves as generalists first and specialists second, who perform multiple roles and who are committed to interdisciplinary team organization.  Plan to acquire on a most-to-least needed basis all materials, including technology, and supplies necessary to provide thematic learning experiences through interdisciplinary team organization. Ensure that classroom materials and supplies are age and skill appropriate, that they directly support content and performance standards, and that they appeal to the interests of the students.  Empower teams to determine how the school budget is appropriated to ensine that needs are met and goals are achieved. 2 What Are the Required Courses in the Middle School Curriculum? The Board of Education approved in October 1998 a set of required courses for each grade-level of our middle schools, as well as a set of electives that would be available at each school. As changes are made to these approved lists, they are submitted again to the Board for approval. All LRSD students are required to complete successfully the following courses: Grade 6* Reading/Writing Workshop 6 (2 periods) or Reading/Writing Workshop 6 Pre-AP (1 period) and Research and Writing 6 Pre-AP (1 period) Mathematics 6 or Mathematics 6 Pre-AP Science 6 or Science 6 Pre-AP Social Studies 6 or Social Studies 6 Pre-AP Keyboarding (1 semester) Physical Education and Health 6(1 year) Elective (1 semester) Grade 7* Reading/Writing Workshop 7 (2 periods) or Reading/Writing Workshop 7 Pre-AP (1 period) and Research and Writing 7 Pre-AP (1 period) Mathematics 7 or Mathematics 7 Pre-AP Science 7 or Science 1 Pre-AP Social Studies 7 or Social Studies 7 Pre-AP Career Orientation (1 semester) Arkansas History (1 semester) Electives (2 semesters or 1 year) Grade 8* Reading/Writing Workshop 8 (2 periods) or Reading/Writing Workshop 8 Pre-AP (1 period) and Research and Writing 8 Pre-AP (1 period) Mathematics 8 or Mathematics 8 Pre-AP or Algebra I Pre-AP Science 8 or Science 8 Pre-AP Social Studies 8 or Social Studies 8 Pre-AP Electives (4 semesters or 2 years) *Note: Special sections of the regular-level courses in English language arts, mathematics, science, and social studies are available, as determined by LPACs, for limited-English proficient students at Cloverdale Middle School and at Dunbar Magnet Middle School. Special sections of the Pre-AP courses are available for identified gifted/talented students at Dunbar Magnet Middle School. Special sections are also available, as determined by lEP teams, for special education students assigned to a Resource Room or to a Self-Contained classroom) 3 Course Standards and Benchmarks Courses in the Little Rock School District are standards-based and are aligned with those established by the Arkansas Department of Education. Course-level benchmarks define the standards for each course and are published in the 6*. 7*'^. and 8*** Grade Standards and Benchmarks that are distributed to parents during August check-in. Pre-AP Courses Pre-AP or Pre-Advanced Placement courses offered in the four core areas during middle school grades are advanced-level courses that are aligned with the requirements of the College Boards Advanced Placement courses generally available to students in grades 11-12. They also, of course, reflect the content standards that are established by the Arkansas Department of Education. The LRSD is very much committed to improving student enrollment in these advanced courses and in improving student successboth their grades in the courses and their scores on the Advanced Placement examinations. The following characteristics predict success in Pre-AP and AP courses: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. I. High-level reading comprehension and writing skills as evidenced by test scores and classroom performance Critical and creative thinking skills Self-motivation B average or above in the prerequisite course High interest in the content area Ability to perform independent study with a high degree of motivation High level of task commitment A student does not have to be identified for the GT program to take Pre-AP courses. But all GT students should be enrolled in one or more of the Pre-AP courses. It is important to note as well that students who are disabled and students who are limited-English proficient may take Pre-AP courses if they only require reasonable accommodations in order to be successful. Assessment The Little Rock School District has a comprehensive assessment system so that students themselves, their parents, teachers, other staff, and the community have the information they need to determine academic progress. The system begins, of course, with teachers daily observations of student performance as it relates to the course standards and benchmarks and then includes grades that are given for student work and performance on teacher-made examinations. The next level of assessment includes District criterion-references tests that are given at the end of quarters. These tests help staff to determine not only how individual students are performing, but also how classrooms perform in relationship to each other, how well 31 new curricula and professional development programs are being implemented, and how schools perform in comparison to each other. The tests are designed to assist staff as well in predicting student performance on the states grade 6 and 8 Benchmark examinations in literacy (reading and writing) and mathematics. Students in grades 6, 7, and 8 also take the Achievement Level Tests (ALTs) both in the fall and the spring. These tests are also closely aligned with the Districts curriculum in literacy, mathematics, and science. Staff, parents, and students can use the scores to determine individual student growth, as well as growth at the classroom and school levels and in comparison to classrooms and schools across the District. Grades 6 and 8 students take the State Benchmark examinations in literacy and mathematics in April each year. These tests are perhaps the most important ones since they are used to define the schools accountability. Student results are reported out in four performance levels: Below Basic, Basic, Proficient, and Advanced. The goal of both the state and the LRSD is that 100 percent of the students perform at the Proficient or Advanced level, so great effort is expended toward this end. Grade 7 students take the Stanford Achievement Test (ninth edition) or SAT9 in the fall. This test includes subtests in reading, language, mathematics, science, social studies, research skills, and thinking skills. Parents have access to the results of all components of the assessment system. No one measure is ever enough to define a students performance, but all of them together can be used to create a more accurate picture not necessarily of a students capacity for learning, but of how he or she is actually performing during a specific year. Parents receive report cards at the end of each nine-week quarter. The academic grade reflects what a student knows and is able to do. It is based on student performance and may include the following: participation/attendance, class assignments, homework, quizzes, tests, and projects. An interim progress report is sent home between report cards when a student is in danger of failing a course or when a grade has fallen dramatically. The following grading scale is used in middle school: A = 90100%\nB - 8089%\nC = 7079%\nD = 6069%\nand F = 59% or below. How to Earn High School Credit During Middle School I Middle school students may take high school-level courses in mathematics and foreign language. They are allowed, however, to earn high school graduation credit only for high school courses taken in grade 8such as Algebra I Pre-AP (or higher-level mathematics) and/or Level I (or higher-level) foreign language. Students who are interested in earning senior honors should note that they will be able to take more Advanced Placement courses, and thus earn more weighted grade points, if they take at least one high school mathematics course and one foreign language course while in middle school. For instance, a student who takes Algebra I Pre-AP in grade 8 32 can then complete Algebra II in grade 9, Geometry in grade 10, a pre-calculus class in grade 11, and then Advanced Placement Calculus or Statistics in grade 12. If he/she takes two high school mathematics courses while in middle school, then two Advanced Placement mathematics courses are possible. Students taking one foreign language course in middle school can take level II at grade 9, level III at grade 10, and then Advanced Placement level IV and V in grades 11 and 12. If they take two foreign language courses in middle school, then they can take three Advanced Placement language courses in grades 10, 11, and 12 (levels IV, V, and VI). Interdisciplinary Teaming I The interdisciplinary team is the heart of the middle school and requires that the same group of teachers share the same group of students housed in the same part of the building. Teams vary in size from three to six teachers representing core curriculum areas and serve students ranging from 70 to 150 in number. Teams of teachers combine their expertise and course content to integrate the disciplines and interface common areas of the curriculum. Flexibility in team organization is recommended in order to meet individual student needs. Variations in interdisciplinary teaming exist across schools. An interdisciplinary team works hard at creating small communities of learners for its group of assigned students. Teachers are able to get to know a limited number of students very well and recognize and plan for individual student learning differences. Teacher teams share a common daily team time during which they can collaborate and coordinate curriculum and instructional issues and meet together with a parent. Parents receive information from teams at the beginning of the school year that includes team procedures, instructional issues, special activities, and student expectations. Parents can request a team conference through the school office or designated teacher. Individual teacher conferences should be requested directly with the individual teacher. As teachers work together to team up with kids, real progress is made by students, both academically and behaviorally. How to Help Students Succeed  Let your child know that education matters. Work with your child every day so that he or she knows that education is a top priority.  Teach your child to be self-disciplined to the extent possible. Also teach him or her good social skills. These characteristics have a great deal to do with a students academic success and with his or her success in a job as an adult.  Ask your child specific questions such as How did your spelling test go? or Was your science experiment fun? or What book is your group reading in the Reading and Writing Workshop? or How did you do with your mathematics project? 33 Extend your childs learning. Every waking moment is an opportunity to leam. Make sure that your child is reading and writing and that he or she sees you reading and writing. Take your child to libraries, museums, businesses, and other places that can help him or her to leam. Observe your childs emerging interests and support his or her developing that interest by checking out or buying appropriate books and magazines, by taking field trips, by asking other adults to share information or stories with him or her, and so forth.  Help your child to organize his or her class materials and check their student planner regularly for homework assignments and dates of armounced tests and to ensure that your child is recording the assignments and due dates. The student planner is an organizational tool for all middle school students as well as a helpful reminder to students of when assignments are due in each class. Getting organized and time management are important but difficult developmental tasks for middle school students.  Arrange for your child to have a quiet work area somewhere in the home. Provide the tools he or she needs to studysuch as paper, pens and pencils, reference materials (can be checked out of the library), and so forth.  Be familiar with the LRSD Student Handbook and review it carefully with your child. Review it periodically so that the child understands the schools expectations and rules.  Make sure that your child attends school every possible day. Developing good attendance and a strong work ethic are important life skills.  Set limits on the amount of time your child spends watching television or playing video games. Expect your child to get adequate physical exercise and to read widely, as well as to engage socially with other children and with adults.  Get to know your childs teachers and let them know you want to support your childs education. Attend parent-teacher conferences. Visit the classroom, or, even better, volunteer in the school. Do not hesitate to contact a teacher with your questions or concerns. You may meet with all your childs teachers of core subjects at one time during their common conference time.  Ask the school to share your childs test score interpretations with you and your child. Ask what the teachers recommend to improve your childs performance.  Make sure that you get a copy of your childs Student Achievement Improvement Plan (SAIP) if your child was not proficient or advanced in the last state Benchmark test in literacy and/or mathematics. Then do what you can to support the schools improvement plan for your child so that he or she performs at a higher level on the next test. 34  Make a point of finding out what kinds of support programs and services that your school provides for students needing additional time or assistance to achieve the curriculum standards, such as after-school tutoring and summer school.  Encourage your child to participate in at least one co- or extra-curricular program either in the school, your church, or in the community.  Become familiar with high school graduation requirements so that you and your child can begin planning during middle school. A copy of the Districts newly revised policy is attached, effective for students graduating in 2004 and after. Your child should make a high school graduation plan related to his/her career interests as a part of the Career Orientation course required of all grade 7 students. You will want to participate in the planning opportunity. 353 Middle School (Grades 6-8) Curriculum Catalog 2001-2002 Little Rock School District Division of Instruction 3001 S. Pulaski Little Rock, AR 72206 501/324-2000 www.lrsd.org Table of Contents Mission of Division of Instruction 1 Mission of the Middle School Program 1 LRSD Secondary Curriculum Staff 1 Policies, Regulations, and Directives 2 Credit Earning Options 3 Board Policy IKEC (Award of Credit) 4 Administrative Regulation IKEC-R3 (Credit by Examination) 5 Placement Criteria for Pre-Advanced Placement (Pre-AP) and Advanced Placement (AP) Courses National Science Foundation Cooperative Agreement LRSD Middle School Program Standards e Grade Standards, Benchmarks 7** Grade Standards, Benchmarks S* Grade Standards, Benchmarks Course Descriptions, Prerequisites, Credit Art Business Education CommunicationsMann Magnet School DanceMann Magnet DramaMann Magnet English English-as-a-Second Language 7 8 9 11 15 21 26 27 27 28 28 29 33 Family and Consumer Science 35 Foreign Languages 36 Mathematics 38 Music 41 Physical Education and Health 45 Science 47 Social Studies 51 Career and Technical Education 55 Special Education 56 Non-Credit 58 Mission for the Division of Instruction Little Rock School District The mission of the Division of Instruction is to improve the academic achievement of all students by providing leadership, standards, curriculum, instructional resources, technical assistance, professional development, and student advocacy. Middle School Program Mission Statement The mission of the Little Rock School District Middle School Program is to meet the unique needs of all young adolescents, equipping them with the knowledge and the intellectual, physical, emotional, and social skills to successfully accomplish the transition to high school. This is achieved through: a developmentally appropriate curriculum that is challenging, integrated, relevant, and exploratory\nspecially trained, nurturing educators using varied teaching and learning approaches within a flexible organizational structure\nstrong family and community partnerships\nprograms and policies that foster health, wellness, and safety\nand a faculty advocate for every student. LRSD Secondary Education Curriculum Staff Division of Instruction Suzi Davis, Director of Secondary English Language Arts and Foreign Language Barbara Brandon, Reading/Writing Workshop Specialist Mona Briggs, English Language Arts Specialist Karen Broadnax, Supervisor of English-as-a-Second Language Programs Dennis Glasgow, Director of Mathematics and Science Rene Carson, Science Specialist Docia Jones, Mathematics Specialist Vanessa Cleaver, Director of CPMSA, NSF Project Marie McNeal, Director of Social Studies Laura Beth Arnold, Social Studies Specialist Carol Green, Director of Career and Technical Education Dr. Gary Smith, Director of Department of Exceptional Children Mable Donaldson, Supervisor of Gifted/Talented Programs Diane Rynders, Coordinator Linda Austin, Director of Planning and Development Mary Paal, Director of Safe Schools/Healthy Students Project Dr. Bonnie A. Lesley, Associate Superintendent for Instruction 1 The Middle School Curriculum Catalog Administrative Directive This Middle School Curriculum Catalog has the same importance as LRSD Administrative Directives. In other words, only the approved courses, course numbers, course abbreviations, course titles, grade placements, prerequisites, and credits are to be used in the scheduling of students into high school courses. If school personnel need additional course numbers to facilitate scheduling, they may request them from the Associate Superintendent for Instruction. In no case may a school simply add its own numbers or modify the title and abbreviations of numbers already assigned to courses. These requirements are not only necessary for the quality control and credibility of the middle school curriculum, but they are critical to data quality. No one can conduct research on course enrollments and grades unless he/she can be sure that the numbers used to conduct the search are inclusive of all the courses taught with that title. We have had numerous problems with this issue in collecting the necessary data, for instance, to make reports to the National Science Foundation. Principals Role LRSD principals are accountable for the timely, accurate, and effective construction of the master schedule and for ensuring that all students assigned to their schools are scheduled appropriately. Although the work of advising students may be delegated to the counselors and the technical tasks of inputting the necessary information to construct the master schedule may be delegated to the registrar, the principal is still the responsible person and, therefore, must monitor and review carefully and continuously. In their roles as instructional leaders, principals are expected to ensure the quality of all decisions relating to the selection of courses to be offered and taught, in the deployment of staff to teach those courses, in ensuring that staff are appropriately certified to teach assigned courses, in monitoring class loads and teacher loads, and in ensuring compliance with state and district class-size and teacher-load limits. There is perhaps nothing more important in the improvement of student achievement than the design of the master schedule, including the scheduling of students and the assignment of teachers. The LRSD has made a commitment to the middle school concept, and a major component of that concept is the assignment of students and teachers to interdisciplinary teams, which cannot occur unless the master schedule is designed appropriately. Guidelines for Decisions The following guidelines are appropriate in making decisions relating to the courses to be taught in any middle school: 1. All courses required by the District must be taught annually. English, mathematics, science, and social studies are required all three years in middle school. 2. Reading/Writing Workshop 6, 7, and 8 is a two-period course and must be taught by the same teacher in back-to-back periods. The Pre-AP level of this course include Reading/Writing Workshop 6, 7, and 8 and Research and Writing 6, 7, and 8. Although not good, these two periods do not have to be taught back-to-back if there are scheduling conflicts. 23. Pre-AP courses are major priorities for the LRSD, and all available such courses must at least be offered to the students and taught if at all possible. Our goal is that increasing numbers of our students be enrolled in one or more advanced courses each 4. 5. 6. 1. 8. 9. year. Keyboarding is a required middle-school course and optimally should be taught in grade 6 so that students acquire the necessary skills as early as possible for later applications. If, however, a parent requests it, the Keyboarding course may be delayed to grade 7 or 8 so that the student can participate in an elective. A student who masters keyboarding skills on his/her own may earn Keyboarding credit through the credit-by-examination program. Physical Education and Health constitute one full-year required course for grade 6. Physical Education is available also as an elective in grades 7 and 8. Arkansas History and Career Orientation are required in grade 7. Arkansas History is required in ADE accreditation standards, and Career Orientation is a prerequisite for the Career and Technical Education courses available in high school. This course is designed to provide students with appropriate information so that they can make wise decisions ibout their high school graduation plan. The smallest class sizes should be in regular-level Reading/Writing Workshops and mathematics since the schools accountability in the ACTAAP system depends heavily on student performance on benchmark examinations in these areas. A focus of the schools resources in these courses will align resources with what counts. Schools are strongly encouraged not to attempt to teach more than one level of any course in the same period and classroom. The only exemptions that might make sense are in foreign language courses (and no more than two levels even in those) and in some special education courses since class sizes are small there anyway and instruction is individualized. Middle schools are free to make decisions about their own exploratory curriculum (electives) from the list of approved courses that the District offers. Schools wishing to add new courses to the curriculum must propose those additions in October of each st J / year. The Board of Education must approve all new courses in the curriculum. 10. Middle school interdisciplinary teams should plan annually for a minimum of two comprehensive interdisciplinary units. In addition, the teams should as a part of their daily agenda coordinate homework assignments, vocabulary/spelling study, reading and writing across the curriculum, flexible scheduling to accommodate student needs, parent communication, and other curriculum related issues. 11. Schools should not pull students out of Reading/Writing Workshop for tutoring or special instruction in reading. Rather, they are free to offer Language Arts Plus for a third period of English language arts for those students in need of supplemental instruction. Neither should students be pulled out of their mathematics course for similar reasons. Pull-outs result in less, not more, learning for students and are not approved in the Little Rock School District. Ensuring Curriculum Integrity A major responsibility that schools have is ensuring what is called curriculum integrity. In other words, courses are what we say they are. If the course is entitled ReadingAVriting Workshop 6 Pre-AP, then regardless of the teacher, the course content is the same and students receive not only the same quality of instruction, but the same quantity. Schools sacrifice that 3integrity when students receive a semester of credit for a course that they were not even enrolled in for the foil semester due to frequent schedule changes. Careful work done in the spring semester in advising and scheduling students prevents multitudes of problems in the fall when school starts. The goal of every middle school should be to nail down the master schedule before August check-in of students so that every teacher can confidently (knowing that the class is set) teach school the very first day of school. Once school has begun, there should be only minimal class changes to balance classes and to accommodate newly enrolled students. In only the rarest of circumstances should any schedule change occur after the tenth class day. Only through careful management of registration processes can curriculum integrity be ensured. Policies, Regulations, and Directives The Middle School Curriculum Catalog contains the Middle School Curriculum requirements (approved by the Board in October 1998), Policy IKF (General Graduation Requireme its), Administrative Regulations IKF-R (General Graduation Requirements), Policy IKEC ' Award Of Credit) and Administrative Regulation IKEC-R3 (Credit By Examination). Additional Board policies and administrative regulations relating to the administration of curriculum, instruction, and/or assessment are contained in the new LRSD Board of Education Policies and Regulations manual. All staff are required to consult the latest revision of these governing documents, plus any relevant administrative directives, that are filed in the official notebooks. Almost all the policies and administrative regulations have been recently revised. It is extremely important for staff to become familiar with the new documents and to cease the use of old ones. 4Placement Criteria for Pre-Advanced Placement (Pre-AP) and Advanced Placement (AP) Courses The Little Rock School District offers Pre-AP and AP courses in several content areas: English language arts, mathematics, science, social studies, foreign language, art, and music. Students are placed in these courses based on established criteria. Pre-AP and AP courses are designed to give students experiences in college-preparatory and college-level courses. Each secondary school must identify as many students as possible who will benefit from these courses if the school and the district are to meet the challenging goals established in three critical planning documents: the LRSD Strategic Plan, the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan, and the National Science Foundation project in mathematics and science: LRSD Strategic Plan Objectives  No later than the year 2003, no fewer than 9 out of 10 students will meet or exceed LRSD standards of performance identified in the core curriculiun. By 2003, the percentage of students in every identified sub-group of race and gender . .. performing at the highest quartile in reading and mathematics on standardized tests shall be at least 30%. Revised Desegregation and Education Plan Three important sections of the LRSD Revised Desegregation and Education Plan follow: Section 2/5. 2.6 LRSD shall implement programs, policies, and/or procedures designed to promote participation and to ensure that there are no barriers to participation by qualified African-Americans in extracurricular activities, advanced placement courses, honors and enriched courses and the gifted and talented program. Section 2/5. 2.6.1 LRSD shall implement a training program during each of the next three years designed to assist teachers and counselors in identifying and encouraging African-American students to participate in honors and enriched courses and advanced placement courses. Section 2/5. 2.6.2 LRSD shall implement programs to assist African-Americans in being successful in honors and enriched courses and advanced placement courses. Determining Placement in Pre-AP and AP Courses In determining placement in Pre-AP and AP courses, the following criteria are considered: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. High-level reading comprehension and writing skills as evidenced by standardized test data and classroom performance. Critical and creative thinking skills. Self-motivation. B average or above. High interest in content area. Ability to perform independent study with high degree of motivation. High level of task commitment. Placement in mathematics determined by interest and path that began in sixth grade. 27 A student does not have to meet all of these criteria\nhowever, these abilities and/or behaviors are considered in placement of students. This process helps to ensure success and proper placement of students. Important Note: A student does not have to be identified for the gifted program in order to enroll in a Pre-AP or AP course at any level. Schools are encouraged to allow open admission to all Pre-AP and AP courses and then to require attendance, good behavior, and acceptable performance (including effort, not just a minimum grade) to stay in the course, rather than to deny admission to any motivated student who wishes to try a more challenging curriculum. Students with Disabilities Please be informed that students with certain kinds of disabilities, including some 504 students, are eligible for enrollment in both Pre-AP and AP courses. A committee of AP teachers, curriculum directors, and special education supervisors have agreed that the following accommodations are reasonable for students with disabilities and that they do not compromise the integrity of the course or state guidelines. The school-level committee will determine which specific accommodations are appropriate for each individual student. The list below is not intended to suggest that any one student be afforded all the possible accommodations available. 1. 2. 3. 4. Alter assignments. Student keeps separate work folders for complete and incomplete work. Student keeps a task-completion checklist. Student may make a copy of another students notes. Student keeps an assignment notebook. Student is allowed to tape lectures and other presentations. Other Adapt tests. Student is allowed extended time to complete classroom tests. Manage behavior. Teacher clearly defines limits\nposts and implements rules and consequences. Teacher ensures development of a Behavior Management Plan. Teacher reports changes in behavior to parents. Adapt instruction. Student is granted preferential seating. Student has access to peer tutoring/paired working arrangements. Student is provided a study guide. Student is given directions in a variety of ways (i.e., verbal and written forms). Teacher reduces number of steps in directions (where possible). Teacher reinforces student for on-task behavior in the classroom. Teacher provides extra time for responses. Teacher provides the student an opportunity to dictate on tape or to others his/her compositions, information, and/or answers. 28 5. Adapt materials.  Student is provided enlarged print materials.  Student is provided an interpreter.  Student is provided auditory aides. 6. Other  Teacher provides space for the student to maintain an extra supply of pencils, paper, or other required supplies in the classroom.  Teacher provides academic/behavior progress reports to parents.  Teacher makes available an extra set of textbooks.  Other Limited-English Proficient Students Students who are identified as limited-English proficient must also have equitable access to Pre- AP and AP courses. Reasonable accommodations for them must also be provided, including the use of appropriate English-as-a-second language methodologies to adapt instruction, extended time for some activities, and tutoring. Gifted/Talented Students Gifted and talented students are served in Pre-Advanced Placement courses in middle school and in the Gifted/Talented courses at Dunbar Magnet Middle School. At the high school level, gifted/talented students are placed in Pre-Advanced Placement, Advanced Placement, and other advanced courses, including the University Studies courses at Hall High School. School staff should note IHBB-R for the procedures relating to program exit. National Science Foundation Cooperative Agreement One of the most important needs identified in the LRSD grant proposal to NSF was as follows: A need exists for students to begin preparation to enter high school Advanced Placement mathematics and science courses and other upper level mathematics and science courses while they are still in elementary and junior high school. Many students, even if they meet the course prerequisites for upper level courses, have not acquired the type of skills and content knowledge that is required to be confident about their ability to succeed in these courses. The prerequisite skills and the confidence they engender are both critical elements in increasing the number of students in AP and other upper level mathematics and science courses. This is particularly true for some minorities who may not be well represented among upper classmen who are cunently enrolled in these courses. The contract that the district signed with NSF includes the following commitments: The overall mission of the program is to develop systemic approaches that will substantially increase the number of students enrolling in and successfully completing precollege science, engineering, and math courses. This increased enrollment should result in a quantifiable and long-term increase in the number of participating students who complete the college preparatory sequence of courses in secondary school, graduate, and pursue undergraduate majors in science, engineering, or mathematics. The 29 increase in the number of well-prepared high school graduates will contribute to the national agenda to increase the number of students receiving B.S. degrees in natural sciences, engineering, and academic disciplines by the year 2003. In order to achieve these goals, the current graduation rate of well-prepared high school college preparatory tract graduates must be substantially increased and, at a minimum, doubled in the next five years. In addition, all high school students must, by the end of the five-year period, be positioned to enroll in Algebra I, the primary gatekeeping course for all college preparatory science and mathematics courses by the year 2003. The specific goals of the project are as follows: 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, increase by 5%. Enroll all district eighth and/or ninth grade students in Algebra I by the Year 2003. Increase the algebra success rates for all district students by 2% after Year I of the agreement\n5% after Year II\n5% after Year III\n5% after year IV\nand 5% after Year V. Increase the numbers of students who enroll in geometry and trigonometry by 2% in Year I of the agreement\n5% in Year II and each year thereafter. Increase the student success rates in geometry and trigonometry by 2% after Year I and 5% each year thereafter. Increase the student enrollment rates and student success rates in biology by 2% in Year 1 and 5% each year thereafter. Increase the student success rates in biology by 2% in Year I\n5% each year thereafter. Increase the student success rates in chemistry from 62% in Year I of the agreement to 75% in Year V. Increase the student enrollment in physics from 17% to 30% by Year V of the agreement. Increase the numbers of students who graduate with proficiency in science and mathematics from 40% to 70% by Year V of the agreement. 30 4 A High School Student and Parent Guide to Course Selection and Graduation Requirements, 2000-2001 Little Rock School District Division of Instruction 3001 S. Pulaski Little Rock, AR 72206 501/324-2000 www.lrsd.k12.ar.u8 Table of Contents Purpose for Guide 1 Graduation Requirements for the Class of 2002 1 Recommended Curriculum 1-2 Career and Technical Electives Business Education McClellan Business Education Marketing Education McClellan Marketing Education Family and Consumer Science Career and Technical Education Metropolitan Center 5 5-6 6 6566 6-7 Core Curriculum for Unconditional Admission 2 Courses Offered at All High Schools 7 Core Curriculum for Arkansas Challenge Scholarship Making Up Failed Courses 7 2 Course Descriptions Available 8 Difference Between a Requirement and an Elective 2 English Requirements 2 English Electives 2-3 Oral Communication Requirement 3 Communications Electives 3 Mathematics Requirements 3 Mathematics Electives 3 Science Requirements 3 Science Electives 3 Parkview Science Electives 3 Social Studies Requirements 4 Social Studies Electives 4 Fine Arts Requirement 4 Fine Arts Electives Art Electives Parkview Art Electives Drama Electives Parkview Drama Electives Music Electives Parkview Music Electives Parkview Dance Electives Health and Physical Education Requirements Physical Education Electives Technology Requirement 444 4 44 4-5 5 5 5 5 Career Focus Humanities Sciences Fine Arts Administrative Services Business Management Finance Marketing Coordinated Career Education Child Care and Guidance Management Services Food Production Management and Services Family and Consumer Sciences Education General Cooperative Education Industrial Cooperative Education JROTC (Central and Parkview) Drafting Computerized Commercial Art Auto Body/Paint Technology Automotive Technology Culinary Arts Computer-Aided Drafting Computer Graphics/Printing Technology Cosmetology Electronics Law Enforcement Fundamentals Machine Tools Medical Professions Metal Fabrication (Welding) Microcomputer Systems Technology Plumbing Radio Broadcasting Residential Construction TV Production Diesel Technology SciencesParkview Magnet Fine ArtsParkview Magnet Written CommunicationMcClellan Oral CommunicationMcClellan 88888889 9 9 9 999 9999 99 9 99 9 99 9 99 999 9 999 10 10 Visual/Product Communication McClellan Business Principles and ManagementMcClellan Economics and FinanceMcClellan Marketing and AdvertisingMcClellan 10 10 10 10 More Than One Career Focus 10 \"Recommended Curriculum 10 Honors Seal 11 Arkansas Scholars Seal 11 Little Rocks High Schools Central High School 324-2300 Graduation Requirements for the Class of 2001 11 14 Ways of Earning Credit 12 Advanced Standing Agreements 12 Why Take Pre-AP and AP Courses 12 Rudy Howard, Principal 1500 Park Street 72202 J.A. Fair High School 228-3100 Cassandra Norman, Principal 13420 David O. Dodd 72210 Hall High School 671-6200 Vernon Smith, Jr., Principal 6700 H Street 72205 McClellan High School Jodie Carter, Principal 9417 Geyer Springs 72209 570-4100 I Pre-AP Courses AP Courses University StudiesHall Grade-Point Average and Rank-in-Class Grading Scales Promotion Policy ACC Graduation Requirements Second-Language Students Students with Disabilities Freshman Schedule Preparation for the PSAT/SAT/ACT High School Testing/Assessment Scholarships and Financial Aid Course Selection Sheet 13 13 13 14 15 15 15 15 15 15 16 16 16 17 Parkview Magnet High School 228-3000 Dr. Linda Brown, Principal 2501 Barrow Road 72204 Metropolitan Center 565-8465 Michael Peterson, Principal 7701 Scott Hamilton 72209 Accelerated Learning Center 570-1400 Carol Green, Director Dr. Alicia Finch, Asst. Director 7701 Scott Hamilton 72209 Alternative Learning Center Lloyd Sain, Director 800 Apperson 72202 324-2370 Notice to Students and Parents Who Speak a Language Other Than English Any parent or student who needs an oral translation of this document into his or her home language may call Ms. Karen Broadnax, ESL Supervisor, at 324-0510 for assistance. The staff at Hall High School may also be able to assist, as may staff in other middle and high schools. A Student and Parent Guide to Course Selection and Graduation Requirements Little Rock School District 2000-2001 Where Do I Start? There are more than 450 courses offered in the Little Rock School District. There are at least 14 ways to earn credit beyond the regular school day. No other school district in Arkansas can provide a curriculum with more quality or more choices. This guide is intended to assist students and parents with information for planning next years courses, a tool to make sure that students meet the graduation requirements, and with information about requirements for college admission. Your school counselor and your teachers will also, of course, be able to answer questions. What Are the Graduation Requirements for the Class of 2002? The best place to start in planning course selections is to know exactly what is required for graduation. Those students who will graduate in 2002 or beyond must meet new, enhanced graduation requirements as follows: Graduation Requirements, Class of 2002 Common Core: Each curriculum areas requirements are explained in detail in sections below. It is important for everyone to remember that students have the opportunity during the regular high school day to take 32 units eight each year for four years. Students, therefore, not only have four electives in the requirements, but they may also take eight additional courses of their choice during high school. The wide range of courses available in the Little Rock School District is provided so that students may satisfy not only their graduation requirements, but also choose courses of special interest, to explore other curriculum areas, to pursue more than one Career Focus, to take more courses within the Career Focus, and/or to strengthen areas of weakness. Whats the Recommended Curriculum? The Board of Education and the staff of the Little Rock School District wish to encourage every student to pursue as rigorous a course of study as possible: thus, the Recommended\" Curriculum. English Language Arts Oral Communication Mathematics Science Social Studies Fine Arts Health Physical Education Technology Total Career Focus Electives Total Required 4 units 1 unit 3 units 3 units 3 units 1 unit /a unit /a unit 1 unit 17 units 3 units 4 units 24 units Specific courses are required in each curriculum area. For instance, students cannot take just any three units of mathematics to satisfy the requirements. The only students who must take the Recommended Curriculum are those who Students enrolling in the following courses were more likely to attend college than others: algebra and geometry, at least one year of laboratory science, and at least two years of foreign languages. If these courses are the ones that succeed in getting students to college, perhaps these are the ones high schools should require in order to reduce the differences in college going between minorities and whites. Sol Pelavin and Michael Kane, Changing the Odds: Factors Increasing Access to College. 1990, p. 38. 1 want to earn the Honors Seal on their diplomas. Others who no doubt will want to take it are those who want to be sure that they are meeting university admission requirements and/or those who want to be sure that they are meeting the requirements for the Arkansas Challenge scholarship program. Curriculum be Pre-AP or AP courses, students are also encouraged to take those courses at every opportunity. Neither is there a requirement to earn a certain grade-point average to take the Recommended Curriculum. 1 Core Curriculum for Unconditional Admission to Any Public Two-Year or Four-Year College or University in Arkansas English: Four units with emphasis on writing skills, not to include courses in oral communications, journalism, drama, or debate. Natural Science: Three units, with laboratories, chosen from Physical Science, Biology, Chemistry, or Physics. Only one unit may come from a Life Science. Mathematics: Four units, including Algebra I and II, Geometry, and an advanced math course. It is strongly recommended that students take a math course during their senior year. Social Studies: Three units, including one of American History (does not include Contemporary American History), one of World History (not to include World Cultures, World Geography, or Global Studies), and at least one-half unit of Civics or American Government (not to include courses in practical arts). Core Curriculum for Arkansas Challenge Scholarship English, Natural Science, Mathematics, and Social Studies: Same as above. Foreign Languages: Two units in one foreign language. Note: These requirements are for admission to Arkansas colleges and universities and for the Arkansas Challenge Scholarship. Students should consult their counselors if they need to know the admission requirements of private Arkansas colleges or of out-of-state colleges or universities. Although there are no requirements that any of the courses in the Recommended Note that the Recommended Curriculum has no electives. Students have, however, five opportunities to earn credits beyond the 27 recommended (32-27=5), so these five units may be seen as electives. i Recommended Curriculum LRSD Common Core 17 units as outlined above AND LRSD Career Focus above AND Social Studies Mathematics Science Foreign Language language Technology Career Focus 3 units as noted 1 additional unit 1 additional unit 1 additional unit 2 units of one I Total 1 additional unit 1 additional unit 27 units Whats the Difference Between a Requirement and an Elective? The District requires certain specific courses for each area listed both in the graduation requirements and in the Recommended Curriculum. Not only does each high school offer these required courses, but they also offer courses in each curriculum area that may be selected by students to meet Career Focus requirements or simply be selected as electives. How Do I Meet the English Requirements? Students must complete four units of credit. Acceptable courses to meet these requirements are as follows: ESL English I, ESL English I Workshop, English I, English I Workshop, English I Pre-AP, or English I Pre- AP Workshop (1)\nAND ESL English II, ESL English II Workshop, English II, English II Workshop, English II Pre-AP, or English II Pre- AP Workshop (1)\nAND I 2 ESL English III, English III, English HI Pre- AP, or English III AP (1)\nAND ESL English IV, English IV, English IV and the Humanities, or English IV AP(1). ESL English is English-as-a-Second Language. These courses are available at this time only at Hall High School. What English Electives Are Available to Me? Introduction to Creative Writing (1) Creative Writing and Magazine Production (1) Technical Writing (1/2) Research for the 21  Century (Hall only) (1) Multicultural Literature (1) The Bible as/in Literature (1/2) ACT Preparation: English (1/2) How Do I Meet the Oral Communication Requirement? All students are required to take Communications I (or ESL Communications I) to meet this requirement. prerequisities for Calculus before the senior year. Are There Mathematics Electives? Beyond the courses that may satisfy graduation requirements, the District offers several additional mathematics electives, as follows: Pre-Calculus Pacesetter Mathematics (1) Trigonometry/Advanced Algebra (1) Trigonometry/Advanced Algebra Pre-AP (1) Applications of Mathematics (Fair High only)(1) Calculus (1) Calculus AB AP (1) Calculus BC AP (1) ACT Preparation: Mathematics (1/2) What Are the Required Science Courses? All Little Rock School District students must take the following science courses: ESL Active Physics, Active Physics, or Physics I Pre-AP (1)\nAND ESL Biology, Biology I, or Biology I Pre-AP (1)\nAND ESL Chemistry, Chemistry I, or Chemistry I Pre-AP (1). What Other Communications Courses May I Take as Electives? Communication 11-111 (1 each) Debate l-ll-lll (1 each) Public Speaking (1/2-1) Interpersonal Skills and Group Dynamics (1/2-1) Students who were freshmen in 1998-99 may not have had the opportunity to take either Active Physics or Physics I Pre-AP. Whatever physical science course that they took that year will be allowed to substitute for the requirement. How Do I Meet the Mathematics Requirements? Three units of mathematics are required as follows: Algebra I or Algebra I Pre-AP (1)\nAND Concepts of Geometry, Geometry, or Geometry Pre-AP (1)\nAND Algebra II, Algebra II Pre-AP, Statistics, or Statistics AP (1). Algebra I Pre-AP or Geometry Pre-AP taken in grade 8 will satisfy one of the required units. It is important for all students to understand that if they wish to take Calculus in high school, they must complete Algebra I Pre- AP in grade 8or they must take both Algebra II and Geometry in one year in high school in order to complete all the What Are the Science Elective Courses? A rich elective program is available in science, as follows: Physics II AP (1) Human Anatomy and Physiology (1) Biology II AP (1) Chemistry II AP (1) Geology and Space Science (1) Environmental Science AP (1) Advanced Science/Theoretical Research Pre-AP (1) Parkview Magnet students have, in addition, the following options: Microbiology (1/2) Qualitative Analysis (1/2) Applied Statistics/Technical Writing (1/2) Environmental Health (1/2) Human Anatomy and Physiology (1/2) Organic Chemistry (1/2) 3 What Are the Required Social Studies Courses? Students may satisfy their Social Studies requirements by taking the following: ESL Civics, Civics, or Civics Pre-AP (1)\nAND ESL World History, World History, or World History Pre-AP\nAND ESL United States History, United States History, United States History AP(1). Students may substitute, especially those who transfer in from other accredited schools, United States Government for the Civics requirement. Are There Social Studies Electives? Beyond the courses that are required, the District provides the following Social Studies elective courses: United States Government (1) United States Government and Politics AP (1/2) Comparative Government and Politics AP(1/2) Global Studies (1) World Geography (1) World Geography Pre-AP (1) Human Geography AP (1) Psychology (1/2) Psychology AP (1) Sociology (1/2) European History AP (1) World Cultures (1) African/African American History (1) Economics (McClellan only) (1) Economics AP (1) Peer Helping and Facilitation (Hall only) (1) Service Learning (1/2) How May | Satisfy the Fine Arts Requirement? The requirement may be met by the students completion of any one unit from art, dance, drama, or music. All options are listed below in the list of fine arts electives. What Are the Fine Arts Electives? The following Art courses are available: Introduction to Art (1) ArtDesign (1) Graphic Design (1) Painting (1) Watercolor (1) Creative Art (1) Survey of Fine Arts: Art (1/2) Drawing l-ll (1 each) Studio Art AP (1) Art History AP (1) Parkview Magnet offers the following additional Art courses: Pottery A/B (1) Jewelry (1) Drawing III (1) Oils (1) CraftsFibers (1) Three-Dimensional Design (1) Printmaking (1/2) Art History (1) The following Drama courses are available: Drama l-ll-lll-IV (1 each) Stagecraft (1) Interpretative Communication (1) Parkview Magnet offers the following additional Drama courses: Introduction to Theatre (1) Mime (1) Classic Scene Study (1) Acting (1) Childrens Theatre (1) History of the Theatre (1) The following Music courses are available: Novice Choir (1) Choir l-ll-lll-IV (1 each) Madrigals (1) Novice Band (1) Band l-ll-lll-IV (1 each) Band Ensemble l-ll-lll-IVPercussion (1 each) Band Ensemble l-ll-lll-IVWoodwinds (1 each) Band Ensemble l-ll-lll-IVBrass (1 each) Jazz Band l-ll (1 each) Novice Orchestra (1) Orchestra l-ll-lll-IV (1 each) Survey of Fine Arts: Music (1/2) Music Appreciation (1) The Parkview Magnet curriculum includes the following additional Music courses: Cadet Band l-ll (1 each) Varsity Band (1) Concert Band l-ll-lll (1 each) Symphonic Band l-ll-lll (1 each) Instrumental Ensemble (1) Vocal Ensemble (1) Music Theory l-ll (1 each) 4 Music Theory III AP (1) Music Theory IV AP (1) Lab Singers l-ll (1 each) Parkview Magnet also teaches the following Dance courses: Dance Techniques l-ll-lll-IV (1 each) Dance Ensemble (1) History of Dance (1) Young Mens Dance (1) What Are the Health and Physical Education Requirements? Students must take the following required courses: Health and Safety (1/2) Physical Education (1/2) The one-half unit of physical education required may be waived (1) upon receipt of a statement by a licensed physician that a student is mentally or physically incapable of participating in a regular or modified physical education program\nor (2) when the requirement is contrary to the religious teachings of the student, as indicated in a written statement, signed by a lawful custodian of the student. Athletic practice for competition, whether scheduled during the school day or after school hours, does not earn credit. Are There Any Physical Education Electives? There is one additional one-half unit available: Physical Education IB. Only one unit of physical education may count toward satisfaction of graduation requirements. What May I Take to Satisfy the Technology Requirement? Students should note that Keyboarding is a prerequisite for technology application courses. That course is now required in the middle schools. It, therefore, does not count toward the satisfaction of the Technology requirement in high school. Students without keyboarding credit, but with keyboarding skills, may earn credit in this course through credit-by-examination. The test will include the content and skills specified for the Keyboarding course. The following options are available to satisfy the Technology requirement: Keyboarding Applications (1/2) Word Processing A and B (1/2 each) Database Management (1/2) Desktop Publishing A and B (1/2 each) Programming A and B (1/2 each) Computerized Business Applications (1) Computerized Accounting l-ll (1 each) Environmental and Spatial Technology (EAST) Lab l-ll-lll-IV (Central and McClellan only) (1 each) Internetworking Technologies l-ll (Hall only) (1 each) Enterprise Information Science I (Fair only)(1) Industrial Technology Education (Metro) (2) Computerized Commercial Art l-ll-lll (Parkview only) (1 each) Computerized Commercial Art l-ll-lll (Metro) (3 each) Computer-Aided Drafting l-ll-lll (Metro) (3 each) Computer Graphics/Printing Technology l-ll-lll (Metro) (3 each) Microcomputer Systems Technology l-ll _______(Metro) (3 each)_________________ In no case can the same course(s) satisfy technology applications requirements and/or the technology applications requirements in the Career Focus. However, if a student uses the first three units of credit in a Career and Technical Education program to satisfy the Career Focus requirement, he or she may use the second course in the series to satisfy the Technology Applications requirement. What Kinds of Electives Are Available in Career and Technical Areas? One of the strengths of the Little Rock curriculum is the diversity of courses available in Business Education, Marketing Education, Family and Consumer Science, Career and Technical Education, and the many programs offered at the Metropolitan Center. Those courses are listed below: Business Education Keyboarding (1/2) Keyboarding Applications (1/2) Introduction to Computer Technology (1/2) 5 Word Processing A and B (1/2 each) Computerized Accounting l-ll (1 each) Database Management (1/2) Spreadsheet Applications (1/2) Office Management (1) Rapid Writing A and B (1/2 each) Business Law (1) Junior Executive Training (1) Cooperative Office Education (Related) (1) Cooperative Office Education (OJT) (1) Programming A and B (1/2 each) Computerized Business Applications (1) Desktop Publishing A and B (1/2 each) Multimedia Applications in Business (1/2) Banking and Finance Principles (1/2) Banking and Finance Operations (1/2) Banking and Finance Marketing (1/2) Banking and Finance Law (1/2) McClellan High has a magnet program in Business Education. Their courses are as follows: Business Etiquette/Leadership (1/2) Introduction to Business (1/2) Economics (1) Business Finance (1) International Business (1/2) Entrepreneurship (1/2) Marketing Education Marketing Education I (1) Marketing Education I (Cooperative Education) (2) Marketing Education II (Management) (1) Marketing Education II (Management) (Cooperative Education) (2) The McClellan Magnet Program includes the following Marketing Education courses: Fashion Merchandising (1/2) Advertising (1/2) Retailing (1/2) Salesmanship (1/2) Family and Consumer Science Family and Consumer Science (1) Housing and Interior Design (1/2) Human Relations (1/2) Managing Resources (1/2) Family Dynamics (1) Food and Nutrition (1/2) Food Science (Central, Fair, Hall, and McClellan) (1/2) Child Development (1/2) Child Care and Guidance Management Services (1) Parenting (1/2) Clothing Management (1/2) Food Production Management and Services l-ll (McClellan) (1 each) Career and Technical Education The following courses are offered in the comprehensive high schools, but not all of them will be taught in any given school. Check with your counselor to determine which ones are available. I Workplace Readiness (1/2) Exploring Industrial Technology (1) Carpentry Exploration (McClellan) (1) Environmental and Spatial Technology Lab l-ll-lll-IV (Central and McClellan) (1 each) Basic Mechanical Drawing (Central and McClellan) (1) Advanced Mechanical Drafting (Central and McClellan) (1) Architectural Drafting (Central and McClellan) (1) Engineering Drafting (Central and McClellan) (1) Coordinated Career Education l-ll (Related) (1 each) Coordinated Career Education l-ll (OJT) (1 each) Industrial Cooperative Training l-ll (Related) (1 each) Industrial Cooperative Training l-ll (OJT) (1 each) General Cooperative Education (Related) (1) General Cooperative Education (OJT) (1) Computerized Commercial Art l-ll-lll (Parkview) (1 each) Plumbing (ALC/Job Corp) (3) Introduction to Medical Professions Education (ALC/Job Corp) (2) Travel and Tourism (1/2) Television Production l-ll-lll (Fair) (3 each) Cosmetology l-ll-lll (McClellan) (3 each) Enterprise Information Science I (Fair) (1) Internetworking Technologies l-ll (Hall) (1 each) I I II Metropolitan Students wishing to take courses at Metro for part of the school day should ask their counselors for registration information. ! 1 6 Metropolitan Center Programs Workplace Readiness (1/2) Child Care and Guidance Management Services (1) Exploring Industrial Technology (1) Auto Body and Paint Technology l-l (3 each) Automotive Technology l-ll-lll (3 each) Culinary Arts l-ll-lll (3 each) Computerized Commercial Art l-ll-lll (3 each) Computer-Aided Drafting/Architectural Engineering l-ll-lll (3 each) Computer Graphics/Printing Technology l-ll-lll (3 each) Cosmetology l-ll-lll (3 each) Electronics l-ll-lll (3 each) Medical Professions Education l-ll-lll (3 each) Metal FabrisationWelding l-ll-lll (3 each) Radio Brof dcasting l-II-lll (3 each) Residentie Construction l-ll-lll (3 each) Television Production l-ll-llf (3 each) Diesel Technology Services l-ll-lll (3 each) Introduction to Medical Professions Education (2) Machine Tools l-ll (3 each) Law Enforcement Fundamentals (3) Industrial Technology Education (2) Microcomputer Systems Technology l-ll (3 each) If I Fail a Course, How Can I Make It Up? Students who fail a course may make it up in any of the following ways: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Are All Courses Offered at All High Schools? You probably noted in the lists provided that some courses are available only at certain high schools at this time. But that still does not mean that every high school will offer and teach every course generally listed. The courses that actually appear on a high schools master schedule are determined based on required courses, on students interests, and on available staffing and other resources. In other words, if only a few students sign up for a course, it may not be taught that year. Also, if no teacher is available for a given course, it will not be taught. The number of available computers determines how many of the technology courses that a school can offer. For the most part, however, the Districts high school curriculum is available at each of the high schools. 6. 7. Most failed courses can be made up during the regular school day. There are 32 opportunities to earn credit over the four-year period (8 periods each day X 4 years), and only 24 of those are minimally required. That leaves eight slots to take electives, to pursue additional Career Focus pathways, or to make up failed courses. Students may make up failed courses in Evening High School. Students may make up failed courses in summer school. One credit can be earned each summer. Students are allowed to earn two credits toward satisfaction of graduation requirements through correspondence courses. Students may make up the following failed courses through credit-by-examination: English l-ll-lll-IV Algebra I Geometry Concepts of Geometry Civics World History United States History These examinations are available each semester. The Accelerated Learning Center, the Alternative Learning Center, and most of the high schools have PLATO computer labs which offer credit in some high school courses. We are working on the approval of some online courses that students could take to make up failed courses. Are There Descriptions Available for Courses? Yes, there are multiple copies of the High School Curriculum Catalog available in each high school and middle school. That book lists every approved course in the high school curriculum, the course description, the grade levels at which the course may be taught, the prerequisites (if any), and the credit to be awarded upon successful completion. Counselors will be happy to provide you access to this information. 7 I understand the Required Common Core and the Available Electives. What Is a Career Focus? This new requirement of at least three units of credit requires you to specify an area to focus uponeither an area that will lead you to a job or career, an area that better prepares you for university admission, or an area of special interest. In the past many students concentrated their electives in one or more areas, but too many students graduated without ever having to think about how high school could prepare them for life after graduation. They just took courses without any real purpose for doing so. The Career Focus requirement provides purpose to the choice of at least three courses. If you dont know where you are going, any plan will get you there. If you are wise, you will designate your Career Focus during the fall of your freshman yearno later. You can then take one Career Focus class each of the remaining three years of high school. If, however, you change your mind for any reason, you can change your Career Focus if you choose one that does not require prerequisites that would prevent your completion of the three courses required in the time you have left. For instance, a student could wait until his or her senior year and take one of the three-credit courses at Metro to satisfy this requirement. You could not, however, change your Career Focus from Spanish to French during your junior year and complete the three units required in French. Each is a prerequisite ofthe next. Your counselor can advise you further. The following Career Focus areas are available at this time: Humanities Three units of one foreign language\nor Two units of one foreign language and One unit beyond the Common Core requirements from English or Social Studies\nThree units beyond the Common Core requirements in communications, English, and/or journalism\nor Three units beyond the Common Core requirements in social studies. Sciences Two units of one foreign language and One additional unit beyond Common Core requirements in science or mathematics\nor Three units beyond the Common Core requirements from upper-level mathematics and/or science courses. Fine Arts Three units beyond the Common Core requirement in one of the following areas: art, dance, drama, or music. Students are also strongly encouraged to complete a minimum of two units of one foreign language. Administrative Services Three units to include Word Processing A and B (1), Office Management or Cooperative Office Education (1), and one unit from the following: Computerized Accounting l-ll (1), Computerized Business Applications (1), Desktop Publishing A and B (1), Multimedia Applications (1/2), Rapid Writing A and B (1), Workplace Readiness (1/2). Business Management Three units to include Computerized Accounting l-ll (1), Management (1) and one unit from the following: Business Law (1), Computerized Business Applications (1), Multimedia Applicatons (1/2), Word Processing A and B (1), Workplace Readiness (1/2). Finance Three units to include Banking and Finance Marketing (1/2), Banking and Finance Principles (1/2), Banking and Finance Operations (1/2), Banking and Finance Law (1/2), and Computerized Accounting I (1)\nor Three units to include Computerized Accounting l-ll and one unit from the following: Computerized Business Applications (1), Database Management (1/2), Spreadsheet Applications (1/2), Word Processing A (1/2), Word Processing B (1/2), Workplace Readiness (1/2) 8 Marketing Three units to include Marketing (1), Marketing Management (1) and one from the following: Advertising (1/2), Computerized Business Applications (1), Fashion Merchandising (1/2), Entrepreneurship (1/2), Multimedia Applications (1/2), Retailing (1/2), Salesmanship (1/2), Workplace Readiness (1/2) Coordinated Career Education Three units to include CCE IRelated (1), CCEOJT (1), and one unit from the following: Business Education, Marketing Education, Family and Consumer Sciences, Medical Professions Education, Trades and Industry, Workplace Readiness. Child Care and Guidance Management Services Three units to include Child Care and Guidance Management and Services (1), Child Development (1/2), Family and Consumer Science (1), and Parenting (1/2). Food Production Management and Services Three units to include Family and Consumer Science (1), Food and Nutrition (1/2), Food Production Management and Services I (1) and one-half unit from Family Dynamics (1). Food Science (1/2), Human Relations (1/2), Managing Resources (1/2), Workplace Readiness (1/2). Family and Consumer Sciences Education Three units to include Family and Consumer Science (1) and two units from the following: Child Development (1/2), Clothing Management (1/2), Family Dynamics (1), Food Science (1/2), Food and Nutrition (1/2), Housing and Interior Design (1/2), Human Relations (1/2), Managing Resources (1/2), Parenting (1/2), and Workplace Readiness (1/2). General Cooperative Education Three units to include GCE IRelated (1), GCE-OJT (1) and one unit from Business, Marketing, Family and Consumer Sciences, Medical Professions Education, or Trade and Industrial Education. Industrial Cooperative Education Three units from the following\nIndustrial Cooperative Training l--Related (1), Industrial Cooperative Training I (1), Industrial Cooperative Training ll Related (1), Industrial Cooperative Training II (1)\nJROTC Three units to include JROTC I, II, III (Naval Science at Parkview and Air Force at Central only). Career and Technical Education Three units from any one of the following programs: Basic Mechanical Drawing (1), Advanced Mechanical Drawing (1), Architectural Drafting (1), Engineering Drafting (1)\nComputerized Commercial Art 1. II, III (3 each)\nAuto Body/Paint Technology I, II, III (3 each)\nAutomotive Technology I, II, III (3 each)\nCulinary Arts I. II, III (3 each)\nComputer-Aided Drafting I, II, III (3 each)\nComputer Graphics/Printing Technology I, II, III (3 each)\nCosmetology I, II, III (3 each)\nElectronics I, II, III (3 each)\nLaw Enforcement Fundamentals (3)\nMachine Tools I, II (3 each)\nMedical Professions I, II, III (3 each)\nMetal Fabrication (Welding) I, II, III (3 each)\nMicrocomputer Systems Technology I, II (3 each)\nPlumbing (3)\nRadio Broadcasting I. II. Ill (3 each)\nResidential Construction I, II, III (3 each)\nTV Production I, II, III (3 each)\nDiesel Technology Services I, II, III (3 each). SciencesParkview Magnet5 units Two units of biology beyond Biology I\nand One semester of chemistry beyond Chemistry I\nand Two units of German or Latin\nand One semester of Applied Statistics and Technical Writing\nand Yearly Project. Fine ArtsParkview Magnet8 units Eight units in one of the following specialty areas: dance, drama, art, or music. Students are also strongly encouraged to complete a minimum of two units of one foreign language. 9 Written CommunicationMcClellan High5 Va units Journalism I (1)\nand Journalism II (1)\nand Technical Writing (1/2) or Creative Writing (1/2)\nand Word Processing A (1/2) and Word Processing B (1/2)\nand 2 units of school-approved electives Oral CommunicationMcClellan High 5 16 units Communications I (1)\nand Drama I (1)\nand Mass Media A (1/2) and Mass Media B (1/2)\nand Public Speaking/Business Communications (1/2)\nand 2 units of school-approved electives. Visual/Product Communications McClellan High5 Vi units Advertising (1/2)\nand Art Design/Graphic Design (1)\nand Introduction to Art (1)\nand Painting (1)\nand Mass Media A (1/2)\nand 1 16 units of school-approved electives. Business Principles and Management McClellan High5 A units Computerized Business Applications (1) or two of the following: Word Processing A (1/2), Desktop Publishing (1/2), Database Management (1/2), Spreadsheet Applications (1/2)\nand Computerized Accounting I (1)\nand Junior Executive Training (1)\nand 2 16 units of school-approved electives. Economics and FinanceMcClellan High5 16 units Computerized Business Applications (1) or two of the following: Word Processing A (1/2), Desktop Publishing (1/2) Database Management (1/2), Spreadsheet Applications (1/2)\nand Economics (1) or Banking and Finance Principles (1/2) and Banking and Finance Operations (1/2)\nand Junior Executive Training (1)\nand 2 16 units of school-approved electives. Marketing and AdvertisingMcClellan High5 16 units Advertising (1/2)\nand Fashion Merchandising (1/2)\nand Marketing (1)\nand Marketing Management (1)\nand 2 /s units of school-approved electives other Career Focus pathways may be added from time to time. We anticipate, for instance, that before school begins in fall 2000, there may be approved Career Focus areas for future teachers (Teachers of Tomorrow) and for the International Studies magnet program at Central High School. In addition, several Career and Technical areas may be added. Ask your counselor if you are interested in any of these options. May I Take More Than One Career Focus? Absolutely! You have enough electives in the required program and enough opportunity to take courses beyond the required 24 units to complete a total of four or five Career Focus pathways. You have 15 credit opportunities beyond the 17 required in the Common Core. Students do not, therefore, have to choose between band and journalism or between debate and choir, for instance. So Far You Have Outlined the Minimum Requirements for Graduation. I am Interested in the Specifics of the Recommended Curriculum. What Are the Courses that Are Recommended? To complete the Recommended Common Core and Career Focus, students must complete the following additional courses beyond the requirements outlined previously\n* One additional unit of social studies. * One additional unit of advanced mathematics. The three units required for the LRSD Common Core must include Algebra I, Geometry, and Algebra II in order to satisfy prerequisites of advanced courses. Seniors are strongly encouraged to take a mathematics course during their senior year. * One additional unit from science. * Two units of one foreign language, one unit of which may be completed in grade 8. * One additional unit of technology applications. * One additional unit in the selected Career Focus area. 10 These seven additional courses, added to the 17 in the required Common Core and the three in the required Career Focus, make the total number of units in the Recommended Curriculum to be 27with no electives. Students in the magnet programs must complete more than the minimum, depending upon the number of magnet courses required. If I Want to Earn the Honors Seal on My Diploma, What Do I Have to Do? The requirement for the classes of 2001 and 2002 is only that the student complete a 3.5 grade-point average in the college preparatory curriculum. three years of science, three years of mathematics, three years of social studies, and four years of English). These courses are all included in the new requirements for graduation for Little Rock School District students, effective for the class of 2002. 4. To complete high school in eight consecutive semesters. Effective for the class of 2003, the student who wishes to earn the honors seal must do all the following: Students achieving all of these specific goals are designated as Arkansas Scholars and recognized at a banquet during their senior year. Also, participating local employers agree to recognize the Arkansas Scholars designation on students transcripts and to treat it as a factor in employment decisions. a. b. c. Complete the 27 units of the Recommended Common Core and Career Focus\nAND Successfully complete a minimum of six Pre-Advanced Place\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_97","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":["2000-01","2000-02","2000-03","2000-04","2000-05"],"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","Little Rock (Ark.). Office of Desegregation Monitoring","School integration--Arkansas","Arkansas. Department of Education","Project managers--Implements"],"dcterms_title":["Arkansas Department of Education's (ADE's) Project Management Tool"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/97"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["documents (object genre)"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\nLittle Rock School District, plaintiff vs. Pulaski County Special School District, defendant.\nIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION REcc,vco FEB 1 ZO[a UTILE 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 January, 2000. Respectfully Submitted, MARK PRYOR Attorney General Assista t Atto e General 323 Center S t, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 682-2007 Attorney for Arkansas Department of Education I 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 January 31, 2000 !Iii~ 99 ~Hi \\mfirlltlin ~Yl~!~i!I It iisirniir ~1i ~~I~\n~ii !mlFiill!~tii m~ eqmt!i.t~ti@o rwnPimi ttFY! ~i!PPtiY~i~ttJi m~n?MJ/4 $9li$ffl.i~ntii B. Include all Magnet students in the resident District's average daily membership for calculation. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) B. Include all Magnet students in the resident District's average daily membership for calculation. (Continued) 2. Actual as of January 31, 2000 ~iii PD t~i !Bfirmi!,em :!xl1!ii1! ltR*Sillit ~11 j$ijijfJt\\gmffi.S iii.iiiij1ii ftRM~@lQQl$YP1Wm!t P$tj@.gjggtjj$Jmio1M C. Process and distribute State MFPA. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of January 31, 2000 111111,11.1,\n1ii~i~!iiri.lt1QG.$At~i~1ggr4\nJ,iitl@P.Ym\ni.ngfgrflMiitPQ \u0026amp;1111 rm~ l!!Btml@~ qf ffiti~i ffiBY!!ll!,em: Ewml\\m\nsilswlit! f 9[ Fi ijg(QQ ij1 p~~mt@ll$J}jg~~(YP1@(Jg p~rjg@ $.#JmMID~bt$Ml\u0026amp;~fW ij~f!!M\u0026amp;$\n!illlilil:!lf-1111. 8q}I!d~$@i2HWJ D. Determine the number of Magnet students residing in each District and attending a Magnet School. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of January 31, 2000 iiiil RD ~~i ~n~irli11im iii~!il~~\nii Iii i!JqQ!!t~~ !{JP$P.lmigr 111 )iii ft6 ~!\n1/QQ\n$QpJgfJp P@figJ@pJ!l@tm?b!$i E. Desegregation Staff Attorney reports the Magnet Operational Charge to the Fiscal Services Office. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing, as ordered by the Court. 2 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) E. Desegregation Staff Attorney reports the Magnet Operational Charge to the Fiscal Services Office. (Continued) 2. Actual as of January 31 , 2000 %~~g RD mJ 1hfdf 9.1~J,h ava ila~iiil~~ {{DE 9Ji9y!~f d ~t R~sim~~f ~1-l 1~~~ f(fY9WQO\nsubjecft9perlodic a\u0026lt;lJQstments. It $fioftl(tb~h6.tEifftha(.cUrfe.ot.ty the Magnef Review G~mmlttee. is i\nepbrting this irif9rmation ih~tgti:'.!d of the s#if.f attotryeY,~s lndicatedjo the tmplern~fitaticn Plan, F. Calculate state aid due the LRSD based upon the Magnet Operational Charge. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of January 31 , 2000 Based bn the information available, the ADE calculated at December 31, 1999 for FY 99/00, 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 January 31 , 2000 Distributions for FY 99/00 at December 31 , 1999, totaled $4,289,494, Allotment calculated.for FY 99/00 was $10,074,196 subject to periodic adjystrpents, H. Calculate the amount of M-to-M incentive money to which each school district is entitled. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of January 31 , 2000 Calculated for FY 99/00, 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 January 31, 2000 1.m1i1ij~w1im~ r1r 1t gwrqi il@ig~mi~r@11 1gwi 11r~~ 1111111111~11: .... 8@\nj $4.\\~$@.}944 liil!!Blii~isili4l@i\nifiriltMgwf PPitilgmiJ~r\n1\njgwill@j~g~tQ p~fiiijig @91A$Jttlinti:!iW$'t$.I 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 January 31 , 2000 In July 1999, the Magnet and M-to-M transportation budgets for FY 99/00 were submitted to the ADE by the Districts. K. The Coordinator of School Transportation notifies General Finance to pay districts for the Districts' proposed budget. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing, annually. 2. Actual as of January 31 , 2000 In September 1999, General Finance was notified to pay the first one-third payment for FY 99/00 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 January 31, 2000 In September 1999, General Finance made the first one-third payment to the Districts for their FY 99/00 transportation budget. The budget is now paid out in three equal installments. At iJgliroiir1iti, the following had been paid for FY 99/00: LRSD -$1,139,152.67 NLRSD - $192,666.67 PCSSD - $648,457.33 M. ADE verifies actual expenditures submitted by Districts and reviews each bill with each District's transportation coordinator. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing, annually. 2. Actual as of January 31, 2000 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 1998- 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. 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. 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. (Continued) 2. Actual as of January 31 , 2000 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 del ivered 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. 0 . Process and distribute compensatory education payments to LRSD as required by page 23 of the Settlement Agreement. 1. Projected Ending Date July 1 and January 1, of each school year through January 1, 1999. 2. Actual as of January 31 , 2000 Obligation fulfilled in FY 96/97. 6 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) P. Process and distribute additional payments in lieu of formula to LRSD as required by page 24 of the Settlement Agreement. 1. Projected Ending Date Payment due date and ending July 1, 1995. 2. Actual as of January 31 , 2000 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 January 31 , 2000 Final payment was distributed July 1994. R. Upon loan request by LRSD accompanied by a promissory note, the ADE makes loans to LRSD. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing through July 1, 1999. See Settlement Agreement page 24. 2. Actual as of January 31, 2000 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 January 31 , 2000 Obligation fulfilled in FY 95/96. 7 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) T. Process and distribute compensatory education payments to NLRSD as required by page 31 of the Settlement Agreement. 1. Projected Ending Date July 1 of each school year through June 30, 1996. 2. Actual as of January 31 , 2000 Obligation fulfilled in FY 95/96. U. Process and distribute check to Magnet Review Committee. 1. Projected Ending Date Payment due date and ending July 1, 1995. 2. Actual as of January 31, 2000 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. V. Process and distribute payments for Office of Desegregation Monitoring. 1. Projected Ending Date Not applicable. 2. Actual as of January 31 , 2000 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. 8 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 January 31 , 2000 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. 9 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of January 31 , 2000 (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. 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 January 31, 2000 (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. 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 January 31, 2000 (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. 12 Ill. A PETITION FOR ELECTION FOR LRSD WILL BE SUPPORTED SHOULD A MILLAGE BE REQUIRED A. Monitor court pleadings to determine if LRSD has petitioned the Court for a special election. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing. 2. Actual as of January 31 , 2000 Ongoing. All Court pleadings are monitored monthly. B. Draft and file appropriate pleadings if LRSD petitions the Court for a special election. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of January 31 , 2000 To date, no action has been taken by the LRSD. 13 IV. REPEAL STATUTES AND REGULATIONS THAT IMPEDE DESEGREGATION A. Using a collaborative approach, immediately identify those laws and regulations that appear to impede desegregation. 1. Projected Ending Date December, 1994 2. Actual as of January 31 , 2000 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 January 31 , 2000 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 January 31 , 2000 The information for this item is detailed under Section IV.E. of this report. D. Submit proposals to the State Board of Education for repeal of those regulations that are confirmed to be impediments to desegregation. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of January 31 , 2000 The information for this item is detailed under Section IV.E. of this report. 14 IV. REPEAL STATUTES AND REGULATIONS THAT IMPEDE DESEGREGATION (Continued) E. Submit proposals to the Legislature for repeal of those laws that appear to be impediments to desegregation. 2. Actual as of January 31 , 2000 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. 15 IV. REPEAL STATUTES AND REGULATIONS THAT IMPEDE DESEGREGATION (Continued) E. Submit proposals to the Legislature for repeal of those laws that appear to be impediments to desegregation. (Continued) 2. Actual as of January 31, 2000 (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. 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. (Continued) 2. Actual as of January 31 , 2000 (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. 17 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES A. Through a preamble to the Implementation Plan, the Board of Education will reaffirm its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement and outcomes of programs intended to apply those principles. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of January 31 , 2000 The preamble was contained in the Implementation Plan filed with the Court on March 15, 1994. B. Through execution of the Implementation Plan, the Board of Education will continue to reaffirm its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement and outcomes of programs intended to apply those principles. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of January 31 , 2000 Ongoing C. Through execution of the Implementation Plan, the Board of Education will continue to reaffirm its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement by actions taken by ADE in response to monitoring results. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of January 31, 2000 Ongoing 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. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 18 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of AD E's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of January 31, 2000 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. 19 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of January 31, 2000 (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. 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 January 31, 2000 (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. 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 January 31, 2000 (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. 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 January 31, 2000 (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. 23 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 January 31 , 2000 (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. 24 VI. REMEDIATION A. Through the Extended COE process, the needs for technical assistance by District, by School, and by desegregation compensatory education programs will be identified. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of January 31 , 2000 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. 25 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) A. Through the Extended COE process, the needs for technical assistance by District, by School, and by desegregation compensatory education programs will be identified. (Continued) 2. Actual as of January 31, 2000 (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. 26 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) A. Through the Extended COE process, the needs for technical assistance by District, by School, and by desegregation compensatory education programs will be identified. (Continued) 2. Actual as of January 31, 2000 (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. 27 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) A. Through the Extended COE process, the needs for technical assistance by District, by School, and by desegregation compensatory education programs will be identified. (Continued) 2. Actual as of January 31, 2000 (Continued) In June 1998, the Extended COE Team Visit Reports were completed. A School Improvement Conference was held in Hot Springs on July 13-15, 1998. Major conference topics included information on the process of continuous school improvement, curriculum alignment, \"Smart Start,\" Distance Learning, using data to improve academic performance, educational technology, and multicultural education. All school districts in Arkansas were invited and representatives from Pulaski County attended. In September 1998, requests for technical assistance were received, visitation schedules were established, and assistance teams began visiting the Districts. Assistance was provided by telephone and on-site visits. The ADE provided inservice training on \"Using Data to Sharpen the Focus on Student Achievement\" at Gibbs Magnet Elementary school on October 5, 1998 at their request. The staff was taught how to increase test scores through data disaggregation, analysis, alignment, longitudinal achievement review, and use of individualized test data by student, teacher, class and content area. Information was also provided regarding the \"Smart Start\" and the \"Academic Distress\" initiatives. On October 20, 1998, ECOE technical assistance was provided to Southwest Jr. High School. B. Identify available resources for providing technical assistance for the specific condition, or circumstances of need, considering resources within ADE and the Districts, and also resources available from outside sources and experts. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of January 31 , 2000 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 28 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) C. D. Through the ERIC system, conduct a literature search for research evaluating compensatory education programs. (Continued) 2. Actual as of January 31, 2000 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 January 31, 2000 The information for this item is detailed under Section VI.F. of this report. E. Solicit, obtain, and use available resources for technical assistance. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of January 31 , 2000 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 29 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of January 31, 2000 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 AD E's Technical Assistance Section attended the National Committee for School Desegregation Conference. The participants received training in strategies for Excellence and Equity: Empowerment and Training for the Future. Specific information was received regarding the current status of court-ordered desegregation, unitary status, and resegregation and distributed to the Districts and ADE personnel. 30 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of January 31 , 2000 (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. 3l VI. REM ED IA TION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of January 31 , 2000 (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. 32 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of January 31, 2000 (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 ACTAAP 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. 33 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 January 31, 2000 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 SA T-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 January 31, 2000 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 34 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 January 31 , 2000 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. 3 5 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 January 31, 2000 (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. 36 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 January 31 , 2000 (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. 37 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 January 31, 2000 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 January 31 , 2000 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 January 31, 2000 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 January 31, 2000 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. 38 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 January 31, 2000 (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. 39 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 January 31, 2000 (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. 40 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 January 31 , 2000 (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. 41 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 January 31, 2000 (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. 42 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 January 31, 2000 (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. 43 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 January 31 , 2000 (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. 44 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 January 31, 2000 (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. 45 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 January 31 , 2000 (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. 46 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 January 31 , 2000 (Continued) illl~lllr1ilill!J.il1~fitf lllllllli,lilll1,1llllllfllll~~g L~!tn~ti~P1!ti99f9\\U!t2ra({J,jg9!ll\nigg211Isl!1Brnmlffi!Jl!D!!Mt (ijpfl).f p~Htns~tm11t~ltiifi!BilsQK~lJftmmiYit~~ffiiPQ ni!Qifi{L.  CbBiBitf!IDB ist.!:t!il!Is!In! pm~as1amm~!iv$t:rnnm n$xtm~wttm wm PW pgp@Jtw@T2QPQ$.l1h@\nQe\n47 IX. RECRUITMENT OF MINORITY TEACHERS A. Facilitate communication between the Districts and Arkansas colleges and universities with teacher education programs. 1. Projected Ending Dates (See dates on individual key activities) 2. Actual as of January 31 , 2000 A staff member of the ADE's certification department attended all of the college career days in FY 94/95 in Arkansas and one out-of-state. In FY 95/96, ADE certification staff members attended career and job fairs at the following colleges and universities: Philander Smith College\nUAM\nHSU\nATU\nUCA\nASU\nUA-Pine Bluff\nUA-Fayetteville\nHarding University\nSAU\nand Jackson State. ADE certification staff met with representatives from the Districts to ensure they were aware that ADE personnel were available to provide assistance in recruitment and certification of minority teacher candidates. A job fair was conducted at the University of Arkansas at Pine Bluff on December 4, 1996. The Districts were advised of the ADE's availability for providing assistance in recruitment and certification. In February 1997, ADE certification staff members attended teacher job fairs at Henderson State University, Arkansas Tech University, and University of Central Arkansas to facilitate communication between the Districts and Arkansas colleges and universities with teacher education programs. ADE certification staff members attended teacher job fairs at Harding University, UA-Fayetteville, UA-Pine Bluff, and ASU in April 1997 to facilitate communication between the Districts and Arkansas colleges and universities with teacher education programs. From April 16, 1997 through May 6, 1997, ADE certification staff members attended teacher job fairs at Philander Smith College and SAU to facilitate communication between the Districts and Arkansas colleges and universities with teacher education programs. Additionally, ADE staff attended an out-ofstate teacher job fair at Jackson State University at Jackson, Mississippi. Recruitment activities were suspended for the summer, but they will resume in the later part of September for FY 97/98. On September 25, 1997, the ADE's Professional Licensure Supervisor attended a career day job fair at Philander Smith College to provide support to the Districts in recruiting teachers. 48 IX. RECRUITMENT OF MINORITY TEACHERS (Continued) A. Facilitate communication between the Districts and Arkansas colleges and universities with teacher education programs. (Continued) 2. Actual as of January 31 , 2000 (Continued) On November 6, 1997, the Professional Licensure Supervisor attended a career day job fair at the University of the Ozarks in order to facilitate the Districts' recruitment efforts. Recruitment activities will resume in February 1998. Representatives of the ADE's Professional Licensure Unit attended job fairs at Arkansas Technical University, UCA, ASU and the University of Memphis from February 26, 1998 through March 12, 1998. A representative from the ADE's Professional Licensure Unit attended job fairs at UA-Fayetteville and Harding University on March 30, 1998 and April 2, 1998, respectively. Representatives from the ADE's Professional Licensure Unit attended job fairs at Philander Smith College, SAU and North East Louisiana in April 1998. The staff members of Professional Licensure have scheduled college and university job fairs as they become aware of them. They have scheduled ATU, UCA, ASU, Harding, and UA-Fayetteville. The Professional Licensure staff assisted NLRSD in getting the spring minority graduate list from all college and university teacher education programs. The Licensure unit scheduled staff to attend job fairs coming up this spring. Representatives for the Professional Licensure Unit attended job fairs at ATU, UCA, and ASU from February 25, 1999 through March 9, 1999. Representatives for the Professional Licensure Unit attended job fairs at Harding, UA-Fayetteville, and UAM from March 25, 1999 through April 7, 1999. Representatives for the Professional Licensure Unit attended job fairs at Philander Smith, April 13, 1999 and Grambling University, April 15, 1999. B. Beginning in 1994, by May and November of each year, Districts will supply to the ADE information about shortages of teachers by grade and subject area. 1. Projected Ending Dates Ongoing, as stated. 49 IX. RECRUITMENT OF MINORITY TEACHERS (Continued) B. Beginning in 1994, by May and November of each year, Districts will supply to the ADE information about shortages of teachers by grade and subject area. (Continued) 2. Actual as of January 31, 2000 Letters were sent in May, August, and December 1995 to the Districts requesting information regarding teaching positions available by grade and subject areas. In May and November 1996, the Human Resources offices of the Districts were requested to provide information regarding teaching positions available by grade and subject area. The ADE sent follow-up letters requesting information from the Districts regarding teacher shortages in February 1997. The NLRSD and the PCSSD indicated that they expect teacher shortages in the areas of Special Education, Mathematics, the Sciences, Foreign Language, English as a Second Language and Gifted and Talented Education. On May 20, 1997, information was requested from the Districts regarding teacher shortages. Follow-up letters were sent in July 1997. On November 5, 1998, letters were sent to the three schools in Pulaski County requesting a list of foreseeable teacher shortages. In May 1999, requests were made to the Pulaski County Schools for a list of teacher openings and grade levels. In June 1999, the Professional Licensure Unit received a list of teacher shortage areas and openings for Pulaski County Schools. In December 1999, the ADE Professional Licensure Unit requested a list of shortage teaching positions for each of the Pulaski County Schools. C. Beginning in 1994, by May and December of each year, request information from colleges and universities about the numbers and types of minority-teacher graduates. 1. Projected Ending Dates Ongoing, as stated. 2. Actual as of January 31, 2000 In May and December 1995, letters were sent to all Deans and Certifying Officers of Institutions of Higher Education in Arkansas requesting information on minority teacher graduates. Letters were sent to all Deans and Certifying Officers of Institutions of Higher Education in Arkansas in May and November 1996 requesting information on minority teacher graduates. 50 IX. RECRUITMENT OF MINORITY TEACHERS (Continued) C. Beginning in 1994, by May and December of each year, request information from colleges and universities about the numbers and types of minority-teacher graduates. (Continued) 2. Actual as of January 31, 2000 (Continued) In May and December 1997, letters were sent to all Arkansas colleges and universities with teacher education programs requesting minority teacher graduate information. On May 14, 1998, letters were sent to all Arkansas colleges and universities with teacher education programs requesting minority teacher graduate information. On August 1, 1998, the ADE Office of Professional Licensure sent advance notice to all Deans/Certifying Officials regarding the change in format for complete minority teacher candidate information. On November 5, 1998, letters were sent to Deans and Certifying Officials requesting a list of their fall minority teacher education graduates which will be sent to the three Pulaski County Schools. In May 1999, requests were made to all colleges and universities for their spring minority graduates for 1999. In June 1999, the ADE Office of Professional Licensure received minority graduate reports from colleges and universities. In December 1999, the ADE Office of Professional Licensure requested a list of all fall graduates from all colleges and universities. D. Within 30 days of receiving data from colleges and universities provide the Districts data on teacher openings to the colleges and universities on minority graduates to the Districts. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actua! as of January 31 , 2000 In June 1995 and January 1996, ADE sent the information received from Arkansas colleges and universities on minority teacher education graduates to the Districts. In July 1996 and January 1997, ADE sent the information received from Deans and Certifying Officers on minority teacher education graduates to the Districts. 51 IX. RECRUITMENT OF MINORITY TEACHERS (Continued) D. E. Within 30 days of receiving data from colleges and universities provide the Districts data on teacher openings to the colleges and universities on minority graduates to the Districts. (Continued) 2. Actual as of January 31, 2000 (Continued) On February 3, 1997, a list of minority teacher graduates from the University of Arkansas at Fayetteville was forwarded to the Districts as an addendum to the list of graduates compiled on January 16, 1997. The ADE provided the Districts with the Minority Teacher Graduate Report compiled from the minority teacher graduate information received from Arkansas colleges and universities in July 1997 and January 1998. The 1998 Fall Minority Teacher Graduate Report from colleges and universities have been forwarded to the three Pulaski County School District. Information from the three Pulaski County School Districts regarding vacant teaching positions are being forwarded to the colleges and universities. In July 1999, the minority graduate reports from the colleges and universities were mailed to all Pulaski County Schools. Job openings for Pulaski County Schools were mailed to all colleges and universities. Each November, ADE will request information from the Districts on the effectiveness of AD E's minority recruitment assistance, including an assessment of the minority teacher candidates' database. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of January 31, 2000 On November 30, 1994, letters were sent to the Districts requesting feedback on the effectiveness of the ADE's minority recruitment assistance. Follow-up letters were sent on March 17, 1995 since no responses had been received. Additional follow-up letters were sent to the Districts in August 1995 because the ADE had received no responses from the Districts. A planning and evaluation meeting was scheduled on January 11 , 1996 with representatives from the Districts. The Districts did not attend the meeting. In February 1997, letters were sent to the Districts requesting feedback on the effectiveness of ADE's minority recruitment assistance. The NLRSD and the PCSSD submitted favorable evaluations concerning the effectiveness of the ADE's recruitment assistance efforts. The ADE did not received any information from the LRSD regarding this matter. 52 IX. RECRUITMENT OF MINORITY TEACHERS (Continued) E. Each November, ADE will request information from the Districts on the effectiveness of ADE's minority recruitment assistance, including an assessment of the minority teacher candidates' database. 2. Actual as of January 31, 2000 In December 1999, The ADE requested a letter from each of the three Pulaski County schools documenting the effectiveness of help given the districts. 53 X. FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE TO MINORITY TEACHER CANDIDATES A. Assist ADHE in identifying, analyzing, addressing and eliminating racial disparities in the allocation of scholarships. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of January 31, 2000 The information for this item is detailed under Section X.D. of this report. B. Representatives of the ADE and the ADHE will work together, review ADHE's available data to identify racial disparities in allocation of scholarships. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of January 31, 2000 The information for this item is detailed under Section X.D. of this report. C. Using its knowledge about public schools, teacher education and certification, and through a collaborative effort with the Districts, ADE will analyze racial disparities in ADHE scholarship allocations. ADE will report its findings, conclusions, and recommendations about racial disparities in allocating scholarships to ADHE. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of January 31, 2000 The information for this item is detailed under Section X.D. of this report. D. Working with the ADHE, the ADE will use its relationships in the public education institutional settings to assist implementation of measures designed to reduce racial disparities in allocation of scholarships. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of January 31 , 2000 In April 1995, ADE met with representatives of ADHE concerning identification and analysis of possible disparities in scholarship allocations. 54 X. FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE TO MINORITY TEACHER CANDIDATES (Continued) D. Working with the ADHE, the ADE will use its relationships in the public education institutional settings to assist implementation of measures designed to reduce racial disparities in allocation of scholarships. (Continued) E. 2. Actual as of January 31 , 2000 (Continued) In June 1995, a collaborative effort was made between the ADE and ADHE to enhance the rate at which minorities were applying for the 1995 teacher scholarships with special emphasis on the areas of science, math, and foreign language through a direct mail program. In July 1995, representatives from the ADE and the Districts met to review the scholarship applications. The Implementation Committee on Financial Assistance to Minority Teacher Candidates discussed ways to increase minority awareness of the scholarships available for minority teacher applicants. The committee agreed to meet quarterly to identify, analyze, and address eliminating racial disparities in scholarships. The committee met in December 1995 to discuss the distribution of scholarships for the 95/96 school year. The committee meets on a continuous basis to review scholarship distributions and discuss ways of improving the pool of applicants for minority teacher scholarships as detailed further in Section X.E. of this report. Monitor the allocation of scholarships to minority students by the ADHE\nevaluate the impacts of new approaches and new legislation on an ongoing basis. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of January 31 , 2000 During the May 1995 Legislative session, Acts 188, 189 and 259 regarding scholarships were passed. A meeting to monitor and analyze the distribution of scholarships for the 95/96 school year was held on December 15, 1995. The committee met on June 7, 1996 to review the scholarship applications for minority teacher candidates for the 96/97 school year. Representatives from the ADHE stated that the ADHE expected to have the resources to fund: 56 scholarships under the Emergency Secondary Education Loan Program\n100 scholarships under the Minority Teacher Scholars Program\nand 13 scholarships under the Minority Masters Fellows Program. The committee also discussed ways of increasing the scholarship applicant pools, and a recommendation was made to make scholarships available to part-time students. 55 X. FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE TO MINORITY TEACHER CANDIDATES (Continued) E. Monitor the allocation of scholarships to minority students by the ADHE\nevaluate the impacts of new approaches and new legislation on an ongoing basis. (Continued) 2. Actual as of January 31 , 2000 (Continued) In September 1996, a proposal was submitted to the Assistant to the Director for Legislative Services recommending the Legislature offer minority teacher scholarships to part-time students. The committee met on October 23, 1996 to review the scholarships awarded for the 96/97 school year. The following scholarships were funded: 60 scholarships totaling $144,266 for the Emergency Secondary Education Loan Program\n20 scholarships totaling $107,500 for the Minority Masters Fellows Program\n109 scholarships totaling $505,093 for the Minority Teacher Scholars Program\nand 258 students in the Freshman/Sophomore Minority Grant Program received scholarships totaling $374,000. In March 1997, information on minority teacher scholarships and how to apply was provided to the Districts and Arkansas colleges and universities. The Districts were informed of ADHE's scholarship promotional efforts and legislative updates. The next meeting of the committee will be in September 1997. On April 8, 1997, notifications were sent to all Arkansas colleges and universities on the Minority Teacher Scholars Program reminding them that the deadline for receiving applications was June 1, 1997. This information was also provided to the Districts. The Minority Teacher Scholarship Committee will meet on October 9, 1997 to discuss the scholarships awarded for FY 97/98. The Minority Teacher Scholarship Recruitment Committee met on October 9, 1997 to discuss the scholarships awarded for FY 97/98. The ADHE Assistant Coordinator for Student Financial Aid provided a comprehensive presentation on scholarships awarded for the 97/98 school year. There were 235 scholarships awarded in the Freshman/Sophomore Minority Scholarship program totaling $344,988. The Emergency Secondary Education Loan program awarded 52 scholarships for a total of $119,370. There were 83 scholarships for $403,520 awarded in the Minority Teachers Scholars program. The Minority Masters Fellows program awarded 20 scholarships for a total of $73,750. The ADHE representative indicated that during the 1997 regular legislative session legislation was passed to allow hispanics and asians to participate in the minority scholarship programs. It was stated that the average GPA for minority teacher scholarship recipients had increased to 3.13, and that the dollars awarded in the Minority Masters Fellows program were down from last year because most of the recipients were part-time students. 56 X. FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE TO MINORITY TEACHER CANDIDATES (Continued) E. Monitor the allocation of scholarships to minority students by the ADHE\nevaluate the impacts of new approaches and new legislation on an ongoing basis. (Continued) 2. Actual as of January 31 , 2000 (Continued) The committee discussed numerous avenues that might be utilized to inform minority applicants of scholarships available. Communication with the faculty of Arkansas colleges and universities regarding the availability of scholarships was discussed as a way of informing teaching students of possible resources available to them. The next quarterly meeting of the Minority Teacher Scholarship Recruitment Committee will be February 19, 1998. The quarterly meeting of the Minority Teacher Scholarship Recruitment Committee scheduled for February was canceled since only the NLRSD and an ADE representative were present at the scheduled meeting place. The meeting has not been rescheduled at this time. The Minority Teacher Scholarship meeting was rescheduled for March 26, 1998. The Minority Teacher Scholarship Recruitment Committee met on March 26, 1998. The committee was updated on the requirements and application packets were distributed for the Emergency Secondary Education Loan Program (ESELP), Minority Teacher Scholars Program (MTSP), and Minority Masters Fellows Program (MMFP). The deadline for applications was April 1, 1998 for the ESE LP and June 1, 1998 for the MTSP and MMFP. The scholarships will be awarded in July 1998. A committee member requested that ADHE send scholarship applications to the schools as well as the district offices to ensure that their teachers and students were apprised of the scholarships available. It was suggested that the colleges submit prospective graduate information for use by the Districts no later than April since the Districts begin the interview process of Spring graduates in May. The ADE Implementation Plan currently requires that the ADE request information on minority teacher graduates in May, and then it is distributed to the Districts in June or July. A representative from the ADE Teacher Licensure Unit was present at the meeting and stated that the ADE would try to accommodate the Districts with this request, but she cautioned that colleges and universities are reluctant to provide tentative graduate information. The next committee meeting is scheduled for July 30, 1998 at the NLRSD offices. 57 X. FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE TO MINORITY TEACHER CANDIDATES (Continued) E. Monitor the allocation of scholarships to minority students by the ADHE\nevaluate the impacts of new approaches and new legislation on an ongoing basis. (Continued) 2. Actual as of January 31 , 2000 (Continued) The Minority Teacher Scholarship Meeting was held July 30, 1998. Donna Elliot, ADE Program Support Manager was appointed to the Committee. She indicated that advance notification would be mailed to all University Deans/Certifying Officials regarding the change in format for more thorough minority teacher candidate information. A complete report will be forwarded and reported in the September PMT. Disparities in minority scholarship distributions were not evidenced in the draft report. Lillian Williams, Arkansas Department of Higher Education, submitted the following report on Minority Teacher Scholarships Distribution: 1998-99 PROGRAM STATISTICS PROGRAM NAME APPROPRIATION AWARDED #STUDENTS Freshman/Sophomore 250,000 250,000 Estimated 300+ ESEL 81 ,717 121 ,250 50 * Minority Teacher 450,000 445,000 89 ** Scholars Minority Masters Fellows 80,000 80,000 30 * Please note that only 81 ,717 was appropriated for the ESEL Scholarship, however, additional repayment funds were used to award an additional 39,533 totaling 121 ,250. ** 11 Students are pending passing the PPST. The report on Minority Teacher Scholarships Distribution was presented October 8, 1998, by the Education Lead Planner during the Break the Mold Workshop: Teacher Recruitment and Retention, sponsored by the Winthrop Rockefeller Foundation. The group was informed about the following: 1. Projected Teacher shortages in Mathematics, Special Education, and Foreign Language 2. Collaborative efforts of the ADE and the ADHE to recruit teachers by funding more than 450 scholarships for applicants interested in teaching annually 3. Reasons new teachers give for leaving the profession 4. The ratio of minority teachers to minority students. 58 X. FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE TO MINORITY TEACHER CANDIDATES (Continued) E. Monitor the allocation of scholarships to minority students by the ADHE\nevaluate the impacts of new approaches and new legislation on an ongoing basis. (Continued) 2. Actual as of January 31 , 2000 (Continued) The Minority Teacher Scholarship Committee met on November 2, 1998 in the Pulaski County District Conference Room. The committee received (1) an update on the distribution of scholarships, (2) reviewed the scholarship information booklets, (3) approved the quarterly report of progress. The committee also identified, as a legislative issue, the need to allow part-time students access to scholarships. The next quarterly meeting is scheduled for February 2, 1999. A recommendation was received by the Committee on Financial Assistance to Minority Teacher Candidates regarding the Emergency Secondary Education Loan. The Committee recommended that the Arkansas State Legislature increase the minority teacher candidate pool by offering the Emergency Secondary Education Loan to part-time students. The Committee noted that a number of persons currently serving our education system as substitute teachers would take advantage of the assistance offered, if they could receive assistance for part-time student status. Many prospective minority teacher candidates, and candidates seeking advanced degrees are unable to serve our students and go to school on a full-time basis. The next quarterly meeting is scheduled for February 2, 1999. The next quarterly meeting was rescheduled for February 21 , 1999, to accommodate all participants. The quarterly meeting of the Minority Teacher Scholarship Committee was held on February 21 , 1999, in the Little Rock School District. Representatives from all three districts in Pulaski County, the ADHE and the ADE attended the meeting. A scholarship report update and scholarship applications and deadlines for the 1999 school year were provided. Information regarding the national focus on teacher shortages and recruitment were distributed. The committee discussed the status of the following bills related to teacher recruitment: SB31 , \" an act to make emergency secondary education loans available to students enrolled as a major in a program of study leading to teacher certification for foreign languages and special education.\" HB1466 \"state supported colleges and universities must report to Department of Education the name, address, and major of each minority student completing college requirements for licensure as school teacher.\" SB237 \"to make technical amendments to various sections of the Arkansas Code Annotated relative to public education.\" 59 X. FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE TO MINORITY TEACHER CANDIDATES (Continued) E. Monitor the allocation of scholarships to minority students by the ADHE\nevaluate the impacts of new approaches and new legislation on an ongoing basis. (Continued) 2. Actual as of January 31, 2000 (Continued) SB261 \"to encourage teachers to participate in and complete NBPTS Certification by authorizing the Department of Education to pay full tuition and incentive bonuses.\" SB 113 \"to amend A. C.A.  6-17-410 to clarify that the Department of Education will pay criminal record check fees for certain public education employees.\" The quarterly meeting of the Minority Teacher Scholarship Committee was held on May 13, 1999 at the ADHE. Representatives from all three districts in Pulaski County, ADHE, and ADE attended the meeting. A scholarship report update and scholarship application deadline for the 1999 school year were provided. Information regarding the new rules and regulations for professional development that are to go out for public comment were distributed. The committee discussed the status and impact of the following Acts related to teacher recruitment: Act 905 (formerly HB1466)\nAct 391 (formerly SB237)\nAct 58 (formerly SB261)\nAct 226 (formally SB113). On August 23, 1999, Lillian Williams, Arkansas Department of Higher Education, submitted the following report on Minority Teacher Scholarships Distribution: 1999-2000 PROGRAM STATISTICS PROGRAM NAME APPROPRIATION AWARDED #STUDENTS Freshman/Sophomore 250,000 250,000 300 ESEL 81 ,717 101 ,250 6* Minority Teacher Scholars 450,000 425,000 94 Minority Masters Fellows 80,000 65,000 17 * These are all minority students. The Minority Teacher Scholarship committee gathered on November 9, 1999 at the Arkansas Department of Higher Education. Representatives from the ADHE, ADE, and the three districts were present. The committee discussed ways of increasing the scholarship applicant pool and reviewed the current Rules and Regulations for Professional Development. Ms. Lillian Williams of the Arkansas Department of Higher Education made a correction to the 1999 - 2000 scholarship report that was presented in the August PMT. The total number of awarded scholarships for the Minority Teacher Scholars program were 97 rather than 94, also the amount of money awarded for the Minority Teacher Scholar program was $466,104 rather than $425,000. 60 XI. MINORITY RECRUITMENT OF ADE STAFF A. Administer the ADE Minority Recruitment Plan developed by the ADE staff and Board of Education and officially adopted by the Board of Education (see Exhibit B for the ADE's Minority Recruitment Plan with specific objectives and time lines). 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of January 31 , 2000 The Minority Recruitment Committee met on April 14, 1995. New committee members were assigned tasks and goals to increase the effectiveness of the Minority Recruitment Plan. At the Minority Recruitment Committee meeting on May 18, 1995, the committee was divided into four working sub-teams to update the annual plan. Each team focused on one of the four goals in the Minority Recruitment Plan and monitored specific task completions. From June to October 1995, subcommittees met and worked on monitoring the progress of the ADE in accomplishing the tasks outlined in the Minority Recruitment Plan. In September 1995, the ADE reached an agreement with the Arkansas Statewide Systemic Initiative (ASSI) for conducting an audit of the Minority Recruitment Plan. The committee reviewed the recommendations and comments for updating the plan at the November 1995 meeting and reviewed the final draft at the December meeting. The ASSl's audit findings were presented to the committee on January 16, 1996. It was determined during the initial review that the files were incomplete to the extent that an accurate audit was not possible. The auditor met with the committee in March 1996 to review the additional documentation in the files. The auditor prepared the final report in April 1996 indicating that of the 89 actions contained in the Minority Recruitment Plan, 74 of the items had been completed, nine were in progress, and six had not been started. The audit stated that of the 22 items in Goal 1, 15 were completed, one was in progress, and six had not been started. Goal 2 contained 14 items, 13 of which were completed and one in progress. Goal 3 consisted of 30 items with 29 items completed and one in progress. Goal 4 consisted of 23 items with 17 items completed and six in progress. 61 XI. MINORITY RECRUITMENT OF ADE STAFF (Continued) A. Administer the ADE Minority Recruitment Plan developed by the ADE staff and Board of Education and officially adopted by the Board of Education (see Exhibit B for the ADE's Minority Recruitment Plan with specific goals, objectives and time lines). (Continued) 2. Actual as of January 31 , 2000 (Continued) The Minority Recruitment Committee met on June 6, 1996 to discuss updates and revisions addressed in the audit and the new racial/gender report on Grades 21 and above. Since the completion of the audit, Goals 2.3.4 and 3.3.8 were completed, and a list of recommendations for retention activities was written. Also, a random sample of ADE employees was asked to fill out questionnaires, but only a limited number were returned. In August 1996, the Minority Recruitment Committee met and discussed the actions necessary to complete Goals 1 and 4 contained in the Minority Recruitment Plan. At the September 1996 meeting, the committee was updated on the progress of all four goals in the Minority Recruitment Plan. The committee heard an analysis of application and hiring practices and discussed the relevance of the data. Suggestions made by the State Board of Education regarding the Employee Tracking Data Check Sheet were discussed at the February 1996 meeting of the Minority Recruitment Committee. Goal 1 of the Minority Recruitment Plan will be completed when the employee tracking sheet is finalized. The Minority Recruitment Committee met on March 14, 1997 and March 27, 1997 to discuss the draft Revised Minority Recruitment Plan and progress toward completing Goal 4. The committee passed a motion to omit Section 1.1 from Goal 1 of the draft revised plan. Additionally, the committee suggested that communication be made an integral part of each goal of the revised plan. The committee discussed the need for professional training programs, incentives for educational opportunities, and upward mobility for all staff within the ADE. In an effort to co\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\n\n "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_71","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":["1999-09/1999-12"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Education--Arkansas","Little Rock (Ark.). Office of Desegregation Monitoring","School integration--Arkansas","Arkansas. Department of Education","Project managers--Implements"],"dcterms_title":["Arkansas Department of Education's (ADE's) Project Management Tool"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/71"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["documents (object genre)"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\nLittle Rock School District, plaintiff vs. Pulaski County Special School District, defendant.\nIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION RECEIVED SEP 1  1999 om 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 August, 1999. Respectfully Submitted, MARK PRYOR Attorney General --r\nti /_ /? TIMOTHY G. t\n__AUG1ER '#95019 Assistant Attorn~ neral 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 682-2007 Attorney for Arkansas Department of Education EIVE IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION SEP 1 19 q 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 August 31 , 1999 ~~~ gry tb~ii\\fetm~!f9Q ~Y~!!?.I~ ~t qg!y ~j~:11~~\n!b\nIR G~fiji\niiifijij ihi I\nqqaljiijtf 5 f).1rjpifig fbtY $~/QQf~QpJ~tJ p~figgl ijgjtj$\\ffi~iitt. 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 residenl District's average daily membership for calculation. (Continued) 2. Actual as of August 31, 1999 !-ilff1m~, 1~nfqmJi112n ~Y~1.,i~1ilf Wv@1I 1s.$$il\u0026amp;ijEoe~1Bm\nf~tjfqtJi a~1o~u:iAPi$..tt:p~fig1i@\\JmigmM C. Process and distribute State MFPA. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of August 31 , 1999 On July 31 , 1999, distributions of State Equalization Funding for FY 98/99 were as follows: LRSD - $46,560,574 NLRSD - $26,187,899 PCSSD - $55,864,014 The allotments of State Equalization Funding calculated for FY 98/99 at July 31, 1999, subject to periodic adjustments, were as follows: LRSD - $46,560,574 NLRSD - $26,187,899 PCSSD - $55,864,014 D. Determine the number of Magnet students residing in each District and attending a Magnet School. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of August 31 , 1999 @ig en tn~ IntrmtJ,en ivij/1i~!~11f~@ios ~,11i1gfi\n1\n1\n,i ~1\n1~~Jgrem $$!Om 4bJ$tJq pet@:11 a.mi:tstm$1'lrn\nE. Desegregation Staff Attorney reports the Magnet Operational Charge to the Fiscal Services Office. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing, as ordered by the Court. 2 IJ I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) E. Desegregation Staff Attorney reports the Magnet Operational C~arge to the Fiscal Services Office. (Continued) 2. Actual as of August 31, 1999 lll\\1l11~1lfl1\\\\t!1III1l.llll~iiiRil!l1ll~1i1il:1i~ri1t~[III M~~rit g~i)t!!w: @mmift~~ !~ ieentnQ tni~ 1ntffiiijt10.ro$.t\u0026amp;~a Pt tn\u0026amp; itt ~tt~#ni\u0026amp; ijJnglgit~#Jn m~ 1mt.tiimgo#m.n B!?ni 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 August 31, 1999 i~~~ eg f~i 1,nt2rmi1!2r ijx~u~e,~i ~ti~ 5.R it~1ijf~ij ~JQqJy ?11 1g~ijtitleoo ~~IOQW$UPHftq PMP?:il\nadjustm~ot~\nG. Process and distribute state aid for Magnet Operational Charge. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of August 31, 1999 Distributions for FY 98/99 at July 31 , 1999, totaled $9,144,784. Allotment calculated for FY 98/99 was $9,144,784 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 August 31 , 1999 Calcujate.clfo(FY ~91.oq, sub]e.ct to p~ripflic atjjs.Jmrits. 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 August 31 , 1999 Distributions for FY 98/99 at July 31, 1999 were: LRSD - $3,780,351 NLRSD- $1,941 ,173 PCSSD - $7\n391 ,306 The allotments calculated for FY 98/99 at July 31 , 1999, subject to periodic adjustments, were: LRSD - $3,780,351 NLRSD- $1 ,941 ,173 PCSSD - $7,391 ,306 J. Districts submit an estimated Magnet and M-to-M transportation budget to ADE. 1. Projected Ending Date 2. Ongoing, December of each year. Actual as of August 31 , 1999 In September 1998, the Magnet and M-to-M transportation budgets for FY 98/99 were submitted to the ADE by the Dist.ricts. K. The Coordinator of School Transportation notifies General Finance to pay districts for the Districts' proposed budget. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing, annually. 2. Actual as of August 31 , 1999 ~~r~~ 1!\n~:::to~ihn\nf ~i~~~~:tm1~~~~r~e1\n:11M~Wti~~l~i~iii~11!.llr.91 Coordinator is currentfy performing this functionii.\\st~ad of R$.g\\tialg Y:vJJs.od}~' ir,dicat~g lr}tt,elmplimentatiof} p.[ijh 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 budge( (Continued) 2. Actual as of August 31, 1999 ~1llltllll~lili~,r~1,1~ll1ill1:li1llllii!f lllr\nl1l~ll~l\\1i ~\u0026amp;!\ni#!lhiffiilm?#it~l ii 4P!i 1ij~g\nfflg 1$)!9w\\Qg ti~a ij\n~H P~t~ t qr EM gijr~~\ni !limll\n1'!l~!~~fig:1_ ~AARQ t liji@!?ij!li . l$$St!H$1\\i\u0026amp;IiP~QQ 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 August 31, 1999 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 1998- 99 school year for the Magnet and M-to-M transportation program. School districts should receive payment by October 1, 1998. 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 August 31 , 1999 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. 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. (Continued) 2. Actual as of August 31, 1999 (Continued) 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. 0 . Process and distribute compensatory education payments to LRSD as required by page 23 of the Settlement Agreement. 1. Projected Ending Date July 1 and January 1, of each school year through January 1, 1999. 2. Actual as of August 31 , 1999 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. 6 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) P. Process and distribute additional payments in lieu of formula to LRSD as required by page 24 of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of August 31 , 1999 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 August 31 , 1999 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 August 31 , 1999 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 August 31, 1999 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. 7 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) T. Process and distribute compensatory education payments to NLRSD as required by page 31 of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of August 31 , 1999 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 August 31 , 1999 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. Q!~f n9t12r lh ~~Ixc tg~~r torF :Y~ ~199 '.is S.@?~ Q\nmm~ w~i f6ij t6i~t~mPYiW ge.JJh\u0026lt;M.9 grj~fl8.Y!!3W Cqm.fu!ffgijff:5 ~/QQl V. Process and distribute payments for Office of Desegregation Monitoring. 1. Projected Ending Date Not applicable. 2. Actual as of August 31 , 1999 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. D,Js1r~~!8D iQ ~Y!'J99~for F'(~~/QQyv~ $2QQ[QQQ\n[bl W~$lb! fgf~i ~ffi94'1t c:tgJpJh~ QPMf citFX ~9fOQ. 8 I) 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 August 31 , 1999 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. 9 11. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A.  Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assur~ 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 August 31 , 1999 (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. 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 August 31, 1999 (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. 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 August 31, 1999 (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. 12 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 August 31 , 1999 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 August 31 , 1999 To date, no action has been taken by the LRSD. 13 IV. REPEAL STATUTES AND REGULATIONS THAT IMPEDE DE:SEGREGATION 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 August 31, 1999 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 August 31, 1999 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 August 31, 1999 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 August 31, 1999 The information for this item is detailed under Section IV.E. of this report. 14 I , I f 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 August 31, 1999 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. 15 IV. REPEAL STATUTES AND REGULATIONS THAT IMPEDE DESEGREGATION (Ct:\u0026gt;ntinued) E.  Submit proposals to the Legislature for repeal of those laws that appear to b~ impediments to desegregation. (Continued) 2. Actual as of August 31, 1999 (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. ~D ~H!Y g\n1~~g\niijij semmli!~~ m~t~i !b~ 1\nlb~ 88ffiffi/~(~~ ~l~ DB~ rieei ~tl.!~-I 9tf~9Hl~!l9D m~tm~x 9.~tt~b!!XlP99tmtiP9!9!filR~B~ P~~~tt~~!!An\nand at$ ${ill W.:iiJibQJOt $ resp6ii$ijJrqffi tlje ttit~H-~ tlf$lfit$ iii RUla$kf.Qqijrjty( 16 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 August 31 , 1999 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. C. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of August 31 , 1999 Ongoing 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 August 31 , 1999 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 17 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 August 31, 1999 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 tenfative 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. 18 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 August 31, 1999 (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. 19 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 August 31 , 1999 (Continued) The Implementation Phase Working Group held its quart3rly 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. 20 /\nV. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management T col, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Educati9n will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of August 31 , 1999 (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. 21 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, ar:id 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 August 31, 1999 (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. 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 August 31, 1999 (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. 99~49?~!~~ 1~g\nf6,g ~~~Q~ !~!~ ?~4112f ~Y~l!BQ fiy/~y\nii~I~ f1Mill ibP ii i!~SPYY~tim1m~rxf inti: ~@ yj!! ~i 6!1fi~2 :19~1 Wi ti~ Q~se9.f~ij!flt!MNftiQ ~t!g~~~!}f~QS~fll~g}pQ!g P~t~~9Yl9 sut:imltt.Jbg ~913@ ttJ6itte\\ii~w $.: ~pprgx~1 ij$.!2#Bt:i~ ti.l\u0026amp;h wt~ nn~Jit.~~t 23 VI. REMEDIATION A. Through the Extended COE process, the needs for technical assistance by Dis'trict, by School, and by desegregation compensatory education programs will be identified. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of August 31 , 1999 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. 24 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 August 31 , 1999 (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. 25 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 August 31 , 1999 (Continued) In February 1997, field service specialists prepared for thcJ 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 Marcti 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. 26 /, / VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) A. Through the Extended COE process, the needs for technical assisfance by District, by School, and by desegregation compensatory education programs will be identified. (Continued) 2. Actual as of August 31, 1999 (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 August 31, 1999 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 27 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) C.  Through the ERIC system, conduct a literature search for research evaluating D. compensatory education programs. (Continued) 2. Actual as of August 31, 1999 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 August 31 , 1999 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 August 31 , 1999 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 28 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of August 31, 1999 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. 29 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources tor technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of August 31, 1999 (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 in service 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. 30 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of August 31 , 1999 (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. 31 VI. REM ED IA TION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of August 31 , 1999 (Continued) On April 30, 1999, a Student Achievement Workshop was conducted for Oak Grove Elementary School in PCSSD. The Student Achievement Workshop for I I 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) . In \nygfii 1.~ j~~~~ er01~~i!20t!!~ixi!2em~r1:en Yfix~ 12 tner~iii ~fq~ini 1ii:!lrJ1fi ilti1ild1t!~ff 11s1t11 ~~h~o1\\$.Jff! :lV~topm~mt?tHv.itig$\nf tlhg 5..HWn~a 32 VII. TEST VALIDATION A. B. Using a collaborative approach, the ADE will select and contract with an independent bias review service or expert to evaluate the Stanford 8, or 9ther 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 August 31 , 1999 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 August 31 , 1999 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 33 VII. TEST VALIDATION (Continued) C. Upon completion of test validation procedures by the bias review service or expert, t~e ADE will adopt and use a validated test as a monitoring instrument. (Continued) 2. Actual as of August 31, 1999 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. 34 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 August 31, 1999 (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. 35 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 August 31, 1999 (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. 3 6 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 August 31, 1999 The information for this item is detailed under Section VIII.D. of this report. 8 . Develop in-service training programs to address in-service training needs of desegregating districts. C. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of August 31, 1999 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 August 31 , 1999 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 August 31 , 1999 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. 37 VIII. IN-SERVICE TRAINING (Continued) D. Evaluate in-service training programs develo\"ped and executed to address in-service training needs of desegregating districts. (Continued) 2. Actual as of August 31, 1999 (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. 38 IJ 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 August 31, 1999 (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. 39 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 August 31, 1999 (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. 40 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 August 31, 1999 (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. 41 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 August 31 , 1999 (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. 42 VIII. IN-SERVICE TRAINING (Continued) . D. Evaluatein-service training programs developed and executed to address in-service training needs of desegregating districts. (Continued) 2. Actual as of August 31, 1999 (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. 43 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 August 31, 1999 (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 wecre 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. 44 I\n( 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 August 31, 1999 (Continued) tyfimber. pf th~ -r:i,:01strict.Staff Developmentbrnmitt~e !-net#uring the  Gettin~ ml3ctirtPrif~rence\n ~u1y2a'.'-s ~\nIt9~~} ~(~gtspHggs/ fn roltao.er~\\!99 with the treach~r C~pfor Coordinators, those parliclpatirig in theconfereric~ ijs facilitators 1NeregDoug Ask, PCSSD\nEsther Cr~qrd, NLRSQ\nand. Marion Woods, LRSD, .The next regulafme~ting v,,illt,?~jfi Septembef,.th~ 9atejind plf)c\neJp p~ ~11!19i.Jn~~d later. rr\nargedJ:i~cH/~n\u0026amp; +~st. ror stQden($u~ssi ? W9fKP9P ~im~p at impr:oy,ryg ifitefpr~!~~ioci f m::,s! ~~ta ~fl~ ~pply!hg t~~t. ~nW!~~ge toward more eff~ctiy~ lesson pla~pir'ig/ \\\\.ias adaptedfofpresentatidh iii cobJQnction With tli~ Multicultural lnstit.ute. Members of. the Standards Assurance Unit (Dee Qox, Betty Gale Davis, Bop' Maddox, and Lonzo Gatlin) presented an all-day workshop (Target, Teach., and Test fqr Student Success) for Pulaski County Special School pistric:tJri connection with the Multicultural Institute, July 27,1999. 45 IX. RECRUITMENT OF MINORITY TEACHERS A. . Facilitate communication between the Districts and Arkansas colleges and universities with teacher education programs. 1. Projected Ending Dates (See dates on individual key activities) 2. Actual as of August 31, 1999 A staff member of the ADE's certification department attended all of the college career days in FY 94/95 in Arkansas and one out-of-state. In FY 95/96, ADE certification staff members attended career and job fairs at the following colleges and universities: Philander Smith College\nUAM\nHSU\nATU\nUCA\nASU\nUA-Pine Bluff\nUA-Fayetteville\nHarding University\nSAU\nand Jackson State. ADE certification staff met with representatives from the Districts to ensure they were aware that ADE personnel were available to provide assistance in recruitment and certification of minority teacher candidates. A job fair was conducted at the University of Arkansas at Pine Bluff on December 4, 1996. The Districts were advised of the ADE's availability for providing assistance in recruitment and certification. In February 1997, ADE certification staff members attended teacher job fairs at Henderson State University, Arkansas Tech University, and University of Central Arkansas to facilitate communication between the Districts and Arkansas colleges and universities with teacher education programs. ADE certification staff members attended teacher job fairs at Harding University, UA-Fayetteville, UA-Pine Bluff, and ASU in April 1997 to facilitate communication between the Districts and Arkansas colleges and universities with teacher education programs. From April 16, 1997 through May 6, 1997, ADE certification staff members attended teacher job fairs at Philander Smith College and SAU to facilitate communication between the Districts and Arkansas colleges and universities with teacher education programs. Additionally, ADE staff attended an out-ofstate teacher job fair at Jackson State University at Jackson, Mississippi. Recruitment activities were suspended for the summer, but they will resume in the later part of September for FY 97/98. On September 25, 1997, the ADE's Professional Licensure Supervisor attended a career day job fair at Philander Smith College to provide support to the Districts in recruiting teachers. 46 IX. RECRUITMENT OF MINORITY TEACHERS (Continued) A. Facilitate communication between the Districts and Arkansas colleges and universities with teacher education programs. (Continued) 2. Actual as of August 31 , 1999 (Continued) On November 6, 1997, the Professional Licensure Supervisor attended a career day job fair at the University of the Ozarks in order to facilitate the Districts' recruitment efforts. Recruitment activities will resume in February 1998. Representatives of the ADE's Professional Licensure Unit attended job fairs at Arkansas Technical University, UCA, ASU and the University of Memphis fron:i February 26, 1998 through March 12, 1998. A representative from the ADE's Professional Licensure Unit attended job fairs at UA-Fayetteville and Harding University on March 30, 1998 and April 2, 1998, respectively. Representatives from the ADE's Professional Licensure Unit attended job fairs at Philander Smith College, SAU and North East Louisiana in April 1998. The staff members of Professional Licensure have scheduled college and university job fairs as they become aware of them. They have scheduled ATU, UCA, ASU, Harding, and UA-Fayetteville. The Professional Licensure staff assisted NLRSD in getting the spring minority graduate list from all college and university teacher education programs. The Licensure unit scheduled staff to attend job fairs coming up this spring. Representatives for the Professional Licensure Unit attended job fairs at ATU, UCA, and ASU from February 25, 1999 through March 9, 1999. Representatives for the Professional Licensure Unit attended job fairs at Harding, UA-Fayetteville, and UAM from March 25, 1999 through April 7, 1999. Representatives for the Professional Licensure Unit attended job fairs at Philander Smith, April 13, 1999 and Grambling University, April 15, 1999. B. Beginning in 1994, by May and November of each year, Districts will supply to the ADE information about shortages of teachers by grade and subject area. 1. Projected Ending Dates Ongoing, as stated. 47 IX. RECRUITMENT OF MINORITY TEACHERS (Continued) B. Beginning in 1994, by May and November of.each year, Districts will supply to the ADE information about shortages of teachers by grade and subject area. (Continued) 2. Actual as of August 31, 1999 Letters were sent in May, August, and December 1995 to the Districts requesting information regarding teaching positions available by grade and subject areas. In May and November 1996, the Human Resources offices of the Districts were requested to provide information regarding teaching positions available by grade and subject area. The ADE sent follow-up letters requesting information from the Districts regarding teacher shortages in February 1997. The NLRSD and the PCSSD indicated that they expect teacher shortages in the areas of Special Education, Mathematics, the Sciences, Foreign Language, English as a Second Language and Gifted and Talented Education. On May 20, 1997, information was requested from the Districts regarding teacher shortages. Follow-up letters were sent in July 1997. On November 5, 1998, letters were sent to the three schools in Pulaski County requesting a list of foreseeable teacher shortages. In May 1999, requests were made to the Pulaski County Schools for a list of teacher openings and grade levels. In June 1999, the Professional Licensure Unit received a list of teacher shortage areas and openings for Pulaski County Schools. C. Beginning in 1994, by May and December of each year, request information from colleges and universities about the numbers and types of minority-teacher graduates. 1. Projected Ending Dates Ongoing, as stated. 2. Actual as of August 31, 1999 In May and December 1995, letters were sent to all Deans and Certifying Officers of Institutions of Higher Education in Arkansas requesting information on minority teacher graduates. Letters were sent to all Deans and Certifying Officers of Institutions of Higher Education in Arkansas in May and November 1996 requesting information on minority teacher graduates. 48 -  IX. RECRUITMENT OF MINORITY TEACMERS (Continued) C. D. Beginning in 1994, by May and December of each year, request information from colleges and universities about the numbers and types of minority-teacher graduates. (Continued) 2. Actual as of August 31 , 1999 (Continued) In May and December 1997, letters were sent to all Arkansas colleges and universities with teacher education programs requesting minority teacher graduate information. On May 14, 1998, letters were sent to all Arkansas colleges and universities with teacher education programs requesting minority teacher graduate information. On August 1, 1998, the ADE Office of Professional Licensure sent advance notice to all Deans/Certifying Officials regarding the change in format for complete minority teacher candidate information. On November 5, 1998, letters were sent to Deans and Certifying Officials requesting a list of their fall minority teacher education graduates which will be sent to the three Pulaski County Schools. In May 1999, requests were made to all colleges and universities for their spring minority graduates for 1999. In June 1999, the ADE Office of Professional Licensure received minority graduate reports from colleges and universities. Within 30 days of receiving data from colleges and universities provide the Districts data on teacher openings to the colleges and universities on minority graduates to the Districts. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of August 31 , 1999 In June 1995 and January 1996, ADE sent the information received from Arkansas colleges and universities on minority teacher education graduates to the Districts. In July 1996 and January 1997, ADE sent the information received from Deans and Certifying Officers on minority teacher education graduates to the Districts. On February 3, 1997, a list of minority teacher graduates from the University of Arkansas at Fayetteville was forwarded to the Districts as an addendum to the list of graduates compiled on January 16, 1997. 49 IX. RECRUITMENT OF MINORITY TEACHERS (Continued) D. Within 30 days of receiving data from colleg~s and universities provide t.he Districts data on teacher openings to the colleges and universities on minority graduates to the Districts. (Continued) 2. Actual as of August 31, 1999 (Continued) The ADE provided the Districts with the Minority Teacher Graduate Report compiled from the minority teacher graduate informatiorf received from Arkansas colleges and universities in July 1997 and January 1998. The 1998 Fall Minority Teacher Graduate Report from colleges and universities have been forwarded to the three Pulaski County School District. Information from the three Pulaski County School Districts regarding vacant teaching positions are being forwarded to the colleges and universities. In July 1999, the minority graduate reports from the colleges and universities were mailed to all Pulaski County Schools. Job openings for Pulaski County Schools were mailed to all colleges and universities. E. Each November, ADE will request information from the Districts on the effectiveness of ADE's minority recruitment assistance, including an assessment of the minority teacher candidates' database. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of August 31 , 1999 On November 30, 1994, letters were sent to the Districts requesting feedback on the effectiveness of the ADE's minority recruitment assistance. Follow-up letters were sent on March 17, 1995 since no responses had been received. Additional follow-up letters were sent to the Districts in August 1995 because the ADE had received no responses from the Districts. A planning and evaluation meeting was scheduled on January 11, 1996 with representatives from the Districts. The Districts did not attend the meeting. In February 1997, letters were sent to the Districts requesting feedback on the effectiveness of ADE's minority recruitment assistance. The NLRSD and the PCSSD submitted favorable evaluations concerning the effectiveness of the ADE's recruitment assistance efforts. The ADE did not received any information from the LRSD regarding this matter. 50 . ,) X. FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE TO MINORITY TEACl-jER CANDIDATES A. Assist ADHE in identifying, analyzing, addressing and eliminating racial disparities in the allocation of scholarships. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of August 31, 1999 The information for this item is detailed under Section X.D. of this report. B. Representatives of the ADE and the ADHE will work together, review ADHE's available data to identify racial disparities in allocation of scholarships. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of August 31 , 1999 The information for this item is detailed under Section X.D. of this report. C. Using its knowledge about public schools, teacher education and certification, and through a collaborative effort with the Districts, ADE will analyze racial disparities in ADHE scholarship allocations. ADE will report its findings, conclusions, and recommendations about racial disparities in allocating scholarships to ADHE. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of August 31, 1999 The information for this item is detailed under Section X.D. of this report. D. Working with the ADHE, the ADE will use its relationships in the public education institutional settings to assist implementation of measures designed to reduce racial disparities in allocation of scholarships. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of August 31 , 1999 In April 1995, ADE met with representatives of ADHE concerning identification and analysis of possible disparities in scholarship allocations. 51 ,e X. FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE TO MINORITY TEACHER CANDIDATES (Continued) D. Working with the ADHE, the ADE will use its relationships in the public education institutional settings to assist implementation of measures designed to reduce racial  disparities in allocation of scholarships. (Continued) 2. Actual as of August 31, 1999 (Continued) In June 1995, a collaborative effort was made between the ADE and ADHE to enhance the rate at which minorities were applying for the 1995 teacher scholarships with special emphasis on the areas of science, math, and foreign language through a direct mail program. In July 1995, representatives from the ADE and the Districts met to review the scholarship applications. The Implementation Committee on Financial Assistance to Minority Teacher Candidates discussed ways to increase minority awareness of the scholarships available for minority teacher applicants. The committee agreed to meet quarterly to identify, analyze, and address eliminating racial disparities in scholarships. The committee met in December 1995 to discuss the distribution of scholarships for the 95/96 school year. The committee meets on a continuous basis to review scholarship distributions and discuss ways of improving the pool of applicants for minority teacher scholarships as detailed further in Section X. E. of this report. E. Monitor the allocation of scholarships to minority students by the ADHE\nevaluate the impacts of new approaches and new legislation on an ongoing basis. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of August 31 , 1999 During the May 1995 Legislative session, Acts 188, 189 and 259 regarding scholarships were passed. A meeting to monitor and analyze the distribution of scholarships for the 95/96 school year was held on December 15, 1995. The committee met on June 7, 1996 to review the scholarship applications for minority teacher candidates for the 96/97 school year. Representatives from the ADHE stated that the ADHE expected to have the resources to fund: 56 scholarships under the Emergency Secondary Education Loan Program\n100 scholarships under the Minority Teacher Scholars Program\nand 13 scholarships under the Minority Masters Fellows Program. The committee also discussed ways of increasing the scholarship applicant pools, and a recommendation was made to make scholarships available to part-time students. 52 X. FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE TO MINORITY TEACHER CANDIDATES (Continued) E. Monitor the allocation -of scholarships to minority students by the ADHE\nevaluate the impacts of new approaches and new legislation on an ongoing basis. (Continued) 2. Actual as of August 31, 1999 (Continued) In September 1996, a proposal was submitted to the Assistant to the Director for Legislative Services recommending the Legislature offer minority teacher scholarships to part-time students. The committee met on October 23, 1996 to review the scholarships awarded for the 96/97 school year. The following scholarships were funded: 60 scholarships totaling $144,266 for the Emergency Secondary Education Loan Program\n20 scholarships totaling $107,500 for the Minority Masters Fellows . Program\n109 scholarships totaling $505,093 for the Minority Teacher Scholars Program\nand 258 students in the Freshman/Sophomore Minority Grant Program received scholarships totaling $374,000. In March 1997, information on minority teacher scholarships and how to apply was provided to the Districts and Arkansas colleges and universities. The Districts were informed of ADHE's scholarship promotional efforts and legislative updates. The next meeting of the committee will be in September 1997. On April 8, 1997, notifications were sent to all Arkansas colleges and universities on the Minority Teacher Scholars Program reminding them that the deadline for receiving applications was June 1, 1997. This information was also provided to the Districts. The Minority Teacher Scholarship Committee will meet on October 9, 1997 to discuss the scholarships awarded for FY 97/98. The Minority Teacher Scholarship Recruitment Committee met on October 9, 1997 to discuss the scholarships awarded for FY 97/98. The ADHE Assistant Coordinator for Student Financial Aid provided a comprehensive presentation on scholarships awarded for the 97/98 school year There were 235 scholarships awarded in the Freshman/Sophomore Minority Scholarship program totaling $344,988. The Emergency Secondary Education Loan program awarded 52 scholarships for a total of $119,370. There were 83 scholarships for $403,520 awarded in the Minority Teachers Scholars program. The Minority Masters Fellows program awarded 20 scholarships for a total of $73,750. The ADHE representative indicated that during the 1997 regular legislative session legislation was passed to allow hispanics and asians to participate in the minority scholarship programs. It was stated that the average GPA for minority teacher scholarship recipients had increased to 3.13, and that the dollars awarded in the Minority Masters Fellows program were down from last year because most of the recipients were part-time students. 53 - X. FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE TO MINORITY TEACHER CANDIDATES (Continued) E. Monitor the allocation of scholarships to minority students by the ADHE\nevaluate the impacts of new approaches and new legislation on an ongoing basis. (Continued) 2. Actual as of August 31 , 1999 (Continued) The committee discussed numerous avenues that might be utilized to inform minority applicants of scholarships available. Communication with the faculty of Arkansas colleges and universities regarding the availability of scholarships was discussed as a way of informing teaching students of possible resources available to them. The next quarterly meeting of the Minority Teacher Scholarship Recruitment Committee will be February 19, 1998. The quarterly meeting of the Minority Teacher Scholarship Recruitment Committee scheduled for February was canceled since only the NLRSD and an ADE representative were present at the scheduled meeting place. The meeting has not been rescheduled at this time. The Minority Teacher Scholarship meeting was rescheduled for March 26, 1998. The Minority Teacher Scholarship Recruitment Committee met on March 26, 1998. The committee was updated on the requirements and application packets were distributed for the Emergency Secondary Education Loan Program (ESELP), Minority Teacher Scholars Program (MTSP), and Minority Masters Fellows Program (MMFP). The deadline for applications was April 1, 1998 for the ESE LP and June 1, 1998 for the MTSP and MMFP. The scholarships will be awarded in July 1998. A committee member requested that ADHE send scholarship applications to the schools as well as the district offices to ensure that their teachers and students were apprised of the scholarships available. It was suggested that the colleges submit prospective graduate information for use by the Districts no later than April since the Districts begin the interview process of Spring graduates in May. The ADE Implementation Plan currently requires that the ADE request information on minority teacher graduates in May, and then it is distributed to the Districts in June or July. A representative from the ADE Teacher Licensure Unit was present at the meeting and stated that the ADE would try to accommodate the Districts with this request, but she cautioned that colleges and universities are reluctant to provide tentative graduate information. The next committee meeting is scheduled for July 30, 1998 at the NLRSD offices. 54 X. FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE TO MINOR_ITY TEACHER CANDIDATES (Continued) E. Monitor the allocation of scholarships to minority students by the ADHE\nevaluate the impacts of new approaches and new legislation on an ongoing basis. (Continued) 2. Actual as of August 31 , 1999 (Continued) The Minority Teacher Scholarship Meeting was held July 30, 1998. Donna Elliot, ADE Program Support Manager was appointed to the Committee. She indicated that advance notification would be mailed to all University Deans/Certifying Officials regarding the change in format for more thorough minority teacher candidate information. A complete report will be forwarded and reported in the September PMT. Disparities in minority scholarship distributions were not evidenced in the draft report. Lillian Williams, Arkansas Department of Higher Education, submitted the following report on Minority Teacher Scholarships Distribution: 1998-99 PROGRAM STATISTICS PROGRAM NAME APPROPRIATION AWARDED #STUDENTS Freshman/Sophomore 250,000 250,000 Estimated 300+ ESEL 81 ,717 121,250 50 * Minority Teacher 450,000 445,000 89 ** Scholars Minority Masters Fellows 80,000 80,000 30 * Please note that only 81 ,717 was appropriated for the ESEL Scholarship, however, additional repayment funds were used to award an additional 39,533 totaling 121 ,250. ** 11 Students are pending passing the PPST. The report on Minority Teacher Scholarships Distribution was presented October 8, 1998, by the Education Lead Planner during the Break the Mold Workshop: Teacher Recruitment and Retention, sponsored by the Winthrop Rockefeller Foundation. The group was informed about the following: 1. Projected Teacher shortages in Mathematics, Special Education, and Foreign Language 2. Collaborative efforts of the ADE and the ADHE to recruit teachers by funding more than 450 scholarships for applicants interested in teaching annually 3. Reasons new teachers give for leaving the profession 4. The ratio of minority teachers to minority students. 55 X. FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE TO MINORITY TEACHER CANDIDATES (CLntinued) E. Monitor the allocation of scholarships to minority students by the ADHE\n. evaluate the impacts of new approaches and new legislation on an ongoing basis. (Continued) 2. Actual as of August 31 , 1999 (Continued) The Minority Teacher Scholarship Committee met on November 2, 1998 in the Pulaski County District Conference Room. The committee received (1) an update on the distribution of scholarships, (2) reviewed the scholarship information booklets, (3) approved the quarterly report of progress. The committee also identified, as a legislative issue, the need to allow part-time students access to scholarships. The next quarterly meeting is scheduled for February 2, 1999. A recommendation was received by the Committee on Financial Assistance to Minority Teacher Candidates regarding the Emergency Secondary Education Loan. The Committee recommended that the Arkansas State Legislature increase the minority teacher candidate pool by offering the Emergency Secondary Education Loan to part-time students. The Committee noted that a number of persons currently serving our education system as substitute teachers would take advantage of the assistance offered, if they could receive assistance for part-time student status. Many prospective minority teacher candidates, and candidates seeking advanced degrees are unable to serve our students and go to school on a full-time basis. The next quarterly meeting is scheduled for February 2, 1999. The next quarterly meeting was rescheduled for February 21 , 1999, to accommodate all participants. The quarterly meeting of the Minority Teacher Scholarship Committee was held on February 21, 1999, in the Little Rock School District. Representatives from all three districts in Pulaski County, the ADHE and the ADE attended the meeting. A scholarship report update and scholarship applications and deadlines for the 1999 school year were provided. Information regarding the national focus on teacher shortages and recruitment were distributed. The committee discussed the status of the following bills related to teacher recruitment: SB31 , \"an act to make emergency secondary education loans available to students enrolled as a major in a program of study leading to teacher certification for foreign languages and special education .\" HB1466 \"state supported colleges and universities must report to Department of Education the name, address, and major of each minority student completing college requirements for licensure as school teacher.\" S8237 \"to make technical amendments to various sections of the Arkansas Code Annotated relative to public education.\" 56 IJ X. FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE TO MINORITY TEACHE\nR CANDIDATES (Continued) E. Monitor the allocation of scholarships to minority students by the ADHE\nevaluate the impacts of new approaches and new legislation on an ongoing basis. (Continued) 2. Actual as of August 31 , 1999 (Continued) S8261 \"to encourage teachers to participate in and complete NBPTS Certification by authorizing the Department of Education to pay full tuition and incentive bonuses.\" $8113 \"to amend A.C.A.  6-17-410 to clarify that the Department of Education will pay criminal record check fees for certain public education employees.\" The quarterly meeting of the Minority Teacher Scholarship Committee was held on May 13, 1999 at the ADHE. Representatives from all three districts in Pulaski County, ADHE, and ADE attended the meeting. A scholarship report update and scholarship application deadline for the 1999 school year were provided. Information regarding the new rules and regulations for professional development that are to go out for public comment were distributed. The committee discussed the status and impact of the following Acts related to teacher recruitment: Act 905 (formerly HB1466)\nAct 391 (formerly SB237)\nAct 58 (formerly 8B261)\nAct 226 (formally 8B113). 9nl2~y@@J\n1~~~ngjijl~n YYiJliais) A.,IB~Q~~ R@B~~IDPl f ~iQb\nr ggyltmn\npffljff..q m~fllY.kidg f.pft n MJribfiJYlli~#.h~f $..hmr$.hf P P1$!f/.p~ntfii 57 XI. MINORITY RECRUITMENT OF ADE STAFF A. . Administer the ADE Minority Recruitment Plan developed by the ADE staff and Board of Education and officially adopted by the Board of Education (see Exhibit B for the ADE's Minority Recruitment Plan with specific objectives and time lines). 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of August 31 , 1999 The Minority Recruitment Committee met on April 14, 1995. New committee members were assigned tasks and goals to increase the effectiveness of the Minority Recruitment Plan. At the Minority Recruitment Committee meeting on May 18, 1995, the committee was divided into four working sub-teams to update the annual plan. Each team focused on one of the four goals in the Minority Recruitment Plan and monitored specific task completions. From June to October 1995, subcommittees met and worked on monitoring the progress of the ADE in accomplishing the tasks outlined in the Minority Recruitment Plan.  In September 1995, the ADE reached an agreement with the Arkansas Statewide Systemic Initiative (ASSI) for conducting an audit of the Minority Recruitment Plan. The committee reviewed the recommendations and comments for updating the plan at the November 1995 meeting and reviewed the final draft at the December meeting. The ASSl's audit findings were presented to the committee on January 16, 1996. It was determined during the initial review that the files were incomplete to the extent that an accurate audit was not possible. The auditor met with the committee in March 1996 to review the additional documentation in the files. The auditor prepared the final report in April 1996 indicating that of the 89 actions contained in the Minority Recruitment Plan, 74 of the items had been completed, nine were in progress, and six had not been started. The audit stated that of the 22 items in Goal 1, 15 were completed, one was in progress, and six had not been started. Goal 2 contained 14 items, 13 of which were completed and one in progress. Goal 3 consisted of 30 items with 29 items completed and one in progress. Goal 4 consisted of 23 items with 17 items completed and six in progress. 58  XI. MINORITY RECRUITMENT OF ADE STAFF (Continued) A. Administer the ADE Minority Recruitment Plan developed by the ADE staff and Board of Education and officially adopted by the Board of Education (see Exhibit B for the ADE's Minority Recruitment Plan with specific goals, objectives and time lines). (Continued) 2. Actual as of August 31, 1999 (Continued) The Minority Recruitment Committee met on June 6, 1996 to discuss updates and revisions addressed in the audit and the new racial/gender report on  Grades 21 and above. Since the completion of the audit, Goals 2.3.4 and 3.3.8 were completed, and a list of recommendations for retention activities was written. Also, a random sample of ADE employees was asked to fill out questionnaires, but only a limited number were returned. In August 1996, the Minority Recruitment Committee met and discussed the actions necessary to complete Goals 1 and 4 contained in the Minority Recruitment Plan. At the September 1996 meeting, the committee was updated on the progress of all four goals in the Minority Recruitment Plan. The committee heard an analysis of application and hiring practices and discussed the relevance of the data. Suggestions made by the State Board of Education regarding the Employee Tracking Data Check Sheet were discussed at the February 1996 meeting of the Minority Recruitment Committee. Goal 1 of the Minority Recruitment Plan will be completed when the employee tracking sheet is finalized. The Minority Recruitment Committee met on March 14, 1997 and March 27, 1997 to discuss the draft Revised Minority Recruitment Plan and progress toward completing Goal 4. The committee passed a motion to omit Section 1.1 from Goal 1 of the draft revised plan. Additionally, the committee suggested that communication be made an integral part of each goal of the revised plan . The committee discussed the need for professional training programs, incentives for educational opportunities, and upward mobility for all staff within the ADE. In an effort to complete Goal 4, a representative from the ADE communication section presented development costs for media materials to the committee. Additionally, a representative from the ADE MIS section discussed the possibility of using the network to disseminate information to employees. It was suggested that the committee continue to receive assistance from MIS on the orientation video . 59 XI. MINORITY RECRUITMENT OF ADE STAFF (Continued) A. Administer the ADE Minority Recruitment Plan developed by the ADE staff and Board of Education and officially adopted by the Board of Education (see Exhibit B for the ADE's Minority Recruitment Plan with specific goals, objectives and time lines). (Continued) 2. Actual as of August 31, 1999 (Continued) In an effort to represent all sections within the ADE, the committee recommended that representatives from the ADE communication and MIS sections be added as members to the committee. Currently, neither section is represented on the committee. The Minority Recruitment Committee met on April 18, 1997 to discuss the need to revise the action steps for each of the committee's four goals. The committee decided to schedule a two-day retreat in an effort to review all goals and actions. The Minority Recruitment Committee met on May 19, 1997 to discuss the agenda for the annual retreat and revisions to the action plan emphasizing recruitment and retention at all grade levels. A two-day annual retreat was held on June 18-19, 1997 at the Teacher Retirement Building. The retreat facilitated the revision of the Minority Recruitment Committee's action plan for their four goals. Dr. Gary Chamberlain, UALR faculty member, served as the facilitator. The revised plan was distributed to the Minority Recruitment Committee at their July 18, 1997 meeting for final approval before it is submitted to the administrative team and the State Board of Education. The Minority Recruitment Committee meeting scheduled for September 12, 1997 was rescheduled for September 30, 1997 due to members scheduling conflicts. The meeting will be reported in the November PMT. The Minority Recruitment Committee met with the ADE Deputy Director in November 1997 to provide him with a copy of the revised plan and receive his input on the plan. The revised Minority Recruitment Committee (MRC) plan was approved at the December 1997 State Board of Education meeting. The MRC met in January 1998 to discuss the implementation of the revised MRC plan. Reports and documentation of progress in completing the components of each goal will be reported at the next meeting. 60 - XI. MINORITY RECRUITMENT OF ADE STAFF (Continued) B. Monitor minority representation at alt levels of ADE and assess the effectiveness of the ADE Minority Recruitment Plan. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of August 31, 1999 As of August 1995, the ADE had hired or transferred 38 employees in Grades 21 and above in the General Education Division. This group was composed of 11 black females, 5 black males, 16 white females, 4 white males, 1 other female, and 1 other male. The racial composition of the these employees was 52.6 percent non-minority and 47.4 percent minority. As of October 1995, there were 161 filled positions in the GED in Grades 21 and above. There were 27 minorities or 22.9 percent in Grades 21 and above. An analysis on Goal 1 regarding application and hiring practices was presented at the September 1996 meeting. Samples of graphs and tables for presenting the data were distributed at the meeting. The Minority Recruitment Committee met on December 13, 1996 to discuss the latest draft of the ADE Employee Tracking Data Check Sheet. The committee recommended various format changes including the addition of a table of contents and an executive summary. The committee met on January 17, 1997 to continue the discussion on the draft ADE Employee Tracking Data Check Sheet. The Assistant Director for Planning and Curriculum agreed with all but three of the committee's recommendations for the employee tracking sheet. He requested that the committee continue discussions on this matter. The Minority Recruitment Committee met on February 14, 1997 to discuss the status of the Employee Tracking Data Check Sheet. The committee also discussed the lack of minority employees in some areas and the loss of several minority employees and the possibility of revising the new Minority Recruitment Plan. The committee received information on Arkansas pupil enrollment by race at their March 14, 1997 meeting. Arkansas enrollment figures for October 1, 1996 revealed that 73.7% of all students are white, 23.4% are black, 1.8% are hispanic, 0.7% are asian, and 0.4% are native american. To assess the effectiveness of the action steps for each goal, agenda items were developed for the committee's June retreat. The committee recommended that invitations be sent to Senator Beebe, Julie Cullen, Gene Wilhoit, and all State Board members. 61 XI. MINORITY RECRUITMENT OF ADE STAFF (Continued) B. Monitor minority representation at all levels of ADE and assess the effectiveness of the ADE Minority Recruitment Plan. (Continued) 2. Actual as of August 31, 1999 (Continued) At the May 1997 Minority Recruitment Committee meeting, the committee discussed reviewing the most recent quarterly hiring and retention report and revisions to the action plan at the annual retreat. c Discussions during the July retreat focused on the current plan, the original purpose of the plan, and necessary changes with input provided by committee members and speakers from the Arkansas Department of Higher Education, Employment Securities, and the ADE. At the January 1998 MRC meeting, it was decided that the chair and secretary would prepare a report on minority representation within each unit and section and present it to the committee at the next meeting. The Minority Recruitment Committee met on June 11, 1998, to discuss new membership for the committee and plans for a retreat. The committee recommended a new design and composition of the committee to represent each of the seven sections of the Arkansas Department of Education and included Grade 20's and below. The Minority Recruitment Committee met on July, 16, 1998, to discuss implementation of new membership for the committee for FY98/99, and to update plans for the September retreat. The Minority Recruitment Committee met on August 11 , 1998 with Dr. Dave Westmoreland, Acting Chairperson. Members were notified that the dates for the September Retreat are September 10-11 , 1998 at the Teacher Retirement Building, Little Rock Arkansas. New Members were introduced and background materials regarding the purpose and progress of the MRC were distributed to new members. The sel\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_139","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":["1999-05","1999-06","1999-07","1999-08"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Education--Arkansas","Little Rock (Ark.). Office of Desegregation Monitoring","School integration--Arkansas","Arkansas. Department of Education","Project managers--Implements"],"dcterms_title":["Arkansas Department of Education's (ADE's) Project Management Tool"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/139"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["documents (object genre)"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\nLittle Rock School District, plaintiff vs. Pulaski County Special School District, defendant.\n3 1999 ATTORNEY GENERAL OF ARKANSAS Mark Pryor Ms. Ann Brown Office of Desegregation Monitoring 201 E. Markham, Suite 510 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. John Walker John Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Llttle Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 2000 First Commercial Bldg. 400 W. Capitol Llttle Rock, AR 72201 April 30, 1999 Mr. Samuel Jones, III Wright, Lindsey\u0026amp; Jennings 2000 NationsBank Plaza 200 W. Capitol Llttle Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell 401 W. Capitol, Suite 504 Llttle Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones, P.A. 3400 TCBY Tower 425 W. Capitol Llttle Rock, AR\n72201 Re: Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County SpecialSchool District No. 1, et al, LR-C-82-866 Dear Gentlemen and Ms. Brown: Enclosed for your files and information, please find copy of the Notice of Filing of ADE's Project Management Tool for April, 1999 that I have caused to be filed this date. Enclosure Sincerely Carol Robbins Secretary to Timothy G. Gauger Assistant Attorney General 323 Center Street Suite 200  Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 682-2007  FAX (501) 682-8084 Internet Website http://www.ag.state.ar.us/ ' . IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DMSION 3 1999 OF 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, 1999. Respectfully Submitted, MARKPRYOR Attorney General Assistant Attorney General 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 682-2007 Attorney for Arkansas Department of Education 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 April 30, 1999 Basedon theinformation availaibt Mlearch31,199t9heADcaElculattheed Equalization Funding for FY 98/9s9u,bject 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) 8. Include all Magnet students in the resident District's average daily membership for calculation. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 1999 Baseodn the informationavailable at Marc31h, 1999, the ADE calculated for FY 98/99, subject toperiodic adjustments C. Process and distribute State MFPA. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of April 30, 1999 On March 1999.distributions of State Equalization Funding for FY 98/99 wereas follows\nThe allotments oSftateEqualization Funding calculated for FY 98/99 at March 31, 1999, subjecpte rtioodic adjustments, were as follows: 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, 1999 Based onthe informationavailable, the ADE calculated at March 31, 1999 for FY 98/99, 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, 1999 Based on the information available, the ADEcalculated at March31 , 1999 for FY 98/99, subject to periodic 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, 1999 Based on the information available, the ADE calculated at March 31 , 1999 for FY 98/99, subject to periodic adjustments. G. Process and distribute state aid for Magnet Operational Charge . . 1. 2. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. Actual as of April 30, 1999 Distributions for FY 98/99 at March 31 1 19991 totaled $6,613,578. Allotment calculated for FY 98/99 was $9,145,016, 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, 1999 Calculated for FY 98/99, 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, 1999 Distributions for BM 98/99 atMarch31, 1999were The allotments calculated 98/99 at March 31, 1999, subject to periodic adjustments,were LRSD -$3,752,546 NLRSD - $1,940,185 PCSSD - $7,463,443 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, 1999 In September 1998, the Magnet and M-to-M transportation budgets for FY 98/99 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, 1999 In January 1999, General Finance was notified to pay the second one-third payment for FY 98/99 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.\n4:DE pays districtsJhree equal installments of their proposed budget. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing, annually. 4 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) L. 2. Actual as of April 30, 1999 In January 1999, General Finance made the second one-third payment to the Districts for their FY 98/99 transportation budget. The budget is now payed out in three equal installments. At March 1999, thefollowing had been paid for FY 98/99: LRSD -$2,219,635.34 NLRSD- $317,020.10 PCSSD - $1,268,403.34 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, 1999 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 1998-99 school year for the Magnet and M-to-M transportation program. School districts should receive payment by October 1, 1998. 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, 1999 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. 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. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 1999 (Continued) 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. 0 . Process and distribute compensatory education payments to LRSD as required by page 23 of the Settlement Agreement. 1. Projected Ending Date July 1 and January 1, of each school year through January 1, 1999. 2. Actual as of April 30, 1999 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, 1999 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. 6 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) Q. Process and distribute payments to PCSSD as required by Page 28 of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 1999 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, 1999 S. Process and distribute payments in lieu of formula to PCSSD required by page 29 of the Settlement Agreement. 1. Projected Ending Date 2. Payment due date and ending July 1, 1995. Actual as of April 30, 1999 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, 1999 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. 7 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) U. Process and distribute check to Magnet Review Committee. (Continue) 2. Actual as of April 30, 1999 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. V. Process and distribute payments for Office of Desegregation Monitoring: 1. Projected Ending Date Not applicable. 2. Actual as of April 30, 1999 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. 8 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, 1999 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. 9 11. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 1999 (Continued) 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. 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. 10 11. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 1999 (Continued) In August 1997, procedures and schedules were organized for the monitoring of the Cycle 2 schools in FY 97/98. 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. 11 11. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 1999 (Continued) In April 1998, unannounced monitoring visits were conducted, and technical assistance was provided on the school improvement process. 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. 12 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, 1999 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 April 30, 1999 To date, no action has been taken by the LRSD. 13 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, 1999 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, 1999 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, 1999 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, 1999 The information for this item is detailed under Section IV. E. of this report. 14 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, 1999 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. 15 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, 1999 (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 reviestwatutes and regulations thadt eismegpreegdateionwill meet on April 26, 1999 at the ADE. 16 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 3.0, 1999 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. C. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of April 30, 1999 Ongoing 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, 1999 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 17 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, 1999 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. 18 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, 1999 (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. 19 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, 1999 (Continued) The State Board of Education received copies of the July 15, 1997 Semiannual Monitoring Report and executive summary at the July Board meeting. 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. 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, 1999 (Continued) In May 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary. 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. 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, 1999 (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 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. 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 intervenors 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. 22 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, 1999 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. 23 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, 1999 (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. 24 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, 1999 (Continued) 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 Cyde 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. 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. 25 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, 1999 (Continued) 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, tec.hnical 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. 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, 1999 The information for this item is detailed under Section VI.F. of this report. 26 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) C. D. Through the ERIC system, conduct a literature search for research evaluating compensatory education programs. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of April 30, 1999 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, 1999 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, 1999 The information for this item is detailed under Section VI. F. of this report. 27 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, 1999 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. 28 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical  assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 1999 (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 Exce/fence 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. 29 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 1999 (Continued) 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. 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. 30 VII. TEST VALIDATION A. B. Using a collaborative approach, the ADE will select and contract with an independent bias review service or expert to evaluate the Stanford 8, or other monitoring instruments used to measure disparities in academic achievement between black students and white students. 1. Projected Ending Date March, 1995 2. Actual as of April 30, 1999 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 SA T-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, 1999 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. 31 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. 1. Projected Ending Date March 1995 and ongoing 2. Actual as of April 30, 1999 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. 32 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, 1999 (Continued) 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. 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. 33 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, 1999 (Continued) 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. 34 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, 1999 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, 1999 The information for this item is detailed under Section VIII.D. of this report. C. Implement in-service tra ining programs to address in-service training needs of desegregating districts. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of April 30, 1999 The information for this item is detailed under Section VIII.D. of this report. D. Evaluate in-service tra ining programs developed and executed to address in-service training needs of desegregating districts. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 35 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, 1999 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. 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 nonacademic 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. 36 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, 1999 (Continued) 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. 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. 37 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, 1999 (Continued) 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. 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. 38 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, 1999 (Continued) 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. 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. 39 VI II. 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, 1999 (Continued) The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met on March 19, 1998 to discuss the math and science grant received by the LRSD, the Districts' in-service 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. 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. 40 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, 1999 (Continued) 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. 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. 41 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, 1999 (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 ofthe Tri-DistrictStaff DevelopmeCntommittee met withthe Teacher Center Coordinators attheir regular meeting, April6, 1999, at theADE. Much of the meeting centered on the $mart Start Initiative and the Getting SmarterSunimerConference to be held inHot Springs, July28-31, 1999, 42 IX. RECRUITMENT OF MINORITY TEACHERS A. Facilitate communication between the Districts and Arkansas colleges and universities with teacher education programs. 1. Projected Ending Dates (See dates on individual key activities) 2. Actual as of April 30, 1999 A staff member of the ADE's certification department attended all of the college career days in FY 94/95 in Arkansas and one out-of-state. In FY 95/96, ADE certification staff members attended career and job fairs at the following colleges and universities: Philander Smith College\nUAM\nHSU\nATU\nUCA\nASU\nUA-Pine Bluff\nUA-Fayetteville\nHarding University\nSAU\nand Jackson State. ADE certification staff met with representatives from the Districts to ensure they were aware that ADE personnel were available to provide assistance in recruitment and certification of minority teacher candidates. A job fair was conducted at the University of Arkansas at Pine Bluff on December 4, 1996. The Districts were advised of the ADE's availability for providing assistance in recruitment and certification. In February 1997, ADE certification staff members attended teacher job fairs at Henderson State University, Arkansas Tech University, and University of Central Arkansas to facilitate communication between the Districts and Arkansas colleges and universities with teacher education programs. ADE certification staff members attended teacher job fairs at Harding University, UA-Fayetteville, UA-Pine Bluff, and ASU in April 1997 to facilitate communication between the Districts and Arkansas colleges and universities with teacher education programs. From April 16, 1997 through _May 6, 1997, ADE certification staff members attended teacher job fairs at Philander Smith College and SAU to facilitate communication between the Districts and Arkansas colleges and universities with teacher education programs. Additionally, ADE staff attended an out-ofstate teacher job fair at Jackson State University at Jackson, Mississippi. Recruitment activities were suspended for the summer, but they will resume in the later part of September for FY 97/98. On September 25, 1997, the ADE's Professional Licensure Supervisor attended a career day job fair at Philander Smith College to provide support to the Districts in recruiting teachers. 43 IX. RECRUITMENT OF MINORITY TEACHERS (Continued) A Facilitate communication between the Districts and Arkansas colleges and universities with teacher education programs. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 1999 (Continued) On November 6, 1997, the Professional Licensure Supervisor attended a career day job fair at the University of the Ozarks in order to facilitate the Districts' recruitment efforts. Recruitment activities will resume in February 1998. Representatives of the ADE's Professional Licensure Unit attended job fairs at Arkansas Technical University, UCA, ASU and the University of Memphis from February 26, 1998 through March 12, 1998. A representative from the ADE's Professional Licensure Unit attended job fairs at LIA-Fayetteville and Harding University on March 30, 1998 and April 2, 1998, respectively. Representatives from the ADE's Professional Licensure Unit attended job fairs at Philander Smith College, SAU and North East Louisiana in April 1998. The staff members of Professional Licensure have scheduled college and university job fairs as they become aware of them. They have scheduled ATU, UCA, ASU, Harding, and UA-Fayetteville. The Professional Licensure staff assisted NLRSD in getting the spring minority graduate list from all college and university teacher education programs. The Licensure unit scheduled staff to attend job fairs coming up this spring. Representatives for the Professional Licensure Unit attended job fairs at ATU, UCA, and ASU from February 25, 1999 through March 9, 1999. Representatives for the Professional Ucensure Unit attended job fairs at Harding, UA-Fayetteville, and UAM from March 25, 1999 through April 7, 1999. B. Beginning in 1994, by May and November of each year, Districts will supply to the ADE information about shortages of teachers by grade and subject area. 1. Projected Ending Dates Ongoing, as stated. 2. Actual as of April 30, 1999 Letters were sent in May, August, and December 1995 to the Districts requesting information regarding teaching positions available by grade and subject areas. In May and November 1996, the Human Resources offices of the Districts were requested to provide information regarding teaching positions available by grade and subject area. 44 IX. RECRUITMENT OF MINORITY TEACHERS (Continued) 8. Beginning in 1994, by May and November of each year, Districts will supply to the ADE information about shortages of teachers by grade and subject area. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 1999 (Continued) The ADE sent follow-up letters requesting information from the Districts regarding teacher shortages in February 1997. The NLRSD and the PCSSD indicated that they expect teacher shortages in the areas of Special Education, Mathematics, the Sciences, Foreign Language, English as a Second Language and Gifted and Talented Education. On May 20, 1997, information was requested from the Districts regarding teacher shortages. Follow-up letters were sent in July 1997. On November 5, 1998, letters were sent to the three schools in Pulaski County requesting a list of foreseeable teacher shortages. C. Beginning in 1994, by May and December of each year, request information from colleges and universities about the numbers and types of minority-teacher graduates. 1. Projected Ending Dates Ongoing, as stated. 2. Actual as of April 30, 1999 In May and December 1995, letters were sent to all Deans and Certifying Officers of Institutions of Higher Education in Arkansas requesting information on minority teacher graduates. Letters were sent to all Deans and Certifying Officers of Institutions of Higher Education in Arkansas in May and November 1996 requesting information on minority teacher graduates. In May and December 1997, letters were sent to all Arkansas colleges and universities with teacher education programs requesting minority teacher graduate information. On May 14, 1998, letters were sent to all Arkansas colleges and universities with teacher education programs requesting minority teacher graduate information. On August 1, 1998, the ADE Office of Professional Licensure sent advance notice to all Deans/Certifying Officials regarding the change in format for complete minority teacher candidate information. On November 5, 1998, letters were sent to Deans and Certifying Officials requesting a list of their fall minority teacher education graduates which will be sent to the three Pulaski County Schools. 45 IX. RECRUITMENT OF MINORITY TEACHERS (Continued) D. Within 30 days of receiving data from colleges and universities provide the Districts data on teacher openings to the colleges and universities on minority graduates to the Districts. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of April 30, 1999 In June 199.5 and January 1996, ADE sent the information received from Arkansas colleges and universities on minority teacher education graduates to the Districts. In July 1996 and January 1997, ADE sent the information received from Deans and Certifying Officers on minority teacher education graduates to the Districts. On February 3, 1997, a list of minority teacher graduates from the University of Arkansas at Fayetteville was forwarded to the Districts as an addendum to the list of graduates compiled on January 16, 1997. The ADE provided the Districts with the Minority Teacher Graduate Report compiled from the minority teacher graduate information received from Arkansas colleges and universities in July 1997 and January 1998. The 1998 Fall Minority Teacher Graduate Report from colleges and universities have been forwarded to the three Pulaski County School District. Information from the three Pulaski County School Districts regarding vacant teaching positions are being forwarded to the colleges and universities. E. Each November, ADE will request information from the Districts on the effectiveness of ADE's minority recruitment assistance, including an assessment of the minority teacher candidates' database. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of April 30, 1999 On November 30, 1994, letters were sent to the Districts requesting feedback on the effectiveness of the ADE's minority recruitment assistance. Follow-up letters were sent on March 17, 1995 since no responses had been received. Additional follow-up letters were sent to the Districts in August 1995 because the ADE had received no responses from the Districts. A planning and evaluation meeting was scheduled on January 11, 1996 with representatives from the Districts. The Districts did not attend the meeting. In February 1997, letters were sent to the Districts requesting feedback on the effectiveness of ADE's minority recruitment assistance. The NLRSD and the PCSSD submitted favorable evaluations concerning the effectiveness of the ADE's recruitment assistance efforts. The ADE did not received any information from the LRSD regarding this matter. 46 X. FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE TO MINORITY TEACHER CANDIDATES A. Assist ADHE in identifying, analyzing, addressing and eliminating racial disparities in the allocation of scholarships. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of April 30, 1999 The information for this item is detailed under Section X.D. of this report. B. Representatives of the ADE and the ADHE will work together, review ADHE's available data to identify racial disparities in allocation of scholarships.  1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of April 30, 1999 The information for this item is detailed under Section X. D. of this report. C. Using its knowledge about public schools, teacher education and certification, and through a collaborative effort with the Districts, ADE will analyze racial disparities in ADHE scholarship allocations. ADE will report its findings, conclusions, and recommendations about racial disparities in allocating scholarships to ADHE. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of April 30, 1999 The information for this item is detailed under Section X.D. of this report. D. Working with the ADHE, the ADE will use its relationships in the public education institutional settings to assist implementation of measures designed to reduce racial disparities in allocation of scholarships. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 47 X. FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE TO MINORITY TEACHER CANDIDATES (Continued) D. E. Working with the ADHE, the ADE will use its relationships in the public education institutional settings to assist implementation of measures designed to reduce racial disparities in allocation of scholarships. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 1999 In April 1995, ADE met with representatives of ADHE concerning identification and analysis of possible disparities in scholarship allocations. In June 1995, a collaborative effort was made between the ADE and ADHE to enhance the rate at which minorities were applying for the 1995 teacher scholarships with special emphasis on the areas of science, math, and foreign language through a direct mail program. In July 1995, representatives from the ADE and the Districts met to review the scholarship applications. The Implementation Committee on Financial Assistance to Minority Teacher Candidates discussed ways to increase minority awareness of the scholarships available for minority teacher applicants. The committee agreed to meet quarterly to identify, analyze, and address eliminating racial disparities in scholarships. The committee met in December 1995 to discuss the distribution of scholarships for the 95/96 school year. The committee meets on a continuous basis to review scholarship distributions and discuss ways of improving the pool of applicants for minority teacher scholarships as detailed further in Section X.E. of this report. Monitor the allocation of scholarships to minority students by the ADHE\nevaluate the impacts of new approaches and new legislation on an ongoing basis. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of April 30, 1999 During the May 1995 Legislative session, Acts 188, 189 and 259 regarding scholarships were passed. A meeting to monitor and analyze the distribution of scholarships for the 95/96 school year was held on December 15, 1995. 48 X. FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE TO MINORITY TEACHER CANDIDATES (Continued) E. Monitor the allocation of scholarships to minority students by the ADHE\nevaluate the impacts of new approaches and new legislation on an ongoing basis. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 1999 (Continued) The committee met on June 7, 1996 to review the scholarship applications for minority teacher candidates for the 96/97 school year. Representatives from the ADHE stated that the ADHE expected to have the resources to fund : 56 scholarships under the Emergency Secondary Education Loan Program\n100 scholarships under the Minority Teacher Scholars Program\nand 13 scholarships under th_e Minority Masters Fellows Program. The committee also discussed ways of increasing the scholarship applicant pools, and a recommendation was made to make scholarships available to part-time students. In September 1996, a proposal was submitted to the Assistant to the Director for Legislative Services recommending the Legislature offer minority teacher scholarships to part-time students. The committee met on October 23, 1996 to review the scholarships awarded for the 96/97 school year. The following scholarships were funded : 60 scholarships totaling $144,266 for the Emergency Secondary Education Loan Program\n20 scholarships totaling $107,500 for the Minority Masters Fellows Program\n109 scholarships totaling $505,093 for the Minority Teacher Scholars Program\nand 258 students in the Freshman/Sophomore Minority-Grant Program received scholarships totaling $374,000. In March 1997, information on minority teacher scholarships and how to apply was provided to the Districts and Arkansas colleges and universities. The Districts were informed of ADHE's scholarship promotional efforts and legislative updates. The next meeting of the committee will be in September 1997. On April 8, 1997, notifications were sent to all Arkansas colleges and universities on the Minority Teacher Scholars Program reminding them that the deadline for receiving applications was June 1, 1997. This information was also provided to the Districts. The Minority Teacher Scholarship Committee will meet on October 9, 1997 to discuss the scholarships awarded for FY 97/98. 49 X. FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE TO MINORITY TEACHER CANDIDATES (Continued) E. Monitor the allocation of scholarships to minority students by the ADHE\nevaluate the impacts of new approaches and new legislation on an ongoing basis. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 1999 (Continued) The Minority Teacher Scholarship Recruitment Committee met on October 9, 1997 to discuss the scholarships awarded for FY 97/98. The ADHE Assistant Coordinator for Student Financial Aid provided a comprehensive presentation on scholarships awarded for the 97/98 school year. There were 235 scholarships awarded in the Freshman/Sophomore Minority Scholarship program totaling $344,988. The Emergency Secondary Education Loan program awarded 52 scholarships for a total of $119,370. There were 83 scholarships for $403,520 awarded in the Minority Teachers Scholars program. The Minority Masters Fellows program awarded 20 scholarships for a total of $73,750. The ADHE representative indicated that during the 1997 regular legislative session legislation was passed to allow hispanics and asians to participate in the minority scholarship programs. It was stated that the average GPA for minority teacher scholarship recipients had increased to 3.13, and that the dollars awarded in the Minority Masters Fellows program were down from last year because most of the recipients were part-time students. The committee discussed numerous avenues that might be utilized to inform minority applicants of scholarships available. Communication with the faculty of Arkansas colleges and universities regarding the availability of scholarships was discussed as a way of informing teaching students of possible resources available to them . The next quarterly meeting of the Minority Teacher Scholarship Recruitment Committee will be February 19, 1998. The quarterly meeting of the Minority Teacher Scholarship Recruitment Committee scheduled for February was canceled since only the NLRSD and an ADE representative were present at the scheduled meeting place. The meeting has not been rescheduled at this time. The Minority Teacher Scholarship meeting was rescheduled for March 26, 1998. 50 X. FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE TO MINORITY TEACHER CANDIDATES (Continued) E. Monitor the allocation of scholarships to minority students by the ADHE\nevaluate the impacts of new approaches and new legislation on an ongoing basis. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 1999 (Continued) The Minority Teacher Scholarship Recruitment Committee met on March 26, 1998. The committee was updated on the requirements and application packets were distributed for the Emergency Secondary Education Loan Program (ESELP), Minority Teacher Scholars Program (MTSP), and Minority Masters Fellows Program (MMFP). The deadline for applications was April 1, 1998 for the ESELP and June 1, 1998 for the MTSP and MMFP. The scholarships will be awarded in July 1998. A committee member requested that ADHE send scholarship applications to the schools as well as the district offices to ensure that their teachers and students were apprised of the scholarships available. It was suggested that the colleges submit prospective graduate information for use by the Districts no later than April since the Districts begin the interview process of Spring graduates in May. The ADE Implementation Plan currently requires that the ADE request information on minority teacher graduates in May, and then it is distributed to the Districts in June or July. A representative from the ADE Teacher Licensure Unit was present at the meeting and stated that the ADE would try to accommodate the Districts with this request, but she cautioned that colleges and universities are reluctant to provide tentative graduate information. The next committee meeting is scheduled for July 30, 1998 at the NLRSD offices. The Minority Teacher Scholarship Meeting was held July 30, 1998. Donna Elliot, ADE Program Support Manager was appointed to the Committee. She indicated that advance notification would be mailed to all University Deans/Certifying Officials regarding the change in format for more thorough minority teacher candidate information. A complete report will be forwarded and reported in the September PMT. Disparities in minority scholarship distributions were not evidenced in the draft report. Lillian Williams, Arkansas Department of Higher Education, submitted the following report on Minority Teacher Scholarships Distribution: 1998-99 PROGRAM STATISTICS PROGRAM NAME APPROPRIATION AWARDED #STUDENTS Freshman/Sophomore 250,000 250,000 Estimated 300+ ESEL 81 ,717 121,250 50 * Minority Teacher Scholars 450,000 445,000 89 ** Minority Masters Fellows 80,000 80,000 30 * Please note that only 81 ,717 was appropriated for the ESEL Scholarship, however, additional repayment funds were used to award an additional 39,533 totaling 121 ,250. ** 11 Students are pending passing the PPST. 51 X. FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE TO MINORITY TEACHER CANDIDATES (Continued) E. Monitor the allocation of scholarships to minority students by the ADHE\nevaluate the impacts of new approaches and new legislation on an ongoing basis. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 1999 (Continued) The report on Minority Teacher Scholarships Distribution was presented October 8, 1998, by the Education Lead Planner during the Break the Mold Workshop: Teacher Recruitment and Retention, sponsored by the Winthrop Rockefeller Foundation. The group was informed about the following: 1. Projected Teacher shortages in Mathematics, Special Education, and Foreign Language 2. Collaborative efforts of the ADE and the ADHE to recruit teachers by funding more than 450 scholarships for applicants interested in teaching annually 3. Reasons new teachers give for leaving the profession 4. The ratio of minority teachers to minority students. The Minority Teacher Scholarship Committee met on November 2, 1998 in the Pulaski County District Conference Room. The committee received (1) an update on the distribution of scholarships, (2) reviewed the scholarship information booklets, (3) approved the quarterly report of progress. The committee also identified, as a legislative issue, the need to allow part-time students access to scholarships. The next quarterly meeting is scheduled for February 2, 1999. A recommendation was received by the Committee on Financial Assistance to Minority Teacher Candidates regarding the Emergency Secondary Education Loan. The Committee recommended that the Arkansas State Legislature increase the minority teacher candidate pool by offering the Emergency Secondary Education Loan to part-time students. The Committee noted that a number of persons currently serving our education system as substitute teachers would take advantage of the assistance offered, if they could receive assistance for part-time student status. Many prospective minority teacher candidates, and candidates seeking advanced degrees are unable to serve our students and go to school on a full-time basis. The next quarterly meeting is scheduled for February 2, 1999. The next quarterly meeting was rescheduled for February 21 , 1999, to accommodate all participants. The quarterly meeting of the Minority Teacher Scholarship Committee was held on February 21 , 1999, in the Little Rock School District. Representatives from all three districts in Pulaski County, the ADHE and the ADE attended the meeting. A scholarship report update and scholarship applications and deadlines for the 1999 school year were provided. Information regarding the national focus on teacher shortages and recruitment were distributed. The committee discussed the status of the following bills related to teacher recruitment: 52 X. FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE TO MINORITY TEACHER CANDIDATES (Continued) E. Monitor the allocation of scholarships to minority students by the ADHE\nevaluate the impacts of new approaches and new legislation on an ongoing basis. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 1999 (Continued) SB31, \"an act to make emergency secondary education loans available to students enrolled as a major in a program of study leading to teacher certification for foreign languages and special education.\" HB1466 \"state supported colleges and universities must report to Department of Education the name, address, and major of each minority student completing college requirements for licensure as school teacher.\" SB237 \"to make technical amendments to various sections of the Arkansas Code Annotated relative to public education.\" SB261 \"to encourage teachers to participate in and complete NBPTS Certification by authorizing the Department of Education to pay full tuition and incentive bonuses.\" S8113 \"to amend A.CA 6-17-410 to clarify that the Department of Education will pay criminal record check fees for certain public education employees.\" 53 XI. MINORITY RECRUITMENT OF ADE STAFF A Administer the ADE Minority Recruitment Plan developed by the ADE staff and Board of Education and officially adopted by the Board of Education (see Exhibit B for the ADE's Minority Recruitment Plan with specific objectives and time lines). 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of April 30, 1999 The Minority Recruitment Committee met on April 14, 1995. New committee members were assigned tasks and goals to increase the effectiveness of the Minority Recruitment Plan. At the Minority Recruitment Committee meeting on May 18, 1995, the committee was divided into four working sub-teams to update the annual plan. Each team focused on one of the four goals in the Minority Recruitment Plan and monitored specific task completions. From June to October 1995, subcommittees met and worked on monitoring the progress of the ADE in accomplishing the tasks outlined in the Minority Recruitment Plan. In September 1995, the ADE reached an agreement with the Arkansas Statewide Systemic Initiative (ASSI) for conducting an audit of the Minority Recruitment Plan. The committee reviewed the recommendations and comments for updating the plan at the November 1995 meeting and reviewed the final draft at the December meeting. The ASSl's audit findings were presented to the committee on January 16, 1996. It was determined during the initial review that the files were incomplete to the extent that an accurate audit was not possible. The auditor met with the committee in March 1996 to review the additional documentation in the files. The auditor prepared the final report in April 1996 indicating that of the 89 actions contained in the Minority Recruitment Plan, 74 of the items had been completed, nine were in progress, and six had not been started. The audit stated that of the 22 items in Goal 1, 15 were completed, one was in progress, and six had not been started . Goal 2 contained 14 items, 13 of which were completed and one in progress. Goal 3 consisted of 30 items with 29 items completed and one in progress. Goal 4 consisted of 23 items with 17 items completed and six in progress. 54 XI. MINORITY RECRUITMENT OF ADE STAFF (Continued) A. Administer the ADE Minority Recruitment Plan developed by the ADE staff and Board of Education and officially adopted by the Board of Education (see Exhibit B for the ADE's Minority Recruitment Plan with specific goals, objectives and time lines). (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 1999 (Continued) The Minority Recruitment Committee met on June 6, 1996 to discuss updates and revisions addressed in the audit and the new racial/gender report on Grades 21 and above. Since the completion of the audit, Goals 2.3.4 and 3.3.8 were completed, and a list of recommendations for retention activities was written. Also, a random sample of ADE employees was asked to fill out questionnaires, but only a limited number were returned. In August 1996, the Minority Recruitment Committee met and discussed the actions necessary to complete Goals 1 and 4 contained in the Minority Recruitment Plan. At the September 1996 meeting, the committee was updated on the progress of all four goals in the Minority Recruitment Plan. The committee heard an analysis of application and hiring practices and discussed the relevance of the data. Suggestions made by the State Board of Education regarding the Employee Tracking Data Check Sheet were discussed at the February 1996 meeting of the Minority Recruitment Committee. Goal 1 of the Minority Recruitment Plan will be completed when the employee tracking sheet is finalized. The Minority Recruitment Committee met on March 14, 1997 and March 27, 1997 to discuss the draft Revised Minority Recruitment Plan and progress toward completing Goal 4. The committee passed a motion to omit Section 1.1 from Goal 1 of the draft revised plan. Additionally, the committee suggested that communication be made an integral part of each goal of the revised plan. The committee discussed the need for professional training programs, incentives for educational opportunities, and upward mobility for all staff within the ADE. In an effort to complete Goal 4, a representative from the ADE communication section presented development costs for media materials to the committee. Additionally, a representative from the ADE MIS section discussed the possibility of using the network to disseminate information to employees. It was suggested that the committee continue to receive assistance from MIS on the orientation video. 55 XI. MINORITY RECRUITMENT OF ADE STAFF (Continued) A Administer the ADE Minority Recruitment Plan developed by the ADE staff and Board of Education and officially adopted by the Board of Education (see Exhibit B for the ADE's Minority Recruitment Plan with specific goals, objectives and time lines). (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 1999 (Continued) In an effort to represent all sections within the ADE, the committee recommended that representatives from the ADE communication and MIS sections be added as members to the committee. Currently, neither section is represented on the committee. The-Minority Recruitment Committee met on April 18, 1997 to discuss the need to revise the action steps for each of the committee's four goals. The committee decided to schedule a two-day retreat in an effort to review all goals and actions. The Minority Recruitment Committee met on May 19, 1997 to discuss the agenda for the annual retreat and revisions to the action plan emphasizing recruitment and retention at all grade levels. A two-day annual retreat was held on June 18-19, 1997 at the Teacher Retirement Building. The retreat facilitated the revision of the Minority Recruitment Committee's action plan for their four goals. Dr. Gary Chamberlain, UALR faculty member, served as the facilitator. The revised plan was distributed to the Minority Recruitment Committee at their July 18, 1997 meeting for final approval before it is submitted to the administrative team and the State Board of Education. The Minority Recruitment Committee meeting scheduled for September 12, 1997 was rescheduled for September 30, 1997 due to members scheduling conflicts. The meeting will be reported in the November PMT. The Minority Recruitment Committee met with the ADE Deputy Director in November 1997 to provide him with a copy of the revised plan and receive his input on the plan. The revised Minority Recruitment Committee (MRC) plan was approved at the December 1997 State Board of Education meeting. The MRC met in January 1998 to discuss the implementation of the revised MRC plan. Reports and documentation of progress in completing the components of each goal Will be reported at the next meeting. 56 XI. MINORITY RECRUITMENT OF ADE STAFF (Continued) B. Monitor minority representation at all levels of ADE and assess the effectiveness of the ADE Minority Recruitment Plan. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of April 30, 1999 As of August 1995, the ADE had hired or transferred 38 employees in Grades 21 and above in the General Education Division. This group was composed of 11 black females, 5 black males, 16 white females, 4 white males, 1 other female, and 1 other male. The racial composition of the these employees was 52.6 percent non-minority and 47.4 percent minority. As of October 1995, there were 161 filled positions in the GED in Grades 21 and above. There were 27 minorities or 22.9 percent in Grades 21 and above. An analysis on Goal 1 regarding application and hiring practices was presented at the September 1996 meeting. Samples of graphs and tables for presenting the data were distributed at the meeting. The Minority Recruitment Committee met on December 13, 1996 to discuss the latest draft of the ADE Employee Tracking Data Check Sheet. The committee recommended various format changes including the addition of a table of contents and an executive summary. The committee met on January 17, 1997 to continue the discussion on the draft ADE Employee Tracking Data Check Sheet. The Assistant Director for Planning and Curriculum agreed with all but three of the committee's recommendations for the employee tracking sheet. He requested that the committee continue discussions on this matter. The Minority Recruitment Committee met on February 14, 1997 to discuss the status of the Employee Tracking Data Check Sheet. The committee also discussed the lack of minority employees in some areas and the loss of several minority employees and the possibility of revising the new Minority Recruitment Plan. The committee received information on Arkansas pupil enrollment by race at their March 14, 1997 meeting. Arkansas enrollment figures for October 1, 1996 revealed that 73. 7% of all students are white, 23.4% are black, 1.8% are hispanic, 0. 7% are asian, and 0.4% are native american. 57 XI. MINORITY RECRUITMENT OF ADE STAFF (Continued) 8. Monitor minority representation at all levels of ADE and assess the effectiveness of the ADE Minority Recruitment Plan. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 1999 (Continued) To assess the effectiveness of the action steps for each goal, agenda items were developed for the committee's June retreat. The committee recommended that invitations be sent to Senator Beebe, Julie Cullen, Gene Wilhoit, and all State Board members. At the May 1997 Minority Recruitment Committee meeting, the committee discussed reviewing the most recent quarterly hiring and retention report and revisions to the action plan at the annual retreat. Discussions during the July retreat focused on the current plan, the original purpose of the plan, and necessary changes with input provided by committee members and speakers from the Arkansas Department of Higher Education, Employment Securities, and the ADE. At the January 1998 MRC meeting, it was decided that the chair and secretary would prepare a report on minority representation within each unit and section and present it to the committee at the next meeting. The Minority Recruitment Committee met on June 11, 1998, to discuss new membership for the committee and plans for a retreat. The committee recommended a new design and composition of the committee to represent each of the seven sections of the Arkansas Department of Education and included Grade 20's and below. The Minority Recruitment Committee niet on July, 16, 1998, to discuss implementation of new membership for the committee for FY98/99, and to update plans for the September retreat. The Minority Recruitment Committee met on August 11 , 1998 with Dr. Dave Westmoreland, Acting Chairperson. Members were notified that the dates for the September Retreat are September 10-11 , 1998 at the Teacher Retirement Building, Little Rock Arkansas. New Members were introduced and background materials regarding the purpose and progress of the MRC were distributed to new members. The selection of new officers will be conducted at the retreat. The two-day annual retreat was held on September 10-11 , 1998, at the Teacher Retirement Building. The retreat focused on the current ADE Minority Recruitment Revised Plan (approved by the State Board of Education in December 1997). Since several of the members had recently joined the committee, issues concerning the implementation of the Revised Plan were examined. Acting Chairperson, Dr. Dave Westmoreland, was elected Chairperson, and Mr. Jimmy Burks was elected Vice-Chairperson. Mrs. Michelle Griffin consented to continue in her role as Secretary for the committee. 58 XI. MINORITY RECRUITMENT OF ADE STAFF (Continued) B. Monitor minority representation at all levels of ADE and assess the effectiveness of the ADE Minority Recruitment Plan. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 1999 (Continued) The Minority Recruitment Committee met on October 15, 1998, and discussed the progress on the 1997 Minority Recruitment Plan. Objectives 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 3.3 were discussed, respectively. It appears that funding is available for the committee to engage an independent auditor. In addition, the committee reaffirmed the importance of the \"minority graduate student internship program\" as a resource for possible minority recruits. The Minority Recruitment Committee met on November 12, 1998, and discussed the following progress on the 1997 Minority Recruitment Plan: 1. Objectives 1.1 through 4.4 were discussed 2. The committee had extensive discussion on where to gather information for a study on the availability of minority workforce. Suggestions were Employment Security Division, UALR's Arkansas Statistical Review, and current data on the World Wide Web 3. 4. The minutes of the November 10, 1998 Employee Focus Group Discussion was distributed to members. The Focus Group participants recommended incentives for staff members to grow in work skills and evaluation of various employees be as objective as possible The committee discussed the ADE newsletter on the Intranet as an avenue for employees to communicate concerns, and accomplishments. The next meeting is scheduled for December 17, 1998. The Minority Recruitment committee meeting scheduled for December 17 was rescheduled for December 16, 1998. Dr. Dave Westmoreland disseminated a Memorandum summarizing the December 14, 1998, Employee Focus Group Discussion on Perceptions of the ADE. The group noted that the ADE is not structured in a manner that allows employees to voice concerns. Members felt salary adjustment would be desirable. Specifically, those employees who remain with the ADE after several years have observed that some less experienced employees are paid more. Perception of opportunities for advancement may not be uniform across the agency. Dr. Westmoreland noted that the focus group however, commented that the ADE was a good place to work. The committee will invite Mr. Artee Williams, Director of Office of Personnel Management, to the next regularly scheduled meeting to address employee salary concerns. The committee will forward comments on the perception of ADE to senior management. 59 XI. MINORITY RECRUITMENT OF ADE STAFF (Continued) B. Monitor minority representation at all levels of ADE and assess the effectiveness of the ADE Minority Recruitment Plan. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 1999 (Continued) The committee met on January 14, 1999. Dr. Charity Smith reported the progress of the ADE Minority Graduate Student Internship Program. She explained that the program provides for students enrolled in advanced education degree programs, in Arkansas institutions of higher learning, to be interns at the ADE. The higher education program advisor dictates the particular activities of the interns. Typically, the intern works with various ADE personnel for approximately six weeks. Three students have engaged in the program since 1994. The committee also discussed the possibility of a speaker tour bureau for the ADE, with this information being housed on the ADE web site. Mr. Artee Williams from the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) or a representative will be invited in the future to talk about the Career Ladder Incentive Program (CLIP) and training as it relates to the ADE's minority recruitment efforts. Dr. Andre Guerrero recommended that the committee stress to our Licensure Section the importance of keeping a strong mentoring system available for minority teachers. Mr. Reginald Wilson reported that he has contacted three persons that the committee might use as an independent auditor for the Minority Recruitment Plan, and is waiting on a response from them. Mr. Wilson is also working on a report on the racial makeup of the ADE, Grade 21 and above. Dr. Westmoreland updated the committee that the 1997 revised Minority Recruitment Plan is near completion and a draft documentation is available for the audit. The next meeting is scheduled for February 11, 1999. On February 11 , 1999, A follow-up was made prior to the meeting about the invitation of Mr. Artee Williams. Mr. Williams invited the committee to write specific questions regarding personnel issues. He stated that he could not answer specific questions as they related to the ADE, but could answer broad questions based through state government. He stated that questions should be in writing from the Director, and the Director would have to extend an initiation before he could speak to the agency. Mr. Williams also mentioned proposed legislation that could result in the implementation of a merit/performance based program called the Career Ladder Incentive Program (CLIP). If passed, this program will be implemented beginning July 1, 1999. He said this program might address the agencies salary concerns. The committee agreed to monitor this legislation. Dr. Westmoreland reported the Revised Minority Recruitment Plan is ready for the auditor to review. Mr. Wilson reported Ms. Denise Fletcher, Attorney at Law, Fletcher Law Firm has agreed to perform the audit. Mr. Wilson disseminated a draft of the ADE Grade 21 and above Employee Status Report dated February 11 , 1999. 60 XI. MINORITY RECRUITMENT OF ADE STAFF (Continued) B. Monitor minority representation at all levels of ADE and assess the effectiveness of the ADE Minority Recruitment Plan. (Continued} 2. Actual as of April 30, 1999 (Continued) The MRC met oMnarch 11 , 1999. The committee was informed that the Minority Recruitment Plan was forwarded to the audiotr, Denise Fletcher, Attorney, Fletcher Law Firm When the auditor is finished with the Plan, it will be forwarded to the Stale Board of Education for theirreview and approval. After some discussion on possible objectives for the Minority Recruitment Plan, the committee agreed fo forward information to the ADE Director recommending that he share the importance of the MRC with all hiring officials. 61 XII. SCHOOL CONSTRUCTION A. Improve the effectiveness of the ADE's existing rules, regulations , and site evaluation form for assessing the desegregation impacts of school construction between school districts. 1 . Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of April 30, 1999 The information for this item is detailed under Section XII.C. of this report. 8 . Review existing rules, regulations and site evaluation forms and their application to school construction projects within districts and between districts. C. 1. Projected Ending Date October 1994 2. Actual as of April 30, 1999 The information for this item is detailed under Section XII .C. of this report. Amend the rules , regulations and site evaluation forms as they apply to all districts contiguous to the three Pulaski County school districts to assure that the school construction analysis specifically addresses the impacts on racial balances of individual school sites within the three districts. 1. Projected Ending Date October 1994 2. Actual as of April 30, 1999 ADE's School Site Selection Committee met on April 21 , 1995 to revise the proposed rules and regulations. The proposed rules and regulations were presented to the State Board of Education on May 8, 1995. The Board voted to table the decision on public comment until the proposed rules and regulations were reviewed by the Attorney General's Office. The Attorney General's Office reviewed the revised school construction draft and provided a letter of approval. 62 XII. SCHOOL CONSTRUCTION (Continued) C. Amend the rules, regulations and site evaluation forms as they apply to all districts contiguous to the three Pulaski County school districts to assure that the school construction analysis specifically addresses the impacts on racial balances of individual school sites within the three districts. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 1999 (Continued) On June 12, 1995, the State Board of Education voted to place the revised School Site Approval rules and regulations for public comment. The hearing was held on June 19, 1995 in the ADE Auditorium, and a copy of the revised draft was sent to all school districts in an ADE\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\n "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_60","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":["1999-05","1999-06","1999-07","1999-08"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Education--Arkansas","Little Rock (Ark.). Office of Desegregation Monitoring","School integration--Arkansas","Arkansas. Department of Education","Project managers--Implements"],"dcterms_title":["Arkansas Department of Education's (ADE's) Project Management Tool"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/60"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["documents (object genre)"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\nLittle Rock School District, plaintiff vs. Pulaski County Special School District, defendant.\nRECEIVED 1998 Of MONITORING Winston Bryant Attorney General Ms. Ann Brown STATE OF ARKANSAS Office of the Attorney General October 30, 1998 Office of Desegregation Monitoring 201 E. Markham, Suite 510 Little Rock, AR 72201 Re: Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District No. 1, et al, LR-C-82-866 Dear Ms. Brown: Telephone: (501) 682-2007 Enclosed for your files and information, please find copy of Notice of Filing of ADE's Project Management Tool for October, 1998. CJ enclosure Sincerely Carol Robbins Secretary to Timothy G. Gauger Assistant Attorney General 200 Tower Building, 323 Center Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-2610 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION 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 October, 1998. C D i..,_ 1998 Respectfully Submitted, WINSTON BRYANT Attorney General Assistant Attorney General 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 682-2007 Attorney for Arkansas Department of Education 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 October 31, 1998 Baseodn theinformationavailable atSeptemberQi 1998,the ADE calculatedthe Equalization Fundingfor FY 98/99 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) 8. Include all Magnet students in the resident District's average daily membership for calculation. (Continued) 2. Actual as of October 31, 1998 Basei#d1 thinfoermation avaliable atSeptembe3r0, 1998 the ADE calculatedfor FY 98/99, subjecpte rtioodic adjustments C. Process and distribute State MFPA. D. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of October 31, 1998 On September30, 1998, distributions of State Equalization Funding forEm 98/99 were as follows LRSD-$8,353,887 NLRSD - $4,715,448 PCSSD - $10,063,840 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 October 31, 1998 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 October 31, 1998 BasedIi. the informationavailable tAhDe Ecalcuateadt September301,998,for FY 98/99 subject to periodicadjustments It shouldP! notedthat currently the Magnet Review Committees reporting this informationinstead of the staff attorney ii indicated inthe 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 October 31, 1998 Bathes inefordma tioonn availacbalcluelat,e dthaet S eAptDemEber 30, 1998 for G. Process and distribute state aid for Magnet Operational Charge. 1. 2. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. Actual as of October 31, 1998 Distributions for FY 98/99 at September 30, 1998 totaled $1,624,606. Allotment calculaatet Sdeptember 30, 1998 for FY 98/99 was $8,935,328, 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 October 31, 1998 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 October 31, 1998 Distributions forFY98/99 at September30, 1998were LRSD - $3,463,507 NLRSD - $1,512,970 PCSSD - $6,832,606 The allotments calcuated for FY 98/99 at September adjustments, were 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 October 31, 1998 In September 1997, the Magnet and M-to-M transportation budgets for FY 97/98 were submitted to the ADE by the Districts. K. Reginald Wilson notifies General Finance to pay districts for first two-thirds of the Districts' proposed budget. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing, annually. 2. Actual as of October 31, 1998 inAugust1998,GeneraFlinancewasnotified lR pay the final one-third payments for FY 97/98 to theDistrictsn should be noted that the Transportation Coordinator currently performing this function. L. ADE pays districts for first two-thirds of their proposed budget. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing, annually. 4 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) L. ADE pays districts for first two-thirds of their proposed budget. (Continued) 2. Actual as of October 31, 1998 payments to theDistricts AtAugust 1998, the following hadf obr eFeYn p9a7i/d98 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 October 31, 1998 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 1998-99 school year for the Magnet and M-to-M transportation program. School districts should receive payment by October 1, 1998. 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 October 31 , 1998 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. 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. (Continued) 2. Actual as of October 31, 1998 (Continued) 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 $695,235. The buses were distributed accordingly: LRSD -8\nNLRSD - 2\nand PCSSD-6. 0. Process and distribute compensatory education payments to LRSD as required by page 23 of the Settlement Agreement. 1. Projected Ending Date July 1 and January 1, of each school year through January 1, 1999. 2. Actual as of October 31, 1998 Obligation fulfilled in FY 96/97. P. Process and distribute additional payments in lieu of formula to LRSD as required by page 24 of the Settlement Agreement. 1. Projected Ending Date Payment due date and ending July 1, 1995. 2. Actual as of October 31, 1998 Obligation fulfilled in FY 95/96. Q. Process and distribute payments to PCSSD as required by Page 28 of the Settlement Agreement. 1. Projected Ending Date Payment due date and ending July 1, 1994. 2. Actual as of October 31, 1998 Final payment was distributed July 1994. 6 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) R. Upon loan request by LRSD accompanied by a promissory note, the ADE makes loans to LRSD. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing through July 1, 1999. See Settlement Agreement page 24. 2. Actual as of October 31, 1998 The LRSD receiv$e2,d000,000 in April 1998, As of this reportingdate, the LRSD has received $17,000in,0 lo0a0n 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 October 31, 1998 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 October 31, 1998 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 October 31 , 1998 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. 7 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) V. Process and distribute payments for Office of Desegregation Monitoring. 1. Projected Ending Date Not applicable. 2. Actual as of October 31 , 1998 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 97/98. 8 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 October 31, 1998 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. 9 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 October 31, 1998 (Continued) 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. 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. 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 October 31, 1998 (Continued) In August 1997, procedures and schedules were organized for the monitoring of the Cycle 2 schools in FY 97/98. 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. 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 October 31, 1998 (Continued) In April 1998, unannounced monitoring visits were conducted, and technical assistance was provided on the school improvement process. 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. 12 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 October 31, 1998 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 October 31, 1998 To date, no action has been taken by the LRSD. 13 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 October 31 , 1998 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 October 31 , 1998 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 October 31, 1998 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 October 31, 1998 The information for this item is detailed under Section IV.E. of this report. 14 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 October 31, 1998 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 detennine 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 81st 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. 15 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 October 31 , 1998 (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. 16 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 October 31, 1998 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. C. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of October 31 , 1998 Ongoing 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 October 31 , 1998 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 17 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 October 31, 1998 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. 18 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 October 31, 1998 (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. 19 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 October 31, 1998 (Continued) The State Board of Education received copies of the July 15, 1997 Semiannual Monitoring Report and executive summary at the July Board meeting. 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. 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 October 31, 1998 (Continued) In May 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary. 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. 21 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 October 31 , 1998 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. 22 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 October 31, 1998 (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. 23 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 October 31, 1998 (Continued) 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. 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. 24 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 October 31, 1998 (Continued) In March 1998, the field service representatives conducted ECOE team visits and prepared materials for the NGA 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. 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. 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 October 31 , 1998 The information for this item is detailed under Section VI.F. of this report. 25 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) C. Through the ERIC system, conduct a literature search for research evaluating compensatory education programs. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of October 31, 1998 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. 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 October 31, 1998 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 October 31 , 1998 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 26 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of October 31 , 1998 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. 27 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of October 31, 1998 (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. 28 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of October 31, 1998 (Continued) 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. 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. 29 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 October 31 , 1998 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 October 31 , 1998 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. 30 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. 1. Projected Ending Date March 1995 and ongoing 2. Actual as of October 31, 1998 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. 31 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 October 31, 1998 (Continued) 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. 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. 32 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 October 31 , 1998 (Continued) 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. of 33 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 October 31, 1998 The information for this item is detailed under Section VIII.D. of this report. 8. Develop in-service training programs to address in-service training needs of desegregating districts. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of October 31, 1998 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 October 31 , 1998 The information for this item is detailed under Section VII I. 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 34 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 October 31, 1998 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. 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 nonacademic 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. 35 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 October 31 , 1998 (Continued) 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. 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. 36 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 October 31, 1998 (Continued) 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. 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. 37 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 October 31, 1998 (Continued) 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. 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. 38 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 October 31, 1998 (Continued) The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met on March 19, 1998 to discuss the math and science grant received by the LRSD, the Districts' in-service 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. 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. 39 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 October 31, 1998 (Continued) The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met Thursday, September 24, 1998 at the instructional Resources Center, Little Rock, with five Marion Woods and Dr. Bonnie Lesley, LRSD\nDoug Ask Topics ofdiscussion included the meeting with thceo orepegrioatniva. el s' teachercentercoordinators the staff developmenttask force on whMicahrion Woods is serving and theNSCI training traininpgrovided by theFederal EmergencyManagement Agency (FEMA)\ntraining provided by Casio\nand the proposal of a Principals Academy. DougAsk will serve as representative to the O19ct9om8beeer t6in,g of the Teacher Center Coordinators. He will submit Donna Harris, president ofthe group ! request for one othermember ofthe Tri-CountyCommittee (Dana December, Dana Chadwick, January. Thenext committee meetingwill be 9:00 am. Tuesday, Octo1b3e,r1998, at theNorth Little Rock School districtCentral Office 40 IX. RECRUITMENT OF MINORITY TEACHERS A. Facilitate communication between the Districts and Arkansas colleges and universities with teacher education programs. 1. Projected Ending Dates (See dates on individual key activities) 2. Actual as of October 31, 1998 A staff member of the ADE's certification department attended all of the college career days in FY 94/95 in Arkansas and one out-of-state. In FY 95/96, ADE certification staff members attended career and job fairs at the following colleges and universities: Philander Smith College\nUAM\nHSU\nATU\nUCA\nASU\nUA-Pine Bluff\nLIA-Fayetteville\nHarding University\nSAU\nand Jackson State. ADE certification staff met with representatives from the Districts to ensure they were aware that ADE personnel were available to provide assistance in recruitment and certification of minority teacher candidates. A job fair was conducted at the University of Arkansas at Pine Bluff on December 4, 1996. The Districts were advised of the ADE's availability for providing assistance in recruitment and certification. In February 1997, ADE certification staff members attended teacher job fairs at Henderson State University, Arkansas Tech University, and University of Central Arkansas to facilitate communication between the Districts and Arkansas colleges and universities with teacher education programs. ADE certification staff members attended teacher job fairs at Harding University, LIA-Fayetteville, UA-Pine Bluff, and ASU in April 1997 to facilitate communication between the Districts and Arkansas colleges and universities with teacher education programs. From April 16, 1997 through May 6, 1997, ADE certification staff members attended teacher job fairs at Philander Smith College and SAU to facilitate communication between the Districts and Arkansas colleges and universities with teacher education programs. Additionally, ADE staff attended an out-ofstate teacher job fair at Jackson State University at Jackson, Mississippi. Recruitment activities were suspended for the summer, but they will resume in the later part of September for FY 97/98. On September 25, 1997, the ADE's Professional Licensure Supervisor attended a career day job fair at Philander Smith College to provide support to the Districts in recruiting teachers. 41 IX. RECRUITMENT OF MINORITY TEACHERS (Continued) A. Facilitate communication between the Districts and Arkansas colleges and universities with teacher education programs. 2. Actual as of October 31, 1998 (Continued) On November 6, 1997, the Professional Licensure Supervisor attended a career day job fair at the University of the Ozarks in order to facilitate the Districts' recruitment efforts. Recruitment activities will resume in February 1998. Representatives of the ADE's Professional Licensure Unit attended job fairs at Arkansas Technical University, UCA, ASU and the University of Memphis from February 26, 1998 through March 12, 1998. A representative from the ADE's Professional Licensure Unit attended job fairs at LIA-Fayetteville and Harding University on March 30, 1998 and April 2, 1998, respectively. Representatives from the ADE's Professional Licensure Unit attended job fairs at Philander Smith College, SAU and North East Louisiana in April 1998. B. Beginning in 1994, by May and November of each year, Districts will supply to the ADE information about shortages of teachers by grade and subject area. 1. Projected Ending Dates Ongoing, as stated. 2. Actual as of October 31, 1998 Letters were sent in May, August, and December 1995 to the Districts requesting information regarding teaching positions available by grade and subject areas. In May and November 1996, the Human Resources offices of the Districts were requested to provide information regarding teaching positions available by grade and subject area. The ADE sent follow-up letters requesting information from the Districts regarding teacher shortages in February 1997. The NLRSD and the PCSSD indicated that they expect teacher shortages in the areas of Special Education, Mathematics, the Sciences, Foreign Language, English as a Second Language and Gifted and Talented Education. On May 20, 1997, information was requested from the Districts regarding teacher shortages. Follow-up letters were sent in July 1997. 42 IX. RECRUITMENT OF MINORITY TEACHERS (Continued) C. D. Beginning in 1994, by May and December of each year, request information from colleges and universities about the numbers and types of minority-teacher graduates. 1. Projected Ending Dates Ongoing, as stated. 2. Actual as of October 31, 1998 In May and December 1995, letters were sent to all Deans and Certifying Officers of Institutions of Higher Education in Arkansas requesting information on minority teacher graduates. Letters were sent to all Deans and Certifying Officers of Institutions of Higher Education in Arkansas in May and November 1996 requesting information on minority teacher graduates. In May and December 1997, letters were sent to all Arkansas colleges and universities with teacher education programs requesting minority teacher graduate information. On May 14, 1998, letters were sent to all Arkansas colleges and universities with teacher education programs requesting minority teacher graduate information. On August 1, 1998, the ADE Office of Professional Licensure sent advance notice to all Deans/Certifying Officials regarding the change in format for complete minority teacher candidate information. Within 30 days of receiving data from colleges and universities provide the Districts data on teacher openings to the colleges and universities on minority graduates to the Districts. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of October 31 , 1998 In June 1995 and January 1996, ADE sent the information received from Arkansas colleges and universities on minority teacher education graduates to the Districts. In July 1996 and January 1997, ADE sent the information received from Deans and Certifying Officers on minority teacher education graduates to the Districts. On February 3, 1997, a list of minority teacher graduates from the University of Arkansas at Fayetteville was forwarded to the Districts as an addendum to the list of graduates compiled on January 16, 1997. 43 IX. RECRUITMENT OF MINORITY TEACHERS (Continued) D. Within 30 days of receiving data from colleges and universities provide the Districts data on teacher openings to the colleges and universities on minority graduates to the Districts. (Continued) 2. Actual as of October 31, 1998 (Continued) The ADE provided the Districts with the Minority Teacher Graduate Report compiled from the minority teacher graduate information received from Arkansas colleges and universities in July 1997 and January 1998. E. Each November, ADE will request information from the Districts on the effectiveness of ADE's minority recruitment assistance, including an assessment of the minority teacher candidates' database. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of October 31, 1998 On November 30, 1994, letters were sent to the Districts requesting feedback on the effectiveness of the ADE's minority recruitment assistance. Follow-up letters were sent on March 17, 1995 since no responses had been received. Additional follow-up letters were sent to the Districts in August 1995 because the ADE had received no responses from the Districts. A planning and evaluation meeting was scheduled on January 11, 1996 with representatives from the Districts. The Districts did not attend the meeting. In February 1997, letters were sent to the Districts requesting feedback on the effectiveness of ADE's minority recruitment assistance. The NLRSD and the PCSSD submitted favorable evaluations concerning the effectiveness of the ADE's recruitment assistance efforts. The ADE did not received any information from the LRSD regarding this matter. 44 X. FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE TO MINORITY TEACHER CANDIDATES A. Assist ADHE in identifying, analyzing, addressing and eliminating racial disparities in the allocation of scholarships. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of October 31, 1998 The information for this item is detailed under Section X.D. of this report. B. Representatives of the ADE and the ADHE will work together, review ADHE's available data to identify racial disparities in allocation of scholarships. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of October 31, 1998 The information for this item is detailed under Section X.D. of this report. C. Using its knowledge about public schools, teacher education and certification, and through a collaborative effort with the Districts, ADE will analyze racial disparities in ADHE scholarship allocations. ADE will report its findings, conclusions, and recommendations about racial disparities in allocating scholarships to ADHE. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of October 31, 1998 The information for this item is detailed under Section X.D. of this report. D. Working with the ADHE, the ADE will use its relationships in the public education institutional settings to assist implementation of measures designed to reduce racial disparities in allocation of scholarships. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 45 X. FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE TO MINORITY TEACHER CANDIDATES (Continued) D. E. Working with the ADHE, the ADE will use its relationships in the public education institutional settings to assist implementation of measures designed to reduce racial disparities in allocation of scholarships. (Continued) 2. Actual as of October 31, 1998 In April 1995, ADE met with representatives of ADHE concerning identification and analysis of possible disparities in scholarship allocations. In June 1995, a collaborative effort was made between the ADE and ADHE to enhance the rate at which minorities were applying for the 1995 teacher scholarships with special emphasis on the areas of science, math, and foreign language through a direct mail program. In July 1995, representatives from the ADE and the Districts met to review the scholarship applications. The Implementation Committee on Financial Assistance to Minority Teacher Candidates discussed ways to increase minority awareness of the scholarships available for minority teacher applicants. The committee agreed to meet quarterly to identify, analyze, and address eliminating racial disparities in scholarships. The committee met in December 1995 to discuss the distribution of scholarships for the 95/96 school year. The committee meets on a continuous basis to review scholarship distributions and discuss ways of improving the pool of applicants for minority teacher scholarships as detailed further in Section X. E. of this report. Monitor the allocation of scholarships to minority students by the ADHE\nevaluate the impacts of new approaches and new legislation on an ongoing basis. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of October 31, 1998 During the May 1995 Legislative session, Acts 188, 189 and 259 regarding scholarships were passed. A meeting to monitor and analyze the distribution of scholarships for the 95/96 school year was held on December 15, 1995. 46 X. FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE TO MINORITY TEACHER CANDIDATES (Continued) E. Monitor the allocation of scholarships to minority students by the ADHE\nevaluate the impacts of new approaches and new legislation on an ongoing basis. (Continued) 2. Actual as of October 31, 1998 (Continued) The committee met on June 7, 1996 to review the scholarship applications for minority teacher candidates for the 96/97 school year. Representatives from the ADHE stated that the ADHE expected to have the resources to fund : 56 scholarships under the Emergency Secondary Education Loan Program\n100 scholarships under the Minority Teacher Scholars Program\nand 13 scholarships under the Minority Masters Fellows Program. The committee also discussed ways of increasing the scholarship applicant pools, and a recommendation was made to make scholarships available to part-time students. In September 1996, a proposal was submitted to the Assistant to the Director for Legislative Services recommending the Legislature offer minority teacher scholarships to part-time students. The committee met on October 23, 1996 to review the scholarships awarded for the 96/97 school year. The following scholarships were funded: 60 scholarships totaling $144,266 for the Emergency Secondary Education Loan Program\n20 scholarships totaling $107,500 for the Minority Masters Fellows Program\n109 scholarships totaling $505,093 for the Minority Teacher Scholars Program\nand 258 students in the Freshman/Sophomore Minority Grant Program received scholarships totaling $374,000. In March 1997, information on minority teacher scholarships and how to apply was provided to the Districts and Arkansas colleges and universities. The Districts were informed of ADHE's scholarship promotional efforts and legislative updates. The next meeting of the committee will be in September 1997. On April 8, 1997, notifications were sent to all Arkansas colleges and universities on the Minority Teacher Scholars Program reminding them that the deadline for receiving applications was June 1, 1997. This information was also provided to the Districts. The Minority Teacher Scholarship Committee will meet on October 9, 1997 to discuss the scholarships awarded for FY 97/98. 47 X. FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE TO MINORITY TEACHER CANDIDATES (Continued) E. Monitor the allocation of scholarships to minority students by the ADHE\nevaluate the impacts of new approaches and new legislation on an ongoing basis. (Continued} 2. Actual as of October 31, 1998 (Continued) The Minority Teacher Scholarship Recruitment Committee met on October 9, 1997 to discuss the scholarships awarded for FY 97/98. The ADHE Assistant Coordinator for Student Financial Aid provided a comprehensive presentation on scholarships awarded for the 97/98 school year. There were 235 scholarships awarded in the Freshman/Sophomore Minority Scholarship program totaling $344,988. The Emergency Secondary Education Loan program awarded 52 scholarships for a total of $119,370. There were 83 scholarships for $403,520 awarded in the Minority Teachers Scholars program. The Minority Masters Fellows program awarded 20 scholarships for a total of $73,750. The ADHE representative indicated that during the 1997 regular legislative session legislation was passed to allow hispanics and asians to participate in the minority scholarship programs. It was stated that the average GPA for minority teacher scholarship recipients had increased to 3.13, and that the dollars awarded in the Minority Masters Fellows program were down from last year because most of the recipients were part-time students. The committee discussed numerous avenues that might be utilized to inform minority applicants of scholarships available. Communication with the faculty of Arkansas colleges and universities regarding the availability of scholarships was discussed as a way of informing teaching students of possible resources available to them. The next quarterly meeting of the Minority Teacher Scholarship Recruitment Committee will be February 19, 1998. The quarterly meeting of the Minority Teacher Scholarship Recruitment Committee scheduled for February was canceled since only the NLRSD and an ADE representative were present at the scheduled meeting place. The meeting has not been rescheduled at this time. The Minority Teacher Scholarship meeting was rescheduled for March 26, 1998. 48 X. FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE TO MINORITY TEACHER CANDIDATES (Continued) E. Monitor the allocation of scholarships to minority students by the ADHE\nevaluate the impacts of new approaches and new legislation on an ongoing basis. (Continued) 2. Actual as of October 31, 1998 (Continued) The Minority Teacher Scholarship Recruitment Committee met on March 26, 1998. The committee was updated on the requirements and application packets were distributed for the Emergency Secondary Education Loan Program (ESELP), Minority Teacher Scholars Program (MTSP), and Minority Masters Fellows Program (MMFP). The deadline for applications was April 1, 1998 for the ESELP and June 1, 1998 for the MTSP and MMFP. The scholarships will be awarded in July 1998. A committee member requested that ADHE send scholarship applications to the schools as well as the district offices to ensure that their teachers and students were apprised of the scholarships available. It was suggested that the colleges submit prospective graduate information for use by the Districts no later than April since the Districts begin the interview process of Spring graduates in May. The ADE Implementation Plan currently requires that the ADE request information on minority teacher graduates in May, and then it is distributed to the Districts in June or July. A representative from the ADE Teacher Licensure Unit was present at the meeting and stated that the ADE would try to accommodate the Districts with this request, but she cautioned that colleges and universities are reluctant to provide tentative graduate information. The next committee meeting is scheduled for July 30, 1998 at the NLRSD offices. The Minority Teacher Scholarship Meeting was held July 30, 1998. Donna Elliot, ADE Program Support Manager was appointed to the Committee. She indicated that advance notification would be mailed to all University Deans/Certifying Officials regarding the change in format for more thorough minority teacher candidate information. A complete report will be forwarded and reported in the September PMT. Disparities in minority scholarship distributions were not evidenced in the draft report. Lillian Williams, Arkansas Department of Higher Education, submitted the following report on Minority Teacher Scholarships Distribution: 1998-99 PROGRAM STATISTICS PROGRAM NAME APPROPRIATION AWARDED #STUDENTS Freshman/Sophomore 250,000 250,000 Estimated 300+ ESEL 81,717 121,250 50 * Minority Teacher Scholars 450,000 445,000 89  Minority Masters Fellows 80,000 80,000 30 * Please note that only 81,717 was appropriated for the ESEL Scholarship, however, additional repayment funds were used to award an additional 39,533 totaling 121,250.  11 Students are pending passing the PPST. 49 X. FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE TO MINORITY TEACHER CANDIDATES (Continued) E. Monitor the allocation of scholarships to minority students by the ADHE\nevaluate the impacts of new approaches and new legislation on an ongoing basis. (Continued) 2. Actual as of October 31, 1998 (Continued) The report on Minority Teacher ScholarshipsDistribution 'mii presentedOctober shortagesin Mathematics, Special Education and Collaborative efforts of theADEand thAeDHE to recruit teachbyers funding more than 450 scholarships forapplicants interested in teaching annually Reasons new teachersgive for leaving tphroefession 50 XI. MINORITY RECRUITMENT OF ADE STAFF A. Administer the ADE Minority Recruitment Plan developed by the ADE staff and Board of Education and officially adopted by the Board of Education (see Exhibit B for the ADE's Minority Recruitment Plan with specific objectives and time lines). 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of October 31 , 1998 The Minority Recruitment Committee met on April 14, 1995. New committee members were assigned tasks and goals to increase the effectiveness of the Minority Recruitment Plan. At the Minority Recruitment Committee meeting on May 18, 1995, the committee was divided into four working sub-teams to update the annual plan. Each team focused on one of the four goals in the Minority Recruitment Plan and monitored specific task completions. From June to October 1995, subcommittees met and worked on monitoring the progress of the ADE in accomplishing the tasks outlined in the Minority Recruitment Plan. In September 1995, the ADE reached an agreement with the Arkansas Statewide Systemic Initiative (ASSI) for conducting an audit of the Minority Recruitment Plan. The committee reviewed the recommendations and comments for updating the plan at the November 1995 meeting and reviewed the final draft at the December meeting. The ASSl's audit findings were presented to the committee on January 16, 1996. It was determined during the initial review that the files were incomplete to the extent that an accurate audit was not possible. The auditor met with the committee in March 1996 to review the additional documentation in the files. The auditor prepared the final report in April 1996 indicating that of the 89 actions contained in the Minority Recruitment Plan, 7 4 of the items had been completed, nine were in progress, and six had not been started. The audit stated that of the 22 items in Goal 1, 15 were completed, one was in progress, and six had not been started. Goal 2 contained 14 items, 13 of which were completed and one in progress. Goal 3 consisted of 30 items with 29 items completed and one in progress. Goal 4 consisted of 23 items with 17 items completed and six in progress. 51 XI. MINORITY RECRUITMENT OF ADE STAFF (Continued) A. Administer the ADE Minority Recruitment Plan developed by the ADE staff and Board of Education and officially adopted by the Board of Education (see Exhibit B for the ADE's Minority Recruitment Plan with specific goals, objectives and time lines). (Continued) 2. Actual as of October 31, 1998 (Continued) The Minority Recruitment Committee met on June 6, 1996 to discuss updates and revisions addressed in the audit and the new racial/gender report on Grades 21 and above. Since the completion of the audit, Goals 2.3.4 and 3.3.8 were completed, and a list of recommendations for retention activities was wriUen. Also, a random sample of ADE employees was asked to fill out questionnaires, but only a limited number were returned. In August 1996, the Minority Recruitment Committee met and discussed the actions necessary to complete Goals 1 and 4 contained in the Minority Recruitment Plan. At the September 1996 meeting, the committee was updated on the progress of all four goals in the Minority Recruitment Plan. The committee heard an analysis of application and hiring practices and discussed the relevance of the data. Suggestions made by the State Board of Education regarding the Employee Tracking Data Check Sheet were discussed at the February 1996 meeting of the Minority Recruitment Committee. Goal 1 of the Minority Recruitment Plan will be completed when the employee tracking sheet is finalized. The Minority Recruitment Committee met on March 14, 1997 and March 27, 1997 to discuss the draft Revised Minority Recruitment Plan and progress toward completing Goal 4. The committee passed a motion to omit Section 1.1 from Goal 1 of the draft revised plan. Additionally, the committee suggested that communication be made an integral part of each goal of the revised plan. The committee discussed the need for professional training programs, incentives for educational opportunities, and upward mobility for all staff within the ADE. In an effort to complete Goal 4, a representative from the ADE communication section presented development costs for media materials to the committee. Additionally, a representative from the ADE MIS section discussed the possibility of using the network to disseminate information to employees. It was suggested that the committee continue to receive assistance from MIS on the orientation video. 52 XI. MINORITY RECRUITMENT OF ADE STAFF (Continued) A. Administer the ADE Minority Recruitment Plan developed by the ADE staff and Board of Education and officially adopted by the Board of Education (see Exhibit B for the ADE's Minority Recruitment Plan with specific goals, objectives and time lines). (Continued) 2. Actual as of October 31, 1998 (Continued) In an effort to represent all sections within the ADE, the committee recommended that representatives from the ADE communication and MIS sections be added as members to the committee. Currently, neither section is represented on the committee. The Minority Recruitment Committee met on April 18, 1997 to discuss the need to revise the action steps for each of the committee's four goals. The committee decided to schedule a two-day retreat in an effort to review all goals and actions. The Minority Recruitment Committee met on May 19, 1997 to discuss the agenda for the annual retreat and revisions to the action plan emphasizing recruitment and retention at all grade levels. A two-day annual retreat was held on June 18-19, 1997 at the Teacher Retirement Building. The retreat facilitated the revision of the Minority Recruitment Committee's action plan for their four goals. Dr. Gary Chamberlain, UALR faculty member, served as the facilitator. The revised plan was distributed to the Minority Recruitment Committee at their July 18, 1997 meeting for final approval before it is submitted to the administrative team and the State Board of Education. The Minority Recruitment Committee meeting scheduled for September 12, 1997 was rescheduled for September 30, 1997 due to members scheduling conflicts. The meeting will be reported in the November PMT. The Minority Recruitment Committee met with the ADE Deputy Director in November 1997 to provide him with a copy of the revised plan and receive his input on the plan. The revised Minority Recruitment Committee (MRC) plan was approved at the December 1997 State Board of Education meeting. The MRC met in January 1998 to discuss the implementation of the revised MRC plan. Reports and documentation of progress in completing the components of each goal will be reported at the next meeting. 53 XI. MINORITY RECRUITMENT OF ADE STAFF (Continued) B. Monitor minority representation at all levels of ADE and assess the effectiveness of the ADE Minority Recruitment Plan. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of October 31 , 1998 As of August 1995, the ADE had hired or transferred 38 employees in Grades 21 and above in the General Education Division. This group was composed of 11 black females, 5 black males, 16 white females, 4 white males, 1 other female, and 1 other male. The racial composition of the these employees was 52.6 percent non-minority and 47.4 percent minority. As of October 1995, there were 161 filled positions in the GED in Grades 21 and above. There were 27 minorities or 22.9 percent in Grades 21 and above. An analysis on Goal 1 regarding application and hiring practices was presented at the September 1996 meeting. Samples of graphs and tables for presenting the data were distributed at the meeting. The Minority Recruitment Committee met on December 13, 1996 to discuss the latest draft of the ADE Employee Tracking Data Check Sheet. The committee recommended various format changes including the addition of a table of contents and an executive summary. The committee met on January 17, 1997 to continue the discussion on the draft ADE Employee Tracking Data Check Sheet. The Assistant Director for Planning and Curriculum agreed with all but three of the committee's recommendations for the employee tracking sheet. He requested that the committee continue discussions on this matter. The Minority Recruitment Committee met on February 14, 1997 to discuss the status of the Employee Tracking Data Check Sheet. The committee also discussed the lack of minority employees in some areas and the loss of several minority employees and the possibility of revising the new Minority Recruitment Plan. The committee received information on Arkansas pupil enrollment by race at their March 14, 1997 meeting. Arkansas enrollment figures for October 1, 1996 revealed that 73.7% of all students are white, 23.4% are black, 1.8% are hispanic, 0.7% are asian, and 0.4% are native american. 54 XI. MINORITY RECRUITMENT OF ADE STAFF (Continued) B. Monitor minority representation at all levels of ADE and assess the effectiveness of the ADE Minority Recruitment Plan. (Continued) 2. Actual as of October 31, 1998 (Continued) To assess the effectiveness of the action steps for each goal, agenda items were developed for the committee's June retreat. The committee recommended that invitations be sent to Senator Beebe, Julie Cullen, Gene Wilhoit, and all State Board members. At the May 1997 Minority Recruitment Committee meeting, the committee discussed reviewing the most recent quarterly hiring and retention report and revisions to the action plan at the annual retreat. Discussions during the July retreat focused on the current plan, the original purpose of the plan, and necessary changes with input provided by committee members and speakers from the Arkansas Department of Higher Education, Employment Securities, and the ADE. At the January 1998 MRC meeting, it was decided that the chair and secretary would prepare a report on minority representation within each unit and section and present it to the committee at the next meeting. The Minority Recruitment Committee met on June 11, 1998, to discuss new membership for the committee and plans for a retreat. The committee recommended a new design and composition of the committee to represent each of the seven sections of the Arkansas Department of Education and included Grade 20's and below. The Minority Recruitment Committee met on July, 16, 1998, to discuss implementation of new membership for the committee for FY98/99, and to update plans for the September retreat. The Minority Recruitment Committee met on August 11, 1998 with Dr. Dave Westmoreland, Acting Chairperson. Members were notified that the dates for the September Retreat are September 10-11, 1998 at the Teacher Retirement Building, Little Rock Arkansas. New Members were introduced and background materials regarding the purpose and progress of the MRC were distributed to new members. The selection of new officers will be conducted at the retreat. The two-day annual retreat was held on September 10-11, 1998, at the Teacher Retirement Building. The retreat focused on the current ADE Minority Recruitment Revised Plan (approved by the State Board of Education in December 1997). Since several of the members had recently joined the committee, issues concerning the implementation of the Revised Plan were examined. Acting Chairperson, Dr. Dave Westmoreland, was elected Chairperson, and Mr. Jimmy Burks was elected Vice-Chairperson. Mrs. Michelle Griffin consented to continue in her role as Secretary for the committee. 55 XI. MINORITY RECRUITMENT OF ADE STAFF (Continued) B. Monitor minority representation at all levels of ADE and assess the effectiveness of the ADE Minority Recruitment Plan. (Continued) 2. Actual as of October 31, 1998 (Continued) ii J resource foprossibleminority recruits 56 XII. SCHOOL CONSTRUCTION A. Improve the effectiveness of the ADE's existing rules, regulations, and site evaluation form for assessing the desegregation impacts of school construction between school districts. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of October 31, 1998 The information for this item is detailed under Section XII .C. of this report. B. Review existing rules, regulations and site evaluation forms and their application to school construction projects within districts and between districts. C. 1. Projected Ending Date October 1994 2. Actual as of October 31 , 1998 The information for this item is detailed under Section XII .C. of this report. Amend the rules, regulations and site evaluation forms as they apply to all districts contiguous to the three Pulaski County school districts to assure that the school construction analysis specifically addresses the impacts on racial balances of individual school sites within the three districts. 1. Projected Ending Date October 1994 2. Actual as of October 31, 1998 ADE's School Site Selection Committee met on April 21, 1995 to revise the proposed rules and regulations. The proposed rules and regulations were presented to the State Board of Education on May 8, 1995. The Board voted to table the decision on public comment until the proposed rules and regulations were reviewed by the Attorney General's Office. The Attorney General's Office reviewed the revised school construction draft and provided a letter of approval. 57 XII. SCHOOL CONSTRUCTION (Continued) C. Amend the rules, regulations and site evaluation forms as they apply to all districts contiguous to the three Pulaski County school districts to assure that the school construction analysis specifically addresses the impacts on racial balances of individual school sites within the three districts. (Continued) 2. Actual as of October 31, 1998 (Continued) On June 12, 1995, the State Board of Education voted to place the revised School Site Approval rules and regulations for public comment. The hearing was held on June 19, 1995 in the ADE Auditorium, and a copy of the revised draft was sent to all school districts in an ADE Director's Memo. Proposed rules and regulations underwent a third revision and were presented to the Board in July 1995 with a request for final approval. The revised rules and regulations were approved by the State Board of Education on July 10, 1995. On August 3, 1995, the proposed School Site Approval rules and regulations were reviewed by the Legislative Council. Due to questions raised by the staff attorney for the Legislative Council, the council voted to defer review until their next meeting so that additional information could be obtained to resolve the questioned items. The proposed School Site Approval rules and regulations were reviewed by the Legislative Council on September 7, 1995 and went into effect on September 8, 1995. Goal completed. No additional reporting required. 58 XIII. ASSIST PCSSD A. Determine if the PCSSD wants and needs assistance in lowering the cost of Black History course offerings to its certified staff. 1. Projected Ending Date April, 1994 2. Actual as of October 31, 1998 A letter was mailed to the desegregation director of the PCSSD on March 16, 1995 regarding offering assistance in facilitating a special arrangement with colleges and universities for reducing the cost of a black history course offering to the PCSSD certified staff. In a letter dated April 3, 1995, the PCSSD responded that their staff development director was working with UALR to develop the black history course offerings. No additional assistance was requested of the ADE. Goal completed as of June 1995. B. If PCSSD wants assistance, communicate with local colleges and universities to facilitate the Black History course offerings to PCSSD teachers at the lower costs possible. 1. Projected Ending Date September 1994 2. Actual as of October 31 , 1998 UALR informed the ADE that they had contacted PCSSD regarding their willingness to provide non-credit black history studies for the PCSSD. UALR indicated that as of November 11 , 1994 they had received no response from the PCSSD. Two universities offered assistance in providing teachers in the PCSSD a black history course. The ADE had not received requests for any assistance with the facilitation of a black history course in the PCSSD as of February 27, 1995. On April 3, 1995, the PCSSD informed ADE that its staff development director was working with UALR to develop the black history course offering. No additional assistance was requested of the ADE. 59 XIV. SCATTERED SITE HOUSING A. Through Executive Branch communication procedures, ADE will inquire about State land holdings in Pulaski County and about the availability of State land holdings for use as building sites for scattered-site housing. 1. Projected Ending Date Not applicable. 2. Actual as of October 31 , 1998 The ADE had previously inquired about State land holdings in Pulaski County and about availability of State land holdings for use as building sites for scattered site housing. All materials were distributed to the appropriate district representatives. There has been no contact with the PCSSD on Scattered Site Housing since July 1995. Goal completed. No additional reporting required. 60 XV. STANDARDIZED TEST SELECTION TO DETERMINE LRSD LOAN FORGIVENESS A. Meet with and propose to the representatives of the LRSD that the current Stanford 8 standardized test, following a bias-free validation study, be used to measure the District's progress toward meeting the loan forgiveness thresholds of the Settlement Agreement. 1. Projected Ending Date May 1994 2. Actual as of October 31, 1998 On April 21, 1995, a letter was sent to the LRSD Superintendent suggesting meeting dates to discuss the variables which affect student achievement. On May 1, 1995, the ADE Director was advised of the need to discuss the selection of the SAT-8 to measure the LRSD's progress toward meeting the loan forgiveness threshold of the Settlement Agreement. On May 21, 1995, the ADE staff discussed the status of the selection of the test relevant to the ADE's Implementation Plan. The Variables Committee, a subcommittee of the Test Selection Committee, received evaluations on the relationship of the various types of scores that could be used on the SAT-8 Test. The Variables Committee recommended using the state-adopted norm referenced test to determine the achievement levels of black and white students. Based on the evaluations, they indicated that scaled scores or raw scores would appear to be the better metrics to use for this purpose. The recommendation from the Variables Committee was submitted to the Test Selection Committee and the ADE Director on July 28, 1995. Until the test validation has been completed, no additional progress can occur on this objective. For the progress being made on the test validation process see Section VII. of this report In August 1996, copies of the test validation report were provided to the State Board of Education and the ADE administrative team. Additionally, the LRSD Director of Planning, Research and Evaluation was provided a copy of the test validation report. 61 xv. STANDARDIZED TEST SELECTION TO DETERMINE LRSD LOAN FORGIVENESS (Continued) A. Meet with and propose to the representatives of the LRSD that the current Stanford 8 standardized test, following a bias-free validation study, be used to measure the Districts' progress toward meeting the loan forgiveness thresholds of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of October 31, 1998 (Continued) On September 10, 1996, the LRSD notified the ADE that the district had reviewed the test validation report and would like to meet with the ADE to discuss the report. The Director of the ADE 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 Director of the ADE, ADE Assistant Director of Technical Assistance, and ADE Assistant Director of Planning and Curriculum for their review in preparation for the meeting with the LRSD regarding the validity study. In February 1997, a memorandum was sent to the Assistant Directors of Technical Assistance and Planning and Curriculum which summarized the test validation and variables subcommittee work and outlined the next step of formalizing an agreement with the LRSD on the use of the SAT-8 and the choice of raw or scaled scores as the metric. Effective September 22, 1997, the State Board of Education hired a new Director of the General Education Division, which should allow ADE to move forward in this matter. 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. 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. 62 XVI. MONITOR SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PLANS A. Fully implement the Extended COE Improvement Plan Process in all schools in the three Pulaski County school districts. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of October 31, 1998 The information for this item is detailed under Section XVI.D. of this report. 8. Conduct the Extended COE School Improvement Plan peer review process in 20% of the schools each year (every school every five years) and provide peer review team recommendations to the schools reviewed. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of October 31, 1998 The information for this item is detailed under Section XVI.D. of this report. C. Receive from all schools, annual reports on progress toward meeting recommendations of School Improvement Plans. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of October 31, 1998 The information for this item is detailed under Section XVI.D. of this report. D. Follow-up and assist schools that have difficulty realizing their school improvement objectives. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of October 31, 1998 In June 1995, ADE personnel reviewed the Extended COE packet and prepared for holistic reviews of the Cycle 5 schools. 63 XVI. MONITOR SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PLANS (Continued) D. Follow-up and assist schools that have difficulty realizing their school improvement objectives. (Continued) 2. Actual as of October 31, 1998 In July 1995, year-end reports were finalized by the field service specialists. Plans to review the draft Cycle 5 school improvement plans, and plans for technical review visits in the 95/96 school year were discussed. In August 1995, holistic reviews of the Cycle 5 school improvement plans were conducted. A school improvement conference was conducted.  In October 1995, computer programs used by Effective Schools proponents were ordered for review, and a draft monitoring checklist for ECOE was developed. In November 1995, two meetings were held to plan for 95/96 monitoring. Onsite visits were conducted to prepare schools for the FY 95/96 team visits, and technical review visits continued in the Districts. In December 1995, technical assistance visits were conducted, and monitoring occurred in all schools in the Districts. Technical review visits continued. In February 1996, announced monitoring visits in the Districts were completed. The field service specialists completed the midyear monitoring reports and prepared for the spring NCNCOE peer team visits. In March 1996, unannounced visits and peer team two-day visits of Cycle 5 schools were conducted. Written reports of two-day team visits were prepared, and field service specialists provided assistance to schools on their school improvement plans. In April and May 1996, unannounced monitoring visits were completed, and monitoring forms were scanned for inclusion in the July monitoring report. Team visits were completed, and the annual COE monitoring reports were prepared. In June 1996, the data from the announced and unannounced monitoring visits of the Cycle 5 schools was analyzed using descriptive statistics. The Semiannual Monitoring Report was filed with the Court, and copies were distributed to the parties. All Cycle 5 school improvement plans were monitored. Team visit reports were included in the Semiannual Monitoring Report. In August 1996, meetings were held with the Districts regarding announced 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. 64 XVI. MONITOR SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PLANS (Continued) D. Follow-up and assist schools that have difficulty realizing their school improvement objectives. (Continued) 2. Actual as of October 31 , 1998 (Continued) In September 1996, recommendations on the monitoring schedule and content layouts of the semiannual report were submitted to the ADE administrative team for their review. Training materials were developed with tentative training schedules outlined for Cycle 1 schools. In October 1996, a meeting was held with the Districts to identify, update\nand modify the schools in Cycles 1 - 5. Monitoring packets for the Cycle 1 schools were presented during the Principal's Monitoring Workshops. Technical assistance continued to be provided to the Cycle 1 schools regarding their school improvement goals through December 1996. Announced monitoring visits of the Cycle 1 schools began on October 28, 1996 and were completed in December 1996. The ECOE monitoring reports on the Cycle 1 school improvement plans were included in the Semiannual Monitoring Report and presented to the State Board of Education, the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee, and the parties in January 1997. In February 1997, the field service specialists prepared for the spring peer team visits of the Cycle 1 schools and the annual NCA reports. From February through August 1997, technical assistance was provided as progress reports were evaluated and when specific requests were made. The NLRSD Cycle 1 ECOE team visits were completed in March 1997. Cycle 5 schools submitted their progress reports from their FY 95/96 team visits, and the outcomes will be reviewed and compiled for inclusion in the PMT after all have been received. Team visits were completed in April 1997 for the PCSSD. The LRSD prepared for their team visits, and Cycle 5 school progress reports were received. An expanded team meeting of Team V was held on April 7, 1997 to provide training for monitoring activities and evaluating school improvement plans during team visits. A presentation was made on Act 338 of 1991. 65 XVI. MONITOR SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PLANS (Continued) D. Follow-up and assist schools that have difficulty realizing their school improvement objectives. (Continued) 2. Actual as of October 31, 1998 (Continued) ECOE team visits were scheduled, and all Cycle 1 peer team external visits were conducted as of May 1997. As of June 1997, all Cycle 1 schools had their ECOE team reports provided to them for their review, and information was mailed to the Cycle 5 schools regarding their progress reports. The July 15-17, 1997 School Improvement Conference was held in Hot Springs and emphasized the COE school improvement process. The conference focused on Phase II of COE and the need for the continuation of school improvement. The field service specialists provided technical assistance throughout the conference on school improvement activities and plans and answered questions from delegates. As of August 1997, dates for the ECOE team visits of the Cycle 2 schools were established for FY 97/98, and progress reports were in the final stages. Technical assistance was provided to the Cycle 2 principals at the Desegregation Monitoring and School Improvement Workshop held on September 10, 1997. In October 1997, technical reviews of the ECOE process were conducted along with the announced monitoring visits of the Cycle 2 schools. The field service representatives discussed the ECOE process with principals, ECOE steering committees, and faculty and worked with teachers on analyzing perceptual surveys. Additionally, the need for a database on achievement was emphasized, and guidance was provided on school improvement plans. In November 1997, technical reviews of the ECOE process were conducted along with the announced monitoring visits of the Cycle 2 schools. 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. Technical assistance visits were also conducted, and copies of the infusion document and perceptual surveys were provided to schools in the ECOE process. In December 1997, technical assistance visits were conducted regarding the school improvement process and consensus building. Additionally, the infusion document and perceptual surveys were provided to schools in the ECOE process. 66 XVI. MONITOR SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PLANS (Continued) D. Follow-up and assist schools that have difficulty realizing their school improvement objectives. (Continued) 2. Actual as of October 31, 1998 (Continued) Unannounced monitoring visits began in February 1998, and technical assistance visits were conducted on the school improvement process, finalizing school improvement plans, and external team visits. Unannounced monitoring visits were conducted in March 1998, and technical assistance was given regarding the ECOE team visits, team building, and the school improvement process. Unannounced monitoring visits continued in April 1998, and technical assistance was provided to the Districts regarding the ECOE process. Unannounced monitoring visits were completed in May 1998, and technical assistance was provided to the Districts regarding the ECOE process. The Semiannual Extended COE Monitoring Data Report was completed and presented to ADE Administrative Team in June 1998. 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 August 1998, the dates were established for Extended COE Team visits for the 1998-99 school year. Further assistance to schools is dependent on the results of monitoring visits, ECOE team visits, revisions in school improvement plans, and requests made to staff. During September 1998, representatives from ADE provided technical assistance to the Steering Committees at Fuller Jr. Highin PCSSD\nBadgett, Bale1 Otter Creek, Wakefield, and Williams Magnet inLRSD and Poplar Street in NLRSD. Technical assistance training sessions included(1) Steering structure and Extended COE Process, (2) Peer Team Visit preparation, (3) Mission statement development, and {4) ECOE protocol Additionally, the staff in-service coordinator of LRSD reviewed plans for a Saturday in-service concerning all LRSD personnel who have not gone through the ECOE process, 67 XVII. DATA COLLECTION A. Through the School Improvement Plan annual reporting and monitoring process, collect, analyze and monitor data required in the May 31, 1989 Monitoring Plan. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of October 31, 1998 Data was collected in May 1995 from all schools during the unannounced visits. Information that was unavailable during the announced visits was collected during the unannounced monitoring visits. In June 1995, data was collected from the Districts and analyzed for inclusion in the July Semiannual Monitoring Report. In July 1995, data from perceptual surveys was reviewed. In August 1995, the data elements to be reviewed and the data collection process for FY 95/96 were articulated to the Districts. In September 1995, the data collection format for the 95/96 school year was distributed to the Districts. Financial information for FY 93/94 and FY 94/95 was requested from the Districts, and principals were given inservice training regarding FY 95/96 monitoring. The Districts provided fourth quarter data on discipline, testing, nonpromotes, and budget for inclusion in the February 1996 Semiannual Monitoring Report. A workshop to develop a common terminology for monitoring purposes was conducted on October 17, 1995 with the Districts. The workshop identified the data available in the Districts to fulfill the requirements of the Allen Letter's 14 elements. The group correlated the data elements to the five monitoring forms. Monitoring data was verified for inclusion in the February Semiannual Monitoring Report. Data on nonpromotes was analyzed for inclusion in the February Semiannual Monitoring Report. Announced monitoring visits began on November 14, 1995. The preliminary February Semiannual Monitoring Report and its executive summary were presented to the ADE administrative team and the State Board of Education, Announced monitoring visits were completed on January 26, 1996. Unannounced monitoring visits began in late February 1996 for the Cycle 5 schools in the Districts and were completed in April 1996. 68 XVII. DATA COLLECTION (Continued) A Through the School Improvement Plan annual reporting and monitoring process, collect, analyze and monitor data required in the May 31 , 1989 Monitoring Plan. (Continued) 2. Actual as of October 31, 1998 (Continued) A supplemental report to the February 1, 1996 Semiannual Monitoring Report was filed with the Court on April 8, 1996. Data requests for information were forwarded to the Districts. Information was reviewed, analyzed, and formatted for inclusion in the July Semiannual Monitoring Report. The data received from the Districts was analyzed and reviewed. Instructional program reporting was clarified after the Districts and ADE desegregation staff collaboratively established a definition. All data collected for the July 1996 Semiannual Report was disaggregated, analyzed, and displayed in color graphic form for reporting. In August 1996, the Districts were provided with the monitoring requirements and expectations for the 96/97 school year. In September 1996, monitoring formats were revised. Technical assistance was provided to the LRSD on data collection and formatting of certified staffing data. Monitoring packets for the Cycle 1 schools were developed in October 1996 and presented during the Principal's Monitoring Workshops. In November and December 1996, data was received, reviewed, and formatted for the February 1997 Semiannual Monitoring Report. The Semiannual Monitoring Report was finalized in January 1997 and presented to the State Board of Education, the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee of the Arkansas General Assembly, and the parties. In February 1997, the format for the July 1997 Semiannual Monitoring Report was developed, and Cycle 1 SAT-9 test data was obtained from the ADE's Assessment Section. In March 1997, data forms were sent to the Districts to assist with the submission of information for the July Semiannual Monitoring Report. Data was also collected through existing reports submitted for the annual report. 69 XVII. DATA COLLECTION (Continued) A. Through the School Improvement Plan annual reporting and monitoring process, collect, analyze and monitor data required in the May 31, 1989 Monitoring Plan. (Continued) 2. Actual as of October 31, 1998 (Continued) In April 1997, the Districts were notified that the deadline for data collection submission was April 24, 1997. As of May 14, 1997, all data was received from the Districts. In June 1997, the July 15, 1997 Semiannual Monitoring Report and its executive summary were finalized and presented to the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee on June 25, 1997. In July 1997, the Semiannual Monitoring Report and its executive summary were filed with the Court and copies were distributed to the State Board of Edu\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\n "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_689","title":"Transition report guidelines","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"],"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 planning","School improvement programs"],"dcterms_title":["Transition report guidelines"],"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/689"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["documents (object genre)"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\nLRSD 1999 Transition Report Areas Assigned to Associates School Construction - Melissa Alternative Education - Margie Equitable Allocation of Resources - Skip Extracurricular \u0026amp; Enrichment Activities - Horace Student Participation - Horace Incentive Schools - Melissa Learning Environment - Horace Magnet Schools - Gene Mathematics - Melissa Staffing - Horace Middle School Conversion - Margie Policy Compliance - Gene Program Assessment - Gene Reading and Language Arts - Horace Remediation - Gene Student Assignment - Gene/Melissa Student Discipline - Margieid, ' ti - a Guidelines for LRSD Transition Report March 3, 1999 Condense and paraphrase the language of the provisions, preserving the key words and eliminating extraneous language thats not pertinent to the findings that will follow (e.g., a plan reference to a certain ODM report). Provisions should not be quotations from the plan. Avoid the use of shall or and or\nwrite 40%, not forty percent. Organize the provisions in any way that helps you present your findings most logically and clearly. For example, you can break the provisions into segments and immediately follow that segment with the relative findings. Or, consolidate certain provisions into a related cluster that forms the basis for broader findings. Place the provisions flush with the left margin, and double the space between them. Reference the plan provision at the end of each one. For example: Implement a policy of promotion within. (Pg. 342.2.5.) E, when paraphrasing, you combine two provisions, use a semicolon between the references. Write a short paragraph of introduction to the findings (or make the first paragraph introductory or background in nature) to help set the stage for what follows and thus help readers get their bearings. Findings should be written in narrative, not outline, form. Eliminate bullets except for short lists of items. Make sure that all aspects of any provision or part of a provision are covered in the findings, and, when appropriate, note the source of the information. If a person is the source, state the position of the person instead of the name. If the source of the information is your own experience as a member of a work group, say so. When applicable, you must reference the mid-year report in your findings. Differentiate the factual findings from your own opinions, hopes, or desires and put them in the appropriate sections. Findings are to consist only of information gleaned from interviews, document review, observations, etc. Relegate your opinions, exhortations, worries, etc. to the Conclusions or Recommendations as appropriate. Dont assume that readers know more than you tell them. While our intention is to hit the high points, be sure to include enough information to paint a clear, complete picture. Dont risk sacrificing understanding for brevity. When in doubt, fill it out. Avoid introducing new information into the summaries that doesnt appear in the findings. If you use examples in the summary, make sure the examples are used in the findings. Since many of the findings are brief, the corresponding summaries will be similarly short, containing just the main points. Since they are probably the only thing many of our audience will read, the summaries must contain a condensation of the most important findings in concise language.Include a budget component or reference everywhere it could possibly be relevant. For example, budget implications are inherent in training costs, new positions, new programs, etc. What corresponding budget provisions has the district made, plans to make, has yet to make, or failed to make? Diversify language to help retain reader interest and avoid overusing certain phrases and words, especially provide, regarding, and according to. Begin each recommendation with an action verb.Date: March 19, 1999 To: All Associates From\nRe: Team edit Attached are some of the draft reports on the LRSD transition. They are ready to to through the team editing process. Polly would have distributed them yesterday, but we know why she didnt. Im aware of the schedule and deadlines on your remaining reports, and the team edit doesnt supplant that schedule. Do the editing at those times that youre not able to make headway on your remaining reports (waiting on futher interviews, information, etc.) With Polly out sick, bad bugs threatening the health of us all, and the D .C. trip imminent, please make good use of your time and fold the editing into your day as you can. i3 4 Little Rock School District OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDENT RECEV-O August 24, 1999 AUG 2  'iSa OFRCtCr DESEGREGATION MONITORING Ann Brown, Federal Monitor Office of Desegregation and Monitoring 201 E. Markham - Suite 510 Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Mrs. Brown\nThe August 11** Office of Desegregation Monitoring (ODM) report examining LRSD preparation to implement our Revised Desegregation and Education Plan provides a solid barometer of reference as we enter the 99-2000 school year. In keeping with LRSD plan commitment, careful consideration and review of this report document has been enacted in each division! department area, addressing preparation activities toward compliance and provisions of the revised plan. In an attempt to offer additional information that may not have been available at the time of report findings, the following is provided\n Overall Alternative Education Program seats for '99-2000 are being expanded. Greater student opportunity and success has been recorded for the 98-99 school year, resulting in increased student! school retention and reduced suspension ! dropout numbers. Periodic assessment of performance indicators will be monitored toward necessary program adjustment and/or revision.  Revised School Profile Report documentation is being compiled. Expanded information is to include Equitable Allocation of Resource equity indicators and participation data for all extracurricular and AR Activities Association (AAA) sanctioned activities.  The LRSD Talent Development Committee will explore potential funding sources for AVID and/or programs unique to LRSD. especially for the high schools. 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 824-2000 4 August 24, 1999 Page 2  A training of trainers model to deliver cultural sensitivity training is being established. Dr. Terrence Roberts will help in reviewing training on prejudice reduction and cultural sensitivity.  Determination for future utilization of Garland and Mitchell Elementary Schools is one of the 99-2000 LRSD priorities.  Approved funding sources for new Stephens Elementary School Construction have been determined (03/11/99 board action).  Long term expenditure projections for Stephens Elementary have been developed.  Possible location, funding and construction of the new west LR school is one of the 99-2000 priorities. An immediate timeline has been established. At present, the school is not anticipated to be built prior to the 2000-2001 school year after LRSD issues a 3/15/01 report indicating the state of compliance with the revised plan.  Personnel Recruitment goals and procedures are being enacted where African- Americans are under represented. * ombudsman role clarification was provided in the 8/05/99 Principals Nuts and Bolts inservice session. Training activities are being scheduled. After more than a year of intense planning and training, numerous changes and program initiatives have been put in place as we now enter this 99-2000 school year. Recognizing that substantial efforts must be provided toward obligations set forth in the revised plan, it constitutes a work in progress. The Office of Desegregation Monitoring serves as an important resource whose expertise, insight and direction is appreciated and continually sought. Sincerely, .e^e V. amine Superintendent of SchoolsDate: August 26, 199 To: All Associates From: Re: .espouse from Gamine Attached is a copy of the letter I received from Les Gamine yesterday. As you will see, he purports to be adding information to our transition report that may not have been available at the time of report findings. Please find those points in the letter that were covered (or not) in the section of the report you wrote. Then write me a brief note telling me your comments on Dr. Gamines point. For example, he says that funding sources for Stephens were determined in the March 1999 board meeting\nhe asserts that the role of the ombudsman was clarified in early August. Do you agree' If so, is this what the report said? Who at the LRSD reviewed that finding? Did he or she agree or disagree with the way we handled that information? And so on. I may respond to Les to emphasize that his staff read our findings and had the chance to correct or update them. Your comments will help me decide how much to say to him. Thanks very much. 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 September 9, 1999 Dr. Les Carnine, Superintendent Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Les: Thank you for your recent letter in response to our August 1999 report on the districts preparations for this school year. Im glad to hear that you and your staff have read the document, and we hope you have found it helpful. I appreciate the additional information that you provided in your letter. As for your speculation that the information may not have been available at the time of our research, I want to emphasize what our reports introduction notes: LRSD staff members who had contributed to our research (either through direct interviews or by providing documentation) received the rough draft of our findings a few days before our report was finalized and published. On August 3 we hand delivered the drafts, invited your staff to offer corrections or updated information, and picked up their written comments on August 5. We reviewed those comments, made appropriate changes in the report, and then filed the completed document less than a week later on August 11. This advance review of our findings is designed to assure the accuracy and completeness of our reports. How successfully we reach that goal depends in great part on the accuracy and completeness of the information upon which we base our reports. I believe that we afforded your staff a fair opportunity to help us get this report right. Sincerely yours, ------- Ann S. Browni S rL To: From: Subj: Ann Brown and ODM Staff Bonnie Lesley Report on LRSD Transition Activities Date: August 4, 1999 RECEIVED AUG 5 1999 omcEOh DESEGREGATION MONITORIMa The following are my comments in response to the draft document that you sent to my office on the afternoon of August 3. Program Assessment I think the findings on this section are far too nanow to reflect the work that occurred during 1998-99. We understand, of course, that it is very difficult to gather enough information to have a complete picture of a years worth of work in only a few interviews. Our staff looked, for instance, at the performance of every elementary school and the district as a whole as a part of the process of making the necessary changes in Reading and Language Arts that were other obligations in the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. We concluded, of course, that a big part of the problem (the problem being defined as only about 30 percent of the students are performing at the proficient level or above) was that LRSD really didnt have a reading/language arts program, that individual teachers and individual schools were making decisions based on their best information on curriculum and instruction. Part of our program evaluation was hearing from teacher after teacher and principal after principal that a big problem in the district was lack of consistency in the language arts program. This lack of focus and alignment with the state curriculum framework handicapped all students who were mobile, but especially African American children who are more likely to come from poverty in this community. Our assessment of current practice also revealed: * * * * * * * * lack of in-depth professional development for teachers too many pull-outs and other distractions from the language arts block insufficient time allotted to teach the language arts as many as twelve different phonics programs school practices such as silent cafeterias that discouraged the social use of language no written guidance for teachers on the curriculum standards and benchmarks a proliferation of programs without a clear focus of what they were supposed to achieve no congruence between Title I programs and the regular curriculum/ instruction program. Our program evaluation resulted in clear conclusions that what we were doing was not working, especially for African American children. The District plan that we constructed was totally research-based and is reflected in the PreK-3 Literacy Program Plan that was provided to ODM staff. We tried to model in this process and in our written plan the process of using data for decision-making, of using research to shape program design, of aligning programs with state frameworks and assessments, of constructing systemic designs, not just tinkering at the edges, and planning ahead for assessment and program evaluation. We are very proud of the fact that our PreK-3 plan included strategies for restructuring Title I programs, for instance, not just the regular program.We have since your last interviews established the formal program evaluation agenda for 1999-2000, and it will go to the board in August: 1. PreK-3 Literacy Program 2. ESL 3. Middle School Transition 4. National Science Foundation Project To the extent possible, data will be collected and analyzed relating to other programs, but our plan is to create an evaluation cycle so that over five years we can at least provide data for decision-making on the core programs. We also intend to require that all future grant proposals include a set-aside budget to fund the evaluation activities so that our district staff do not get consumed doing grant-funded evaluations and never get to the core programs of the district.Reading and Language Arts I have several corrections to make in this report. 1st paragraph: Our staff development this year in reading and language arts focused on the following: * * * * * * * * * * * * Implementation of Smart Start, the states initiative. We attended the ADE conferences, used their materials and videotapes with faculties, trained central staff and principals, etc. We obtained a state waiver to provide three restructuring days at the end of the 1998-99 school year for training to prepare for implementation of new programs in fall 1999. Elementary teachers focused on ELLA and Effective Literacy topics\nmiddle school teachers focused on transition issues\nand high school teachers focused on strategies for teaching in the block. Began training a cadre of school-level literacy coaches in ELLA (Early Literacy Learning in Arkansas)~the professional development that provides teachers with training on research on teaching reading and specific strategies that are effective in teaching all children how to read. More than 100 primary-level teachers have received the first level of ELLA training (prior to starting school in August). Others will be trained at the basic level by November 1. We sent several staff members to the training of trainers for Effective Literacythe professional development for grades 3-5 teachers. This training will be provided to District teachers as quickly as possible in fall 1999. Approximately 40 grade 4 teachers attended a one-week workshop in July on reading/writing connections-specific strategies to help students perform well on the state grade 4 benchmark examination. Approximately 40 grades 6-8 teachers attended a one-week workshop in July to prepare them to teach the new Reading and Writing Workshop. On July 23 we provided a full-day of training for principals on the new curriculum/instruction/assessment programs to be implemented in fall 1999. One session for elementary principals gave them an overview of the new ELLA program and what to expect when observing teachers. We have provided several books to each elementary school on various aspects of developing high levels of literacy among primaryage children. School staffs are encouraged to establish study groups to read and discuss these materials and make decisions on ways that the ideas ctm be incorporated into their lessons. On August 9-10-11 the grades 6-8 teachers will meet with Linda Rief, author of a book called Seeking Diversity on how to implement the Reading and Writing Workshop. On August 16-17 the kindergarten teachers will receive training in the implementation of the new phonemic awareness program. Animated Literacy. On August 12, 13, and 16, high school English teachers will experience three days of training on the reading and writing connections appropriate for adolescent students. A special emphasis will be on preparing students for the end-of-level Literacy Examination in April of grade 11.* During August Preschool Inservice, elementary teachers will again focus on ELLA and Effective Literacy topics, middle school teachers on middle school transition and instructional strategies, and high school teachers on discipline-specific strategies aligned with the newly published secondary curriculum standards and benchmarks. Last paragraph on page 2 under Findings. We didnt really present to the Board a policy. We presented to the Board for their review the PreK-3 Literacy Program Plan, which serves as administrative regulations on the structuring of the school day. We have a draft of formal administrative regulations for elementary, middle, and high schools, but these drafts are not yet quite ready for board review. A major accomplishment during 1998-99 was the development of a curriculum map for each of the four curriculum areas. These maps include the alignment of district grade-level and course benchmarks with the state curriculum frameworks, the SAT9, and with adopted textbook materials. Teachers have in one document for each grade level all this information. ACSIP (the new name for Arkansas accreditation) requires teacher-level curriculum maps, so all the Little Rock teachers will have to do is align their lesson plans with the district documents. Also, at the beginning of the 1998-99 school year all we had was K-5 standards. Now we have K-12 standards and grade-level and core course benchmarks. Elementary teachers received their documents during the June 2-3-4 inservice, and secondary teachers will receive theirs on August 16. The report does not mention all the work we have done this year to restructure the middle school language arts programs. Regular-level students will take a two-period block called the Reading and Writing Workshop. We will begin implementation in fall 1999 of the Nanci Atwell model. Teachers will need considerably more training than the one week we could provide before school started to be able fully to implement the model, so realistically we will be phasing in this new approach to teaching language arts. Students at the Pre-AP level will have the same course, but in a one-period block. There is an optional second-hour courses called Research and Writing, which some middle schools have encouraged all Pre-AP students to take. In addition, some new language arts electives have been added to the middle level: * * * Expressions! (a speech/drama course available at all three grade levels)\nWrite On! (a journalism course available at grades 7-8) TV Writing and Production (available at grade 8) On our plate for 1999-2000 will be the restructuring of the high school language arts programs, including a new curriculum for the required Communications I course.Another major effort to improve literacy has been in the restructuring of our PreK-12 ESL program for fall 1999. Some of our actions were also in process when we under-went a compliance review from OCR in March. In fall 1999 we will implement the following changes: * * * * *  * * Begin serving PreK children in the ESL program. Added ten teachers to the elementary Newcomer Centers so that class-size could be reduced in the classrooms serving ESL students. We used our allocation from the Class-size Reduction funds from the federal government to pay the teachers this year. Brady1 Chicot3 Romine2 Terry-2 Washington-2 Added Terry as a Newcomer Center since they expect approximately 40 ESL students in fall 1999. Added new ESL courses in the core curriculum at the middle and high school levels. A full-time ESL coordinator will be employed in August to oversee the program. We have budgeted funds for a big emphasis on professional development for all teachers teaching ESL children, including a tuition-reimbursement program so that teachers can secure their ESL endorsement. Program procedures will be developed where necessary, formalized, training provided on implementation, and processes to monitored to ensure compliance with OCR guidelines. Funds have been budgeted to provide translations of critical documents into the languages of parents. Note also that the District CRTs that were administered in 1998-99 also included reading. Our assessment plan for 1999-2000 includes these changes: * * * the addition of a kindergarten literacy test, especially to test phonemic awareness, since that knowledge is the best predictor of a students learning to read in grade 1 the addition of a grade 1 literacy test the administration of new District-adopted CRTs for grades 2-11 in reading/ writing literacy and mathematics. These tests will be administered each quarter so that teachers can quickly identify students who need remediation and so that teaching strategies can be adjusted to ensure more success. I did not find mentioned anywhere in your report the work we did to enhance graduation requirements. These new standards are important in understanding the overall plan for improvement. The new expectations are outlined in the curriculum catalog, which we provided you, but please call if you need more information. Successful School Restructuring by Fred Newmann and Gary Wehlage says that one of the most important things a high school can do to improve achievement is to expose all students to a rigorous common core. That was our intent in designing the new graduation requirements.Mathematics Page 2the paragraph on math specialists: We have funded additional mathematics specialists to support the implementation of the new mathematics curricula in the following ways: * * Two specialists were funded from the professional development portion of the Class-size Reduction funds provided by the federal government\nOne specialist was funded from Title VI\nSee Dennis Glasgows responses for other details. I was not able to spend time with him today to get the details that I needed, but I know that he is going to have more assistance in 1999-2000 to accelerate the implementation, to provide classroom coaching, and to provide follow-up training for teachers who need it. Again, our regulations on the school day are drafted, but have not yet been presented to the board. The District CRTs that we administered in mathematics in 1998-99 were also administered in reading.Middle Schcxjl Transition See Linda Young Austins report on the training provided to schools during June 2-3-4, during the June Middle School Academy, and during the August Preschool Inservice.Student Participation Second paragraph under Findings\nActually, we do NOT plan to implement AVID in 1999-2000unless the GEAR Up grant is funded for the four targeted middle schools. Third paragraph: We will in spring 2000 make another attempt at the Javits grant to fund high school programs. If the funds were made available this year by the Department of Education, never saw the announcement or the RFP. we We have done much on this obligation without any funding beyond the NSF money, and we^Imow already that enrollment in upper-level courses will improve considerably in fall * * * * * * * * * * * * * The Associate Superintendent met with teachers and counselors in each school to discuss the obligations in the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan and the NSF project, to hear from teachers what they need for support, and to plan strategies for enrolling more students for fall 1999. We re made accessible a great deal of training for teachers of Pre-AP and AP courses-in curriculum, instruction, vertical teaming, and strategies to ensure more student success. We have a new board policy on Pre-AP and AP courses and on the GT program. The High School Curriculum Catalog includes a section on the importance of these obligations and encourages the schools to ensure higher levels of enrollment. Each high school principal and each middle and high school counselor received training on this information. Some of the high schools have scheduled a tutoring period to support student success in 1999-2000. We have published this years enrollment data, and Vanessa Cleaver has met with staff at each school to make them aware of their cunent enrollment and to work with them on increasing enrollment in upper-level science and math courses. We added an AP English III courses to the curriculum for 1999-2000, so now students can take two AP English courses. We added a regular-level Calculus course to encourage a broader group of students to enroll in Calculus, not just AP Calculus. The addition of the University Studies program at Hall High has added new opportunities for enrollment in advanced courses and to earn college credit while in high school. Our new Quality Indicators in our accountability plan include a performance standard on Enrollment of Students in Pre-AP or AP Courses. This standard will apply to both middle and high schools. Another Quality Indicator measures the percent of students who complete Algebra I by grade 8. In order for students to have time in their schedule to take Calculus in high school, they need to take Algebra I in grade 8. Our new graduation requirements include Physics I, Biology I, Chemistry I, Algebra I-II, and Geometry for every student. These courses are essential to prepare students for upper-level mathematics and science courses. Our new elementary literacy and mathematics programs have also been designed with the importance in mind of preparing many more students well for the Pre-AP and AP courses.We, of course, would love to implement AVID because we think it would be ideal to address our students needs, but there is much we can do without AVID, and we are examining other program options, such as those promoted by the College Board, writing a local program design, and forming more partnerships with the universities in the area. One restructuring model that we have looked at is the Talent Development Schools promoted by Johns Hopkins University. Some of these schools are operational in Baltimore and other eastern cities, and we think there may be some interest in this model in Little Rock.Remediation Second paragraph under Findings: I remember our discussion on this, and I remember telling the team about my experience in Waco where students were ability grouped: basic, regular, advanced. Little Rock did not have those three levels-to my knowledge. The curriculum included regular-level courses. plus a variety of courses labeled gifted/talented, 99 honors, enriched, advanced, and AP. The staff was vague at all levels on how these different labels distinguished instruction, so we made the decision to have only two levels of courses at the secondary schools: regular and either Pre-AP or AP. 99 tf What I think I said was that it is apparent that the only students being exposed to the tested curriculum in many schools are those taking the Pre-AP or AP courses. Teachers tell me that in too many cases the regular level courses are rather consistently taught below-level, and the Pre-AP courses rarely go beyond what we would consider grade-level. That is why standards and grade-level benchmarks are so important, and that is why the frequent assessment of student performance through the District CRTs is so important. We have got to know whether we are teaching the tested curriculum, and we have got to know early if individual students need remediation. We do have a draft policy and regulation on the elimination of racial disparities with clear procedures laid out. Those documents will probably move forward to the Board in the next month or two. Title 1 There are big changes in Title 1 for fall 1999. All elementary schools, except the magnet schools, will be Title 1 schools in 1999-2000, including Terry. Elementary schools will receive approximately $450 per eligible student in 1999-2000, but since the schools are smaller with the movement of grade 6 to the middle schools, some schools will receive less funding in 1999-2000 than in previous years. Since a great majority of Title 1 schools failed to meet their improvement goals last year, they were identified for improvement. One of the mandates when a school is identified is that they can no longer do what they were doing. They have to construct a plan that has a better (research-based) chance of ensuring the academic success of increasing numbers of students. We have worked hard on that. Please dont forget that Success for All is the largest remedial program at the elementary level. We have that program in nine schools. Another school, Washington, uses Direct Instruction, as its intervention. Cloverdale Middle School and Southwest Middle School will receive extensive funding since they each are anticipated to have more than 75% poverty. The other five middle schools (excluding Mann since it is a magnet) will collaborate in using their funding to insure the successful implementation of the Reading and Writing Workshop and to provide teachers with strategies for ensuring more student success. All three middle school grades will be assessed: grades 6 and 8 with the state benchmark exams and grade 7 with the SAT9. Pulaski Heights will pilot in 1999-2000 a new remedial reading program based on the Shriner dyslexia strategies, and Mablevale will pilot Project Read. We will study these two approaches to determine whether we should advocate wider implementation of either or both. We are also looking at a new program for secondary students called Read Right, but we dont have much information on it as yet.The district hosted during the week of July 26 two different Institutes for the principals and Campus Leadership Teams from each school. A big part of the training emphasized the imperative to improve student achievement. Schools will now submit one School Improvement Plan that will satisfy the requirements of the district, of Title I, and of ACSIP (accreditation). Each participant received a training notebook and a copy of the Handbook for Campus Leadership Teams, which included a copy of ACTAAP (state accountability system) and the districts new system for Collective Responsibility. A new publication. Guidelines for School Improvement Planning, will be published the week of August 2 for the schools to use. An important remediation program in the district is summer school. We served more district students this year since the policy was changed to not admit out-of-district students until all district students were guaranteed access. (Sadie Mitchell has the reports on this summers programs.) We also developed a model for an after-school Reading Clinic for elementary and middle school students (recommended in the PreK-3 Literacy Plan as an appropriate intervention). Another important remediation program is the new ACC program-Accelerated Learning Center-for high school students who are overage and credit-deficient. This program graduated many students in 1998-99 who probably would not have graduated otherwise, enabled many more to earn GED certificates, and served more than 200 in the summer school program. A third ongoing remediation program is the evening high school. I know that you are familiar with it. Each schools School Improvement Plan will include a series of interventions under 3-5 priority areas. The schools have been instructed to include among their priorities the improvement of achievement in reading/writing literacy and the improvement of achievement in mathematics. The interventions under each of these areas will be the strategies that the school will design to remediate student achievement so that the school achieves its mandated improvement goals. (FII attach to this a copy of our draft document on how they are to do this for your information.) These sets of interventions will be school-level remedial programs, for the most part. Youll find the step on designing interventions to be helpful to this report, I think. Arkansas needs to fund compensatory education. Otherwise, we dont see a consistent source of revenue to fund the kinds of remedial program, K-12, that are needed for the diversity of students that we serve. The new Poverty Index funds are a start in this direction, but not all schools have access to these dollars.In General There is much more to tell-all aligned and coherent with the Strategic Plan and the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. We had 51 priorities in our Divisions work plan last year, and we achieved 49 of them, plus several others that we didnt know would be on our plate. The nature of education is that there is always so much more to do than we have time and resources to accomplish, but we feel that we made giant steps forward in 1998- 99. Our major focus in 1999-2000 is to ensure as much success in implementation as possible. We are so confident in the quality of our designs and in our professional development programs that we know that we will see some improvement in our test scores this year. Thanks for giving us an opportunity to react. If I can answer further questions or provide copies of other documents, please dont hesitate to ask.To: From: Subj: Ann Brown and ODM Staff Bonnie Lesley Report on LRSD Transition Activities Date: August 4, 1999 RECEIVED AUG 5 1999 OFFICE 01- DESEGREGATION MONITORIKG The following are my comments in response to the dral't document that you sent to my office on the afternoon of August 3. Program Assessment 1 think the findings on this section are far too narrow to reflect the work that occurred during 1998-99. We understand, of course, that it is very difficult to gather enough information to have a complete picture of a years worth of work in only a few interviews. Our staff looked, for instance, at the performance of every elementary school and the district as a whole as a part of the process of making the necessary changes in Reading and Language Arts that were other obligations in the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. We concluded, of course, that a big part of the problem (the problem being defined as only about 30 percent of the students are performing at the proficient level or above) was that LRSD really didnt have a reading/language arts program, that individual teachers and individual schools were making decisions based on their best information on curriculum and instruction. Part of our program evaluation was heanng from teacher after teacher and principal after principal that a big problem in the district was lack of consistency in the language arts program. This lack of focus and alignment with the state curriculum framework handicapped all students who were mobile, but especially African American children who are more likely to come from poverty in this community. Our assessment of current practice also revealed * * * * * * * * lack of in-depth professional development for teachers too many pull-outs and other distractions from the language arts block insufficient time allotted to teach the language arts as many as twelve different phonics programs school practices such as silent cafeterias that discouraged the social use of language no written guidance for teachers on the curriculum standards and benchmarks a proliferation of programs without a clear focus of what they were supposed to achieve no congruence between Title I programs and the regular curriculum/ instruction program. Our program evaluation resulted in clear conclusions that what we were doing was not working, especially for African American children. The District plan that we constructed was totally research-based and is reflected in the PreK-3 Literacy Program Plan that was provided to ODM staff. We tried to model in this process and in our written plan the process of using data for decision-making, of using research to shape program design, of aligning programs with state frameworks and assessments, of constructing systemic designs, not just tinkering at the edges, and planning ahead for assessment and program evaluation. We are very proud of the fact that our PreK-3 plan included strategies for restructuring Title I programs, for instance, not just the regular program.We have since your last interviews established the formal program evaluation agenda for 1999-2000, and it will go to the board in August: 1. PreK-3 Li teracv Program 2. ESL 3. Middle School Transition 4. National Science Foundation Project To the extent possible, data will be collected and analyzed relating to other programs, but our plan is to create an evaluation cycle so that over five years we can at least provide data for decision-making on the core programs. We also intend to require that all future grant proposals include a set-aside budget to fund the evaluation activities so that our district staff do not get consumed doing grant-funded evaluations and never get to the core programs of the district.Reading and Language Arts I have several corrections to make in this report. 1st paragraph: Our staff development this year in reading and language arts focused on the following: * * * * * * * * * * * * Implementation of Smart Start, the states initiative. We attended the ADE conferences, used their materials and videotapes with faculties, trained central staff and principals, etc. We obtained a state waiver to provide three restructuring days at the end of the 1998-99 school year for training to prepare for implementation of new programs in fall 1999. Elemental^ teachers focused on ELLA and Effective Literacy topics\nmiddle school teachers focused on transition issues\nand high school teachers focused on strategies for teaching in the block. Began training a cadre of school-level literacy coaches in ELLA (Early Literacy Learning in Arkansas)-the professional development that provides teachers with training on research on teaching reading and specific strategies that are effecti\\ e in teaching all children how to read. More than KX) primary-level teachers have received the first level of ELLA training (prior to starting school in August). Others will be trained at the basic level by November 1. We sent several staff members to the training of trainers for Effective Literacy-the professional development for grades 3-5 teachers. This training will be provided to District teachers as quickly as possible in fall 1999. Approximately 40 grade 4 teachers attended a one-week workshop in July on reading/writing connections-specific strategies to help students perform well on the state grade 4 benchmark examination. Approximately 40 grades 6-8 teachers attended a one-week workshop in July to prepare them to teach the new Reading and Writing Workshop. On July 23 we provided a full-day of training for principals on the new curriculum/instruction/assessment programs to be implemented in fall 1999. One session for elementary principals gave them an overview of the new ELLA program and what to expect when observing teachers. We have provided several books to each elementary school on various aspects of developing high levels of literacy among primaryage children. School staffs are encouraged to establish study groups to read and discuss these materials and make decisions on ways that the ideas can be incorporated into their lessons. On August 9-10-11 the grades 6-8 teachers will meet with Linda Rief, author of a book called Seeking Diversity on how to implement the Reading and Writing Workshop. On August 16-17 the londergarten teachers will receive training in the implementation of the new phonemic awareness program. Animated Literacy. On August 12, 13, and 16, high school English teachers will experience three days of training on the reading and writing connections appropriate for adolescent students. A special emphasis will be on preparing students for the end-of-level Literacy Examination in April of grade 11.* During August Preschool Inservice, elementary' teachers will again focus on ELLA and Effective Literacy topics, middle school teachers on middle school transition and instructional strategies, and high school teachers on discipline-specific strategies aligned with the newly published secondary' curriculum standards and benchmarks. Last paragraph on page 2 under Findings. We didnt really present to the Board a policy. We presented to the Board for their review the PreK-3 Literacy Program Plan, which serves as administrative regulations on the structuring of the school day. We have a draft of formal administrative regulations for elementary, middle, and high schools, but these drafts are not yet quite ready for board review. A major accomplishment dunng 1998-99 was the development of a curriculum map for each of the four curriculum areas. These maps include the alignment of district grade-level and course benchmarks with the state curriculum frameworks, the SAT9, and with adopted te.xtbook materials. Teachers have in one document for each grade level all this information. ACSIP (the new name for Arkansas accreditation) requires teacher-level curriculum maps, so all the Little Rock teachers will have to do is align their lesson plans with the district documents. Also, at the beginning of the 1998-99 school year all we had was K-5 standards. Now we have K-12 standards and grade-level and core course benchmarks. Elementarv teachers received their documents during the June 2-3-4 inservice, and secondary teachers will receive theirs on August 16. The report does not mention all the work we have done this year to restructure the middle school language arts programs. Regular-level students will take a two-period block called the Reading and Writing Workshop. We will begin implementation in fall 1999 of the Nanci Atwell model. Teachers will need considerably more training than the one week we could provide before school started to be able fully to'implement the model, so realisticallv we will be phasing in this new approach to teaching language arts. Students at the Pre-AP level will have the same course, but in a one-period block. There is an optional second-hour courses called Research and Writing, which some middle schools have encouraged all Pre-AP students to take. In addition, some new language arts electives have been added to the middle level' *  * * Expressions! (a speech/drama course available at all three grade levels)\nWrite On! (a journalism course available at grades 7-8) TV Writing and Production (available at grade 8) On our plate for 1999-2(XX) will be the restructuring of the high school language arts programs, including a new curriculum for the required Communications I course.Another major effort to improve literacy has been in the restructuring of our PreK-12 ESL program for fall 1999. Some of our actions were also in process when we under-went a compliance review from OCR in March. In fall 1999 we will implement the following changes: * * * * * * * * Begin serving PreK children in the ESL program. Added ten teachers to the elementary' Newcomer Centers so that class-size could be reduced in the classrooms serving ESL students. We used our allocation from the Class-size Reduction funds from the federal government to pay the teachers this year. Brady-1 Chicot3 Romine-2 Terry-2 Washington-2 Added Terry as a Newcomer Center since they expect appro.ximately 40 ESL students in fall 1999. Added new ESL courses in the core curriculum at the middle and high school levels. A full-time ESL coordinator will be employed in August to o\\ ersee the program. We have budgeted funds for a big emphasis on professional development for all teachers teaching ESL children, including a tuition-reimbursement program so that teachers can secure their ESL endorsement. Program procedures will be developed where necessary', formalized, training provided on implementation, and processes to monitored to ensure compliance with OCR guidelines. Funds have been budgeted to provide translations of critical documents into the languages of parents. Note also that the District CRTs that were administered in 1998-99 also included reading. Our assessment plan for 1999-2CXX) includes these changes: * . . .. . - the addition of a kindergarten literacy test, especially to test phonemic * * awareness, since that knowledge is the best predictor of a students learning to read in grade 1 the addition of a grade 1 literacy test the administration of new District-adopted CRTs for grades 2-11 in reading/ writing literacy and mathematics. These tests will be administered each quarter so that teachers can quickly identify students who need remediation and so that teaching strategies can be adjusted to ensure more success. I did not find mentioned anywhere in your report the work we did to enhance graduation requirements. These new standards are important in understanding the overall plan for improvement. The new expectations are outlined in the curriculum catalog, which we provided you, but please call if you need more information. Successful School Restructuring by Fred Newmann and Gary Wehlage says that one of the most important things a high school can do to improve achievement is to expose all students to a rigorous common core. That was our intent in designing the new graduation requirements.Mathematics Page 2-the paragraph on math specialists: We have funded additional mathematics specialists to support the implementation of the new mathematics curricula in the following ways: * * Two specialists were funded from the professional development portion of the Class-size Reduction funds provided by the federal government\nOne specialist was funded from Title VI\nSee Dennis Glasgows responses for other details. 1 was not able to spend time with him today to get the details that 1 needed, but 1 know that he is going to have more assistance in 1999-2000 to accelerate the implementation, to provide classroom coaching, and to provide follow-up training for teachers who need it. Again, our regulations on the school day are drafted, but have not yet been presented to the board. The District CRTs that we administered in mathematics in 1998-99 were also administered in reading.Middle School Transition See Linda Young Austins report on the training provided to schools during June 2-3-4, during the June Middle School Academy, and during the August Preschool Inservice.Student Participation Second paragraph under Findings: Actually, we do NOT plan to implement AVID in 1999-2000unless the GEAR Up grant is funded for the four targeted middle schools. Third paragraph: We will in spring 2000 make another attempt at the Javits grant to fund high school programs. If the funds were made available this year by the Department of Education, we never saw the announcement or the RFP. We have done much on this obligation without any funding beyond the NSF money, and we know already that enrollment in upper-level courses will improve considerablv in fall 1999. * * * * * * * * * * * * * The Associate Superintendent met with teachers and counselors in each school to discuss the obligations in the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan and the NSF project, to hear from teachers what they need for support, and to plan strategies for enrolling more students for fall 1999. We re made accessible a great deal of training for teachers of Pre-AP and AP courses-in curriculum, instruction, vertical teaming, and strategies to ensure more student success. We have a new board policy on Pre-AP and AP courses and on the GT program. The High School Curriculum Catalog includes a section on the importance of these obligations and encourages the schools to ensure higher levels of enrollment. Each high school principal and each middle and high school counselor received training on this information. Some of the high schools have scheduled a tutonng period to support student success in 1999-2(X)0. We have published this years enrollment data, and Vanessa Cleaver has met with staff at each school to make them aware of their current enrollment and to work with them on increasing enrollment in upper-le\\'el science and math courses. We added an AP English III courses to the curriculum for 1999-2000, so now students can take two AP English courses. We added a regular-level Calculus course to encourage a broader group of students to enroll in Calculus, not just AP Calculus. The addition of the University Studies program at Hall High has added new opportunities for enrollment in advanced courses and to earn college credit while in high school. Our new Quality Indicators in our accountability plan include a performance standard on Enrollment of Students in Pre-AP' or AP Courses. This standard will apply to both middle and high schools. Another Quality Indicator measures the percent of students who complete Algebra I by grade 8. In order for students to have time in their schedule to take Calculus in high school, they need to take Algebra I in grade 8. Our new graduation requirements include Physics I, Biology I, Chemistry I, Algebra I-Il, and Geometry for every student. These courses are essential to prepare students for upper-level mathematics and science courses. Our new elementary literacy and mathematics programs have also been designed with the importance in mind of preparing many more students well for the Pre-AP and AP courses.We, of course, would love to implement AVID because we think it would be ideal to address our students needs, but there is much we can do without AVID, and we are examining other program options, such as those promoted by the College Board, writing a local program design, and forming more partnerships with the universities in the area. One restructuring model that we have looked at is the Talent Development Schools promoted by Johns Hopkins University. Some of these schools are operational in Baltimore and other eastern cities, and we think there may be some interest in this model in Little Rock.Remediation Second paragraph under Findings: I remember our discussion on this, and 1 remember telling the team about my experience in Waco where students were ability grouped: basic, regular, advanced. Little Rock did not have those three levels-to my knowledge. The curriculum included regular-level courses. plus a variety of courses labeled gifted/talented, honors, enriched, advanced, and AP. The staff was vague at all levels on how these different labels distinguished instruction, so we made the decision to have only two levels of courses at the secondary schools: regular and either Pre-AP or AP. 'C What I think I said was that it is apparent that the only students being exposed to the tested curriculum in many schools are those taking the Pre-AP or AP courses. Teachers tell me that in too many cases the regular level courses are rather consistently taught below-level, and the Pre-AP courses rarely go beyond what we would consider grade-level. That is why standards and grade-level benchmarks are so important, and that is why the frequent assessment of student performance through the District CRTs is so important. We have got to know whether we are teaching the tested curriculum, and we have got to know early if individual students need remediation. We do have a draft policy and regulation on the elimination of racial disparities with clear procedures laid out. Those documents will probably move forward to the Board in the next month or two. Title I There are big changes in Title I for fall 1999. All elementary schools, except the magnet schools, will be Title I schools in 1999-2(X)0, including Terry. Elementary schools will receive approximately $450 per eligible student in 1999-2000, but since the schools are smaller with the movement of grade 6 to the middle schools, some schools will receive less funding in 1999-2000 than in previous years. Since a great majority of Title I schools failed to meet their improvement goals last year, they were identified for impro\\ ement. One of the mandates when a school is identified is that they can no longer do what they were doing. They have to construct a plan that has a better (research-based) chance of ensuring the academic success of increasing numbers of students. We have worked hard on that. Please dont forget that Success for All is the largest remedial program at the elementary level. We have that program in nine schools. Another school, Washington, uses Direct Instruction, as its intervention. Cloverdale Middle School and Southwest Middle School will receive extensive funding since they each are anticipated to have more than 75% poverty. The other five middle schools (excluding Mann since it is a magnet) will collaborate in using their funding to insure the successful implementation of the Reading and Writing Workshop and to provide teachers with strategies for ensuring more student success. All three middle school grades will be assessed: grades 6 and 8 with the state benchmark exams and grade 7 with the SAT9. Pulaski Heights will pilot in 1999-2000 a new remedial reading program based on the Shriner dyslexia strategies, and Mablevale will pilot Project Read. We will study these two approaches to determine whether we should advocate wider implementation of either or both. We are also looking at a new program for secondary' students called Read Right, but we dont have much information on it as yet.The district hosted during the week of July 26 two different Institutes for the principals and Campus Leadership Teams from each school. A big part of the training emphasized the imperative to improve student achievement. Schools will now submit one School Improvement Plan that will satisfy the requirements of the district, of Title I, and of ACSIP (accreditation). Each participant received a training notebook and a copy of the Handbook for Campus Leadership Teams, which included a copy of ACTAAP (state accountability system) and the districts new system for Collective Responsibility. A new publication. Guidelines for School Improvement Planning, will be published the week of August 2 for the schools to use. An important remediation program in the district is summer school. We served more district students this year since the policy was changed to not admit out-of-district students until all district students were guaranteed access. (Sadie Mitchell has the reports on this summers programs.) We also developed a model for an after-school Reading Clinic for elementary and middle school students (recommended in the PreK-3 Literacy Plan as an appropriate intervention). Another important remediation program is the new ACC program-Accelerated Learning Center-for high school students who are overage and credit-deficient. This program graduated many students in 1998-99 who probably would not have graduated otherwise, enabled many more to earn GED certificates, and served more than 200 in the summer school program. A third ongoing remediation program is the evening high school. I know that vou are familiar with it. Each schools School Improvement Plan will include a series of \"interventions under 3-5 priority areas. The schools have been instructed to include among their priorities the improvement of achievement in reading/writing literacy and the improvement of achievement in mathematics. The interventions under each of these areas will be the strategies that the school will design to remediate student achievement so that the school achieves its mandated improvement goals. (T11 attach to this a copy of our draft document on how they are to do this for your information.) These sets of interventions will be school-level remedial programs, for the most part. You 11 find the step on designing interventions to be helpful to this report, I think. Arkansas needs to fund compensatory education. Otherwise, we dont see a consistent source of revenue to fund the kinds of remedial program, K-12, that are needed for the diversity of students that we serve. The new Poverty Index funds are a start in this direction, but not all schools have access to these dollars.In General There is much more to tell-all aligned and coherent with the Strategic Plan and the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. We had 51 pnorities in our Divisions work plan last year, and we achieved 49 of them, plus several others that we didnt know would be on our plate. The nature of education is that there is always so much more to do than we have time and resources to accomplish, but we feel that we made giant steps forward in 1998- 99. Our major focus in 1999-2000 is to ensure as much success in implementation as possible. We are so confident in the quality of our designs and in our professional development programs that we know that we will see some improvement in our test scores this year. Thanks for giving us an opportunity to react. If I can answer further questions or provide copies of other documents, please dont hesitate to ask.RECEIVED AUG 5 1999 Division of Instruction Work Teams 1999-2000 OFRCEOI- desegregation MONITORING The Division of Instruction will be organized in 1999-2000 into several multidisciplinary work teams to which the Work Plan Priorities will be assigned. The way we work will reflect Dr. Terrence Roberts fifth level of commitment, I will do whatever it takes to help schools help children learn. There will be essentially four kinds of teams: 1. 2. 3. 4. Existing departments. Current departments will continue to carry on some of their traditional assignments. For example, the Mathematics/Science Department will continue with their work of implementing the NSF project, as well as providing leadership in curriculum development, standards implementation, discipline-specific professional development, textbook adoptions, etc. The Department of Exceptional Children will continue with their current functions in running that program. Work Teams. Six new work teams will be established, three reporting directly to the Associate Superintendent and three reporting to the Assistant Superintendent of School Improvement. School-Level Teams. Three additional teams will be formed composed of elementary, middle, and high school experts to coordinate and articulate the curriculum and other programs and to provide more specific support to schools. Audit Teams. We are committed to conducting School Improvement Audits and Curriculum Audits for schools identified for improvement. (See Handbook for Campus Leadership Team, pp. 53-54, for definitions.) Everyone in the Division will be assigned from time to time to serve on these audit teams. Training will be provided in how to conduct an audit. In addition, everyone will continue to serve as brokers and as members of assigned Campus Leadership Teams. The Division will keep its former organizational structure for now, as will other District divisions. All staff will continue to occupy their current offices and reporting relationships. This team organization is transitional. In two to three years the Division will be reorganized, shifting more and more staff to roles more directly supportive of school improvement as the curriculum is better established and as instructional strategies are more institutionalized. The following teams shall be established directly under the Associate Superintendent for Instruction:PreK-12 Teaching and Learning Team (Team Leaders to be Assigned According to Tasks) Dennis Glasgow, Director of Mathematics and Science Vanessa Cleaver, Director of NSF Project Marie McNeal, Director of Social Studies TBN, Director of Secondary Language Arts Patricia Price, Director of Early Childhood and Elementary Literacy TBN, Coordinator of ESL and Foreign Language Carol Green, Director of Career and Technical Education Patty Kohler, Director of Exceptional Children Mable Donaldson, Supervisor of Gifted/Talented Education Leon Adams, Director of Federal Programs Ray Gillespie, Director of Athletics and Physical Education Lucy Neal, Director of Libraries/Media Centers and Instructional Technology Barbara Barnes, Special Education Supervisor Susan Chapman, Special Education Supervisor Planning and Development Team Linda Young Austin, Director of Planning and Development, Team Leader Randy Glenn, Special Education Supervisor Parent and Community Involvement Team Debbie Milam, Director of VIPS, Team Leader TBN, Coordinator of Title I Parent Involvement Parent Involvement Liaison, Title I Elna Hasberry, Special Education Supervisor Paulette Martin, Director of Adult Education Marion Baldwin, Director of Community Education Department of School Improvement The team leader for the three teams in School Improvement will be Dr. Kathy Lease, Assistant Superintendent. This new department pulls together a multi-disciplinary group of people, all of whom are responsible to support school improvement and collective responsibility. Depending on the work that needs to be done, all may be working on professional development, test administration, program evaluation, or other assigned tasks, yet each team includes the necessary levels of expertise and specialization to provide leadership in the assigned areas. The School Improvement Teams will work closely with those reporting directly to the Associate Superintendent, and, as appropriate, members will be recruited from other teams to accomplish a task.Testing and Program Evaluation Team Ed Williams, Supervisor, Team Leader TBN, Program Evaluator for Title l/ESL TBN, Program Evaluator for NSF Yvette Dillingham, Testing Specialist Kathy Penn-Norman, Special Education Supervisor Professional Development Team Marion Woods, Coordinator, Team Leader Selma Hobby, Specialist Sue Walls, Specialist Gary Smith, Special Education Supervisor Eunice Smith, Special Education Supervisor Technical Assistance Team Mona Briggs, ACSIP (formerly COE) and CDP Coordinator, Team Leader Eddie McCoy, Title I Specialist Cassandra Steele, Special Education Coordinator1998-99 Work Plan for LRSD Priorities Priority: III. B (1) Continuum of Knowledge and Skills Major Tasks/Activities 1. Review and recommend revisions of the Boards Instruction policies. 2. Complete the 7-12 curriculum standards in English language arts, mathematics, science, and social studies. Plan Reference Revised Desegregation and Education Plan Strategic Plan: Strategy 2 Goals 2000 Timeline April 1999 January 1999 Responsibility Bonnie Lesley Linda Young Gene Parker Dennis Glasgow Marie McNeal Vanessa Cleaver Mable Donaldson Patty Kohler Lucy Lyon RECEIVED AUG 5 1999 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONlTORINfi End-of-Year Report *Reviewed existing Board policies and Administrative Directives to determine needs for revision and new policy statements. *Obtained copies of NSBA model policies for curriculum, instruction, and assessment. Revised graduation policy for Board approval in December 1998. Reviewed 1991 Curriculum Audit for suggestions on necessary curriculum/instruction policies. Reviewed Arkansas Accreditation Standards. See also Priority I\nDesegregation and Education Plan/ A. Policies, #9. Drafted a new policy on Credit-by-Examination to be submitted to the Board of Education in February 1999. Drafted new regulations on elementary to middle school and from middle school to high school promotion to be submitted to the Board of Education for information at January 1999 meeting. Completed revision of 35 policies for the Boards first reading in June 1999\nremaining ones will be presented in July 1999, along with complete administrative regulations. Middle school program standards drafted, presented to the Board, and approved for use in developing core curriculum standards in October 1998. Teacher committees appointed to complete curriculum/program standards for reading/language arts and for ESL courses for grades 6- 12 (completed in June 1999). Social studies curriculum standards drafted for grades 7-12 (work completed March 1999). Standards in mathematics and science completed for grades 6-12 (work completed in March 1999). Dissemination of secondary curriculum standards/benchmarks is scheduled for August inservice.Major Tasks/Activities 3. Construct curriculum maps of LRSD standards/benchmarks with Arkansas standards, SAT9 testing objectives (plus other tests as appropriate), and instructional materials. Plan Reference Strategic Plan: Strategy 2 Goals 2000 Timeline January 1999 Responsibility Gene Parker Dennis Glasgow Vanessa Cleaver Marie McNeal Mable Donaldson Patty Kohler Lucy Lyon End-of-Year Report *K-6 language arts curriculum maps drafted, completed, and prepared for publication and dissemination in December 1998. *7-12 reading/language arts curriculum maps drafted, completed, and prepared for publication and dissemination in January 1999. *K-6 social studies curriculum maps drafted, completed, and prepared for publication and dissemination in December 1998. *7-12 social studies curriculum maps drafted, completed, and prepared for publication and dissemination in January 1999. *CuiTiculum maps for science and mathematics, grades K-4, have been completed and submitted to the Assoc. Supt. *Curriculum maps for science and mathematics, grades 5-8, have been completed.Major Tasks/Activities 4. Review and revise middle and high school Curriculum Catalog\nconduct orientation sessions for central office staff, principals, and counselors. 5. Develop specific plan for implementation of K-6 curriculum standards in English language arts and social studies. Plan Reference Strategic Plan: Strategy 2 Goals 2000 Strategic Plan. Strategy 2 Timeline December 1998 February 1999 Responsibility Bonnie Lesley Gene Parker Dennis Glasgow Vanessa Cleaver Marie McNeal Mable Donaldson Patty Kohler Lucy Lyon Carol Green Jo Evelyn Elston Gene Parker Marie McNeal Pat Price Mable Donaldson Patty Kohler End-of-Ycar Report *Notified central and school-level staff of deadline of October 16, 1998, for submitting proposed new courses. *Worked with school-level staff (teachers, counselors, registrars, principals) and with central curriculum staff in October, November, and early December to ensure accuracy of documented curriculum. Middle school curriculum committee approved proposed new middle school curriculum in November 1998. Middle School Steering Committee approved proposed new middle school curriculum in November 1998. Board approval of new middle school curriculum in November 1998. Published middle school course selection sheets for each of the eight middle schools in December 1998. Decided to publish triple-fold brochure on middle school curriculum for students and parents instead of a curriculum catalog\navailable in January 1999. Board approval of new high school courses and new high school curriculum in November 1998. Published High School Course Selection, 1999-2000 (for students and parents) in December 1998\ndistributed to Board members at December meeting. Published high school course selection sheets in December 1998. Published High School Curriculum Catalog, 1999-2000 (for principals, counselors, registrars, and teachers) in December 1998. Submitted new course numbers for middle and high school courses to technology department. Staff orientation meetings scheduled for elementary counselors, middle school principals and counselors, and high school teams during early January 1999. K-3 reading/language arts curriculum implementation plan drafted and revised. First draft presented to Board in March 1999\nfinal draft presented in June 1999. 4-5 reading/language arts curriculum implementation plan drafted in June 1999\nwill be submitted in late summer. First dissemination and inservice for implementation of curriculum standards/benchmarks conducted in June 2-3-4 inservice for grades K- 5. Dissemination and inservice for grade 6 will occur in August 1999. Conducted one week of training for trainers of ELLA during week of June 21, Scheduled one week of training on teaching reading/writing for grade 4 teachers during week of July 11.Major Tasks/Activities 6. Pilot new science curriculum in selected classes at grades K-8. 7. Pilot new mathematics curriculum in selected classes at grades K-8. 8. Complete plan for middle school curriculum for fall 1999. 9. Publish Middle and High School StudentZParent Curriculum Handbooks. 10. Define and establish Delivery Standards. 11. Align school schedules, PreK-12 reading curriculum, instructional strategies, materials, assessment, professional development, monitoring/ coaching, and parent information/ education with Strategic Plan, Desegregation Plan, and Smart Start. Plan Reference NSF Project Goals 2000 NSF Project Goals 2000 Strategic Plan: Strategics Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. 5.4 Goals 2000 Strategic Plan: Strategy 2 and 3 Revised Desegregation and Education Plan Goals 2000 Strategic Plan: Strategy 2 Strategic Plan: Strategy 3. Revised Desegregation and Education Plan, sections 521., 5.2.2, and 5.2.3 Timeline 1998-99 1998-99 October 1998 January 1999 January 1999 November 1998 Responsibility Dennis Glasgow Vanessa Cleaver Mable Donaldson Patty Kohler Pat Price Dennis Glasgow Vanessa Cleaver Mable Donaldson Patty Kohler Pat Price Linda Young Gene Parker Bonnie Lesley Bonnie Lesley Jo Evelyn Elston Marian Lacey Suellen Vann Bonnie Lesley Gene Parker Gene Parker Pat Price Patty Kohler Mable Donaldson Leon Adams Marion Woods End-of-Year Report Science and Technology for Children kits were piloted during the school year at Rockefeller, Franklin, Wakefield, and Chicot. Investigations in Data, Time, and Space were piloted during the school year at Romine, grades K-5. Connected Math Project has been piloted as a replacement module in all grade 6 and 7 classrooms in the District. See #4 above. Board approved middle school program standards in October 1998. Board approved new middle school curriculum in November 1999. See also Priority I. Desegregation and Education Plan/ B. Middle School #4, #5, and #10. Board approved funding for curriculum development in March 1999. New curriculum guides for middle school courses completed in June 1999.______________________________________________________ See #4 above. High School Course Selection, 1999-2000 (for students and parents) published in December 1998. Middle school curriculum brochure scheduled to be published in January 1999. Plans made to publish a Middle School booklet for students in parents in fall 1999 for 1999-2000 registration. Reviewed research syntheses on delivery standards for Far West Lab. Conducted preliminary conversations on what Delivery Standards for LRSD might look like, This project was delayed until late summer or fall 1999 and will be embedded in the Professional Development Plan.__________________ K-3 Literacy Committee met on Aug. 31, Sept. 16, Oct. 30, Dec. 17, and Jan. 8. Draft report of recommendations was completed on Dec. 18,1998. Report includes the following: Review of current District curriculum, assessment, and implementation. Review of Arkansas Smart Start Initiative to identify possible gaps between the Initiative components and the Districts curricular focus. Identification of all supplemental reading programs currently in use in primary level classrooms and noted compatibility with the goal, the District curriculum, and the Smart Start Initiative. (continued on next page)Major Tasks/Activities 12. Align school schedules, mathematics curriculum, and professional development with Strategic Plan and Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. 13. Develop in collaboration with Linda Watson a list of behavior standards\nadopt a discipline/ classroom management/ character education program and curriculum for teaching the behavior standards to all students. 14. Propose for Board adoption revised Graduation Standards and revision of the core curriculum requirements to align with new state requirements. Plan Reference Strategic Plan: Strategy! Revised Desegregation and Education Plan, sections 5.3, 5.3.1,5.3.2, 5.3.3, 5.3.4, 5.3.5 NSF Project Strategic Plan: Strategy 10 Goals 2000 State law Strategy Plan: Strategy 2 Revised Desegregation and Education Plan, section 5.4 Goals 2000 Timeline November 1998 March 1999 November 1998 Responsibility Dennis Glasgow Vanessa Cleaver Leon Adams Patty Kohler Mable Donaldson Pat Price Marion Woods Marie McNeal Jo Evelyn Elson Patty Kohler Linda Watson Bonnie Lesley Frances Cawthon Marian Lacey Kathy Lease Jo Evelyn Elston Marian Lacey Bonnie Lesley End-of-Year Report Comparison of District student performance to statewide student performance for the purpose of creating a context for District benchmarking. Summary of key components of best practice efforts in early reading education nationwide. Outline of recommendations. Proposed budget for 1999-2000. Drafted administrative regulations for Elementary Schools. The mathematics curriculum has been revised by a teacher committee to include a smaller number of concepts at each grade level. Training for teachers on the revised curriculum has begun and continued training will occur as the NSF standards-based math curricula are phased in over the next few years. CRTs are being developed for use each quarter in grades 2-6 to measure student mastery of the mathematics grade-level standards and benchmarks. 'NSF grant strategies are underway to improve student performance in * Algebra I and to increase enrollment and success rate in upper-level mathematics courses. The extended-year Algebra I program will take place during summer 1999 to help students achieve better in Algebra I. *Drafted adminstrative regulations to be presented in late summer. Conducted research on model classroom management programs. Exchanged information with Linda Watson. Scheduled a representative from each school to attend the ADE conference on Character-Center Teaching and Learning on January 26, 1999. Scheduled a meeting with Dr. Terry Roberts to consult with the District on this initiative on January 26,1999. Submitted grant proposal in May 1999 to fund training for nine elementary schools to pilot the Child Development Project. Submitted grant proposal in May 1999 to fund training for all secondary staff in Fred Jones Positive Discipline program. Scheduled to participate in training of trainers sessions in July sponsored by ADE. Board approval of new graduation policy in December 1999. Published new graduation policy in High School Course Selection, 1999-2000 (for students and parents) in December 1998. Published new graduation policy in High School Curriculum Catalog, 1999-2000 (for staff) in December 1998. Conducted orientation meetings on new graduation policy and high school curriculum for staff in early January 1999.,Major Tasks/Activities 15. Implement Year One of NSF grant project: Extended Year Algebra I\nAP examinations\nnew teacher training\nVital Link\nand Family Math/Science programs. Plan Reference NSF Project Timeline September 1999 Responsibility Dennis Glasgow Vanessa Cleaver End-of-Year Report *Extended Year Algebra ITimeline has been established and Algebra I teachers were invited in January to participate in planning the implementation of the Summer 1999 program. A possible collaboration with New Futures was discussed. Initial meeting was held in December 1998\nanother in late January. Students have been identified and invited to participate in the institute during July 26August 6,1999. Teachers participated in a planning session on June 15. A parent meeting was conducted on June 15* for potential SMART participants. Proposed CERTL application includes a collaboration with Philander Smith College for the Summer Readiness Program scheduled for July 19Aug. 6. Eight follow-up sessions are planned for SMART students, in collaboration with PSC, during the regular school year. They are designed to reinforce and expand algebraic skills. *AP ExamsDrafted proposed new policy in November 1998 to require all students who take AP courses to take the corresponding AP exams. Item was withdrawn for more work. *New Teacher TrainingFirst-year secondary mathematics and science teachers received four days of training on Oct. 13 and Dec. 10, 1998, and March 10-11,1999, * Vital LinkPlanning began on January 15 for recruiting additional Vital Link sites that focus on careers in the field of mathematics and science. Businesses with a math/science focus were identified. Overview of NSF grant presented uring the Vital Link teacher inservice as well as the inservice for businesses. Family Math/Science~Planning occurred for teams of teachers from seven schools to participate in the February 8-9 training. Teams of teachers from 5 schools participated in the Family Math/Science inservice on Feb. 8-9. Each team of teachers held 3 family math/science nights at their respective schools. Advisory Committee MeetingsCommittee met on Sept. 22, Oct. 27, Dec. 8, Feb, 23m Narch 23, April 27, and May 25 to review and discuss student performance data and upcoming grant activities. Plans are in progress for an advisory committee retreat. Definition of roles, as well as strategic planning, will be the focus of the retreat. Management Team MeetingsCommittee met monthly with the exception of December. Management Team will plan and implement the retreat for the advisory committee. (continued next page)Major Tasks/Activities Plan Reference Timeline Responsibility End-of-Year Report *Math/Science Vertical TeamsRegistered teachers for College Board sponsored vertical teams conference on Feb. 5-6 (mathematics) and Feb. 19-20 (science). Two mathematics vertical teams have met monthly. Mathematics Vertical Teams Steering Committee was established to set long- and short-range goals for the district. The steering committee met twice and set a time to meet monthly during the 1999-2000 school year. High School VisitsMet with principals and counselors of high schools to review and discuss first quarter data and to set improvement targets. Parent/Community InvolvementPresented an overview of the NSF project to the Christian Ministerial Alliance, Little Rock PTA Council, and the VIPS board. Year 2 plans include Brown Bag lunches at local businesses to inform working parents and the general public about this initiative. A dissemination brochure will be produced and distributed to parents, community, and business people. SECME9 teachers representing 5 schools will participate in the SECME Summer Institute June 20July 2,1999, at the University of Alabama at Tuscaloosa. SECME programs will be implemented in the 5 additional schools beginning fall 1999. Strategic Plan/Professional Development PlanDeveloped a five- year strategic plan along with a comprehensive professional development plan to guide the work of the LRPMSA. Standards-Based CurriculaTraining was provided for mathematics and science teachers who will be using Investigations, Science and Technology for Children, Connected Mathematics Project, and Active Physics. Follow-up sessions are planned for pre-school conference as well as during the regular school year. * Lead TeachersSubmitted a proposal to NSF to add 4 lead teachers who would work with clusters of elementary schools providing technical support for math and science teachers. Proposal also submitted to add (or assign an existing position) a high school math coordinator, middle school math specialist, a middle school science specialist, and a high school science specialist. *CERTLProposal submnitted to NSF for Centers of Excellence for Research, Teaching, and Learning. CERTL involves subcontracts with PSC, UALR, and LRSD for Active Physics training. UALR activities include a Summer Science Institute for 4* and 5* grade students\nUALR Student Research Camp will provide an opportunity for students to participate in real research projects\nPSC will offer the Summer Algebra Readiness Training which is a three-week summer institute for rising 9'* graders who show academic promise to be successful in Algebra I. LRSD will offer, in collaboration with UALR, a four-hour graduate credit course on Active Physics.Priority ill. B. (2): Personalized Education Major Tasks/Activities 16. Develop Early Childhood Education Plan for fall 1999, to include plan to implement any grant-funded early childhood initiatives. Plan Reference Strategic Plan: Strategy 8 Revised Desegregation and Education Plan, section 2.7 and 5.1 Goals 2000 Timeline February 1999 Responsibility Pat Price Marian Shead- Jackson Patty Kohler Carol Green Aleecia Starkey End-of-Year Report Attended meetings of the collaborative partners involved in Headstart. Discussed the feasibility for expansion. Applied for and was awarded funds for continuance money from Arkansas Belter Chance. Early Childhood Task Force met on Nov. 23, 1998. Agenda items included overview of the program, quality status, and the need for expansion. District sponsored reception for representatives and senators to discuss 1999 legislative issues, such as early childhood funding, on Jan. 7,1999. Early Childhood Task Force meeting held on Jan. 25,1999. Agenda included discussion of issues which may initiate policy discussion and action by the Arkansas General Assembly, such as (1) funding for child care/ eliminating the low-income working waiting list\n(2) additional funding for the Arkansas Better Chance program.Major Tasks/Activities 17. Develop K-12 talent development plan to improve G/T, honors, and AP student enrollment and success (e.g.. Project AVID). Plan Reference Strategic Plan objectives Revised Desegregation and Education Plan, sections 2.6, 2.6.1, and 2.6,2 NSF Project Timeline November 1998 Responsibility Bonnie Lesley Kathy Lease Mable Donaldson Vanessa Cleaver Gene Parker Marie McNeal Dennis Glasgow Mona Gibbs Jo Evelyn Elson Marion Woods End-of-Year Report K-23 Talent Development Committee was established in August 1998 to develop a plan\nresearch assignments were made\nand the committee moved to endorse the implementation of Project AVID as the centerpiece of this plan. Eliminated the honors/enriched layer of courses between the regular level and the Pre-AP/AP level at grades 6-12 for the 1999-2000 school year (approved by Board in November 1998). Made all AP courses (except Music Theory AP) available to all high schools for 1999-2000. Changed admission standards so that students with a grade of at least C in a prior Pre-AP or AP courses can enroll in the next level without teacher approval. Working on new policy/regulations relating to AP examinations to be submitted to the Board in summer 1999. *1 'Surveyed all honors, enriched, Pre-AP, and AP teachers to determine what training they had had so that a professional development plan could be designed. *Conducted study of current percentages by school who are performing in the top quartile\npercentages of students taking the ACT\npercentages of students enrolled in AP courses\npercentages of students passing AP courses by school\netc. Paid fee for Mable Donaldson to participate in the first year of training for Project AVID directors. Investigated two potential grants to fund the Project AVID initiative: Gear-Up and Javits federal grants. Applied for Gear-Up funds in collaboration with UALR to implement AVID in four middle schools, if funded, in fall 1999. Conducted one-half day of training on Project AVID for representatives of the curriculum staff, high school principals, high school counselors, parent representatives, and community advocates in October 1998. Conducted one evening of training for members of the Board of Education on Project AVID in October 1998. Distributed information on the Talent Development Middle School to all middle school principals for restructuring ideas. Continued research on effective strategies to close achievement gaps\nread new book on the Black-White Test Score Gap by Jencks.  Met with representative teachers and counselors at three of the five high schools to hear what they believe they need to support the goal of increasing AP enrollment. Discussed with E\u0026gt;r. Angela Sewell, Dean of Education at UALR, the possibility of a university partnership relating to Project AVID.Major Tasks/Activities 18. Review Title I programs and services to align with COE, Smart Start, Campus Leadership Plan, NSF, Strategic Plan, and Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. 19. Complete planning for middle schools and smooth transitions from elementary and to high schools. Plan Reference Strategic Plan. Strategy 3 Revised Desegregation and Education Plan, section 2.7 NSF Project Strategic Plan: Strategy?. Revised Desegregation and Education Plan, section 3.4 Goals 2000 Timeline January 1999 December 1998 Responsibility Bonnie Lesley Leon Adams Kathy Lease Dennis Glasgow Vanessa Cleaver Gene Parker Pat Price Kathy Lease Linda Young M.S. Committees End-ofYear Report Met with ODM staff to discuss Project AVID and its potential benefits to LRSD students. Scheduled a meeting with Dr. Terry Roberts to discuss Project AVID on Jan. 26, 1999, Submitted Gear-Up grant proposal during March 1999 in collaboration with UALR to fund Project AVID in four middle schools\nSouthwest, Mablevale, Henderson, and Cloverdale. Conducted a meeting with Leon Adams on August 5,1998, to discuss several proposed changes and improvements in Title I. Conducted a meeting on the morning of September 4,1998, to review Title I regulations and laws\na team approach to approve Title I plans\nways to embed Title I accountability into the Quality Index\nand ways to align Title I with Campus Leadership. Conducted a meeting on the afternoon of September 4,1998, to discuss needs for a menu of research-based and district-approved programs for Title I schools to choose from\nprocedures for District approval of Title I plans\nalignment of Title I with Smart Start. Conducted meeting on Sept. 18 to discuss proposed changes in the Title I parent program. Conducted input all fall from parents, teachers, and principals on the Title I program and ways that it could be better aligned with other District initiatives and, thus, be more productive. Reviewed with and obtained input from the Cabinet on Jan. 11, 1999, general areas for change and improvement of the Title I program. Embedded Title I changes in the PreK-3 Literacy Plan. Conducted meetings with principals in April 1999 to discuss changes in 1999-2000 Title I program. Summarized changes in Title I program in principals meeting during May 1999. Met several times in May-June with Cabinet members to make decisions relating to changes in Title I. Met with representative Title I parents in May 1999 to discuss proposed changes in Title I. See Priority I: Desegregation and Education Plan/ B. Middle School, #3, #6.Major Tasks/Activities 20. Complete planning for ninth grade curriculum aligned with new graduation requirements and the districts standards. 21. Assess ESL program and services and develop program improvement plan with estimated budget. 22. Review special education programs, policies, and/or procedures to ensure no racial discrimination in referral and placement. Plan Reference Strategic Plan: Strategy 2 And Strategy 3 State laws Strategic Plan: Strategy 2. Goals 2000 Revised Desegregation and Education Plan, section 2.4 Timeline November 1998 June 1999 December 1998 Responsibility Kathy Lease Bonnie Lesley Gene Parker Kathy Lease Bonnie Lesley Patty Kohler End-of-Year Report *See #4 above. *Board approval of new high school curriculum, including grade 9 courses, in November 1998. *See Priority I: Desegregation and Education Plan/ B. Middle School, #10._______________________________________________________ *Committee chair appointed to gather data for program/needs assessment. *ESL program representative attended statewide program planning conference. Committee appointed to develop ESL program standards and to identify budget needs. Committee appointed to develop ESL curriculum standards. Met with representative of ADE on needs of LRSDs ESL program. Hosted compliance review by OCR in March 1999 relating to ESL programs and services. Proposed that Class-Size Reducation Allocation be used to hire 10 elementary ESL teachers for 1999-2000. Proposed that the District employ an ESL Coordinator to oversee and provide leadership for the K-12 program. *Tridistrict assessment committee meets regularly to review testing procedures and to make sure that they are free of bias. *Department of Exceptional Childrens strategic plan updated in Dec. 1998\nincludes procedures and equity issues. *Completed an administrative procedures manual in Dec. 1998 for all special education staff to ensure equity in administration of procedures\ncontains checklists to evaluate staffing needs\nsupervisory goals, including equity issues\nLRSD policies that address graduation, which are bias-free\nand other procedures.Major Tasks/Activities 23. Begin needs assessment and initial planning for implementation of Smart Start program from ADE. Plan Reference Arkansas initiative Revised Desegregation and Education Plan, section 2.7 Timeline January 1999 Responsibility Bonnie Lesley Kathy Lease Leon Adams Dennis Glasgow Vanessa Cleaver Gene Parker Pat Price Patty Kohler Ann Freeman End*of-Year Report Dr. Doug Reeves presented early concepts of Smart Start standards and assessments to a small group from the Division of Instruction in September 1998. Kevin Penix from ADE presented an overview of the Smart Start Initiative to the Division of Instruction on Oct. 14,1998. Bonnie Lesley and Les Gamine attended a session with Dr. Doug Reeves at a state conference in October 1998 on Smart Start. Ann Freeman was reassigned to assist Pat Price with coordination of Smart Start programs and services for LRSD during November 1998. Eisenhower Professional Development grant application aligned with Smart Start submitted to ADE in November 1998. All elementary principals and a facilitator from each school attended two days of Smart Start training sponsored by ADE during the week of Nov. 9-12, 1998, Bonnie Lesley presented session on how Smart Start aligns with Title I, COE, and Campus Leadership at the November principals meeting. Pat Price and Ann Freeman presented an overview of the Smart Start Summit to the Division of Instruction on Nov. 24,1998. Work sessions on standards and assessments conducted by the Division of Instruction on Dec. 14,1998. Presentation of a one-day Data-Driven Decision-Making session for all elementary principals is scheduled for Jan. 19-20-21, 1999. All principals were invited to attend a one-day conference on Character-Centered Teaching and Positive Classroom Discipline Conference, sponsored by ADE, on Jan. 26,1999. Ten satellite teleconferences relating to Smart Start were held at the IRC during year. District representatives attended the NSCI conference on reading and mathematics in New Orleans during January. Frequent information regarding Smart Start implementation was provided principals and other staff through Learning Links during spring 1999.Priority III. B (3): Professional Development Major Tasks/Activities 24. Complete planning and begin implementation of middle school professional development program. 25. Conduct in collaboration with Sadie Mitchell and her staff the Year One training for Campus Leadership Plan. 26. Restructure the districts professional development program and services so that they build professional learning communities at the district and school levels. 27. Implement Year One of ASCDs UPDI project with focus on school change and improving achievement in reading and mathematics. 28. Provide training in prejudice reduction and cultural sensitivity. Plan Reference Strategic Plan: Strategy 3 Revised Desegregation and Education Plan, section 2.12 Campus Leadership Plan Goals 2000 Strategic Plan: Strategy 7 Revised Desegregation and Education Plan, sections 2.61., 2.12, 5.2.1j, 5.2.2g, 5.2.3c. 5.3.1 Campus Leadership Plan NSF ASCDs UPDI ASCDs UPDI Revised Desegregation and Education, section 2.12 Revised Desegregation and Education Plan, sections 2.12 and 2.12.1 Timeline January 1999 June 1999 October 1998 June 1999 June 1999 Responsibility Linda Young Marion Woods Mona Briggs Kathy Lease Prof. Dev. Committee Bonnie Lesley Marion Woods Gene Parker Kathy Lease Patty Kohler Bonnie Lesley Director, Prof. Dev. Marion Woods Bonnie Lesley Dir., Prof. Dev. Marion Woods Marion Woods City of Little Rock End-of-Year Report See Priority I: Desegregation and Education Plan/ B. Middle School, #4 and #12. The responsibility for this activity was transferred to Sadie Mitchell and her staff. Broker and principal training sessions were conducted in December 1998, January and February 1999. Principals Institute, to include representatives of Campus Leadership Teams, scheduled for week of July 26,1999. Invited by ASCD in August 1998 to apply to join the Urban Professional Development Initiative (UPDI). Presented idea to Cabinet for approval to join UPDI in August 1998. Submitted application to join UPDI to ASCD on August 20, 1998. Presented information item to Board of Education about UPDI in August 1998. Formed a special team to restructure LRSD professional development program and to oversee UPDI activities\nfirst meeting held on Sept. 3, 1998. Four people attended UPDI Network meeting in Alexandria, VA, on Nov. 12-14, 1998. Received official letter of invitation from ASCD to participate in UPDI, Nov. 20,1998. Staff meeting scheduled to begin discussion of professional development plan on Jan. 25,1999. Site visit from ASCD for UPDI conducted on Feb. 1-2,1999. End-of-Quarter Report submitted to ASCD on March 30,1999, Professional Development Plan to be completed during summer 1999.______________________________________________________ See #26 above. Five two-day workshops serving 94 teachers were presented on the following dates: Aug. 4-5\nSept. 14 and 21\nOct. 19 and 22\nNov. 16 and 19\nand Jan. 6 and 13. Scheduled a meeting with Dr. Terry Roberts on Jan. 26,199^, to discuss professional development issues. Workshop conducted for high school teachers on June 4,1999. Tri-District staff development committee and state coops met ten times during year to compile information for districts catalogs, resource guides, and professional libraries.Major Tasks/Activities 29. Consolidate COE, Campus Leadership, Title I, and Instructional Technological planning requirements in collaboration with cluster assignment\ndesign and plan training for Campus Leadership Teams. 30. Develop menus of research-based and approved schoolwide change models and instructional/ curriculum interventions to guide schools in improvement efforts. 31. Assemble a library of reference folders on a wide variety of topics related to school improvement to send to schools upon request. 32. Write and prepare for Fall 1999 distribution a Beginning Teachers Handbook. 33. Provide focused and appropriate training for certified staff in Division of Instruction to improve productivity and leadership. 34. Provide appropriate technology and general training for clerical staff of Division of Instruction to improve productivity and communication. Plan Reference COE Campus Leadership Plan Title I Instructional Technology Plan Strategic Plan: Strategy 2 Title I Smart Start COE Campus Leadership Plan Revised Desegregation and Education Plan Strategic Plan: Strategy 2 Title I Smart Start COE Campus Leadership Plan Revised Desegregation and Education Plan Strategic Plan: Strategy 6 Goals 2000 Goals 2000 Campus Leadership Plan Strategic Plan Revised Desegregation and Education Plan Smart Start Title I COE Strategic Plan Timeline January 1999 February 1999 January 1999 May 1999 June 1999 June 1999 Responsibility Bonnie Lesley Sadie Mitchell and her cluster teams Leon Adams Lucy Lyon Director, Prof. Dev. Marion Woods Bonnie Lesley Leon Adams Gene Parker Dennis Glasgow Marie McNeal Vanessa Cleaver Marion Woods Selma Hobby Marion Woods Bonnie Lesley Kathy Lease Bonnie Lesley Marion Woods Lucy Lyon End-of-Year Report This work was assigned to one of the clusters to complete. Leadership for these tasks was assigned to Sadie Mitchell. Conducted two meetings in September 1998 to begin the discussion of criteria to identify research-based programs. Recommended best practice books which summarize research to schools through Learning Links. Approved literacy programs were included in the PreK-3 Literacy Plan, Books on research-based programs provided to principals by Division of Instruction. Approximately 75 information folders on a variety of topics related to school reform have been compiled and are available to principals and Campus Leadership Teams. Videotapes and books on middle schools were identified for middle school principals and teachers to check out. Outline for Beginning Teachers Handbook compiled in August 1998. Committee on Teacher Induction, chaired by Dr. Kathy Lease, appointed in spring 1999. Draft of Beginning Teachers Handbook completed in June 1999. 1 *ADE-sponorsed workshop on curriculum mapping by Heidi Jacobs attended by most curriculum staff members in September 1998. Presentation by Dr. Doug Reeves (the state consultant on Smart Start) to curriculum staff members in September 1998. Presentation on Smart Start by Dr. Kevin Pennick from ADE at a Division of Instruction meeting on October 14,1998. Data-Analysis Training (related to Smart Start implementation) presented at meeting of Division of Instruction in December 1998. Four people attended class on Microsoft Word on Oct. 20-22. Four people attended class on PowerPoint on Oct. 26-27. Eight people attended class on Excel on Oct. 19-26. *1 *A number of courses were scheduled for February 1999. *Summer technology classes are being offered.Major Tasks/Activities 35. Provide training for teachers and counselors to improve minority student access and success in Pre-AP and AP courses. Plan Reference Revised Desegregation and Education Plan, section 2.6.2 NSF Project Timeline November 1998 Responsibility Bonnie Lesley Kathy Lease Mable Donaldson Vanessa Cleaver Gene Parker Marie McNeal Dennis Glasgow Mona Gibbs Jo Evelyn Elston Marion Woods End-of-Year Report *Conducted one-half session on Project AVID for high school counselors and others in September 1998. *Conducted curriculum orientation meetings for principal and counselors at each high school, including discussion of this priority, in January 1999. *Conducted curriculum orientation session for elementary counselors, including discussion of this priority, on Jan. 20,1999. *Conducted curriculum orientation session for middle school counselors, including discussion of this priority, on Jan. 20,1999. *Developed a plan to ensure that teachers of Pre-AP and AP have equal access and opportunity to participate in College Board professional development workshops during the summer.Priority III. B (4): Building Community Support Major Tasks/Activities 36. Design plan to collaborate with the business community to deliver the Arkansas Scholars program in grade 8 during spring 1999. 37. Restructure the districts parent/ community programs and services to align with the Strategic Plan, the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan, the Campus Leadership Plan, the NSF Project, Smart Start, and the requirements of Title I. Plan Reference Revised Desegregation and Education Plan (sections on enriched, honors, gifted, and advanced placement courses). Strategic Plan: Strategy 2 And Strategy 8 Revised Desegregation and Education Plan, sections 2.8 and 5.7 Campus Leadership Plan Goals 2000 Timeline December 1998 December 1998 Responsibility Debbie Milam Linda Young Gene Parker End-of-Year Report 'Meeting held on Sept. 24, 1998, with Lee Gordon, ABEA, Bonnie 1 Bonnie Lesley Debbie Milam Leon Adams Catherine Gill Linda Young Patty Kohler Pat Price Paulette Martin Marian Shead- Jackson Marian Baldwin Vanessa Cleaver Lesley, Gene Parker, Linda Young, and Debbie Milam. *Meeting held on Oct. 15,1998, at Chambers Education Committee. Lee Gordon asked for support in recruiting business volunteers to make the Arkansas Scholars presentations to all 8* graders in the three Pulaski County school districts. Meeting held on Dec. 7, 1998, between Debbie Milam and Linda Young to discuss a timeline for LRSD implementation. Meeting scheduled for Jan. 15,1999, between Debbie Milam, LRSD, and Joe Swaty and Sandy Bradley of the Chamber to discuss feasibility of implementing Arkansas Scholars in spring 1999. Arkansas Scholars program implemented in spring 1999. Discussed with Catherine Jordan of SEDL the possibility of Little Rocks participation in their Collaborative Action Team (CAT) training. Conducted a meeting including staff, some community/parent representatives, and Catherine Jordan on November 2 for initial discussion of possible partnership to assist us in restructuring our parent/community programs. Conducted second meeting of committee on November 20,1998, to discuss whether to apply to SEDL for CAT participation\nwrote mission statement for group. Sent application in December 1998 to SEDL to participate in CAT training. Conducted third meeting on January 14,1999, to discuss focus for our work\nparent education/involvement. Fourth meeting and expanded committee membership will be decided upon after conversation with Catherine Jordan about training. Two representatives attended SEDL training in late January 1999. Two SEDL representatives conducted a site visit in Little Rock on April 27 with a cross-section of staff, parents, and community members. Notifed in May 1999 of selection to participate with SEDL in Collaborative Action Team planning. Began implementation of plan to restructure and re-align Title 1 parent program.Priority III. B. (5): Communication Major Tasks/Activities 38. Communicate curriculum standards so that all parents and students understand the expected knowledge and skills by grade level and course. 39. Communicate aspects of middle school planning to students, parents, and community for fall 1999. 40. Provide second-language translations of key documents for students and parents. 41. Implement Learning Links, a weekly publication for principals from the Division of Instruction. 42. Publish at lease six issues of a newsletter for teachers from the Division of Instruction. 43. Conduct twice-a-month meetings for staff in the Division of Instruction. 44. Conduct quarterly meetings of all clerical staff in the Division of Instruction. Plan Reference Strategic Plan: Strategy 2 Strategic Plan: Strategy 3 Revised Desegregation and Education Plan Goals 2000 Strategic Plan: Strategy 2 Strategic Plan: Strategy 2 Student Success Model Strategic Plan: Strategy 2 Student Success Model Student Success Model Student Success Model Timeline May 1999 May 1999 May 1999 September 1998 June 1999 June 1999 August 1998June 1999 Responsibility Bonnie Lesley Suellen Vann Gene Parker Dennis Glasgow Marie McNeal Kathy Lease Linda Young Gene Parker Kathy Lease Bonnie Lesley Anita Gilliam Regina Moore Marian Baldwin Suellen Vann Bonnie Lesley Bonnie Lesley Bonnie Lesley and designated staff End-of-Year Report Committee appointed to develop action plan for communicating curriculum standards to the community. Action plan presented to Strategic Plan Steering Committee and approved in November 1998. Committee appointed to complete identified action steps in approved action plan.  ' 'Designed an audio-visual presentation to communicate the new graduation standards\nto be completed by early Feb. 1999. (This video not yet completed.) Planning established to publish curriculum standards for parents in summer 1999. Draft documents completed in June 1999. See Priority I: Desegregation and Education Plan/B. Middle School, #6, #14. See Priority I: Desegregation and Education Plan/C. Marketing and Communication, #1, #2. See Priority I: Desegregation and Education Plan/ D. Student Assignment, #8, #13. State-developed computer software discs acquired with translations of key documents for ESL students and parents. Budgeted for 1999-2000 the costs of translations of key documents. Learning Links has been published weekly since the first week in October 1998 for principals\nit has also been distributed to Cabinet members, most department heads, and members of the Division of Instruction. Meetings conducted with Public Information Office to determine cost and deadlines for publishing a teacher newsletter\nproject delayed due to costs and time restraints. This project delayed until 1999-2000. Staff meetings are scheduled for the second and fourth Wednesdays each month at the IRC\nthey are attended by all the department heads in the Division of Instruction, as well as other staff as appropriate. Monthly meetings conducted in spring 1999. Two meetings were conducted with the clerical staff of the Division of Instruction.Priority III. B (6): Assessment Major Tasks/Activities 45. Design and administer CRTs for fall 1998 in reading and mathematics. 46. Design refined CRTs for reading, mathematics, science, and social studies for piloting in spring 1999 and for implementation in fall 1999. 47. Establish Performance Standards in reading, writing, mathematics, science, and social studies. 48. Reinvent PRE programs and services to support the Campus Leadership Plan. 49. Refine the Quality Index indicators and develop district and school profiles according to the proposed Quality Index. 50. Embed Title I and Smart Start accountability requirements into the Quality Index. 51. Begin transition plan for a way of reporting to parents on student progress toward meeting the standards and develop plan to redesign the student grading and reporting system to reflect the standards- based focus of the district. Plan Reference Strategic Plan: Strategy 2 Strategic Plan: Strategy 2 Strategic Plan: Strategy 2. Strategic Plan: Strategy 8 Revised Desegregation and Education Plan, sections 5.2.1g, 5.2.2e,5.2.3r, and 5.3.2 Campus Leadership Plan NSF Title I and Smart Start COE Campus Leadership Plan Campus Leadership Plan Title I requirements Strategic Plan: Strategy 2 Timeline September 1998 December 1998 February 1999 December 1998 February 1999 February 1999 June 1999 Responsibility Gene Parker Dennis Glasgow Kathy Lease Kathy Lease Gene Parker Dennis Glasgow Vanessa Cleaver Marie McNeal Kathy Lease Dennis Glasgow Gene Parker Vanessa Cleaver Marie McNeal Kathy Lease Bonnie Lesley Bonnie Lesley Cluster B Kathy Lease Bonnie Lesley Cluster B Kathy Lease Leon Adams Kathy Lease Gene Parker Dennis Glasgow Vanessa Cleaver Marie McNeal Pat Price Patty Kohler Mable Donaldson End-of-Year Report CRTs have been designed, produced, disseminated, given, scored, and reported. Tests were given in reading and mathematics at all elementary schools. Instructional division staff met in January to review first semester CRT experiences and begin planning for the third and fourth quarter tests in all core subject areas with the addition of the second graders. Planning still in progress for 1999-2000 CRTs. A meeting was scheduled in February to work on this goal. This project was delayed until decisions were made about 1999-2000 CRTs. New staff hired in order to begin to refocus the work of PRE. Staff assignments made to support Campus Leadership, the Strategic Plan, and the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. Public relations campaign instituted to promote idea that PRE is a service department whose focus is to assist schools and central office staff to reach the goals of the Campus Leadership Plan, the Strategic Plan, and the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. *1999-2000 Reorganization Plan establishes new concept for department. See Priority II: Quality Index (2) Student Achievement and Value- Added Incentives. See Priority II: Quality Index (2) Student Achievement and Value- Added Incentives. This work on a new grading system has not begun as yet. Discussions conducted during the first semester on student data management systems capacities and deficiencies. 'Primary Grades Committee established in May 1999 to make recommendations, as per PreK-3 Literacy Plan.Major Tasks/Activities 52. Design waiver form and process for schools seeking waivers from policy relating to Campus Leadership. 53. Redesign end-of-year climate survey to include items relating to measuring progress of reform. 54. Design for Board approval an agenda for evaluation of the Districts academic programs. Plan Reference Campus Leadership Plan Campus Leadership Plan Revised Desegregation and Education Plan, section 2.7.1 Campus Leadership Plan Timeline October 1998 February 1999 March 1999 Responsibility Bonnie Lesley Kathy Lease Bonnie Lesley Sadie Mitchell Kathy Lease Bonnie Lesley End-of-Year Report________________________________ Waiver Application forms distributed via Learning Links in December 1998. *Work in progress with Cluster A and PRE staff. Drafts scheduled for completion in February. Two work sessions with Dr. Steven Ross (consultant) have been completed on initial planning. PRE staff researched program evaluation options. One-day planning meeting scheduled with numerous stakeholders in May 1999. Proposed Board policy developed and submitted to the Board for first reading in June 1999.Priority: Quality Index: (2) Student Achievement and Value-Added Incentives Major Tasks/Activities 1. Identify specific achievement indicators. 2. Identify specific standards/ benchmarks. 3. Identify value-added incentives. Plan Reference Revised Desegregation and Education Plan, sections 2.7,5.2.1,and 5.3 Revised Desegregation and Education Plan, sections 2.7, 5.2, and 5.3. Revised Desegregation and Education Plan, sections 5.8 Timeline June 1999 June 1999 June 1999 Responsibility Lesley/Cluster B Lesley/Cluster B Lesley/Cluster B End-of-Year Report *Conducted first meeting of Cluster B on Nov. 20,1998. Reviewed charge, draft of Campus Leadership Plan, and resource documents\ndiscussed and approved proposed work plan for completion of tasks. *Conducted Internet search and purchased other resources to determine practices in other states and districts, especially those with value-added approaches. *Drafted preliminary list of academic indicators for elementary, middle, and high schools for the Quality Index to use for discussion purposes, Jan. 1999. Met with Dr. Steve Ross of the University of Memphis on Jan. 15, 1999, to discuss Tennessees value-added accountability system and preliminary LRSD draft of academic indicators. Second meeting of Cluster B scheduled for Feb. 15,1999. Third meeting of Cluster B conducted on May 6-7,1999. Discussed with Dr. Steve Ross (see #1 above) ways to assign weights of importance and ways to assess progress toward standards at Jan. 15, 1999, meeting. Consulted research documents on practices in other states and districts. Met with Dr. Steve Ross in May 1999 to continue discussion of academic indicators for Quality Index. Submitted Dr. Ross recommendations to Dr. Camine for feedback. Final report submitted in June 1999. Conducted preliminary research on practices in other states and districts. Final report submitted in June 1999.i RECEP' A  } Collective Responsibility for Student Achieverhent AUG 5 1999 Office OF Definition of Collective Responsibility , OESEGREGATfON MONrrOfl.NP Collective Responsibility means that all the adults in the District arfd at each school hold themselves accountable for all the students meeting the challenging behavior and academic content standards and benchmarks and other outcomes established by the Board of Education, by the state for accreditation, by federally funded programs, and by external funders of reform initiatives approved by the Board of Education. District-level staff share with school-level staffs in the collective responsibility for school improvement. This critically important attitude is developed and nurtured through professional learning communities established by the District and each school. In addition, the Superintendent shall ensure that all job descriptions of appropriate District-level and building-level staff\nannual work plans\nDistrict-level processes and school-level parameters for decision-making\npersonnel hiring, assignment, promotion, and evaluation systems\nand the professional development programs are results-based and aligned with the improvement indicators established in the Quality Index. Reporting Responsibilities The Superintendent shall report to the Board of Education annually on progress related to the implementation of the Strategic Plan and the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. In addition, so that the community is also informed on the Districts progress in meeting expected improvement goals, the following reports must be submitted to the Board of Education in open sessions. District Annual Performance Report The Annual Performance Report is to be submitted to the Board of Education no later than August 30 annually. It shall include data relating to each of the Quality Indicators, including the baseline year data so that progress can be identified. The Annual Performance Report shall also include the accreditation status and accountability status for each school, as determined by the Arkansas Department of Education. School Performance Reports The state-mandated School Performance Reports shall be published and distributed to parents and other interested patrons annually. These report cards shall include the data mandated by the Arkansas Department of Education, but also school data relating to the Districts Quality Indicators. School principals shall disseminate these reports to all the staff members and parents in their school community and make them available to interested patrons. At least one parent meeting shall be conducted annually by the Campus Leadership Team and the principal to discuss the 1performance of the school and planned short- and long-range improvements. The District may disseminate school-level supplements to the School Performance Reports to include data relating to District-selected Quality Indicators. Accreditation and Accountability Status If a school has been identified for school improvement, as per Title I regulations and/or if the school is conditionally accredited or nonaccredited, then the designation and an explanation of its implications, as well as the accountability status of the school as defined by the State shall be included in the School Performance Report. Program Evaluations The results of any internal program evaluation studies or evaluations of grant-funded projects are to be provided to the Board of Education within a month of their submission to the Superintendent and/or to the funding organization. School Improvement Plans Although there are multiple state and local indicators, Campus Leadership Teams should select, based on their data analysis, three to five priority improvement goals as a focus for the School Improvement Plan. (See the Arkansas Comprehensive School Improvement Planning process.) 2State Quality IndicatorsTier I The Arkansas Comprehensive Testing. Assessment, and Accountability Program (ACTAAP) establishes the following indicators based on performance goals for Tier I: State Indicator______ Performance on State- Mandated Criterion- Referenced Tests Goal (Definition)_______________ 100% of a schools students shall perform at or above the proficient level in reading and writing literacy. 100% of a schools students shall perform at or above the proficient level in mathematics. Grade Level(s) Grades 4, 6, 8 Performance on State- Mandated Criterion- Referenced Tests 100% of a schools secondary students shall perform at or above the proficient level in Algebra I. 100% of a schools secondary students shall perform at or above the proficient level in Geometry. Secondary School Drop Out Average Daily Attendance Classes Taught by an Appropriately Licensed Teacher Professional Development School Safety 100% of a schools secondary students shall perform at or above the proficient level in Literacy. At least 99% of secondary students will remain in school to complete the 12^^ grade.__________________ Average daily attendance rate will be at least 95%.________________ 100% of a schools classes will be taught by an appropriately licensed teacher._______________________ 100% of a schools certified staff will complete at least 30 hours of approved professional development annually.___________ Schools will be free of drugs, weapons, and violent acts. Grades 7-12 Grades K-12 Grades K-12 Grades K-12 Grades K-12 3State Quality IndicatorsTier II The Arkansas Comprehensive Testing, Assessment, and Accountability Program (ACTAAP) establishes the following indicators for Tier II. Tier II indicators are based on trend and improvement goals. Trend goals will be established for different cohorts of students, and improvement goals will be established for the same cohort of students over time. State Indicator Performance on State- Mandated Criterion- Referenced Tests Goal (Definition)_______________ The percent of students performing at or above the proficient level in reading and writing literacy on the criterion-referenced tests will meet or exceed the trend and improvement goals each year. The percent of students performing at or above the proficient level in mathematics on the criterion- referenced tests will meet or exceed the trend and improvement goals each year. Performance on State- Mandated Criterion- Referenced Tests The percent of secondary students performing at or above the proficient level in Algebra I will meet or exceed the trend goal each year. The percent of secondary students performing at or above the proficient level in Geometry will meet or exceed the trend goal each year. The percent of secondary students performing at or above the proficient level in Literacy will meet or exceed the trend goal each year. Grade Level(s) Grades 4, 6, and 8 Secondary 4Tier IISchool Selected Indicators (Schools Select Any 5) State Indicator Drop-outs Average Daily Attendance__________ Classes Taught by an Appropriately Licensed Teacher____________ Professional Development School Safety Other School Selected Indicators Goal (Definition)_______________ Secondary schools will improve the percentage of students who stay in school to complete the 12**^ grade. Schools will improve their average daily attendance rate.____________ Schools will improve the percent of classes taught by an appropriately licensed teacher.________________ Schools will increase the percent of certified staff who complete 60 or more hours of approved professional development annually. Schools will be free of drugs, weapons, and violent acts.________ Schools will select trend or improvement goals directed to student achievement in specific sub-populations or sub-test areas. These must have prior approval of ADE. Grade Level(s) Secondary All levels All levels All levels All levels All levels 5Additional District-Selected Indicators The following additional academic indicators (based also on both performance and trend/improvement) have been established by the Little Rock School District. Value-Added Goals or Improvement Goals The District-adopted criterion-referenced tests for grades K-11 will be administered to provide pre- and post-test scores so that gains of individual students may be measured each semester. Only those scores of students who were in the school the previous test administration will be used in calculating value-added gains (or improvement). The purpose of this measure is to be able to determine the extent to which a school adds value through individual students' gains. In other words, regardless of whether students attain the proficient level at any given grade, the District is interested in whether the students progressed toward proficiency during that year. Both trend and improvement data will be tracked as well. LRSD Indicator_______ Performance on District- Adopted Kindergarten Literacy Test Performance on District- Adopted Grade 1 Literacy Test Goal (Definition)______________ 90% of a schools students shall perform at or above the proficient level in literacy. The percent of students demonstrating gains from the pretest to the post-test will meet or exceed the trend goal each year. 90% of a schools students shall perform at or above the proficient level in literacy. Grade Level(s) Kindergarten Grade 1 The percent of grade 1 students demonstrating gains from the pretest to the post-test will meet or exceed the trend and improvement goals each year. 6LRSD Indicator_______ Performance on SATO, a Norm-Referenced Test Goal (Definition)_______________ 65% of a schools students in every sub-group of race and gender shall perform at or above the 50 percentile in reading. ,th Grade Levelfs) Grades 5, 7, 10 The percent of students in every sub-group of race and gender performing at or above the 50*^ percentile in reading will meet or exceed the trend and improvement goals each year. 65% of a schools students in every sub-group of race and gender shall perform at or above the 50^ percentile in mathematics. Performance on SAT9, a Norm-Referenced Test The percent of students in every sub-group of race and gender performing at or above the 50^ percentile in mathematics will meet or exceed the trend and improvement goals each year. 30% of a schools students will perform at the highest quartile in reading. The percent of a schools students performing at the highest quartile in reading will meet or exceed the trend and improvement goals each year. 30% of a schools students will perform at the highest quartile in mathematics. The percent of a schools students performing at the highest quartile in mathematics will meet or exceed the trend and improvement goals each year. 7LRSD Indicator_______ Performance on SATO, a Norm-Referenced Test Goal (Definition)_______________ At least 90% of a schools students will perform above the lowest quartile in reading. The percent of a schools students performing above the lowest quartile in reading will meet or exceed the trend and improvement goals each year. At least 90% of a schools students will perform above the lowest quartile in mathematics. Grade Level(s) Performance on District-Adopted Criterion-Referenced Tests The percent of a schools students performing above the lowest quartile in mathematics 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 reading each semester. The percent of students performing at or above the proficient level in reading will meet or exceed the trend and improvement goals each semester. The percent of students demonstrating gains from the pretest to the post-test will meet or exceed the improvement goal each year. Grades 2-11 8LRSD Indicator Goal (Definition)_______________ 90% of a schools students shall perform at or above the proficient level in mathematics each semester. The percent of students performing at or above the proficient level in mathematics will meet or exceed the trend and improvement goals each semester. Grade Level(s) Enrollment in Pre-AP and/or AP Courses The percent of students demonstrating gains from the pretest to the post-test will meet or exceed the improvement goal each year. 65% of middle and high school students will be enrolled in at least one Pre-AP or AP course each year. Grades 6-12 Enrollment in Algebra I by grade 8 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 middle schools students will be enrolled in Algebra I by grade 8. Grade 8 Honors Seal on High School Diploma The percent of students enrolled in Algebra I by grade 8 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. The percent of students completing the requirements for the Honors Seal will meet or exceed the trend goal each year. Grades 9-12 9LRSD Indicator Taking the ACT Goal (Definition)_______________ 65% of a high schools students will take the ACT. Grade Level(s) Grades 11-12 Performance on the ACT The percent of students taking the ACT will meet or exceed the trend goal each\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_31","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":["1997-11","1997-12"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Education--Arkansas","Little Rock (Ark.). Office of Desegregation Monitoring","School integration--Arkansas","Arkansas. Department of Education","Project managers--Implements"],"dcterms_title":["Arkansas Department of Education's (ADE's) Project Management Tool"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/31"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["documents (object genre)"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\nLittle Rock School District, plaintiff vs. Pulaski County Special School District, defendant.\nIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DMSION IVED ov 2 6 1997 OlflCE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF v. No. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al. DEFENDANTS NOTICE OF FILING In accordance with the Court's order of December 10, 1993, the Arkansas Department of Education hereby gives notice of the filing of ADE's Project Management Tool for November, 1997. Respectfully Submitted, WINSTON BRYANT Attorney General -\n__~ /, ~ TIMO'i1-tva. ~ER#95019 Assistant Attorney General 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 682-2007 Attorney for Arkansas Department of Education , IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL V. PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL NO. LR-C-82-866 ADE'S PROJECT MANAGEMENT TOOL RECEIVE NOV 2 S 1997 OFFiCE OF DESffl ~,~ITORING DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS 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 for the current school year. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of November 28, 1997 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 November 28, 1997 Sa_sed on the 1mormation=availa61e at Octooer'31, 19'97, ~ ADE i\nal~ulated for FY 97(98, 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 November 28, 1997 At October 1997, distributions of State Equalization Funding for FY '97/98 were as follows: LRSD - $11,470,002 NLRSD- $6,618,198 pc~sD -J1p, 111,014 !The allotments of State Equalization Funding calculated for FY 97/98 at October 31, 1997, subject to periodic 2 c\nljustments, were _as follows: LRSD - $42,056,681 NLRSD- $24,266,733 PCSSD- $55,410,722 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 November 28, 1997 Based on the information available, the ADE calculated at October 3~1, 1997 (or FY 97 /9~, suofect io periodic apj1cJstments. 2 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) 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. Actual as of November 28, 1997 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 November 28, 1997 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 November 28, 1997 IJ bistributions'fo'r Fy ~7{98\"\"at b.d8Deri 3'1\n199'7 !~talea, $2,~55,317. otment calculated at October 1997for FY 97/98 was $9,002,821, '4 'OY~'1i. .............. ~~x:ic-................... = .,.,...,._ bjecJ to. p~ri.odic agjuslments. 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. 3 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) H. Calculate the amount of M-to-M incentive money to which each school district is entitled. (Continued) 2. Actual as of November 28, 1997 t\nalculated f r FY 97/98, _subject to periodic adjustments. I. Process and distribute M-to-M incentive checks. J . 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, September - June. 2. Actual as of November 28, 1997 Distributions for FY 97/98 at October 31, 1997 were: LRSD - $709,626 ~LRSD - $283,222 PCSSD - $1,164,468 The allotments calculated for FY 97 /98 at October 31, 1997, subject to periodic adjustments, were: LRSD - $3,548,125 NLRSD-$1,416,112 PCSSD - $5,822,342 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 November 28, 1997 In September 1997, the Magnet and M-to-M transportation budgets for FY 97/98 were submitted to the ADE by the Districts. K. Reginald Wilson notifies General Finance to pay districts for first two-thirds of the Districts' proposed budget. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing, annually. 4 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) K. Reginald Wilson notifies General Finance to pay districts for first two-thirds of the Districts' proposed budget. (Continued) 2. Actual as of November 28, 1997 In September 1997, General Finance was notified to pay the first onethird payments for FY 97/98 to the Districts. It should be noted that the Transportation Coordinator is currently performing this function. L. ADE pays districts for first two-thirds of their proposed budget. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing, annually. 2. Actual as of November 28, 1997 In September 1997, General Finance made the first one-third payments to the Districts for their FY 97/98 transportation budget. At October 1997, the following had be~n paid for fY 97/98: LRSO - $1,019,861.33 NLRSD- $141,696.00 PCSSD- $536,541.00 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 November 28, 1997 In August 1997, the ADE transportation coordinator reviewed each district's Magnet and M-to-M transportation costs for FY 96/97. 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. s 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 November 28, 1997 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. 0 . Process and distribute compensatory education payments to LRSD as required by page 23 of the Settlement Agreement. 1 . Projected Ending Date July 1 and January 1, of each school year through January 1, 1999. 2. Actual as of November 28, 1997 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 November 28, 1997 Obligation fulfilled in FY 95/96. 6 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 November 28, 1997 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 November 28, 1997 The LRSD received $3,000,000 in June 1997. As of this reporting date, the LRSD has received $15,000,000 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 November 28, 1997 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 November 28, 1997 Obligation fulfilled in FY 95/96. 7 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) 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 November 28, 1997 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. V. Process and distribute payments for Office of Desegregation Monitoring. 1. Projected Ending Date Not applicable. 2. Actual as of November 28, 1997 Distribution in July 1997 for FY 97/98 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 97/98. 8 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 November 28, 1997 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. 9 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 November 28, 1997 (Continued) 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 by race, gender, and type of program. The Districts and the ADE Desegregation Monitoring staff developed a definition for instructional programs. The Semiannual Monitoring Report was completed and filed with the Court on July 15, 1996 with copies distributed to the parties. Quantitative and qualitative indicators were displayed with specific information provided on cost and enrollment in compensatory programs. 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 11 Cycle 1 schools who did not submit accurate and timely data on discipline, M-to-M transfers, and policy. 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 November 28, 1997 (Continued) As of June 1997, the July 15, 1997 Semiannual Monitoring Report and its executive summary were finalized. In July 1997, the Semiannual Monitoring Report and its executive summary were filed with the court, and the ADE sponsored a School Improvement Conference. Copies of the Semiannual Monitoring Report and its executive summary were made available for the Districts to review on July 10, 1997 from 10:00 am to 2:00 pm. The purpose of the review was to provide the Districts an opportunity to review the report prior to submitting it to the Court. Desegregation monitoring staff members were available to answer questions. Representatives from each district participated. In August 1997, procedures and schedules were organized for the monitoring of the Cycle 2 schools in FY 97/98. A Desegregation Monitoring and School Improvement Workshop for 55 educators from the Districts was held September 10, 1997. Monitoring expectations, instruments, data collection and school improvement visits were discussed. As of October 1997, 10 of the Cycle 2 announced monitoring visits were completed, and 36 technical assistance visits were conducted. On October 9, 1997, a planning meeting was held with the desegregation monitoring staff. Deadlines, responsibilities, and strategic planning issues were discussed regarding the completion of the Semiannual Monitoring Report. Reminder letters were sent to the Cycle 2 principals outlining the data collection deadlines and availability of technical assistance. In November 1997, technical assistance visits were conducted, and announcecl monitoring visits of the Cycle 2 schools were completed. 11 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 November 28, 1997 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 November 28, 1997 To date, no action has been taken by the LRSD. 12 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 November 28, 1997 The information for this item is detailed under Section IV.E. of this report. 8. 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 November 28, 1997 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 November 28, 1997 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 November 28, 1997 The information for this item is detailed under Section IV.E. of this report. 13 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 November 28, 1997 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 81st 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. 14 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 November 28, 1997 (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. lri~Octobef1{:f97, lne Ojstricts were requested to advise:the-ADE, in ~rJting, noJater than, N9vember_ 1, 1997 of any f'!ew lawJhat might i-mm- pede~their desegregation efforts. As of, November 12, 1997, no :0. :)(},. .\n'Y \" \\\" :,, ~ritten',,,responses were received from the Districts. t The ADE ~. % ,_'\u0026lt;\"\"',M \"\"\" -\n: -,\n'\n,\"'  '' d ~ \":\nJ_   fOnCIY,,des th.,.at \u0026amp;!he D1stncts do ,not'feel that,apy1newjpw negatively illlpacts th.~Jr d~~g[~gation efforts. 15 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 November 28, 1997 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 November 28, 1997 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 November 28, 1997 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 16 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 November 28, 1997 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. 17 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 November 28, 1997 (Continued) 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. 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 val idation 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. 18 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 November 28, 1997 (Continued) 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 PMT and its executive summary at the July 14, 1997 board meeting. Additionally, copies of the July 15, 1997 Semiannual Monitoring Report and executive summary were also provided to board members. The State Board of Education received copies of the PMT and its executive summary at the August 11, 1997 board meeting. 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 to direction regarding 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 accordance with the requirements contained in the ADE monitoring documents. In October 1997, the State Board of Education was provided copies of the monthly PMT and its executive summary. Additionally, a special draft report regarding disparity in achievement was submitted to the State Board Chairman and the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee. 19 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 November 28, 1997 (Continued) 20 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 November 28, 1997 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. 21 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 November 28, 1997 (Continued) 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. In March 1996, unannounced monitoring visits of Cycle 5 schools commenced, and two-day peer team visits of Cycle 5 schools were conducted. Team lists and materials for two-day visits were prepared, and written reports of two-day team visits 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 for completeness and included in the July monitoring report. The twoday 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 using descriptive statistics. The Districts identified enrollment in compensatory education programs by race, gender, and type of compensatory program. 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 the 96/97 school year. The Districts were requested to record discipline data in accordance with the Allen Letter and to include the race, gender, and years of experience of the teacher. 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 with training schedules outlined for Cycle 1 schools. 22 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 November 28, 1997 (Continued) In October 1996, all schools in the Districts identified their technical assistance needs by utilizing their school improvement plans. Technical assistance needs were identified and addressed to prepare each school for their team visits. The 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. 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. In March and April 1997, 76 visits were made to schools or central offices to work with principals, ECOE steering committees, and designated district personnel concerning school improvement planning. As of May 1997, 111 visits were made to schools or central offices to work with principals, ECOE steering committees, and designated central office staff concerning school improvement planning, and 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. In August 1997, technical assistance needs were evaluated for the FY 97/98 school year. 23 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 November 28, 1997 (Continued) In October 1997, technical reviews of the ECOE process were conducted by the field service representatives. The field service representatives provided technical assistance 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. l_n November 1997, technic\naf r~view')5'f1the EC0E process were f:onaucted_by the field servi~ r~preenJ~iio~opjunction wi!h the ~nnounc~d' rn.onitoring visits. 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 November 28, 1997 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 2. Actual as of November 28, 1997 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. 24 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) C. Through the ERIC system, conduct a literature search for research evaluating compensatory education programs. (Continued) _ 2. Actual as of November 28, 1997 (Continued) In August 1995, a new ERIC disc arrived, and an updated search was conducted. These articles were reviewed. 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. 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 November 28, 1997 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 November 28, 1997 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 25 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of November 28, 1997 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 Mid-Winter Conference. The theme of the conference centered around the Improving America's Schools Act which emphasizes 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. 26 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of November 28, 1997 (Continued) In February 1997, three ADE employees attended the Southeast Regional Conference on Educating Black Children which facilitated the ADE in identifying and obtaining technical assistance resources. The focus of the conference was Excellence Without Excuse - Educating All 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 in order to identify and obtain technical assistance resources for use in desegregation efforts. The participants received training in strategies for Excellence and Equity: Empowennent 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 which identified technical assistance resources available to the Districts. 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 in their continuing efforts of identifying resources for providing technical assistance. An Implementation Oversight Committee member participated in the Consolidated COE Plan inservice training. In June 1997, field service staff attended a SAT-9 testing workshop to facilitate their efforts of identifying resources for providing technical assistance to the Districts. 27 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of November 28, 1997 (Continued) In July 1997, the field service specialists 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 a continuing effort to identify and provide technical assistance resources to the Districts, Field Service personnel attended the ASCD Statewide Conference and the AAEA Administrators Conference in August 1997. 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. The ELLA program provides staff development to classroom teachers with an emphasis on grades K-3. The Schools of the 21st Century program emphasizes a coordination of efforts and resources within the community to prepare children in their early years for school. In September 1997, technical assistance was provided to the Cycle 2 principals on data collection for onsite and offsite monitoring. In an effort to obtain resources for technical assistance, the Lead Planner, the Equity Coordinator, the Reading Specialist, and the Assistant Director for Accountability 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. 28 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 November 28, 1997 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 November 28, 1997 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. 29 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. 1. Projected Ending Date March 1995 and ongoing 2. Actual as of November 28, 1997 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. 30 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 November 28, 1997 (Continued) 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. 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. 31 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 November 28, 1997 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 November 28, 1997 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 November 28, 1997 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 inservice training needs of desegregating districts. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 32 VIII. IN-SERVICE TRAINING (Continued) D. Evaluate in-service training programs developed and executed to address inservice training needs of desegregating districts. (Continued) 2. Actual as of November 28, 1997 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. 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. 33 VIII. IN-SERVICE TRAINING (Continued) D. Evaluate in-service training programs developed and executed to address inservice training needs of desegregating districts. (Continued) 2. Actual as of November 28, 1997 (Continued) 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. The committee also discussed the need for computer literacy, technology training, and acquisition of hardware and software by the Districts. 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 timelines. 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. 34 VIII. IN-SERVICE TRAINING (Continued) D. Evaluate in-service training programs developed and executed to address inservice training needs of desegregating districts. (Continued) 2. Actual as of November 28, 1997 (Continued) The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met on March 26, 1997 to observe the Great Expectations Program, a program designed to instill confidence and self-esteem in students at Bale Elementary, one of five schools in the LRSD participating in the 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. 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 noncertified 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. 35 VIII. IN-SERVICE TRAINING (Continued) D. Evaluate in-service training programs developed and executed to address inservice training needs of desegregating districts. (Continued) 2. Actual as of November 28, 1997 (Continued) 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. 'fheTn-bistncfStaff~Develo-pmenf'committee met on October 28, ~ ~ - 1997. The LRSD and NLRSD shared some of their staff development course offerings with the c::pmmittee, and the PCSSD discussed ways of optimizing opportunities for staff development with specific ~mptiasiS..QIJ Jhejun.iQ[JJlgb,~q_hoq_l co_nflict reQlytion training. In November 1997, the Lead Planner provided technical assistance to the certified staff of Central High School regarding data disaggregation, test score analysis and ways to improve student achievement. 36 IX. RECRUITMENT OF MINORITY TEACHERS A. Facilitate communication between the Districts and Arkansas colleges and universities with teacher education programs. 1. Projected Ending Dates (See dates on individual key activities) 2. Actual as of November 28, 1997 A staff member of the ADE's certification department attended all of the college career days in FY 94/95 in Arkansas and one out-of-state. In FY 95/96, ADE certification staff members attended career and job fairs at the following colleges and universities: Philander Smith College\nUAM\nHSU\nATU\nUCA\nASU\nUA-Pine Bluff\nUA-Fayetteville\nHarding University\nSAU\nand Jackson State. ADE certification staff met with representatives from the Districts to ensure they were aware that ADE personnel were available to provide assistance in recruitment and certification of minority teacher candidates. A job fair was conducted at the University of Arkansas at Pine Bluff on December 4, 1996. The Districts were advised of the ADE's availability for providing assistance in recruitment and certification. In February 1997, ADE certification staff members attended teacher job fairs at Henderson State University, Arkansas Tech University, and University of Central Arkansas to facilitate communication between the Districts and Arkansas colleges and universities with teacher education programs. ADE certification staff members attended teacher job fairs at Harding University, UA-Fayetteville, UA-Pine Bluff, and ASU in April 1997 to facilitate communication between the Districts and Arkansas colleges and universities with teacher education programs. From April 16, 1997 through May 6, 1997, ADE certification staff members attended teacher job fairs at Philander Smith College and SAU to facilitate communication between the Districts and Arkansas colleges and universities with teacher education programs. Additionally, ADE staff attended an out-of-state teacher job fair at Jackson State University at Jackson, Mississippi. Recruitment activities were suspended for the summer, but they wi ll resume in the later part of September for FY 97/98. On September 25, 1997, the ADE's Professional Licensure Supervisor attended a career day job fair at Philander Smith College to provide support to the Districts in recruiting teachers. 37 IX. RECRUITMENT OF MINORITY TEACHERS (Continued) A. Facilitate communication between the Districts and Arkansas colleges and universities with teacher education programs. 2. Actual as of November 28, 1997 (Continued) B. Beginning in 1994, by May and November of each year, Districts will supply to the ADE information about shortages of teachers by grade and subject area. 1. Projected Ending Dates Ongoing, as stated. 2. Actual as of November 28, 1997 Letters were sent in May, August, and December 1995 to the Districts requesting information regarding teaching positions available by grade and subject areas. In May and November 1996, the Human Resources offices of the Districts were requested to provide information regarding teaching positions available by grade and subject area. On February 4, 1997, the ADE again requested that the Districts provide information to ADE regarding teacher shortages. During February 1997, the NLRSD and the PCSSD responded to the ADE regarding teacher shortages. NLRSD teacher shortages are expected in the areas of Special Education, Mathematics, the Sciences, Foreign Language, and English as a Second Language. PCSSD teacher shortages are anticipated in the areas of Foreign Language, Mathematics, the Sciences, and Gifted and Talented Education. On May 20, 1997, information was requested from the Districts regarding teacher shortages. Follow-up letters were sent to the Districts on July 11, 1997 requesting information on teacher shortages that was initially requested in May. 38 IX. RECRUITMENT OF MINORITY TEACHERS (Continued) C. Beginning in 1994, by May and December of each year, request information from colleges and universities about the numbers and types of minorityteacher graduates. D. 1. Projected Ending Dates Ongoing, as stated. 2. Actual as of November 28, 1997 In May and December 1995, letters were sent to all Deans and Certifying Officers of Institutions of Higher Education in Arkansas requesting information on minority teacher graduates. Letters were sent to all Deans and Certifying Officers of Institutions of Higher Education in Arkansas in May and November 1996 requesting information on minority teacher graduates. On May 20, 1997, letters were sent to all Arkansas colleges and universities with teacher education programs requesting minority teacher graduate information. Within 30 days of receiving data from colleges and universities provide the Districts data on teacher openings to the colleges and universities on minority graduates to the Districts. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of November 28, 1997 In June 1995 and January 1996, ADE sent the information received from Arkansas colleges and universities on minority teacher education graduates to the Districts. In July 1996 and January 1997, ADE sent the information received from Deans and Certifying Officers on minority teacher education graduates to the Districts. On February 3, 1997, a list of minority teacher graduates from the University of Arkansas at Fayetteville was forwarded to the Districts. The information on these graduates was received after the initial list was compiled. The addition of these graduates was sent to the Districts as an addendum to the list of graduates compiled on January 16, 1997. 39 IX. RECRUITMENT OF MINORITY TEACHERS (Continued) D. Within 30 days of receiving data from colleges and universities provide the Districts data on teacher openings to the colleges and universities on minority graduates to the Districts. 2. Actual as of November 28, 1997 (Continued) The ADE provided the Districts with the Minority Teacher Graduate Report which was compiled from the minority teacher graduate information received from Arkansas colleges and universities in July 1997. E. Each November, ADE will request information from the Districts on the effectiveness of ADE's minority recruitment assistance, including an assessment of the minority teacher candidates' database. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of November 28, 1997 On November 30, 1994, letters were sent to the Districts requesting feedback on the effectiveness of the ADE's minority recruitment assistance. Follow-up letters were sent on March 17, 1995 since no responses had been received. Additional follow-up letters were sent to the Districts in August 1995 because the ADE had received no responses from the Districts. A planning and evaluation meeting was scheduled on January 11, 1996 with representatives from the Districts. The Districts did not attend the meeting. In February 1997, letters were sent to the Districts requesting feedback on the effectiveness of ADE's minority recruitment assistance. The NLRSD and the PCSSD submitted favorable evaluations concerning the effectiveness of the ADE's recruitment assistance efforts. The ADE did not received any information from the LRSD regarding this matter. 40 X. FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE TO MINORITY TEACHER CANDIDATES A. Assist ADHE in identifying, analyzing, addressing and eliminating racial disparities in the allocation of scholarships. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of November 28, 1997 The information for this item is detailed under Section X.D. of this report. B. Representatives of the ADE and the ADHE will work together, review ADHE's available data to identify racial disparities in allocation of scholarships. C. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of November 28, 1997 The information for this item is detailed under Section X.D. of this report. Using its knowledge about public schools, teacher education and certification, and through a collaborative effort with the Districts, ADE will analyze racial disparities in ADHE scholarship allocations. ADE will report its findings, conclusions, and recommendations about racial disparities in allocating scholarships to ADHE. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of November 28, 1997 The information for this item is detailed under Section X. D. of this report. D. Working with the ADHE, the ADE will use its relationships in the public education institutional settings to assist implementation of measures designed to reduce racial disparities in allocation of scholarships. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 41 X. FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE TO MINORITY TEACHER CANDIDATES (Continued) D. Working with the ADHE, the ADE will use its relationships in the public education institutional settings to assist implementation of measures designed to reduce racial disparities in allocation of scholarships. (Continued) 2. Actual as of November 28, 1997 In April 1995, ADE met with representatives of ADHE concerning identification and analysis of possible disparities in scholarship allocations. In June 1995, a collaborative effort was made between the ADE and ADHE to enhance the rate at which minorities were applying for the 1995 teacher scholarships with special emphasis on the areas of science, math, and foreign language through a direct mail program. In July 1995, representatives from the ADE and the Districts met to review the scholarship applications. The Implementation Committee on Financial Assistance to Minority Teacher Candidates discussed ways to increase minority awareness of the scholarships available for minority teacher applicants. The committee agreed to meet quarterly to identify, analyze, and address elfminating racial disparities in scholarships. The committee met in December 1995 to discuss the distribution of scholarships for the 95/96 school year. The committee meets on a continuous basis to review scholarship distributions and discuss ways of improving the pool of applicants for minority teacher scholarships as detailed further in Section X. E. of this report. E. Monitor the allocation of scholarships to minority students by the ADHE\nevaluate the impacts of new approaches and new legislation on an ongoing basis. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of November 28, 1997 During the May 1995 Legislative session, Acts 188, 189 and 259 regarding scholarships were passed. A meeting to monitor and analyze the distribution of scholarships for the 95/96 school year was held on December 15, 1995. 42 X. FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE TO MINORITY TEACHER CANDIDATES (Continued) E. Monitor the allocation of scholarships to minority students by the ADHE\nevaluate the impacts of new approaches and new legislation on an ongoing basis. (Continued) 2. Actual as of November 28, 1997 (Continued) The committee met on June 7, 1996 to review the scholarship applications for minority teacher candidates for the 96/97 school year. Representatives from the ADHE stated that the ADHE expected to have the resources to fund: 56 scholarships under the Emergency Secondary Education Loan Program\n100 scholarships under the Minority Teacher Scholars Program\nand 13 scholarships under the Minority Masters Fellows Program. The committee also discussed ways of increasing the scholarship applicant pools, and a recommendation was made to make scholarships available to parttime students. In September 1996, a proposal was submitted to the Assistant to the Director for Legislative Services recommending the Legislature offer minority teacher scholarships to part-time students. The committee met on October 23, 1996 to review the scholarships awarded for the 96/97 school year. The following scholarships were funded: 60 scholarships totaling $144,266 for the Emergency Secondary Education Loan Program\n20 scholarships totaling $107,500 for the Minority Masters Fellows Program\n109 scholarships totaling $505,093 for the Minority Teacher Scholars Program\nand 258 students in the Freshman/Sophomore Minority Grant Program received scholarships totaling $374,000. In March 1997, information on minority teacher scholarships and how to apply was provided to the Districts and Arkansas colleges and universities. The Districts were informed of ADHE's scholarship promotional efforts and legislative updates. The next meeting of the committee will be in September 1997. On April 8, 1997, notifications were sent to all Arkansas colleges and universities on the Minority Teacher Scholars Program reminding them that the deadline for receiving applications was June 1, 1997. This information was also provided to the Districts. The Minority Teacher Scholarship Committee will meet on October 9, 1997 to discuss the scholarships awarded for FY 97/98. 43 X. FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE TO MINORITY TEACHER CANDIDATES (Continued) E. Monitor the allocation of scholarships to minority students by the ADHE\nevaluate the impacts of new approaches and new legislation on an ongoing basis. (Continued) 2. Actual as of November 28, 1997 (Continued) The Minority Teacher Scholarship Recruitment Committee met on October 9, 1997 to discuss the scholarships awarded for FY 97/98. The ADHE Assistant Coordinator for Student Financial Aid provided a comprehensive presentation on scholarships awarded for the 97 /98 school year. There were 235 scholarships awarded in the Freshman/Sophomore Minority Scholarship program totaling $344,988. The Emergency Secondary Education Loan program awarded 52 scholarships for a total of $119,370. There were 83 scholarships for $403,520 awarded in the Minority Teachers Scholars program. The Minority Masters Fellows program awarded 20 scholarships for a total of $73,750. The ADHE representative indicated that during the 1997 regular legislative session legislation was passed to allow hispanics and asians to participate in the minority scholarship programs. It was stated that the average GPA for minority teacher scholarship recipients had increased to 3.13, and that the dollars awarded in the Minority Masters Fellows program were down from last year because most of the recipients were part-time students. The committee discussed numerous avenues that might be utilized to inform minority applicants of scholarships available. Communication with the faculty of Arl\u0026lt;ansas colleges and universities regarding the availability of scholarships was discussed as a way of infom,ing teaching students of possible resources available to them. The next quarterly meeting of the Minority Teacher Scholarship Recruitment Committee will be February 19, 1998. 44 XI. MINORITY RECRUITMENT OF ADE STAFF A. Administer the ADE Minority Recruitment Plan developed by the ADE staff and Board of Education and officially adopted by the Board of Education (see Exhibit B for the ADE's Minority Recruitment Plan with specific objectives and timelines). 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of November 28, 1997 The Minority Recruitment Committee met on Friday, April 14, 1995. New committee members were assigned tasks and goals to increase the effectiveness of the Minority Recruitment Plan. At the Minority Recruitment Committee meeting on May 18, 1995, the committee was divided into four working sub-teams to update the annual plan. Each team focused on one of the four goals in the Minority Recruitment Plan and monitored specific task completions. From June to October 1995, subcommittees met and worked on monitoring the progress of the ADE in accomplishing the tasks outlined in the Minority Recruitment Plan. In September 1995, the ADE reached an agreement with the Arkansas Statewide Systemic Initiative (ASSI) for conducting an audit of the Minority Recruitment Plan. The committee reviewed the recommendations and comments for updating the plan at the November 1995 meeting and reviewed the final draft at the December meeting. The ASSl's audit findings were presented to the committee on January 16, 1996. It was determined during the initial review that the files were incomplete to the extent that an accurate audit was not possible. The auditor met with the committee in March 1996 to review the additional documentation in the files. The auditor prepared the final report in April 1996 indicating that of the 89 actions contained in the Minority Recruitment Plan, 74 of the items had been completed, nine were in progress, and six had not been started. The audit stated that of the 22 items in Goal 1, 15 were completed , one was in progress, and six had not been started. Goal 2 contained 14 items, 13 of which were completed and one in progress. Goal 3 consisted of 30 items with 29 items completed and one in progress. Goal 4 consisted of 23 items with 17 items completed and six in progress. 45 XI. MINORITY RECRUITMENT OF ADE STAFF (Continued) A. Administer the ADE Minority Recruitment Plan developed by the ADE staff and Board of Education and officially adopted by the Board of Education (see Exhibit B for the ADE's Minority Recruitment Plan with specific goals, objectives and timelines). (Continued) 2. Actual as of November 28, 1997 (Continued) The Minority Recruitment Committee met on June 6, 1996 to discuss updates and revisions addressed in the audit and the new racial/gender report on Grades 21 and above. Since the completion of the audit, Goals 2.3.4 and 3.3.8 were completed, and a list of recommendations for retention activities was written. Also, a random sample of ADE employees was asked to fill out questionnaires, but only a limited number were returned. In August 1996, the Minority Recruitment Committee met and discussed the actions necessary to complete Goals 1 and 4 contained in the Minority Recruitment Plan. At the September 1996 meeting, the committee was updated on the progress of all four goals in the Minority Recruitment Plan. The committee heard an analysis of application and hiring practices and discussed the relevance of the data. Suggestions made by the State Board of Education regarding the Employee Tracking Data Check Sheet were discussed at the February 1996 meeting of the Minority Recruitment Committee. Goal 1 of the Minority Recruitment Plan will be completed when the employee tracking sheet is finalized. The Minority Recruitment Committee met on March 14, 1997 and March 27, 1997 to discuss the draft Revised Minority Recruitment Plan and progress toward completing Goal 4. The committee passed a motion to omit Section 1.1 from Goal 1 of the draft revised plan. Additionally, the committee suggested that communication be made an integral part of each goal of the revised plan. The committee discussed the need for professional training programs, incentives for educational opportunities, and upward mobility for all staff within the ADE. In an effort to complete Goal 4, a representative from the ADE communication section presented development costs for media materials to the committee. Additionally, a representative from the ADE MIS section discussed the possibility of using the network to disseminate information to employees. It was suggested that the committee continue to receive assistance from MIS on the orientation video. 46 XI. MINORITY RECRUITMENT OF ADE STAFF (Continued) A. Administer the ADE Minority Recruitment Plan developed by the ADE staff and Board of Education and officially adopted by the Board of Education (see Exhibit B for the ADE's Minority Recruitment Plan with specific goals, objectives and timelines). (Continued) 2. Actual as of November 28, 1997 (Continued} In an effort to represent all sections within the ADE, the committee recommended that representatives from the ADE communication and MIS sections be added as members to the committee. Currently, neither section is represented on the committee. The Minority Recruitment Committee met on April 18, 1997 to discuss the need to revise the action steps for each of the committee's four goals. The committee decided to schedule a two-day retreat in an effort to review all goals and actions. The Minority Recruitment Committee met on May 19, 1997 to discuss the agenda for the annual retreat and revisions to the action plan emphasizing recruitment and retention at all grade levels. A two-day annual retreat was held on June 18-19, 1997 at the Teacher Retirement Building. The retreat facilitated the revision of the Minority Recruitment Committee's action plan for their four goals. Dr. Gary Chamberlain, UALR faculty member, served as the facilitator. The revised plan was distributed to the Minority Recruitment Committee at their July 18, 1997 meeting for final approval before it is submitted to the administrative team and the State Board of Education. The Minority Recruitment Committee meeting scheduled for September 12, 1997 was rescheduled for September 30, 1997 due to members scheduling conflicts. The meeting will be reported in the November PMT. !the Minorily'7Recruitmen Committee met wifh fhe ADE Deputy pirector i~ November 1997 to provide him w~IJ..@-copy of th~ revised plan and fe,_~iye_his i11pJ.Jt .Qn the plan. B. Monitor minority representation at all levels of ADE and assess the effectiveness of the ADE Minority Recruitment Plan. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 47 XI. MINORITY RECRUITMENT OF ADE STAFF (Continued) 8. Monitor minority representation at all levels of ADE and assess the effectiveness of the ADE Minority Recruitment Plan. (Continued) 2. Actual as of November 28, 1997 As of August 1995, the ADE had hired or transferred 38 employees in Grades 21 and above in the General Education Division. This group was composed of 11 black females, 5 black males, 16 white females, 4 white males, 1 other female, and 1 other male. The racial composition of the these employees was 52.6 percent non-minority and 47.4 percent minority. As of October 1995, there were 161 filled positions in the GED in Grades 21 and above. There were 27 minorities or 22.9 percent in Grades 21 and above. An analysis on Goal 1 regarding application and hiring practices was presented at the September 1996 meeting. Samples of graphs and tables for presenting the data were distributed at the meeting. The Minority Recruitment Committee met on December 13, 1996 to discuss the latest draft of the ADE Employee Tracking Data Check Sheet. The committee recommended various format changes including the addition of a table of contents and an executive summary. The committee met on January 17, 1997 to continue the discussion on the draft ADE Employee Tracking Data Check Sheet. The Assistant Director for Planning and Curriculum agreed with all but three of the committee's recommendations for the employee tracking sheet. He requested that the committee continue discussions on this matter. The Minority Recruitment Committee met on February 14, 1997 to discuss the status of the Employee Tracking Data Check Sheet. The employee tracking sheet will enable the committee to monitor the recruitment and retention of minority employees by unit and section at every grade level and monitor minority representation at all grade levels within the ADE. The committee also discussed the lack of minority employees in some areas and the loss of several minority employees. There were also discussions regarding the possibility of revising the new Minority Recruitment Plan that has been submitted to the ADE administrative team. 48 XI. MINORITY RECRUITMENT OF ADE STAFF (Continued) B. Monitor minority representation at all levels of ADE and assess the effectiveness of the ADE Minority Recruitment Plan. (Continued) 2. Actual as of November 28, 1997 (Continued) The committee received information on Arkansas pupil enrollment by race at their March 14, 1997 meeting. Arkansas enrollment figures for October 1, 1996 revealed that 73. 7% of all students are white, 23.4% are black, 1.8% are hispanic, 0.7% are asian, and 0.4% are native american. In an effort to assess the effectiveness of the action steps for each goal, agenda items are being developed for the committee's June retreat. The committee recommended that invitations be sent to Senator Beebe, Julie Cullen, Gene Wilhoit, and all State Board members. At the May 1997 Minority Recruitment Committee meeting, the committee discussed reviewing the most recent quarterly hiring and retention report and revisions to the action plan at the annual retreat. Discussions during the July retreat focused on the current plan, the original purpose of the plan, and necessary changes with input provided by committee members and speakers from the Arkansas Department of Higher Education, Employment Securities, and the ADE. 49 XII. SCHOOL CONSTRUCTION A. Improve the effectiveness of the ADE's existing rules, regulations, and site evaluation form for assessing the desegregation impacts of school construction between school districts. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of November 28, 1997 The information for this item is detailed under Section XII.C. of this report. B. Review existing rules, regulations and site evaluation forms and their application to school construction projects within districts and between districts. 1. Projected Ending Date October 1994 2. Actual as of November 28, 1997 The information for th is item is detailed under Section XII.C. of this report. C. Amend the rules, regulations and site evaluation forms as they apply to all districts contiguous to the three Pulaski County school districts to assure that the school construction analysis specifically addresses the impacts on racial balances of individual school sites within the three districts. 1. Projected Ending Date October 1994 2. Actual as of November 28, 1997 ADE's School Site Selection Committee met on April 21, 1995 to revise the proposed rules and regulations. The proposed rules and regulations were presented to the State Board of Education on May 8, 1995. The Board voted to table the decision on public comment until the proposed rules and regulations were reviewed by the Attorney General's Office. The Attorney General's Office reviewed the revised school construction draft and provided a letter of approval. 50 XII. SCHOOL CONSTRUCTION (Continued) C. Amend the rules, regulations and site evaluation forms as they apply to all districts contiguous to the three Pulaski County school districts to assure that the school construction analysis specifically addresses the impacts on racial balances of individual school sites within the three districts. (Continued) 2. Actual as of November 28, 1997 (Continued) On June 12, 1995, the State Board of Education voted to place the revised School Site Approval rules and regulations for public comment. The hearing was held on June 19, 1995 in the ADE Auditorium, and a copy of the revised draft was sent to all school districts in an ADE Director's Memo. Proposed rules and regulations underwent a third revision and were presented to the Board in July 1995 with a request for final approval. The revised rules and regulations were approved by the State Board of Education on July 10, 1995. On August 3, 1995, the proposed School Site Approval rules and regulations were reviewed by the Legislative Council. Due to questions raised by the staff attorney for the Legislative Council, the council voted to defer review until their next meeting so that additional information could be obtained to resolve the questioned items. The proposed School Site Approval rules and regulations were reviewed by the Legislative Council on September 7, 1995 and went into effect on September 8, 1995. Goal completed. No additional reporting required. 51 XIII. ASSIST PCSSD A. Detennine if the PCSSD wants and needs assistance in lowering the cost of Black History course offerings to its certified staff. 8. 1. Projected Ending Date April, 1994 2. Actual as of November 28, 1997 A letter was mailed to the desegregation director of the PCSSD on March 16, 1995 regarding offering assistance in facilitating a special arrangement with colleges and universities for reducing the cost of a black history course offering to the PCSSD certified staff. In a letter dated April 3, 1995, the PCSSD responded that their staff development director was working with UALR to develop the black history course offerings. No additional assistance was requested of the ADE. Goal completed as of June 1995. If PCSSD wants assistance, communicate with local colleges and universities to facilitate the Black History course offerings to PCSSD teachers at the lower costs possible. 1. Projected Ending Date September 1994 2. Actual as of November 28, 1997 UALR informed the ADE that they had contacted PCSSD regarding their willingness to provide non-credit black history studies for the PCSSD. UALR indicated that as of November 11, 1994 they had received no response from the PCSSD. Two universities offered assistance in providing teachers in the PCSSD a black history course. The ADE had not received requests for any assistance with the facilitation of a black history course in the PCSSD as of February 27, 1995. On April 3, 1995, the PCSSD informed ADE that its staff development director was working with UALR to develop the black history course offering. No additional assistance was requested of the ADE. 52 XIV. SCATTERED SITE HOUSING A. Through Executive Branch communication procedures, ADE will inquire about State land holdings in Pulaski County and about the availability of State land holdings for use as building sites for scattered-site housing. 1. Projected Ending Date Not applicable. 2. Actual as of November 28, 1997 The ADE had previously inquired about State land holdings in Pulaski County and about availability of State land holdings for use as building sites for scattered site housing. All materials were distributed to the appropriate district representatives. There has been no contact with the PCSSD on Scattered Site Housing since July 1995. Goal completed. No additional reporting required. 53 xv. STANDARDIZED TEST SELECTION TO DETERMINE LRSD LOAN FORGIVENESS A Meet with and propose to the representatives of the LRSD that the current Stanford 8 standardized test, following a bias-free validation study, be used to measure the District's progress toward meeting the loan forgiveness thresholds of the Settlement Agreement. 1 . Projected Ending Date May 1994 2. Actual as of November 28, 1997 On April 21, 1995, a letter was sent to the LRSD Superintendent suggesting meeting dates to discuss the variables which affect student achievement. On May 1, 1995, the ADE Director was advised of the need to discuss the selection of the SAT-8 to measure the LRSD's progress toward meeting the loan forgiveness threshold of the Settlement Agreement. On May 21, 1995, the ADE staff discussed the status of the selection of the test relevant to the ADE's Implementation Plan. The Variables Committee, a subcommittee of the Test Selection Committee, received evaluations on the relationship of the various types of scores that could be used on the SA T-8 Test. The Variables Committee recommended using the state-adopted norm referenced test to determine the achievement levels of black and white students. Based on the evaluations, they indicated that scaled scores or raw scores would appear to be the better metrics to use for this purpose. The recommendation from the Variables Committee was submitted to the Test Selection Committee and the ADE Director on July 28, 1995. Until the test validation has been completed, no additional progress can occur on this objective. For the progress being made on the test validation process see Section VII. of this report. In August 1996, copies of the test validation report were provided to the State Board of Education and the ADE administrative team. Additionally, the LRSD Director of Planning, Research and Evaluation was provided a copy of the test validation report. 54 XV. STANDARDIZED TEST SELECTION TO DETERMINE LRSD LOAN FORGIVENESS (Continued) A. Meet with and propose to the representatives of the LRSD that the current Stanford 8 standardized test, following a bias-free validation study, be used to measure the Districts' progress toward meeting the loan forgiveness thresholds of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of November 28, 1997 (Continued) On September 10, 1996, the LRSD notified the ADE that the district had reviewed the test validation report and would like to meet with the ADE to discuss the report. The Director of the ADE 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 Director of the ADE, ADE Assistant Director of Technical Assistance, and ADE Assistant Director of Planning and Curriculum for their review in preparation for the meeting with the LRSD regarding the validity study. In February 1997, a memorandum was sent to the Assistant Directors of Technical Assistance and Planning and Curriculum which summarized the test validation and variables subcommittee work and outlined the next step of formalizing an agreement with the LRSD on the use of the SAT-8 and the choice of raw or scaled scores as the metric. Effective September 22, 1997, the State Board of Education hired a new Director of the General Education Division, which should allow ADE to move forward in this matter. 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. 55 XVI. MONITOR SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PLANS A. Fully implement the Extended COE Improvement Plan Process in all schools in the three Pulaski County school districts. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of November 28, 1997 The information for this item is detailed under Section XVI.D. of this report. 8 . Conduct the Extended COE School Improvement Plan peer review process in 20% of the schools each year (every school every five years) and provide peer review team recommendations to the schools reviewed. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of November 28, 1997 The information for this item is detailed under Section XVI. D. of this report. C. Receive from all schools, annual reports on progress toward meeting recommendations of School Improvement Plans. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of November 28, 1997 The information for this item is detailed under Section XVI.D\nof this report. D. Follow-up and assist schools that have difficulty realizing their school improvement objectives. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of November 28, 1997 In June 1995, ADE personnel reviewed the Extended COE packet and prepared for holistic reviews of the Cycle 5 schools. 56 XVI. MONITOR SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PLANS (Continued) D. Follow-up and assist schools that have difficulty realizing their school improvement objectives. (Continued) 2. Actual as of November 28, 1997 In July 1995, year-end reports were finalized by the field service specialists. Plans to conduct holistic reviews of the draft school improvement plans of the Cycle 5 schools, and plans for the 95/96 school year were discussed. In August 1995, holistic reviews of the Cycle 5 school improvement plans were conducted. A school improvement conference was conducted, and documentation for technical review visits in the 95/96 school year was discussed. In October 1995, computer programs used by Effective Schools proponents were ordered for review, and a draft monitoring checklist for ECOE was developed. In November 1995, two meetings were held to plan for 95/96 monitoring. Onsite visits were conducted to prepare schools for the FY 95/96 team visits, and technical review visits continued in the Districts. In December 1995, technical assistance visits were conducted, and monitoring occurred in all schools in the Districts. As of December 31, 1996, approximately 59% of the schools in the Districts had been monitored, and technical review visits continued. In February 1996, announced monitoring visits in the Districts were completed. The field service specialists completed the midyear monitoring reports and prepared for the spring NCA/COE peer team visits. In March 1996, unannounced visits and peer team two-day visits of Cycle 5 schools were conducted. Written reports of two-day team visits were prepared, and field service specialists provided assistance to schools on their school improvement plans. In April and May 1996, unannounced monitoring visits were completed, and monitoring forms were scanned for inclusion in the July monitoring report. Team visits were completed, and the annual COE monitoring reports were prepared. 57 XVI. MONITOR SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PLANS (Continued) D. Follow-up and assist schools that have difficulty realizing their school improvement objectives. (Continued) 2. Actual as of November 28, 1997 (Continued) In June 1996, the data from the announced and unannounced monitoring visits of the Cycle 5 schools was analyzed using descriptive statistics. The Semiannual Monitoring Report was filed with the Court, and copies were distributed to the parties. Information was included on cost and enrollment in compensatory programs. All school improvement plans were monitored in the Cycle 5 schools. Reports regarding the two day team visits were included in the Semiannual Monitoring Report. In August 1996, meetings were held with the Districts regarding announced 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 on the monitoring schedule and content layouts of the semiannual report were submitted to the ADE administrative team for their review. Training materials were developed with tentative training schedules outlined for Cycle 1 schools. In October 1996, a meeting was held with the Districts to identify, update, and modify the schools in Cycles 1 - 5. Monitoring packets for the Cycle 1 schools were presented during the Principal's Monitoring Workshops. Technical assistance was provided to the Cycle 1 schools regarding their school improvement goals. Announced monitoring visits of the Cycle 1 schools began on October 28, 1996, and technical assistance was provided to schools in realizing the goals established in their school improvement plans. In December 1996, the field service representatives completed the announced monitoring visits of the Cycle 1 schools and provided assistance to the schools in achieving their school improvement goals. The ECOE monitoring reports on the Cycle 1 school improvement plans were included in the Semiannual Monitoring Report and presented to the State Board of Education, the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee, and the parties in January 1997. 58 XVI. MONITOR SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PLANS (Continued) D. Follow-up and assist schools that have difficulty realizing their school improvement objectives. (Continued) 2. Actual as of November 28, 1997 (Continued) In February 1997, the field service specialists prepared for the spring peer team visits of the Cycle 1 schools and prepared the annual NCA reports. The NLRSD Cycle 1 ECOE team visits were completed in March 1997. Cycle 5 schools submitted their progress reports from their FY 95/96 team visits, and the outcomes will be reviewed and compiled for inclusion in the PMT after all have been received. Assistance was provided to the Districts based on the results of monitoring visits and specific requests. Team visits were completed in April 1997 for the PCSSD. The LRSD prepared for their team visits, and Cycle 5 school progress reports were received. Assistance was provided to the Districts based on the monitoring reports and specific requests. An expanded team meeting of Team Vwas held on April 7, 1997 to provide training for monitoring activities and evaluating school improvement plans during team visits. A presentation was made on Act 338 of 1991 . ECOE team visits were scheduled, and all Cycle 1 peer team external visits were conducted as of May 1997. Assistance was provided based on the results of the monitoring visits and specific requests. As of June 1997, all Cycle 1 schools had their ECOE team reports provided to them for their review, and information was mailed to the Cycle 5 schools regarding their progress reports. Assistance was provided based on information received in progress reports or specific requests. The July 15-17, 1997 School Improvement Conference was held in Hot Springs and emphasized the COE school improvement process. The conference focused on Phase II of COE and the need for the continuation of school improvement. The field service specialists provided technical assistance throughout the conference on school improvement activities and plans and answered questions from delegates. As of August 1997, dates for the ECOE team visits of the Cycle 2 schools were established for FY 97/98, and progress reports were in the final stages. Technical assistance was provided as progress reports were evaluated and when specific requests were made. 59 XVI. MONITOR SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PLANS (Continued) D. Follow-up and assist schools that have difficulty realizing their school improvement objectives. (Continued) 2. Actual as of November 28, 1997 (Continued) Technical assistance was provided to the Cycle 2 principals at the Desegregation Monitoring and School Improvement Workshop held on September 10, 1997. In October 1997, technical reviews of the ECOE process were conducted along with the announced monitoring visits of the Cycle 2 schools. The field service representatives discussed the ECOE process with principals, ECOE steering committees, and faculty and worked with teachers on analyzing perceptual surveys. Additionally, the field service representatives emphasized the need for a database on achievement and provided guidance regarding their school improvement plans. fn November 1997, teclinfcai reviews 'of the- ECOE process'were conducted along with the announced mon~ori,ng v)sits of the Cycle 2 schools. 60 XVII. DATA COLLECTION A. Through the School Improvement Plan annual reporting and monitoring process, collect, analyze and monitor data required in the May 31, 1989 Monitoring Plan. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of November 28, 1997 Data was collected in May 1995 from all schools during the unannounced visits. Information that was unavailable during the announced visits was collected during the unannounced monitoring visits. In June 1995, data was collected from the Districts and analyzed for inclusion in the July Semiannual Monitoring Report. In July 1995, data from perceptual surveys was reviewed. In August 1995, the data elements to be reviewed and the data collection process for FY 95/96 were articulated to the Districts. In September 1995, the data collection format for the 95/96 school year was distributed to the Districts. Financial information for FY 93/94 and FY 94/95 was requested from the Districts, and principals were given inservice training regarding FY 95/96 monitoring. The Districts provided fourth quarter data on discipline, testing, nonpromotes, and budget for inclusion in the February 1996 Semiannual Monitoring Report. A workshop to develop a common terminology for monitoring purposes was conducted on October 17, 1995 with the Districts. The workshop identified the data available in the Districts to fulfill the requirements of the Allen Letter's 14 elements. The group correlated the data elements to the five monitoring forms. Monitoring data was verified for inclusion in the February Semiannual Monitoring Report. Data on nonpromotes was analyzed for inclusion in the February Semiannual Monitoring Report. Announced monitoring visits began on November 14, 1995. The preliminary February Semiannual Monitoring Report and its executive summary were presented to the ADE administrative team and the State Board of Education. Announced monitoring visits were completed on January 26, 1996. Unannounced monitoring visits began in late February 1996 for the Cycle 5 schools in the Districts and were completed in April 1996. 61 XVII. DATA COLLECTION (Continued) A. Through the School Improvement Plan annual reporting and monitoring process, collect, analyze and monitor data required in the May 31 , 1989 Monitoring Plan. (Continued) 2. Actual as of November 28, 1997 (Continued) A supplemental report to the February 1, 1996 Semiannual Monitoring Report was filed with the Court on April 8, 1996. Data requests for information were forwarded to the Districts. Information was reviewed, analyzed, and formatted for inclusion in the July Semiannual Monitoring Report. The data received from the Districts was analyzed and reviewed. Instructional program reporting was clarified after the Districts and ADE desegregation staff collaboratively established a definition. All data collected for the July 1996 Semiannual Report was disaggregated, analyzed, and displayed in color graphic form for reporting. In August 1996, the Districts were provided with the monitoring requirements and expectations for the 96/97 school year. In September 1996, arrangements were made for data collection, and monitoring formats were revised. Technical assistance was provided to the LRSD on data collection and formatting of certified staffing data. Monitoring packets for the Cycle 1 schools were developed in October 1996 and presented during the Principal's Monitoring Workshops. In November 1996, data specified by the Allen Letter was received, reviewed, and formatted for the February 1997 Semiannual Monitoring Report. In December 1996, the remainder of the quantitative data specified in the Allen Letter was reviewed and formatted for inclusion in the February 1997 Semiannual Monitoring Report. The Semiannual Monitoring Report was finalized in January 1997 and presented to the State Board of Education, the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee of the Arkansas General Assembly, and the parties. In February 1997, the Lead Planning and Desegregation Monitoring Section developed the format for the July 1997 Semiannual Monitoring Report and obtained Cycle 1 SAT-9 test data from the ADE's Assessment Section. 62 XVII. DAT A COLLECTION (Continued) A. Through the School Improvement Plan annual reporting and monitoring process, collect, analyze and monitor data required in the May 31, 1989 Monitoring Plan. (Continued) 2. Actual as of November 28, 1997 (Continued) In March 1997, data forms were sent to the Districts to assist with the submission of information for the July Semiannual Monitoring Report. Some data was collected through existing reports submitted by the Districts for the annual report. In April 1997, the Districts were notified that the deadline for data collection submission was April 24, 1997. ADE desegregation staff received training on software useful in desegregation reporting. As of May 14, 1997, all data was received from the Districts. In June 1997, the July 15, 1997 Semiannual Monitoring Report and its executive summary were finalized and presented to the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee on June 25, 1997. In July 1997, the Semiannual Monitoring Report and its executive summary were filed with the Court and copies were distributed to the State Board of Education and the parties. In August 1997, data requirements for the February 1998 monitoring report were sent to the Districts. In September 1997, Cycle 2 principals and the Districts' superintendents were provided with the data requirements for monitoring and data analysis. In October 1997, the financial information requested for inclusion in the February 1998 monitoring report was received from the Districts. 63 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Timothy Gauger, certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served by first class mail on this 25th day ofNovember, 1997, on the following person(s) at the address(es) indicated: M. Samuel Jones, III Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 2000 Boatmen's Bank Bldg. 200 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 John W. Walker John Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Richard Roachell Roachell \u0026amp; Street 401 W. Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, AR 72201 Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 2000 First Commercial Bldg. 400 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Ann Brown ODM 201 E. Markham, Ste. 510 Little Rock, AR 72201 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DMSION JAN 5 199B OfFICE OF DESEGREGATION M0NITORJNQ 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 December, 1997. Respectfully Submitted, WINSTON BRYANT Attorney General Assistant Attorney General 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 682-2007 Attorney for Arkansas Department of Education 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 for the current school year. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of December 31, 1997 8. 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 December 31, 1997 C. Process and distribute State MFPA. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of December 31 , 1997 ~ NOV!!Jl~t 1997, 9istnbutiQ[IL\u0026lt;\u0026gt;t St!'@EsfuaJi?\nitiqn 1:_un.~ih9. foJ,.E.Y ~ll98 were ~s f9ll0~: LRSD- $15,293,336 NfRSD:. $8,824,2\u0026amp;,\\ PCSSD-$20,149,352 iThe allotments of State Equalization Funding calculated for FY 97/98 ~t November 3Q, 1997, subject tQ periodic adjustments, were as follows: CR\"sD - $42,056,681 ~LRSO -0$24,266,733 PC.SSD -$55,41..0,722 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 December 31 , 1997 eased on_ the information available, the ADE calculated at November 80, 1997(or FY 97/~8, sul?_ject to periodic aclj!,l~tments. 2 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) 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. Actual as of December 31, 1997 F. Calculate state aid due the LRSD based upon the Magnet Operational Charge. 1. Projected Ending Date 2. Last day of each month, August - June. Actual as of December 31, 1997 13ased_.~m) Qe informati~ availa6ie, t ~,7'-1:fE,JalcOlateaffat NQYeQ1bfil !f0,i1997 for FY 9]/9,!!,\n:.subject !2 periopif aojustments. 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 December 31, 1997 Distributions for FY 97/98 at November 32, 1997 totaled $3,273,756. ~llotment calculated at November 1997 for FY 97/98 was\"$9\n002,821 , subject to 'periodic agju~!ments. =- -~ -\" . M - -- H. Calculate the amount of M-to-M incentive money to which each school district is entitled. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 3 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) H. Calculate the amount of M-to-M incentive money to which each school district is entitled. (Continued) 2. Actual as of December 31, 1997 I. Process and distribute M-to-M incentive checks. J . 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, September - June. 2. Actual as of December 31, 1997 Qistri6ution.sJQ(E.Y. 977gs a_rr:.to,i.E! 99,7\ntwer~: l!'RSD ._.,,$-1, 064\".'439 NLRSD - $434,833 i:\u0026gt;csso- $1)4s.zo2 !fhe allotments calculated for FY\"\"97/98 at Nov~oer\"30: 1~97, subject to periodic ~djustments, were: LRSD- $3,548,125 NLRSD - $1,416,112 PC_SD - $5,82,2,342 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 December 31, 1997 In September 1997, the Magnet and M-to-M transportation budgets for FY 97/98 were submitted to the ADE by the Districts. K. Reginald Wilson notifies General Finance to pay districts for first two-thirds of the Districts' proposed budget. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing, annually. 4 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) K. Reginald Wilson notifies General Finance to pay districts for first two-thirds of the Districts' proposed budget. (Continued) 2. Actual as of December 31, 1997 In September 1997, General Finance was notified to pay the first onethird payments for FY 97/98 to the Districts. It should be noted that the Transportation Coordinator is currently performing this function. L. ADE pays districts for first two-thirds of their proposed budget. M. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing, annually. 2. Actual as of December 31, 1997 In September 1~7, General FipF,ice, \"J_aciethe ~_[st one-thlro ~a.yment~ to the Qi~trict~J2r their,FY: 9,7/98 tra!!p.Qrt~tiol budget ~! Nov~ffi!:\u0026gt;.er 1~fil,Jh~ folfowiQg ha''o't\neen p1Ja~forJ::Y:El't98: ~ RSD-$1,019,861.33 LRSD- $141,696.00 CSSD,.:,.153(?,541 QQ 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 December 31, 1997 In August 1997, the ADE transportation coordinator reviewed each district's Magnet and M-to-M transportation costs for FY 96/97. 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. 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. (Continued) 2. Actual as of December 31, 1997 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. 0 . Process and distribute compensatory education payments to LRSD as required by page 23 of the Settlement Agreement. 1. Projected Ending Date July 1 and January 1, of each school year through January 1, 1999. 2. Actual as of December 31 , 1997 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 December 31 , 1997 Obligation fulfilled in FY 95/96. 6 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 December 31 , 1997 Final payment was distributed July 1994. R. Upon loan request by LRSD accompanied by a promissory note, the ADE makes loans to LRSD. S. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing through July 1, 1999. See Settlement Agreement page 24. 2. Actual as of December 31 , 1997 The LRSD received $3,000,000 in June 1997. As of this reporting date, the LRSD has received $15,000,000 in loan proceeds. 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 December 31, 1997 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 December 31, 1997 Obligation fulfilled in FY 95/96. 7 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) 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 December 31, 1997 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. V. Process and distribute payments for Office of Desegregation Monitoring. 1. Projected Ending Date Not applicable. 2. Actual as of December 31, 1997 Distribution in July 1997 for FY 97/98 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 97/98. 8 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 December 31 , 1997 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. 9 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 December 31, 1997 (Continued) 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 by race, gender, and type of program. The Districts and the ADE Desegregation Monitoring staff developed a definition for instructional programs. The Semiannual Monitoring Report was completed and filed with the Court on July 15, 1996 with copies distributed to the parties. Quantitative and qualitative indicators were displayed with specific information provided on cost and enrollment in compensatory programs. 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 11 Cycle 1 schools who did not submit accurate and timely data on discipline, M-to-M transfers, and policy. 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 December 31, 1997 (Continued) As of June 1997, the July 15, 1997 Semiannual Monitoring Report and its executive summary were finalized. In July 1997, the Semiannual Monitoring Report and its executive summary were filed with the court, and the ADE sponsored a School Improvement Conference. Copies of the Semiannual Monitoring Report and its executive summary were made available for the Districts to review on July 10, 1997 from 10:00 am to 2:00 pm. The purpose of the review was to provide the Districts an opportunity to review the report prior to submitting it to the Court. Desegregation monitoring staff members were available to answer questions. Representatives from each district participated. In August 1997, procedures and schedules were organized for the monitoring of the Cycle 2 schools in FY 97/98. A Desegregation Monitoring and School Improvement Workshop for 55 educators from the Districts was held September 10, 1997. Monitoring expectations, instruments, data collection and school improvement visits were discussed. As of October 1997, 10 of the Cycle 2 announced monitoring visits were completed, and 36 technical assistance visits were conducted. On October 9, 1997, a planning meeting was held with the desegregation monitoring staff. Deadlines, responsibilities, and strategic planning issues were discussed regarding the completion of the Semiannual Monitoring Report. Reminder letters were sent to the Cycle 2 principals outlining the data collection deadlines and availability of technical assistance. In November 1997, technical assistance visits were conducted, and announced monitoring visits of the Cycle 2 schools were completed. ffl December f997 I technlciia sslstance \"'v1s1ts\" w~re\" conaucted if.egardif!9 ,team_,xi~ts,.,and tectlpig:al re'!J,,ew re. comm,e11dations, anfl pies of the infusion document and ~pe~iual SJ!~ ~ er~ .LOVi~,JQ\n_sro29lsJ n t eE OE,\n\u0026gt;r~,- 11 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 December 31, 1997 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 December 31, 1997 To date, no action has been taken by the LRSD. 12 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 December 31, 1997 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 December 31 , 1997 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 December 31, 1997 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 December 31 , 1997 The information for this item is detailed under Section IV. E. of this report. 13 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 December 31, 1997 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 81st 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 81st 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. 14 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 December 31, 1997 (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\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_581","title":"M to M (Majority to Minority) transfers","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":["1997/2004"],"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","School management and organization","Educational law and legislation","Educational statistics","School enrollment"],"dcterms_title":["M to M (Majority to Minority) transfers"],"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/581"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["documents (object genre)"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\nUJ/ 110/  / i / : OU (.0 Arri^-iL.^ 4ia '^ '^ * UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH circuit No. 96-3333 RECEIVED I MAR 3 11997 Little Rock School District\nA A Appellant, OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING Lorene Joshua\nIntervenor Plaintiffs, * Servicemaster Management Services\nIntervenor, * Anne Mitchell\nBob Moore, Pat  Gee\nPat Rayburn\nMary J, Gage\n* North Little Rock Classroom Teachers Association\nPulaski  Association of Classroom * Teachers\nLittle Rock Classroom * Teachers Association\nAlexa Armstrong\nKarlos Armstrong\nEd Bullington\nKhayyam Davis\nJanice Dent\nJohn Harrison\nAlvin Hudson\nTatia Hudson\nMilton Jackson\nLeslie Joshua\nStacy Joshua\nWayne Joshua\nKatherine Knight\nSara Matthews\nBecky McKinney\nDerrick Miles\nJanice Miles\nJohn M. Miles\nNAACP\nJoyce Person\nBrian Taylor\nHilton Taylor\n'Parsha Taylor\nRobert Willingham\nTonya Willingham\nA A A Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas. Intervenor Plaintiffs, V. North Little Rock School District\nLeon Barnes\nSheryl Dunn\nMac Faulkner\nRichard A. A A A03/28/a\ni/ :37 Udo Giddings\nMarianne Gosser\nDon Hindman\nShirley Lowery\nBob Lyon\nGeorge A. McCrary\nBob Moore\nSteve Morley\nBuddy Raines\nDavid Sain\nBob Stendar\nDale Ward\nJohn Ward\nJudy Wear\nGrainger Williams\n Defendants, * Pulaski County Special School District\n Appellee, it State of Arkansas, Defendants, Office of Desegregation Monitor\n* Claimant, Horace A. Walker\nP. A. Hollingsworth\nKenneth G. Torrence\nPhillip E. Kaplan\nJanet Pulliam\nJohn Bilheimer\nDale Charles\nRobert L. Brown, Sr.\nGwen Hevey Jackson\nDiane Davis\nRaymond Frazier\n Plaintiffs, * V. Pulaski County Board of Education\nO. G. Jacovelli, individually and as President of the Board of Education of  lb*  lb A lb *  the Little Rock School District\n* Patricia Gee, individually and * in her official capacity as a * member of the Board of * Education of the Little Rock * School District, a public body\n* Dr. George Cannon, individually * and in his official capacity as a member of the Board of Education of the Little Rock -2-03/28/97 17:38 031^3^945 US COURT APPEALS 1^006 School District, a public body\n* John Moore, individually and in * his official capacity as a member of the Board of   Education of the Little Rock  School District, a public body\n* Dorsey Jackson, individually and in his official capacity as a member of the Board of Education of the Little Rock School District, a public body\n lb Dr. Katherine Mitchell, Indivi- * dually and in her official capacity as a men)er of the Board of Education of the Little Rock School District,   * a public body\nW. D. Hamilton, * individually and in his official* capacity as a member of the Board of Education of the Little Rock School District, public body\nCecil Bailey, Individually and in his a official capacity as a member of the Pulaski County Board of Education, a public corporate\nThomas Broughton, individually and in his official capacity as a member of the Pulaski County Board of Education, a public corporate\nDr. Martin Zoldessy, individually and in his official capacity as a member of the Pulaski County Board of Education, a public corporate\n*   * * * * * * Defendants, * * Submitted: February 25, 1997 Filed: March 31, 1997 Before RICHARD S. ARNOLD, Chief Judge, and HEANEY and MOLLMAN, Circuit Judges. -3-HEANEY, Circuit Judge. Little Roclt School District (LRSD) appeals from an order of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas requiring it to pay the Pulaski County School District (PCSSD) $345,294 pursuant to settlement agreement in the a interdistrict desegregation case. We affirm the order of the district court essentially for the reasons stated in its opinion. At issue in this appeal is the entitlement to majority-to*- minority [M-to-M] payments and the amount each school district would receive pursuant to the settlement agreement, the settlement agreement provides in part: Paragraph O-of [A]11 M-to-M payments generated by Interdistrict School students paid by the State to LRSD and PCSSD (including payment to each district as sending district and receiving district), except transportation payments, will be pooled for the education of all Interdistrict School students. The instructional budgets of the Interdistrict Schools will be equalized. This provision does not change each district's obligation to construct and maintain the Interdistrict Schools within its boundaries. (Settlement Agreement, II, I 0(3).) Pursuant to this court's.instructions, the district court judge conducted an evidentiary hearing and subsequently ordered: [F]or each school year, the amount of LRSD's and PCSSD's financial contribution to the pool is calculated in accordance with Paragraph 0 of the Settlement Agreement. [There IS no dispute as to calculating these amounts.) the methodology for The total amount of funds in the pool for a given year is then divided by the total -4-number of M-to-M students in the interdistrict schools in both districts to arrive at an equalized, per-student dollar amount for educating them in the Interdistrict schools. For each school district, the equalized per- student dollar amount is then multiplied by the number of M-to-M students hosted by that district in its interdistrict schools to determine the amount of the pooled funds to which each district is entitled. Little Rock School Dist. v. Pulaski Cty. Special school Dist. No. LR-C-82-866, at 3 (E.D. Ark. July 30, 1996) (citations omitted) , On appeal, LRSD argues that the district court erred in dividing the pool based on the number of M-to-M transfer students\nrather, it asserts that the court should have divided the pool based on the total number of students in the interdistrict schools. Under LRSD's method of calculation, PCSSD would owe LRSD $1,270,839, instead of LRSD's owing PCSSD $345,294 as ordered'by the district court. We review the factual findings of the district court under a clearly erroneous standard and its interpretation of the Settlement Agreement de novo. The district court's interpretation of paragraph 0 is an acceptable one: it is just, it will promote voluntary interdistrict transfers to interdistrict schools, and it will provide a financial incentive to both districts to receive M- to-M transfer students- Cty, Special. School Dist 1990). Little Rock School Dist. v. Pulaski 1, 921 F.2d 1371, 1394 (Sth Cir. Werecognize that LRSD spends more per pupil to educate its students in the interdistrict schools than PCSSD does and that the district court formula will not fully equalize these costs, but we do not believe that these differences are sufficient to release LRSD from its pooling obligation. Such a release would certainly -5-03/28/97 J JuLki ita uua inhibit efforts to provide an integrated education to many students, proposal. the principal objective of the school integration Nor are the differences sufficient to justify the alternative method of equalization suggested by LRSD. The practical problems in that approach were found by the district court to be insurmountable and we are not prepared to say that the district court erred in making that assessment. The judgment of the district court is affirmed- A true copy. Attest: CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT. -6-IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT RECEI L? V. NO. 96-3333 APR 1 4 1997 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT DESEGREWTlOfJ MONlTOfiiKa^^  MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME For its motion, the Little Rock School District (LRSD) states: 1. LRSD's deadline for filing a petition for rehearing by the panel is April 14, 1997. Because of the time necessary for a public body such as LRSD to determine a course of action. and because of the press of business, LRSD requires additional time within which to file its petition for rehearing by the panel. 2. Mr. Sam Jones, counsel for the Pulaski County Special School District, has stated that he does not oppose this motion. WHEREFORE, for the reasons set forth above, LRSD requests an order extending the time within which it may file a petition for rehearing by the panel of fourteen (14) days, to and including April 28, 1997. Respectfully submitted. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK First Commercial Building 400 West Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 501/376\n:Z0ii--// Arkansas Bar No. 1083 f:'han\\k*xfay'ppeal\\3333xxiCERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing Motion for Extension of Time has been served on the following on this 11th day of April, 1997: Mr. John Walker JOHN WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Mr. Sam Jones WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026amp; JENNINGS 2200 Worthen Bank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON \u0026amp; JONES, P.A. 3400 Capitol Towers Capitol \u0026amp; Broadway Streets Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell and Streett First Federal Plaza 401 West Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Ann Brown Heritage West Bldg., Suite 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Timothy G. Gauger Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, AR 72201 f:^tanB\\la(iQA|]pMl\\3333xxt 2 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 To: From\nNancy Acre, Director of Student Assignment Melissa Guldin, Associate Monitor Subject: M-to-M Data Date: June 17, 1998 We are currently updating our records on M-to-M student transfers. We have some data regarding the LRSD students participating in the M-to-M program for the years through 1993-94. We do not have the figures for any years subsequent to 1993-94. Please send us: the numbers of LRSD students participating in the M-to-M program during 1994-95. 1995- 96, 1996-97, and 1997-98. It would be helpful if this information included both the sending (LRSD) and receiving school (NLRSD or PCSSD). However, the data must include the receiving district the data regarding the number of M-to-M students transferring to the LRSD from NLRSD and PCSSD. We would expect that the race of students transferring from the LRSD would be black and the race of students transferring to the district would be white, but the shifting demographics in the NLRSD could allow for some variance from this expectation. In order to keep everything perfectly clear, please be sure to designate the race of the transfer students as part of your data. I would appreciate receiving this information by July 6, 1998. If you have any questions, or if the date is a problem, please call me.RECEIVED C.-. FILED JUL 2 1998 U.S. DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION JUL 0 rl99fl JAMES W. McCOBMACK, CLERK By\nLITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, Plaintiff, vs. PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, etal.. Defendants, MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, et al.. Intervenors, KATHERINE KNIGHT, et al., Intervenors. * * * * * * * * * * * * * DEP CLERK No. LR-C-82-866 f  ORDER Pending before the Court is a motion filed by the Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD\") requesting summary judgment and an Order directing the Little Rock School District (LRSD\") to pay over immediately the sums owed to the PCSSD pursuant to the pooling agreement.' In open Court today, counsel for the PCSSD stated that, after discussing the pooling agreement matter with counsel for the LRSD, the PCSSD moved to withdraw without prejudice its pending motion regarding the sums owed pursuant to the pooling agreement. As stated on the record, this Court grants the PCSSDs request. The PCSSDs motion regarding the pooling agreement is hereby dismissed without prejudice. IT IS SO ORDERED THIS day of July 1998. ' UUNMITTEEDD SsTtAaTtEeSs JUDGE 1 Docket No. 3161. rmS DOCUMENT ENTERED ON DOCKET SHEET IN COMPLIANCE RULE SS AND/OR 79(a) FRCP ON BY_ r' LRSD SOMM^iRY OFM-TO-M TRANSFER STUDENTS iPednesday, August OS, 1998 [ [ Year Student 1994-95 1995-96 1996-97 1997-98 10 274 791 249 570 946 1421 154 527 1097 1392 98 536 1245 1390 Receiving District LRB NLR PCS NLR LRS PCS LRS NLR LRS PCS LRS NLR LRS PCS LRS Sending District PCS LRS LRS LRS NLR LRS PCS LRS NLR LRS PCS LRS NLR LRS PCS RECEIVEO AUG %o 1998 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING LRSD INFORMATION SERVICE DEPT. Page I of 1CN O  X h trlTTLB kOOC PietVleb \" FAPD NO. 3A 76-01 tsXA tfuabec isaaaa. school year I i \u0026lt;I I 3*1' Lr u_  S' I 1 XO/23/S8 B\u0026amp;ding DsiTe' 1 MAGNET SCHOOL REPORT SUPERINTENDENTS QUARTERLY ATTENDANCE REPORT. KI 2 ADT - ADA - ADM' TELEPHONE NUMBEFCJ24^2QtXL This Is to report Intormalioo co the students sttending msgeet schools. I 1 Days b* Otr 2-.'_[ ZZE Dyj| in Artendwee T* Nf A A. i Ja-.I Total Ce(23 Deys AbsenT ToM T*Kr KIMOERGARTEN I ADM ToM Col 4*3 mXCoil DY In AttendenM T NT U IX XL I XX ! XA C, Little Rock (7641) sent to Lrttte Rocl( (78^1) C. North Little Rock (76-02) sent to Little Rock (78-01) 4b1 1? I s.ur 2U MT 33AM 3M 7ZA33 KI NPERGARTEW 11AM e,Boa Total CokMfm* 7*3 GRAPES MIM QRA0E8 7. MAM C3J29 27,5M MAS3 GRAPES 1-S nm ORAOes 7-13 KM* Deys Ahoant Total T*WT 1yM IA3S A21 3sa 333 ADM TcrtM Cd 9*14 -:Cof 1 2AM Combined Tobi Owclen K  12 ADT CI27 .iColl ADA Cel 4*4 .:coii ADM Coi44* MUM Coll 1.793 2.382 2,U9 IP o CM C'j co O m C. Pulasfo'Coenty Special (76-03) - sent to fO M 1333 1AM 41 U 29,343 29AM Ml 473 4M 3M KrNDERGARTEM GRAPga 1.4 24A33 20 am 740 L LHtle Rock (76-01) GRAPES 7-13 Utas M,t22 7S4 Total K*U 44 2.374 2,374 \u0026lt;7 o CM Total to he used in funding I I 1 39,237 I 39,237 1A*4 cn CP u 2 ' Number of KIndeigerten pupDe enrolled ,) querter: Fall-Time.\nU HelfTIme\nAdditional Instruction, are on the back CD CM S\u0026gt; . VCS G3 LiJ (5 \u0026lt;I Q. I Lirrtg ROCK Distiict 17-01 LBA ttiunbeir 1 10/23/98 Oct nnai ng\" Dat---------- FAPD NO. 38 11/13/98 ^aLe 3iwo)Xc ceo I laaszisa school year XJrtfTRjBKeF* Jli Superintendent This report is due within fifteen (15) days after the RqcK, Arkansas 72201 and one copy to tie Counly Board of Education? Earh' M to M TRANSFERS SUPERINTENDENT'S QUARTERLY ATTENDANCE ADT - ADA - ADM TELEPHONE NUMBER J24:200.(J_ REPORT, K12 \u0026gt; CL LJ cn o z 4 I I 7-r ) A I KIN OE^ A f T quartet is to be no less than 40 and i i Figuics in column* 2 IhAi 14 sAculd t* to ihe ra*rtst ^Mioie nu*^ ! i I I Qdr *T Oi GARTEN \u0026gt;aysJadUiuuiaoce.J NT |cn'3 ( J ! A ! 7 a no more than SO days. I 2L GRADES 1 - 12 Ui Seivices, M Slate Capitol Mall, Room 202.A, Little I i II I I '*1 i i.'\" ___Py*Attendance Abseflt i____________________r...............T 'Absefli i - j Cof4*S Total TNT I -Coll ]..... I .mt I \"TOT-- Column*  8 Absent Total T4NT I JA I 11 u_ Q : C. Resident pupils sent to other di5trict(s) under \"M to M\" transfers List PistTicttsl North Lltil Rock iA# f FuUsJri County Special Pvtaski County Sprcfal P-4 I I 7 w 45 49 D. Total C of columns 12,13,14. These II L 1^, iiKse will be used for State Equalizatron Aid i Total ColHtO i .iCol 1 Aor Col 2*7 -:Col 1 3 COMBIWEOlOTAt GRAOtS K . 12 AOA Cot 4*9 I -ccod ADM Col 4+5* 91(t: Cot 1 2.820 I 3.788 I 3.481 I t.o I 41 puqQoses I I 3,rc8 J I 237 I 142 7\u0026gt; f I I 4e I i 8T I 10,MS j 44.821 I I 103114 I 4t.t 57 i dSB 1,771 i i I I 2S3 tar 298 f,128 i i.nt 1^13 cn  o Cl O'!  CO in : E. Non-Resident pupils received from other , district(s) under \"M lo M\" transfers si Isi Id L North Little Rock Pulaski County Special Pufasfci County Special P-4 40 45 49 ) I I I 113 133 ( S 1,818 1.594 un I 1.\u0026lt;4\u0026lt; { 58 71 I I t I } 3 I 1.189 1.189 T 42 37 I 15,181 15.181 I ** i 74\u0026lt; I n 354 I i 1 2 378 39 398 uD  I O H, Humber of kindergarten pupils enrolled (his quarter\" Full-Time JB3_ HalMtme I I Additional Instructions on tn cn lD C4LITTLE ROCK District 77-01______ LEA Nuxober 10/23/97 Qrtr EiTciin^Date 11/21/97 Date Bubmittecl 1 Qrtr Nunicer recehie FAPD NO. 3B -1997- 98 SCHOOL YEAR M to M TRANSFERS Signati SEP 11 1998 at superintendent SUPERINTENDENT'S QUARTERLY ATTENDANCE REPORT, KI 2 ADT - ADA - ADM TELEPHONE NUMBER_324=2.Q.0,0__ OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORiBS This report is due within fifteen (15) days after the end of each quarter (Ark.Code Ann. 6-18-213). Send one copy to the office of Local Fiscal Services, #4 State Capitol Mall, Room 202-A, Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 and one copy to the County Board of Education. Each quarter is to be no less than 40 and no more than 50 days. j I I I I ric'. n columns 2 thru 14 should be to me nearest whole number Days in Qrtr *T I. KIND EiR GARTEN Days in Attenrianr-ft *NT Total Col 2+3 Days Absent Total T+ NT ADM Total Col 4+5 Col 1 a. GRADES 1 -12 Days in Attendance *T lUT Total Columns 7 + 8 in Days Absent Total T+NT JI Total Col 9+10 -iCoH. II ADT Col 2+7 -iCol 1 II II COM BIfJED TOTAL GRADES K-12 ADA Coi 4+9 -4 Col 1 ADM Col 4+5+ 9+104 Cot 1 I 7 I A  1 1 i i C. Resident pupils sent to other district(s) under \"M to M\" transfers I I T I i I I List Dtstrict(s) North Little Rock LEA# 43 I 4,009 4,009 i 21Z 100 93 100 Pulaski County Special 3,810 3,810 168 88 Pulaski County Special P-4 45 2,673 2,673 98 62 I -4?p48 i I t VWS-' I 4r44fl- I  1,190 45 i i I I I D. Total C of columns 12, 13, 14. These will be used for State Equalization Aid purposes ///7 E. Non-Resident pupils received from other district(s) under \"M to M\" transfers /^OL i List Districtfs) North Little Rock Pulaski County Special LEA# 45 90 90 Pulaski County Special P-4 45 I 1,524 I 1,625 I 1,524 1,625 62 95 35 38 H. Number of kindergarten pupils enrolled this quarter\" Full-Time 44 Half-time 1,612 I 15,751 I 1,612 15,751 j 111 38 38 40 633 364 384 399 Additional instructions on back FlN-09-00-005 5/91 i 7 2 i I i I i V /j/n^lLyrU XJ\u0026amp;ipCfr ' r r ./} A .-I, VO 1)^1I C. 0. E. G. H. Lillie Rock Distria FORM NO. FAPO-38 Figures in columns 2 thru 14 should be to the nearest whole number______________ Resident pupQs sent to other (fistCs) under M to M' transfers List Districts Pulaski County Pulaski County North Little Rock LEA NO. Total C of columns 12, 13. 14. These win be used for MFP/Trartsp. Aid purposes Non-residerrt pupils received from other district(s) under 'M to M' trartsfers. List Disuicts LEA NO. Pulaski County North Little Rock Pulaski County - P4 Total E 77-01 LEA Number 10/15/96 Quarter Endisg Date 11/4/96 Dau Submioed 1 QuansNumber M to M TRViSFERS ' SUPERINTENDENT'S QUARTERLY ATTENDANCE REPORT, GRADES K-12 ACT - ADA - ADM Thii report u due witfain fifteen (15) dajs after tbe end of the quarter (.Ark. Code .Aim. 6-18-213. Su^- 1991). Scad ooe copy to du office of Local Fiscal SnSeei,it4 Capitol SlalL Room 202.A. Little Rock. Arkansas 72201 and ooe copy to the Coinay Board of Edocadoo. Eacbqnaneru lobe DO less fort\u0026gt;- (40) sad no more I 3 fifty (50) day. I KINDERGARTEN DAY3 IN ATTENDANCE I S 7 8 9 I DAYS .ADM SEP 11 199? OFFICE OF DAYS IN OTR. NT* TOTAL COL 2+3 ABSENT* TOTAL TOTAL COL 4+5 /COL I 43 43 42 40 40 40 40 Number of kindergarten pupfe enrolled this quarter: 4023 2042 1927 so 1923 2007 FuU-tiaie: 4023 2042 1927 SO 1923 2007 62 160 90 24 57 24 Half'doe: 97 50 49 2 50 51 43252 6226 1996-97 Year Pbooe 32- ffiSFfiRFGATIONMOm1TTQQRRlINNS3 , , y ! / ! n / 10 II 12 I 13 I 14 GRADES 1  12 D.AYS IX ATTEX'DAXCE TOTAL DAYS TOTAL ABSENT T+NT ' TOTAL COL 9+10 /COL XT COLfMXS 7+8 43252 6226 I 15377 1576 16953 AdditKXX^ tastrocooo* od hart 15377 1576 16953 1955 358 526 77 603 FTN-O9-00-005 5/91 1051 157 398 41 439' COMBINED TOT-AL GRADES K- 12 ADT COL /COL .AD.A COL 4 - 9 /COL 1 ADM COL 4-5^ 9-iaCOL 1 W/P4 1099 148 U48 1099 148 U48 433 41 474 1149 157 1^05 446 43 489 Li tt1e Rock 77- d! LEA Number 10/21/93 Quarter Ending Date 11/12/9.3______ Date Submitted 1 Quarter Number Signature of SSuuppeerriinnttiendent 3EC5KF'LFAPD-3B 1993-04 School Year M to M TRANSFERS Telephone Number 324-2285 SUPERINTENDENT'S QUARTERLY ATTENDANCE REPORT, GRADES K-12 SEP 11 1998 ADT ADA ADM Off ICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING (15) days after the end of each quarter (Ark. Code Ann. 6-18-213, Supp. 1991). Keep one copy to tbe office of Statistics This report is due within fifteen ----------- . .  , , and Local Fiscal Services, #4 State Capitol Hall, Rocet 202-A, Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 and one copy to the County Board of EducaUon. Each quaiter is to I kigures in columns 2 thru 14 he no less than 40 and ry Bcre than 50 days. 1 2 T~TI 4 I 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 is T 14 KINDERGARTEN Days in Attendance GRADES 1 12 should be to the -'nearest whole number. Days in Qrtr T NT Tota.l Col. 213 Days Absent Total T t NT ADM Total Col. 4t5 t Col. 1 Days in Attendance T NT Total Columns 7+8 Days Absent Total T t NT Total Col. 9+10 + Col. 1 ( COMBINED GRADES ADT Col. 2+' t Col. K ADA Col. 4+91 + Col. 1| TOTAL - 12 I ADM ll Col. 4 + 5 + .1 9 + 10 + 1 C. Resident pupils sent to other district(s) under \"M\" to \"M\" transfers. District(s) Pulaski County North I ittip Bnrk, LEA  43 13 3201 13 320.4. 197 23. 3143-5. 31.435 1203. Uh. .and. 13 3. 2. 11360. 11,36a  811 283 233. 233. 233. D. Total C of columns 12, 13, 14. These will be used for MFP/Transp Aid purposes. 4 E. Non-resident pupils received from other dlstrict{s) under \"M\" to M'* transfers. D i strict (.s) LEA t) Pulaski r.niinty 33 1033 1037. 1 33 15978 15,978. 136. 384 313 409- North little Pnrk PCSSD - P4 Tol al E 43 43 43 II. MwiUkT ul kiiidergarten pupils enrolled this quarter: -213. 1343 1270___ EulJ-Titne _213. 1343 3 3 3333 3,311 _L33 83 27 32 34. 31 .93 32 1270 33 11\nlldlt-Timo 30. AUdilioiial inalruct loiis on back 19369 19.369 93 487 fm-oy-Dii-ous 5/+1 W/P4 lao. 511 .493 529 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 October 18, 1999 Ms. Julie Wiedower, Interim Director of Student Registration Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Dear Julie: The Office of Desegregation Monitoring is examining the effects of interdistrict transfers of magnet students and M-to-M students on the racial balances of the districts and schools in Pulaski County. This examination will not include school choice transfers or special case transfers, because the study is limited to the effectiveness of desegregation strategies described in plans, stipulations, or agreements in the desegregation case. To examine the effects of the transfers, we ask that you identify, by residence attendance zone, the race, grade level, and receiving school of all students who transferred out of their home attendance zones as magnet or M-to-M students for the 1999-2000 school year. In order that I may verify the above data, please provide also, in the same format, the lists of students received by each school as M-to-M or magnet transfers. We will use the data to simulate the racial make-up of schools as if all students were attending their neighborhood or area schools and compare the simulated enrollment of each school to existing enrollment. We believe the M-to-M and magnet programs have been remarkably successful desegregation strategies, but, because no comprehensive study of them has been conducted, we do not know the extent of their successes. This study may yield information useful for planning future desegregation strategies. As usual, we appreciate the cooperation you give us. I will discuss timetables of this project with you as the need arises. Sincerely, Gene Jones, Associate Monitor  12/10/2001 14:17 5013242079 LRSD FINANCIAL SERV ' \u0026gt;k^4JAGE 01 MAGNET STUDENT QUARTERLY ATTENDANCE RSPORT TV 2001/02 received DEC 1 0 200! (rOft CALCULATING ADT. ADA. AND ADM OF MAOiJZT SCHOOL STUDENTS IN GRADES R-12) 6001000 COUJaTYt PULASKI DISTRICTS Little JUaeit school Diatrict QUARTS KO. OmCEOF DESf^SPfGAPON MONITORING 1 - 7601 LITTLE ROCK STUDENTS SENT TO - 7601 little rock MAGNET SCNOOLS 7602 MORTH little ROCK STUDENTS SENT TO 7601 LITTLlG rock MACNET SCHOOLS \u0026lt; 7603 PUTA5KI CO SPECIAL STUDENTS SOfT TO = 7601 LITTLE ROCK MAONET SCTOOl^ 1 DAYS IM CFTR *0 *0 *0 2 DAYS PRESENT TRANSPORTED 57392 12* 241 3 DAYS PRESENT MON' transported 35896 10792 35797 4 S 6 7 DATS AeSSNT 2995 778 1212 TOTAL ADT. ADh. AND ADM OF STUDENTS ATTStWlNG MAGNET SCHOOLS:  STUDfiMTS ELIOXRLE to BE COUNTBO AS TRANSPORTED  RjSPECTIVfi ASSIGNED SCHOOLS t PAGE* 1 1 i t C 2^ S:-\nfiDt 2/1 ADA 2-*.3/l ASM 23**/l 1*34.ao 2332.21 2*07.07 3.11 6.03 1*43.9* *72.90 900.96 3706.07 492.33 931.26 3830.66 INCLUDE RE5ID?*r STUDENTS JOSSTDIMG TWO ROUTE MILES OR H0R PRO* THAIR %12/10/2001 14:17 5013242079 LRSD FlhWCIAL SERV PAGE 02 M TO M STUDENT QUARTERLY ATTENDANCE RDFORT FY 2001/03 (FOR CALCUIJ^TIIKS WOT. AD\u0026amp;. AND ADM OF M TO M 8CWOOL STUDSWTS IN GRADttS K-12) LEA: SOCIOOO COUMTT\nPUIASKI DISTRICT* Lxt\u0026amp;ie Rock School 0i*crlcc CUARTEF, NO. 1 DAYS DAYS DAYS PRESENT in PRESENT nomDAYS ADT ADA ADM QTR TRANSPORT]^ TRANSPORTED ABSENT 3/1 2*3/1 2-.3*4/l 1 2 3 5 6 1 NON-RESIDENT STUEEmS RECEIVED TO (BY H TO M transfer: 7701 LITTIzS ROCK 40 0.00 0.00 o.oc 7702 HORTU DITTDE ROCK 40 508 17 0.00 12.59 13.00 7703 PUX^Kl CO SPECXAX 40 13255 1007 0 00 331.17 3Se.32 TOTAL ADT, ADA. AND ADM OF M TO M RECEIVED\nSTUDENTS ELIGIBLE TO BE COUirTBD TRANSPORTED INCLUDE RESPECTIVE ASSIGNED SCHOOLS 0.00 343.76 3S9.32 RESIDENT STUDENTS RESIDING TO ROUTE MILES OR MORE FROM THEIR PAGE: 1 0 0 0 0 011/20/2000 11:43 5013242079 LRSD FINANCIAL SERV PAGE 01 M TO M STUDENT QUARTERLY ATTENDANCE REPORT FY 2000/01 (FOR CALCULATING ADT, ADA. AND ADM OF M IO (4 SCHOOL eTUDJWTS IN GRRDFS K-1A\u0026gt; LEA: eOOlOOO COUNTY! PULASKI PlSTRlCTr Litcl Rock School Diacricc QUARTER NO. DAYS DAYS DAYS PRESENT IN PRESENT NONDAYS ADT ADA ADM QTR TRANSPORTED TRANSPORTED ABSENT 2/1 2*3/l 2*3*4/l 1 2 3 4 S 5 1 7 NON-RESIDSWT STUDENTS RECEIVED TO (BY M TO M TRANSFER) 77^1 LITTLE ROCK 43 0.00 0.00 0.00 7703 NORTH LITTLE ROCK 42 SS 13 0.00 1.20 i.se 7703 PULASKI CO SPECIAL 42 15677 1154 0.00 364.8S 351.74 TOTAL ADT. ADA, AND ADM OF M TO H RECEIVED: 0.00 366.16 353.32 0 0 0 0 0 STUDENTS ELIOIRLE TO BE COUNTED AS TRANSPORTED INCLUDE RESIDENT STUDENTS RESIDING TWO ROUTE MILES OR MORE FROM THEIR RESPECTIVE ASSIGNED SC3100LS PAGE: 1EDWARD L. WRIGHT (1903-1977) ROBERT S. LINDSEY (1913-1991) ALSTON JENNINGS (1917-2004) ISAAC A. SCOTT. JR. JOHN G. LILE GORDON S. RATHER. JR. MARTIN G. GILBERT ROGER A. GLASGOW C. DOUGLAS BUFORD, JR. PATRICK J. GOSS ALSTON JENNINGS. JR. JOHN R. TISDALE KATHLYN GRAVES M. SAMUEL JONES III JOHN WILLIAM SPIVEY III LEE J. MULDROW N.M. NORTON CHARLES C. PRICE CHARLES T. COLEMAN JAMES J. GLOVER EDWIN L. LOWTHER. JR. WALTER E. MAY GREGORY T. JONES BETTINA E. BROWNSTEIN WALTER McSPADDEN JOHN D. DAVIS JUDY SIMMONS HENRY WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026amp; JENNINGS LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW 200 WEST CAPITOL AVENUE SUITE 2300 LITTLE ROCK. ARKANSAS 72201-3699 (501) 371-0808 FAX (50'1) 376-9442 ww w. wi j. com OF COUNSEL RONALD A. MAY BRUCE R. LINDSEY JAMES R. VAN DOVER GREGORY S. MUZINGO* Writer's Direct Dial No. 501-212-1273 sjones@wlj .com KIMBERLY WOOD TUCKER RAY F. COX. JR.* TROY A. PRICE PATRICIA SIEVERS HARRIS KATHRYN A. PRYOR J. MARK DAVIS CLAIRE SHOWS HANCOCK KEVIN W. KENNEDY JERRY J. SALLINGS WILLIAM STUART JACKSON MICHAEL D. BARNES STEPHEN R. LANCASTER JUDY ROBINSON WILBER KYLE R. WILSON C. TAD BOHANNON KRISTI M. MOODY J. CHARLES DbUCHERTY* M. SEAN HATCH J. ANDREW VINES JUSTIN T. ALLEN MICHELLE M. KAEMMERLING SCOTT ANDREW IRBY PATRICK D. WILSON REGINA A. SPAULDING MARY ELIZABETH ELDRIDGE BLAKE S. RUTHERFORD PAUL D. MORRIS EDWARD RIAL ARMSTRONG Ms. Ann Brown Marshall ODM 1 Union National Plaza 124 W. Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 RE\nMay 28, 2004 * Ijmutd Io pneaa befon tht Uiiitai Suua Patet and Tndemart Office ** Licensed to pracace in Midtigan mfy RECEIVED JUN 1 - 2004 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION ..jflNITOHING Dispute concerning M-to-M transfer procedures Dear Ann: It is my understanding that there are differences in rules interpretations between the PCSSD and the LRSD which may be affecting the process of recruitment and assignment for M-to-M students this coming school year as well as guaranteeing their transportation needs. Efforts to resolve these issues strictly between the PCSSD and LRSD have thus far been unsuccessful. Accordingly, I have been asked if you will lend your offices to this matter in an attempt to resolve these matters. I know that the PCSSD would like for you to schedule a meeting, if you are willing, at your first opportunity. Cordially yours, WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026amp; JENNINGS LLP MSJ\nao . Samuel Jones, III 502765-vl(, f a\u0026gt;i  er=^ PCSSD PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT 925 East Dixon Road/P.O. Box 8601 Little Rock, Arkansas 72216 June 1, 2004 RECEIVED www.pcssd.org (501) 490-2000 Junious Babbs, Associate Superintendent-LRSD 501 Sherman Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72202 JUN -7 2004 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING Dear Mr. Babbs: Enclosed you will find individual student transfer forms and school lists which document the students' school assignment for the 2004-2005 school year. With the exception of Oak Grove High School, each list documents students changing grade configurations. Additionally, we are returning the M-to-M student assignments that you provided to our office on May 24, 2004. We are providing this information in a timely manner to ensure transportation is provided for each student at the beginning of the 2004-2005 school year. For clarity, it is necessary to reinform you that because of capacity issues Sylvan Hills Middle School, Sylvan Hills High School, Robinson Middle School, and Robinson High School are not eligible to receive transfers of any type. Sincerely, Kari Brown, Assistant Superintendent Equity and Pupil Services Dr. Brenda Bowles, Director Equity and Multicultural Education C: Ann Marshall, Federal Monitor Sam Jones, District Counsel Donna Creer, Executive Director Magnet Review Committee Julie Wiedower, Director of Student Registration IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF ' V. NO. 4:82CV00866WRW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. INTERVENORS RECEIVE COMBINED PCSSD MOTION AND MEMORANDUM REGARDING M-TO-M DISAGREEMENT JUN - 8 2OOJ OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION 1.10.\n...J The PCSSD for its combined motion and memorandum, states: 1. To promote brevity, the PCSSD is combining its motion and memorandum into one document. 2. This dispute centers around different interpretations of the M-to-M stipulation by the PCSSD and the LRSD. The PCSSD is concerned that these disagreements will not be resolved in time to permit all current M-to-M students and applicants to actually transfer for the impending year and be guaranteed transportation. Hence this motion. 3. Counsel is informed that the LRSD is requiring existing M-to-M students to resubmit an application to it to reaffirm school choices and M-to-M status as these smdents matriculate from one organizational level to the next. 504196-vl'I 4. Rather than requiring reapplication, the PCSSD has developed a tracking form, attached as Exhibit A, which should suffice for LRSDs needs but not require a reapplication. 5. While the tracking form is very similar to the M-to-M application, it avoids the disruption and concern expressed by students and parents that a reapplication jeopardizes their M-to-M status by promoting unnecessary delay and procedures. The PCSSD believes that the current LRSD process and procedures are inconsistent with Paragraph 6 of the M-to-M stipulation, attached as Exhibit B, which states: The commitment to accept a student shall be for the duration of the students voluntary participation. Once a student exercises his or her right to participate, the student will continue in the initially selected school for at least one full school year or until the student graduates or affirmatively withdraws from participation herein set out. Students will not have to transfer each year or as exercise a transfer choice to remain in the host district. Students shall be encouraged to continue to participate at their initial school of choice. It is expected that the student will follow the pattern of assigned schools for the resident students in the school in which the transfer student first enrolls. 5. The PCSSD has proposed a solution to these issues but as indicated by its memorandum dated May 25, 2004, attached as Exhibit C, the LRSD has not agreed. 6. PCSSD interprets Paragraph 6 of the M-to-M stipulation to mean that once an LRSD student acquires M-to-M status in the PCSSD, then that student becomes, for all purposes, a PCSSD student unless or until the student affirmatively seeks to withdraw. In that sense, the PCSSD believes that these former LRSD students acquire the same rights as to future school assignments as are enjoyed by indigenous PCSSD students. This includes not only mandatory assignment patterns but the availability of assignment via the PCSSDs intra- 504196-vl 2district voluntary transfer programs as well as the privilege to apply for PCSSD specialty schools pursuant to the rules which apply to all PCSSD students. 7. Upon information and belief, LRSDs contract with Laidlaw requires that all M- to-M students be identified and processed \u0026gt;5 sometime this summer. Obviously, if the process is not finalized by then, these students may be denied transportation and hence will not transfer. 8. Upon information and belief, the LRSD is holding tracking forms until this dispute is resolved. (Please seen Exhibit C). WHEREFORE, the PCSSD prays for an order of this Court directing the parties to comply with the language of Paragraph 6 of the M-to-M stipulation and to conform their current policies and procedures to the M-to-M stipulation so that the M-to-M process may proceed smoothly and without creating unnecessary concern on the part of M-to-M students and their parents and for all proper relief. Respectfully submitted. WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026amp; JENNINGS LLP 200 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 2300 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3699 (501)371-0808 FAX\n(501)376-9442 \u0026lt;Samue| .Jones III (76060) Attornewfor F ScboefDistrict la^i County Special 504196-V1 31 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE On June 7, 2004, 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. Mark A. Hagemeier Assistant Attorney General . Arkansas Attorney Generals Office 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 2000 Regions Center 400 West Capitol Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Ms. Ann Brown Marshall ODM One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Clayton Blackstock Mr. Mark Burnett 1010 W. Third Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Judge J. Thomas Ray U.S. District Courthouse 600 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 149 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Robert Pressman 22 Locust Avenue Lexington, Massachusetts 02173 M. Samuel Jones III 504196-vl 4 06/84/2004 16:24 5014901352 EQUIP/ PUPIL SERVICE PAGE 06/0E PCSSD (M to M) STUDENT TRACKING FORM This form is to track (M to M) student the student wishes an alternative pla'SiXTStS^h^organizational level. If students, these assignments will be made wi Awci XA the pattern of assigned schools for resident STUDENTS NAME:.______ STUDENTS RESIDENCE ADDRES S  City:_______________ Student ID # GRADE LEVEL AS OF SEPT. 2004: __State: vr iiiF1, 2004 DATEnn nroTti-------- SCHOOL attended duwng THElobs PARENT OR guardian HAVING CUSTODY Zip Code: RACE: ~ PARENTSS JvLAJLING ADDRESS' City: ------ OR CHARGE OF THE STUDEOT PARENTS HOME PHONE NUMBER PARENTS WORK PHONE NUMBER .State\n__Zip Code\nreached DOES THIS STUDENT REQUIRE TRANSPORTATTnic DOES THIS STUDENT require SEEoA IF YES, PLEASE INDICATE HOW SElS^^s SERVICES health plan ARE RECEIVED\nYES YES ____^NO NO -SECTION 504 ACCOMMODATION PLAN I give permission to the school i  ' .IEP/SPECIAL EDUCATION or school records necessary to complete the requested transfer. PARENTS SIGNATURE\nDATE: Form completed by: Forward to the OFFICE OF EQUITY AND PUPIL Counselors office SERVICES DATE approval  ---------------- ------- TRANSFER .4PPR0\\TD- SCHOOOL TO ^^BICH TrInsf^^?^vw ^^^ANCE DATE [ EXHIBIT sIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. INTERVENORS VS. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL, SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. DEFENDANTS STIPULATION FOR PROPOSED ORDER ON VOLUNTARY MAJORITY TO MINORITY TRANSFERS Plaintiff Little Rock School District (\"LRSD\"), and defendants Pulaski County Special School District (\"PCSSD\"), North Little Rock School District (\"NLRSD\"), and Arkansas State I i Board of Education (\"State Board\"), being voluntary majorityto-minority transfers, stipulations for the proposed order: in agreement on the submit the following 1. Beginning in the 1987-88 school year and continuing thereafter, LRSD, PCSSD and NLRSD will permit and encourage voluntary majority-to-minority interdistrict transfers. The three districts will cooperate in the development of programs to acquaint parents. guardians and students with interdistrict opportunities. The transfer provisions implementation of majority-to-minority is contingent upon the implementation of all other provisions of the remedy ordered by the Court. 2 . Eligibility: EXHIBIT M aI a. Black students who are members of the racial majority at a school in any participating district which district is 50 percent or more black in its enrollment shall be eligible to transfer voluntarily to a school and district in any other participating district in which school and district they would be in the racial minority. b. White students who are members of the racial majority at a school in a participating district which district is more than 50% white in its enrollment c. shall be eligible to transfer voluntarily to a school and district in any other participating district in which they would be in the racial minority. Prior to the transfer of any student. the home district shall issue a statement that the transferring student is in good standing. If the student is not in good standing, the student may be permitted to transfer on a provisional basis. 3 . Students wishing to transfer shall file applications with their home districts. Applications must be filed before May 1 of the preceding school year and a student may not transfer more than once in any school year. The home district will process all applications and forward copies to the host' districts . The home district will furnish its complete file on each student with his/her application. 24 . Transfer assignments will be made subject to av ^lability of space in schools and grade levels, and the host districts' ability to comply with state standards. 5 . The host district shall honor the placement for the students as certified by the home district, which shall be communicated to the parent or guardian prior to transfer. If, during the first semester. testing, performance. remedial efforts, and consultation indicate that an adjustment of placement should be made. it shall be made after the first semester in consultation with the student's parent or guardian. 6 . The commitment to accept a student shall be for the duration of the student's voluntary participation. Once a student exercises his or her right to participate, the student will continue in the initially selected school for at least one full school year or until the affirmatively withdraws from student graduates or participation as herein set out. Students will not have to transfer each year or exercise a transfer choice to remain in the host district. Students shall be encouraged to continue to participate at their initial school of choice. It is expected that the student will follow the pattern of assigned schools for the resident students in the school in which the transfer student first enrolls. 7. Students who have elected to transfer shall remain' students of the host district until they the district where they reside. choose to return to 31 8. Host districts shall not have the authority to remand tr Bsfer students to the home district. Host districts shall have the authority to discipline, suspend or expel a transfer student using the same due process procedures applicable to resident students. 9 . Once admitted, transfer students will be expected to meet the same general standards. academic and other. as applied to students of the host district. 10. Information about each district' s academic and disciplinary policies and procedures will be made available to prospective transfer students on request. This should include information on pupil-teacher ratios, promotion and retention\ncounseling assistance. grading, student code of conduct. disciplinary action. and suspension and expulsion. 11. The host district shall respond to the educational needs of students without regard to their status as a transfer or resident student. Transfer students shall be eligible and encouraged to participate in all school programs funded and sponsored by the host district (academic. athletic. extra-curricular and other) and shall not suffer any disability or ineligibility because they are voluntary interdistrict transfer students. Participation in after-school activities will be facilitated by the provision where needed of extra-curricular buses or other forms of transportation which will be available to all such transfer students, the cost of which shall be borne by the State as provided in paragraph 12. 412 . The State Board shall pay the full cost of ti ^sporting students opting for interdistrict transfers. However, the State Board shall have the option of (1) paying the school districts for transporting the students or (2) contracting for the services or (3) transporting the students with a state operated system. The State Board shall pay the home and host districts in accordance with the following procedures: 13 . a . Each year school districts shall calculate and certify to the State Board of Education their cost per student in regular schools (grades K-12) including all add -ons for special education, TAG, vocational education and other purposes. The cost per student shall include all costs for instruction and support services minus student transportation. food service. and restricted federal program costs. (To the extent that the host district does not receive pro rata increases in restricted federal program costs by hosting transfer students who are eligible to participate in federal programs, the cost per student shall be increased on a pro-rata basis for such transfer students.) The State shall pay the . costs for full-time equivalent students who have been transferred to the host district. Payments made for the current year shall be based on costs for the 5b. c. previous year. The host district shall report transfer student on forms Department of Education. Each host district each as required by the State shall estimate the full-time equivalent of transfer students and transmit such estimate. along with the names of the the State in September of each begins. year. students, to year when payment A correction will be made in January of each Payments shall be made by the State monthly through forward funding to each district based the September estimate transferred to the in the number used the district. Each home district each student who home district to State aid (table student remained upon as corrected. The students host district shall not be to calculate regular state counted aid for shall receive from the State for voluntarily transfers from his/her a host district one-half of the rate) it would have received had the in his/her home district. Information about these students shall be reported on forms as required by the State Department of Education and shall be reported at the same time as the reports are made by the host district. The students transferred from the home district shall not be counted in the number used to calculate regular 6d. state aid for the home district. handicapped students shall be availability of All transfers' of contingent on the appropriate programs and resources. as identified in the lEP, at the host school. The provisions contained herein do not apply to magnet schools and programs. 14 . All parties to this stipulation recognize that the present racial balance of the North Little Rock School District approximates that of the entire county and they are desirous of not upsetting that balance through the Majority to Minority Transfer Program. operation of the The parties further recognize that any court approved student assignment plan by any party could be compromised if the Majority to Minority Transfer Program caused significant changes in student assignment plans. To avoid this result, all parties agree that any party may choose to include or not include said Majority to Minority transfer students for purposes of student assignment under any court order. Further, all parties recognize that substantial participation in the Majority to Minority program could have the result of creating technical departures from targeted student ratios at one or more schools. All parties agree that any such departure resulting from the lawful operation of thfe Majority to Minority program shall not give rise to a claim or contention that such departure from targeted ratios constitute 7violations of any law or regulation and, specifically, shall ne- be urged or suggested similar litigation. as grounds for liability in this II or Additionally, any such resulting departures from targeted ratios shall not require the districts affected to reconstitute or recompose the student body of any affected school. Agreed this 26th day of August, 1986 . PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT By. By, (Po.'tl ( NORTH L Dis'hrn? 'TLE ROi SCHOOL :t 2258L ARKANSAS STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION By 8 06/04/2004 16:24 5014901352 EQUITY PUPIL SERVICE PAGE 04/06 b /004 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT SOI shekman street LITTLE ROCK, 72202 student registration office Phone (501) 447-2950 Fax: (501) 447~29S1 May 25, 2004 TO: FROM: Karl Brov-n, Assistant Superintendent for Eqtljty and Pupil Services Julie Wledo^l^heetor. of Student Registratio^ THROUGH: Junious BabC^^\n^Associate Superintendent for Administrative R: PCSSD Tracking Forms Services Last week we received copies of a PCSSD Tracking Form for who will he changing organizational levels fm these forms we identified a varietv of mnnA school year. In looking Other questions arose regarding *e status ofthe^s regarding specific __ some are not - and a number of fomSTliS a LRSD completed a M to M Withdrawal form In fact students who are not even on our datoHnc^ wtraclong forms are on to sit down and go over fte7o ^t^d^nts! it and hnw w. .L 2 so we can understand how your distrir over students. it and how we can address some of these issues. ! Clearly, we need your district intends to utilize However, at this point such a meeting would be J Xx (Cl ------- Mudrr\u0026lt;aaufjoti rijMtvyic etrmou uoMrraainnnaoduruiimtxyi ooTfjr aUUnnnsdfdeeerrrsssttaa hnnudHtsi^n^ne ^  pir. emt ature. Our disPtrCicStS uhDoass R rrewegceeaiirvvdeeinddg a Rather to hold the forms ^itiJ agreement is rel^hed to a meeting to iron out the aforementionf/t occurs we look forward available as our transportation routes are created. middje of June so accurate data will be Cc: /Dr. Brenda Bowles, Director ?SeLT of Equity and Pupil S?erZvi^ceitstee Becky Rather EXHIBIT g 7/2334 13:89 501-4472351 ! 1'^ I LTTTLE R.OCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 501 SHERMAN STREET T-iTTT .F POCK AR 72202 . Effice of ADMSNISTRAT It I ti iVE oEck r xvCrtS loas C. Babbs, Associate Saperinteadent ^hooe\n(Svl) 447-2955 Y-.X'TaIV. juuiOuS.vAuuw^uBu.urg TO: Mr, Karl Brov7H, PCSSD, A-ssist I \"it St 'QI Dr Srsnda Botvlas, PCSSD Dirsd\nor of Equity' \u0026amp; Pupil Serncss n FROM\nJuoivUS DauvS SUSJECT\nM-io-M Agreement DAit: June i 1, 2004 mv conversation with Dr. Brenda Bowles ton June 15, 2004, it appears that we have reached Resolution of bo sides concerns regai^g M-to^ attempt to record the items of agreement from n| conversation with Dr. Bowles. f-' I -  ti'*' 4^ 1, Pulaski County 1 Soecial School District (PCSBD) wiU only utilize the proposed tracking fonn _ A ( ____________Y1,*aa..T a ^^71 C n in instances where students progressing from|one organization^ Uvel to e eJ'*' Moreover. PCSSD use of the tracking fonn ------------- . of established feeder paiterri. Moreover, PCSSD use of the traclcmg form tJinV/resttictwe onlv to eligible PCSSD scl4\u0026gt;ols in adherence with Paragraph 2.a. of toe Qrder OU VolimtaryjMaionty to Minority Transfers ( Stipulation ) ,,---------------------------- J nrn(n\"eSS oilteide r now kJUMAV \u0026lt;*** lAW 3,.. M,to-Mktudents enrolled and participating in the Gifted caXentar, Fuller Middle, and Mills High School,  jutiLAVAA * \\***** * J and Talented ProEram at College stanorx cisssemary, ruxi- ~ aotwitostandins its intorpretation of the StiXion. In an effort to resolve Uxe tosues uckv.^n ^0 disixicts, LRSD agrees to permit tho^ students to coatmue a^signinem duwuga S-SCSSD Gifted^and Talented Pro-am (Program) and organizational students not enrolled in the aforementioned lies during the 20uj-u4 scnooi year wmi not o -----' Rowed to attend these sites without stnet ad|ernce to varagrapn 2.a, ol toe stipulation. UkCXLXVJlA 01 Uic. OIL Ji 3. LRSD will continue to adhere to the )nnnue to coordinate student tialsportation as prescnbed. Ongoing efforts to agreement with MRC fecilitatioh wiU continue to include (a) recognition o nl enrollment counts, and (b) processing and approving M-to-M apphcations in yearly official exirolhnent the order they are receivei Time and efforts toward resolution are appreciated cg: DoTin.5. I 1UO/ X / ! Z.UU' XU. UXHDOXOQZ C.WUX I Y ruriL btKViUt Hrtbt ui/u:z DiiSjoL-'! ruidbM vuuiiuy iwwi . Rniiirv Anri Pijoil Services ,-- - 925 E. Dixon Rd/P.O. Box_8601 Little Rock, Arkansas /22ib (501) 490-6215 (501) 490- 1352 Fax FAX TRANSMISSION COVER SHEET J Date\n1 T  I Fax\n'J-k ? ) 1-L o 1 cn Re: 4 Ssndsr* k YOU SHOULD RECEIVE YOU C PAGE (S), INCLUDING THIS COVER SHEET. IF DO NO I RtCEIVc ALL THE PAGES, ________(501) 490-6215.______ rLEASE CALL MESSAGE\n(J, /4^a\u0026lt;U- / et- IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. NO. 4:82CV00866WRW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. RECEIVED DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. JUN /? .004 INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING INTERVENORS LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICTS RESPONSE TO PCSSDS COMBINED MOTION AND MEMORANDUM REGARDING M-TO-M DISAGREEMENT Comes now, Little Rock School District (hereinafter, LRSD) by and through their undersigned attorneys, Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark, for Response to Pulaski County Special School Districts (PCSSD) Combined Motion and Memorandum Regarding M-to-M Disagreement states: 1. LRSD does not require existing M-to-M students to resubmit an application to it to reaffirm M-to-M status at the conclusion of one organizational level to the next. According to the Stipulation for Proposed Order on Voluntary Majority to Minority Transfers (Stipulation), attached as Exhibit B to PCSSDs motion, students who elect to transfer via the M-to-M program remain students of the host district until such time as they choose to return to the district where they reside. 2. Rather, LRSD asks students who participate in the M-to-M program progressing from one organizational level to the next (i.e., from elementary school to middle school or from middle school to high school) to submit a form affirming the school choice site. LRSDimplemented this process for two reasons: (1) to ascertain the space available in each of its schools to accommodate the LRSD attendance zone population each year, and (2) to ascertain the M-to-M students attending schools at the next organizational level outside of established PCSSD feeder patterns. This process does not violate the provisions of Paragraph 6 of the Stipulation. 3. The tracking form the PCSSD speaks of in its Motion and Memorandum is strikingly similar to the M-to-M application, as PCSSD concedes. Because of the similarity between the two documents, several parents wishing to withdraw their students from the M-to-M program are misguided regarding their students school assignment. 4. As an example, in the tracking forms attached hereto as Exhibit A, the PCSSDs Assistant Superintendents approval stamp has given many parents the impression that their student has been assigned to the school requested upon completion of the tracking form. This, notwithstanding the fact that (1) the students have not submitted M-to-M withdrawal forms\n(2) the students do not reside in the requested schools attendance zone\n(3) the school requested is a LRSD specialty magnet school and the student has not applied for admission to the specialty magnet, thinking that the PCSSD tracking form is the application\nor (4) the requested school is not a school in the LRSD. See Exhibit A. 5. Moreover, LRSD believes PCSSDs interpretation of Paragraph 6 of the M-to M stipulation to be clearly violative of the plain language of Paragraph 2 of the same stipulation which, in pertinent part, states: a. Black students who are members of the racial majority at a school in any participating district which district is 50 percent or more black in its enrollment shall be eligible to transfer voluntarily to a school and district they would be in the racial minority. b. White students who are members of the racial majority at a school in a participating district which district is more than 50% white in its6. enrollment shall be eligible to transfer voluntarily to a school and district in any other participating district in which they would be in the racial minority. Among the specialty schools the PCSSD speaks of in Paragraph 6 of its Motion and Memorandum are College Station Elementary, Fuller Middle School and Mills High School. 7. During the 2003-2004 school year, each of the aforementioned school sites was more than 50 percent black. LRSD, therefore, believes that to assign an indigenous LRSD student to a PCSSD school that is more than 50 percent black via an M-to-M transfer contravenes the plain language in Paragraph 2 of the M-to-M stipulation and the goals of the M-to-M program as a whole. WHEREFORE, the LRSD prays for an order directing the parties to comply with Paragraph 2 of the Stipulation and for all other proper relief. Respectfully submitted. Christopher J. Heller Khayyam M. Eddings Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark, LLP 2000 Regions Center 400 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501)376-2011 FAX: (501) 37^-2147 By: Khayyam Mi j^dings (020i Attorneys for Little Rock School DistrictCERTIFICATE OF SERVICE On June 17, 2004, 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, AR 72206 Mr. Mark A. Hagemeier Assistant Attorney General Arkansas Attorney Generals Office 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. M. Samuel Jones, III Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings, LLP 200 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 2300 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Ms. Ann Brown Marshall ODM One Union National Bank Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Clayton Blackstock Mr. Mark Burnette 1010 W. Third Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Judge J. Thomas Ray U.S. District Courthouse 600 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 149 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Robert Pressman 22 Locust Avenue Lexington, Massachusetts 02173 YYAM M. ED. GS PCSSB (M t M) STUDENT TR.ACKING F@RM This form is to track (M to M) student movement to the next grade and or organizational level. If the student wishes an alternative placement other than the pattern of assigned schools for resident students, these assignments will be made with consideration of space available at the requested school and other factors, such as racial composition of the requested school. STUDENTS NAME I STUDENTS RESIDE: AD City: UAA^g'/^OCV. fit S: State: Student ID # 553^-. Zip Code: GRADE LEVEL AS OF SEPT. 2004: DATE OF BIRTH:oi WZeX: P RACE:^ . , , SCHOOL ATTENDED DURING THE 2003-04 SCHOOL \\TAR\n\\QtC5C)ir\\ AA \\ QO IA PARENT OR GU. D CUSTODY OR CHARGE OF THE STUDENT ro^ PARElffl^i^i\\4A^ING.ADDRS^i^(T(g (^CL City. Zl 1 0- vKjC K_________________State: W., Zip Code: -5Z--ZQ5 PARENTS HOME PHONE NUMBER Oci ) 3(o PARENTS WORK PHONE NUMBER OTHER NUMBER WHERE PARENT CAN BE REACHED SCHOOL REQUESTED DOES THIS STUDENT REQUIRE TRANSPORTATIC ION iZ DOES THIS STUDENT REQUIRE SPECIAL SERVICES_______ IF YES, PLEASE INDICATE HOW SERVICES ARE RECEIVED: YES YES NO HEALTH PLAN SECTION 504 ACCOMMODATION PLAN lEP/SPECIAL EDUCATION SPECIAL TRANSPORTATION I give permission to the school in which my child is currently enrolled to release any information or school records necessary to complete the requester PARENTS SIGNATURE: DATE: or*** Form completed by: fLiY5 Counselors ofFice Forward to the OFFICE OF EQUITY AND PUPIL SERVICES 1 DATE ASEEQNAD TRANSFER APPROVED: DATES OF ATTENDANCE DATE SCHOOOL TO WHICH TRANSFER APPROVED: exhibit 5^ PCSSD (M to M) STUDENT TRACKING FORM ^4^0 7 2054 This form is to track (M to M) student movement to the next grade and or organizational level. If the student wishes an alternative placement other than the pattern of assigned schools for resident students, these assignments will be made with consideration of space available at the requested school and other factors, such as racial composition of the requested school. STUDENTS N. |^_Student ID # 1 /I t  X r STUDENTS RESIDENCE ADDRESS:  ____________________ City: I VVl-p ___________ State: AtC Zip Code: D-dQ GRADE LEVEL AS OF.SEPT. 2004: G^UPATE OF BIRTH: )Vl|-VSEX. M RACE:_B SCHOOL ATTENDED DURING THE 2003-04 SCHOOL YEAR: ('.bQ-Ubn PARE CUSTODY OR CHARGE OF THE STUDENT PaMtS^^IAILING ADDRE^r C q r cl.4 - City: State: iMt________________^Zip Code: ~7 ------------------------------------ _________________ PARENTS HOME PHONE NUMBER State: PARENTS WORK PHONE NUMBER \"7 53' SS OTHER NUMBER WHERE PARENT CAN BE REACHED SCHOOL REQUESTED iAATUtl ia DOES THIS STUDENT REQUIRE TRANSPORTATION DOES THIS STUDENT REQUIRE SPECIAL SERVICES 2 YES YES NO NO IF YES, PLEASE INDICATE HOW SERVICES ARE RECEIVED: HEALTH PLAN SECTION 504 ACCOMMODATION PLAN lEP/SPECIAL EDUCATION SPECIAL TRANSPORTATION I give permission to the school in which my child is currently enrolled to release any information ) complete the requested transfer or school records necessary to transfer. PARENTS SIGNATURE: DATE: Form completed by: Counselors office Forward to the OFFICE QF EQUITY AND PUPIL SERVICES APPROVAL DATE DATE transfer APPROVED: DATES OF ATTENDANCE SCHOOOL TO WHICH TRANSFER APPROVED:PCSSD (M to M) STUDENT TRACKING FORM Q This form is to track (M to M) student movement to the next grade and or organizational level. If the student wishes an alternative placement other than the pattern of assigned schools for resident students, these assignments will be made with consideration of space available at the requested school and other factors, such as racial composition of the requested school. STUDENT'S NSCvTS.Sil^^^lllHIIIBiP.Studetrt ID STUDENTS RESIDENCE ADDRESS: M C STUDENTS NAME: City: U-Hte GRADE LEVEL AS OF 1^^ Zip Code: ^^^7^y'/ _________________State: Zip Code: / SEPT. 2004: U? DATE OF BIRTH: 7//j^SEX: PZ RACE^^/^| SCHOOL ATTENDED DURING THE 2003-04 SCHOOL YEAR:    PAREN' .GE OF THE STUDENT parenIJsJsmAilij^g Address.: ... City: l^\u0026lt;K-_______ PARENTSvHOME PHONE NUMBER State: Zip CoiQ'^l PARENTS WORK PHONE NUMBER /}.7 / )'Q OTHER NUMBER WHERE J^ARENT CATJ BE REACHED SCHOOL REQUESTED .-'fl ( 1^1^/7^'5^'t ii\u0026gt; 1//'Jlt: DOES THIS STUDENT REQ TRANSPORTATION DOES THIS STUDENT REQUIRE SPECIAL SERVICES /\" YES YES ' NO IF YES, PLEASE INDICATE HOW SERVICES ARE RECEIVED: HEALTH PLAN IEP/SPECIAL EDU CATION SECTION 504 ACCOMMODATION PLAN SPECIAL TRANSPORTATION I give permission to the school in whigh my child is currently enrolled to release any information or school records necessary to complete the requested transfer., PARENTS SIGNATURE:, V.' 4\u0026lt; DATE: y / Form completed by: Counselors office Forward to the OFFICE OF EQUITY AND PUPIL SERVICES DATE APPROVAL DATE TRANSFER APPROVED: DATES OF ATTENDANCE SCHOOOL TO WHICH TRANSFER APPROVED:PCSSD (M to M) STUDENT TRACKING FORM This form is to track (M to M) student movement to the next grade and or organizational level. If the student wishes an alternative placement other than the pattern of assigned schools for resident students, these assignments will be made with consideration of space available at the requested school and other factors, such as racial composition of the requested school. STUDENTS NAMEH^^UHI STUDENTS RESIDENCE ADDRESS: City: Uh __________Student ID #____________ VJ Li rR 1 -C-_____________ State: AES Zip Code: QlIZoA GRADE LEVEL AS OF SEPT. 2004: d~^DATE OF BIRTH: ^-I^-^ISEX: FIT RACE: fo SCHOOL ATTENDED DURING THE 2003-04 SCHOOL YEAR: P. OR GUARDIAN .VING CUSTODY OR CHARGE OF l4~i 11 ^Upne/7~it3u -t ' TiiE STUDENT PARENTS City: PARENTS HOME PHONE NUMBER PARENTS WORK PHONE NUMBER\"hnM- 2.SS 4 Zip Code: \"^22y-j OTHER NUMBER WHERE PARENT CAN BE REACHED SCHOOL REQUESTED Xr\nUVlch DOES THIS STUDENT REQUTRE TRANSPORTATION DOES THIS STUDENT REQUIRE SPECIAL SERVICES IF YES, PLEASE DIDICATE HOW SERVICES ARE RECEIVED: YES YES NO NO HEALTH PLAN SECTION 504 ACCOMMODATION PLAN' IEP/SPECIAL EDUCATION SPECIAL TRANSPORTATION State: Ath I give permission to the school in which my child is currently enrolled to release any information or school records necessary to complete the requested transfer. PARENTS SIGNATURE: C DATE: Form completed by: Counselors office Forward to the OFFICE OF EQUITY AND PUPIL SERVICES DATE APPROVAL DATE T TRANSFER APPROVED: DATES OF ATTENDANCE SCHOOOL TO WHICH TRANSFER APPROVED:PCSSD (M to M) STUDENT TRACKING FORM 0 7 2004 This form is to track (M to M) student movement to the next grade and or organizational level. If the student wishes an alternative placement other than the pattern of assigned schools for resident students, these assignments will be made with consideration of space available at the requested school and other factors, such as racial composition of the requested school. STUDENTS NAME! Student ID # STUDENTS RESIDENCE ADDRESS: F I City:_f\\ _______________________ ,_________I _________________________ [------ I 's-i  ly GRADE LEVEL AS OF SEPT. 2004: b DATE OF BIRTH:4f7p5SEX: F RACE: 6 SCHOOL ATTENDED DURING THE 2003-04 SCHOOL YEAR: State: Zip Code. rW PARENT G CUSTODY OR CHARGE OF THE STUDENT * pWW?S MAILING ADDRESS: 4 City: (\\j PARENTS HOME PHONE NUMBER PARENTS WORK PHONE NUMBER State\nA Zip Code: 77JT^ OTHER NUMBER WHERE PARENT CAN BE REACHED SCHOOL REQUESTED DOES THIS STUDENT REQUIRE TRANSPORTATION V DOES THIS STUDENT REQUIRE SPECIAL SERVICES YES YES NO NO IF YES, PLEASE INDICATE HOW SERVICES ARE RECEIVED: HEALTH PLAN lEP/SPECIAL EDUCATION SECTION 504 ACCOMMODATION PLAN SPECIAL TRANSPORTATION I give permission to the school in which my child is currently enrolled to release any information or school records necessary to ^mplete the requested transfer. PARENTS SIGNATURE: DATE: ^6 Form completed by: Counselors office Forward to the OFFICE OF EQUITY AND PUPIL SERVICES DATE APPROVAL DATE TRANSFER APPROVED: DATES OF ATTENDANCE SCHOOOL TO WHICH TRANSFER APPROVED: 04/1B/2004 08:16 5013709755 QUALITYSECURITV PAGE 02 PCSSD (M to M) STUDENT TRACKING FORM This form is to track (M to M) student movement to the next grade and or organizational level. If the student wishes an alternative placement other than the pattern of assigned schools for resident students, these assignments will be made with consideration of space available at the requested school and other factors, such as racial coimmopoossiittiioonn of the rnequested school.________ STUDENTS N. STUDENTS RESIDENCE ADDRES^ Citv: Li'iklt _ U____State: itudent ID #_ Zip Code\nGRADE LEVEL AS OF SEPT. 2004- 'J7 DATE OF BIRTH:?-/.Y ^^EX: SCHOOL ATTENDED DURING THE^3-04 SCHOOL YEAR: PARENT DR GUARDIAN HAVING CUSTODY OR CHARGE OF STUDENT PARE] City: State: PARENTS HOME PHONE NUMBER g'cV-st' Zip Code: PARENTS WORK PHONE NUMBER - S'? a - / OTHER NUMBER WERE P ARENT CAN BE REACHED ' SCHOOL REQUESTED ft# DOES THIS STUDENT REQUIRE TRANSPORTATION DOES THIS STUDENT REQUIRE SPECIAL SERVICES YES YES NO NO IF YES, PLEASE INDICATE HOW SERVICES ARE RECEIVED: HEALTH PLAN lEP/SPECIAL EDUCATION SECTION 504 ACCOMMODATION PLAN SPECIAL TRANSPORTATION I give permission to the school in which my child is currently enrolled to release any information or school records necessary to complete the requested transfer. PARENTS SIGNATURE: DATE: Form completed by: Counselors office Forward to the OFFICE OF EQUITY AND PUPIL SERVICES DATE APPROVAL DATE 3E \u0026lt;7 ? TRANSFER APPROVED\nDATES OF ATTENDANCE SCHOOOL TO WHICH TRANSFER .APPROVED: lUi or^u Oi/01 Holmes, Morr(5s I 1 From: Sent\nTo: Cc: Subject\nKbsyyam Eddiri igs [KEciciifiysigjf sc.netj Thu^Ay.June24:2004 1^:^:\n^' Babbs, Junious\nHolmec ft/nrrL Chris Heller   Meeting with PCSSD I By way of suntnary, Sabbs and i  - ---J f a. narl Brown of the pPS5ti June 18. met with Sam / 1. I believe that we made S33rdii*y M-to'M tra: regarding the two districts' form\" only to identify to from one organisational letters RCSSD to studi following school school Id de\n'9 3-od proyrei disagreements. feeder patterns. \u0026gt;s\n^nes, Dr. Brenda Bowles and ier issues on last, ill coming to a resdlCtittit\n, LRSD its agreed to use their to studer.ta Of/ regarding their yea, leaving that task to \u0026gt; V? a the assignment of L 1 .,---i   ai-uucnca level to the next outside of In turn, RSD agreed not to send acpool assignments for the 'RSD M-to-M Stu resolve difference^ onm nA LRSD agreed to allow 200 3-04 at PCSSD speci enrollment to tudei^' t to PCSSD specialty B ind in the interest of the M-to-^ students enrolled during _ , .  CXAiWXXeQ remain ^0 percent black -.j-i- ----r^v^xEoo cuxougn the isoec] al t-v a. Moreover, both cough thejspecialty program. allowed to attend .xuicllt, sides agreed that no new M-to-4 stt nd a PCSSD specialty school witih Tmajoritv felacv witn one caveat. PCSSD requested chat LRSD all^w 5  gifted ajt Clinton Elementary uller Middle ii|chool. nAoT, 9 students tUat ^--7\"\"\" . . \u0026gt;==1,1 luencified as attend the specialty = \" already made this commitmen.r to the studerf names of the Clinton** to 2 , , . since the PCSSD had J Sabbs asked PCSSD to request under advisement. s and agreed to PoSSDs M. xbduxngti Friday, Eldrsdge a lark 400 West Capitol, Suite Little Rock, AR Email\n72201 2000 i J I I Citect Phone\nkeddingsief ec. net 1 V SOl-370-1417 I . I i t I !Z I I 1 k (f /a L I * 4 J I'  I I I 1 Ii ! PCSSD PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT 925 East Dixon Road/P.O. Box 8601 Little Rock, Arkansas 72216 www.pcssd.org (501) 490-2000 July 7, 2004 Bobby Acklin, Assistant Superintendent for Desegregation 2700 Poplar Street North Little Rock, Arkansas 72115-0687 RECEIVED JUL 0 3 2004 n-n... OFFICEOF desegregation monitoring Dear Mr. Acklin: All secondary schools in the Pulaski County Special School District have reached school capacity for the 2004-2005 school year. Therefore, we are unable to accept M-to-M transfers at this time. Thank you for your continued cooperation. Sincerely, Karl Brown, Assistant Superintendent Equity and Pupil Services / Dr. Brenda Bowles, Director Equity and Multicultural Education C: Ann Marshall, Federal Monitor Sam Jones, District Counsel John Walker, Joshua Intervenors Donna Creer, Executive Director Magnet Review Committee II PCSSD PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT 925 East Dixon Road/P.O. Box 8601 Little Rock. Arkansas 72216 www.pcssd.org (501) 490-2000 July 7, 2004 Junious Babbs, Associate Superintendent-LRSD 501 Sherman Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72202 Dear Mr. Babbs: All secondary schools in the Pulaski County Special School District have reached school capacity for the 2004-2005 school year. Therefore, we are unable to accept M-to-M transfers at this time. Thank you for your continued cooperation. Sincerely, Karl Brown, Assistant Superintendent Equity and Pupil Services Dr. Brenda Bowles, Director Equity and Multicultural Education C: Ann Marshall, Federal Monitor Sam Jones, District Counsel John Walker, Joshua Intervenors Donna Creer, Executive Director Magnet Review Committee received JUL 12 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT CASE NO. 4:82CV00866WRW/JTR PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. PLAINTIFF DEFENDANT JOSHUA INTERVENORS MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION REGARDING LRSDS AND PCSSDS M TO M DISAGREEMENT The Joshua Intervenors submit that the relief which they seek by their Motion herewith is authorized by the 8* Circuit, Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District, et. al. 92 J F.2d 1371, 1394. (1990) That Court created the Office of Desegregation Monitoring (ODM) so that it could effectively monitor the implementation process. It is the primary monitor in this case. Neither it nor the Joshua Intervenors have been significantly involved in the subject controversy. Joshua interests is obvious. The ODMs role is to provide useful information to the parties and to the Court. An ODM report to the Court with respect to the subject issue should therefore be commissioned. Joshuas concern is twofold, i.e., educational and segregational. The educational advantage imder the parties plan enures to white students. For African American students are not allowed entry into the subject programs unless they are from outside the PCSSD. But now, LRSD proposes to retain LRSD students in its schools, although they may be in more heavily one 1 race situations, than to allow them to attend and remain in the specialty programs at College Station, Fuller and Mills. LRSD effectively proposes to require return of African American students from the far more desegregated PCSSD schools on a technical basis, i.e., the school has become majority African American. The law of the case required maximization of desegregation within a context where educational disparity is reduced rather than enhanced. A hearing on the matter is appropriate. Respectfully submitted. Robert Pressman 22 Locust Lexington, MA 02421 862-781-1955 John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 501-374-3758 501-374-4187 (fax) rW.^Walker CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I do hereby state that a copy of the foregoing Motion has been served on all counsel of record on this 8' day of July, 2004. CU Jr V. A------------------------------------------------------- / // 2 received PILPT} JUL 1 ? 2004 COURT OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT CO^^S W. EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANsS''~~ WESTERN DIVISION S \u0026gt;'/ ^LcR^ LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PL.MNTIFF CASE NO. 4:82CV00866WRW/JTR PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. DEFENDANT JOSHUA INTERVENORS MOTION REGARDING LRSDS AND PCSSDS M TO M DISAGREEMENT The Joshua Intervenors respectfully move the Court to set an evidentiary hearing with respect to the pending Majority to Minority (M to M) disagreement between the Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) and the Little Rock School District (LRSD), Joshua also respectfully requests that such hearing be preceded by a report to the Court regarding the matter from the Office of Desegregation Monitoring (ODM). For cause, Joshua respectfully shows the Court: 1. On or about June 7, 2004, PCSSD filed a Motion and Memorandum regarding Majority to Minority transfer concerns. 2. On June 17, 2004, LRSD filed its response. 3. The LRSD and PCSSD parties have not involved Joshua or the Office of Desegregation Monitoring (ODM), on information and belief, regarding the controversy. 4. The Joshua Intervenors understand the conflict as follows: a. White students are being allowed to transfer into majority black schools in 1PCSSD. Their transfers into those schools result in reinforcement of racially segregated gifted and talented and academically enriched programs. For example, at College Station Elementary, white students are allowed entry thereto for the gifted and talented (GT) program. The result is that GT is overwhelmingly white, but the school is disproportionately black. LRSD white students thus have more academically enriched options than LRSD black students who are not allowed to transfer into that substantially segregated program. A second example is reflected at the high school level. Mills High also has a school within a school. The specialty school is disproportionately white. It has a separate staff as well, although the school principal is African American. LRSD African American students are denied transfer from Little Rock into the Mills specialty program, while white students are allowed transfer. b. LRSD administration promotes continuation of segregated programs, practices and activities by its refusal to allow African American students to transfer from the LRSD into strong academic settings which its makes available to white students. This is a continuation of LRSDs emphasis upon promoting educational advantage for white students while not doing likewise for African American students. 5. LRSD effectively takes the position that when a school enrollment in PCSSD reaches 50% African American, LRSD African American may not attend the PCSSD school. LRSD interprets the M to M transfer provision to require return of those African American students to LRSD who, by their presence in Fuller, Mills and College Station, cause racial imbalance. PCSSD, on the other hand, would allow such students to remain in specialty schools throughout their academic careers. The effect of LRSDs position is to take higher achieving African American students who have opted for specialty programs in PCSSD from PCSSD and place 2them back into lower level academic programs within the LRSD. LRSD thus appears to promote continuation of stronger academic programs for its white students through their assignment to such programs in PCSSD but not for its African American students. WHEREFORE, the Joshua Intervenors respectfully request the Court to have the Office of Desegregation Monitoring to prepare a monitoring report regarding the situation and subsequent to such report, set the matter for evidentiary hearing. Thereafter, the Court is requested to provide appropriate relief including but not limited to modifying the M to M stipulation to reflect tlie intended puipose and then to allow African American students entry into the disproportionately one race schools within schools at College Station Elementary, Fuller Middle, and Mills High schools. Respectfully submitted. Robert Pressman 22 Locust Lexington, MA 02421 862-781-1955 John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 501-374-3758 501-374-4187 (fax) f i 7 _ (z--- John W. Walker CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I do hereby state that a copy of the foregoing Motion has been served on all counsel of record on this 8* day of July, 2004. I I I '/ 7^ % -n ,11 ' rf . f 21 JC\nc.= RECEIVED IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION JUL 2 0 2004 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. NO. 4:82CV00866WRW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. INTERVENORS PCSSDS RESPONSE TO JOSHUA INTERVENORS MOTION REGARDING LRSDS AND PCSSDS M-TO-M DISAGREEMENT The PCSSD for its response states: 1. Joshuas motion is in actuality a response to PCSSDs motion. 2. The PCSSD sought unsuccessfully to involve the ODM in a resolution of this dispute. 3. The PCSSD has not heretofore involved Joshua believing this to be a simple dispute with the LRSD over interpretation of long-standing rules. 4. LRSD black students are allowed to exercise M-to-M transfers into the PCSSD specialty program so long as those schools are eligible for M-to-M transfers. 5. PCSSD denies any remaining allegations contained in the motion to the extent that those allegations questioned practices or motives as regards M-to-M transfers. 249234-V1WHEREFORE, the PCSSD prays that the motion be denied and for all proper relief. 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. . Samuel Jones lII W6060) Attorneys for P 'Schoer District ilasja County Special 249234-V1 2CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE On July 19, 2004, a copy of the foregoing was served via U.S. mail on each of the following\nMr. John W. Walker John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Mark A. Hagemeier Assistant Attorney General Arkansas Attorney Generals Office 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 2000 Regions Center 400 West Capitol Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Ms. Ann Brown Marshall ODM One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Clayton Blackstock Mr. Mark Burnett 1010 W. Third Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Judge J. Thomas Ray U.S. District Courthouse 600 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 149 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Robert Pressman 22 Locust Avenue Lexington, Massachusetts 02173 M. luel Bones III 249234-V1 309/13/2004 11\n44 501-4472951 V LRSD SRO e derate, 4- 01/02 ef=^ ) EDWARD L. WftlGMT \u0026lt;1903-1917) ROSBRT 5. UXMCY 0913-1991) ALSTON JBWNIKOS \u0026lt;19)7.2004) ISAAC A. SCOTT. JA. JOHN G. LILS GORDON S. HaTHER, JR. MARTIN G. CILBERT KOGBR A. GLASCO* PATRICK 7. COSS ALSTON J8WNJN0S. JR. JOHN R. TISDAL? KATHLYN ORavbS M. SAMUEL JONES III JOHN WILLIAM SPJVEY III LEE J. MULDROW N.M. NORTON CHARLES C. PRICE ! CHARLBS T. COtfiMAN JA.MES I. atovim eOWIN L. LOWTHBR. JR- ORECORY T: JONBS J SBTTINA B. BROWNSTEIN j WALTCK MtiPAPO^N . JIM-Ot SXAMtS iutwr $11H MJ\u0026gt;H5 ........ RJARX-is  * ?\n40: Mr. Chris Heller WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026amp; JENNINGS LLP 1 aTTORNEYS-aT law i 200 *ST CAPITOL AV^t\u0026lt;tje. SUITE 2300 LJTTLS XOCK. aRKa*i5aS 12201-3699 {50n )11-0Q8 FAX^IJOn 576-9442 901 \\ORTN 43TH STftfBET. SUITE lOI ROCSaS. ARKANSAS 2736 (i 984-OU8 PAXi(79) 966-H31 T -/-irV .wlj .^9in OF COuJ^SL RONALD a\nMAY 9RUCS ft LINOSEY 2 JAMES ft VAlj CRBOOftV $ OOVBR lUZINGO** I whi*'- j OVreet OlAl ite-K 001.-2124273 Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 400 W. Capitol Avenue, Suite 2000 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3493 RE: September9, 2004 KATHRYN A PRYOB }. WARK DAVI5 } clairb shows Hancock 4 KEVIN W. KENH6D JERRY J. SALLINGS WJLLlAM STUART JACKSON MICHAEL D. SARNES STEPHgN ft. LANXASTSR JUDY ftOBlNSON' WILSER KT L8 R. WILSON C. TAO SOHaNNON / KftlSTt M. MOODY J. CHARLES OOUCHBRTY* M. SBAN HATCH J. ANDREW VJ^ES JUSTIN T. ALL6X MICHELLE M. Kaemmerling ) SCOTT ANOREU' tR8Y PATRICK 0. WILSON RBClNA A. S9aULONG MARY BLIZaBBTH ELDRIDGE BLAKS S. RUTHERFOftO PAUL D. MORRIS EDWARD RIAL ARMSTRONG BVA.C. MADISO.*- 6 J. RBBBCCA fRATT WASS OAWH O' bBOPUs CALR-y B. VO l\u0026amp;OLIM ReJORGeNSEN GARY Oz!\u0026lt;*MT5'. )R,i TA. . \u0026gt; UiakitaH  OitiHe: ef 3 New rort S North Carnlt^o 6 Oklchfun rr^infitcf * Ufvvt^ mSlant P^sm * UUHM hl ftafhff  ylirhiffut t 1 I M-to-M Agreement Between PCSSD and LRSD Dear Chris: 1 original of the M-to-M Agreemenit that was facilitated by Horace Smith. ..Si. - y' ' I**.. \u0026gt; A _ I __ _ __ signature and return to met Brenda Bowles is out of town until next ahS I'\u0026lt;v2l get her signature then after you return this to me. Cordially yours, 1 WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026amp; JENNINGS LLP 1 M. S luel Jones, HI MSJ:ao Encl. i I I I I 524319-vl I 109/13/2004 11:44 501-4472951 LRSD SRO PAGE 02/02 11 One Year M-to-M Agreement Befween the PCSSD and LRSD September__i, 2004 During an August 6, 2004 meeting at the ODM, the rejjresenutives of Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) and the Little Rock School District (IRSD) tentatively reached the following one-year agreement to settle issues regarding M-to-M transfers. II 1. PCSSD agrees to use its tracking form\" only to identify to LRSD its M-to-M students progressing from one organizational level to the next outside of established PCSSD feeder patterns. For those M-to-M students who progress outside of the feed* patterns, PCSSD will provide its tracking form to the LRSD to document the students school assii 4 p icnmilents. LRSD agrees to discontinue the longstanding practjce of sending letters to M-to-M. students 3. jn^ard^ scl^l assignments for the foUowit^ year, leaving that task to PCSSD. LRSD agrees to continue to transport M-to-M students who are returning to their original school sites in the PCSSD, or to the next school in their eftafalished feeder pattern, with the exception of the five students already agreed upon, as well as at odier properly enrolled M-to-M students. 4. Both PCSSD and LRSD agree that no new M-to-i students will be allowed to attend a PCSSD specialty school with a majority black enrollment taring the 2004-05 school year. 1 5. I LRSD agrees to transport five (5) M-to-M sixth-gr^de students who attended Clinton. Crystal Hill, and College Station in 2(X)3-04 to the specialty prtiram at Fuller Middle School in 2(X)4-05. These students were identified as gifted and the PCSSD Fuller. id already assured them that they could attend 6. Both LRSD and PCSSD agree to work with the Ntfcth Little Rock School District, Joshua Intervenors, Magnet Review Committee, and Offiojs of Desegregation Monitorir^ to develop solutions to remaining M-to-M disagreements and completed on or before December 31, 2004, o in^rove procedures. This process will be 7. The parties request that the MRC and ODM establi ih a regular meeting schedule to ensure that the December 31, 2004 deadline is met. So agreed this___ day of September, 2004. JOSi By. INTgRVE] John Walker Limfe ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT By_J__________________________ j Junious Babbs, Associate Superintendent PULAtKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT By. 1 Dr. Brenda Bowles 520624-vI s Office of Desegregation Monitoring United States District Court  Eastern District of Arkansas One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501)376-6200 Fax (501) 371-0100 November 2, 2004 Mr. Junious Babbs Associate Superintendent Little Rock School District 501 Sherman Street Little Rock, AR 72202 Dear Junious: The M-to-M agreement that PCSSD, LRSD, and Joshua signed in late September requested that the Magnet Review Committee and the Office of Desegregation Monitoring facilitate meetings to help the parties settle remaining M-to-M disagreements. The first meeting to address those issues will be held at the MRC office in North Little Rock on Wednesday, November 17, 2004 at 9:30 a.m. Our second meeting will be held on Thursday, December 9, 2004 at 9:30 a.m. at the MRC office. Please let me know by the end of the week if these dates are agreeable. I can be reached at 376-6200, by fax at 371-0100, and by email at hrsmithfrz'.aristotle.net. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Sincerely, Horace R. Smith Monitorrf-tac. ux/ ux I little rock s thool district 501 SHERMAN s: REFT LlrTT E ROCK, R 72202 {)FndE OF ADlvnNISTRATIVF SERVICES uniou i C. Babbs, Associate Superintendent 1 'hone: ] i-Maii (501) 447-2955 junious,babbsi'gU rsd.org TO\nMr. Horace Smith, Office of Dese\nreg at\non and Monitoring FROM: Babbs I SUBJECT\nIdei tifying M-to-M Issues ATE\nNot amber 15, 2004 In preparation for \u0026lt; i requesting identific ur November 17*^ meeting am I respi inse to your November 11 th 1. 2. 3. ation of pending M-to-M issues, the Use of PCJ:SD tracking form (#1 in Sept. A. Wh I memo ollowing information is being provided\n!O4 M( )U Agreement) 6 PCSSD will provide their tra :king sch\niol assignment, an anticipated orm to LRSD to document students I time c f receipt is requested. B. Be i aminded that LRSD students ^-to-f 1 from PCSSD) must reapply upon corr Dietion of a classification level (K-5 t 6-8). LRSD agre ss to discontinue the longstaniing practice of sending letters to M-to-M students re PCSSD. ! larding their school assignments for the following year, leaving that task to It is imports established notification It that PCSSD notify each LR 5D sk dent attending PCSSD via M-to-M. Our 1| contact period will be March 4Cai PCSSD coincide to provide a letter of or our students? I Tentative a\u0026gt; treement has been established that ichooi composition percentages reflect official sch do! counts reported to ADE di ring tf e second submission cycle. When and I ow would this communicationjbe pre vided to each district? Informational / )iscussion Items I 1. Given seat ivailabi'ity, it is anticipated tha M-to-iVl transfers will be available to enter LRSD scho ils, including LRCH at second semester 2. When open School and designated i id. M-to-M transfer will be avajiabie Io the new PCSSD Maumelle Middle 3henal Elementary\nhowever, there s no set or established number of ieats. 1! i i I 12/10/2804 12:20 501-4472951 LRSD SRO PAGE 01/01 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 501 SHERMAN STREET LITTLE ROCK, AR 72202 I )IFIC E OF ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES . uniou I C. Babbs, Associate Superintendent : hone: (501) 447-2955\n\u0026gt;Mail junious.babb8@Ir$d.org TO: Karl Brown, Pulaski County Spec al Scl Donna Creer, Magnet Review Co: amith i ool District e Horace Smith, Office of Desegrej ation Monitoring FROM. OUS Babbs SUBJECT: Requested Information DATE: December 10, 2004 In response to information requested in our Dec\nmber 9* meeting, I have indicated all Little Rock School District Schools that are NOT elig ble to receive M-to-M transfers based on October 1,2004 enrollment. Elementary Forest Park Fulbright Jefferson Pulaski Heights Elementary If questions surface, please contact me.\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_692","title":"Report: \"\"Little Rock School District Educational Equity Monitoring 1995-96, First Semester Summary Report,\"\" Planning, Research, and Evaluation Department","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":["1996-02"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","School improvement programs","School employees","School discipline"],"dcterms_title":["Report: \"\"Little Rock School District Educational Equity Monitoring 1995-96, First Semester Summary Report,\"\" Planning, Research, and Evaluation Department"],"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/692"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["reports"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\nLITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL EQUITY MONITORING 1995-96 FIRST SEMESTER SUMMARY REPORT PLANNING, RESEARCH, AND EVALUATION DEPARTMENT Little Rock, Arkansas February 1996 TABLE OF CONTENTS AREA AND MAGNET SCHOOLS Page 1.0 Equitable Placement by Race/Gender in School Programs 3 2.0 Curriculum 10 3.0 School/District Initiated Honors and Awards 31 4.0 Committees 38 5.0 Extracurricular Activities 42 6.0 Student Achievement/Assessment 50 7.0 Special Education 61 8.0 Gifted and Talented Education 65 9.0 Staff Development 73 10.0 Parental Involvement 81 11.0 Student Discipline 88 12.0 Building Leadership/Management 106 INCENTIVE SCHOOLS 1.0 Equitable Placement by Race/Gender in School Programs 121 2.0 Curriculum 121 3.0 School/District Initiated Honors and Awards 124 4.0 Committees 126 5.0 Extended Day Educational Opportunities 126 6.0 Student Achievement/Assessment 127 7.0 Special Education 129 8.0 Gifted and Talented Education 130 9.0 Staff Development 132 10.0 Parental Involvement 133 11.0 Student Discipline 135 12.0 Building Leadership/Management 137 ADDITIONAL OBSERVATIONS 140 ADDENDUM School Category Groupings Used In Report Henderson Health/Sciences Magnet Program McClellan High School Business/Communications Magnet Program 148 151 153LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLANNING, RESEARCH AND EVALUATION DEPARTMENT 1995-96 EDUCATIONAL EQUITY MONITORING FIRST SEMESTER SUMMARY REPORT The Little Rock School District Desegregation Plan requires monitoring for educational equity in all schools in the District. The monitoring is conducted by local biracial committee members and the Planning, Research and Evaluation staff. Each team conducts one school visit each semester using a monitoring instrument developed by the three school districts in Pulaski County, the Arkansas Department of Education, and the Desegregation Assistance Center in San Antonio, Texas. The monitoring instrument and Standard Operating Procedures for Monitoring are provided to principals prior to the visits, with instructions for these instruments to be shared with their school staffs. The visits are scheduled cooperatively with each principal. The teams report semi-annually to the superintendent the progress or lack of progress in the following areas: Equitable Placement by Race and Gender in School Programs Curriculum School/District Initiated Honors/Awards Committees Extracurricular Activities Student Achievement/Assessment Special Education Gifted and Talented Education Staff Development Parental Involvement Student Discipline Building Leadership/ManagementEDUCATIONAL EQUITY MONITORING 1995-96 FIRST SEMESTER SUMMARY REPORT PAGE 2 Each team, using race and gender as the unit of analysis, reviews a school profile which contains basic information related to current conditions in the monitored areas. The school profile information is verified through the school visit and interviews with school personnel. This report provides a summary of the visits conducted between October 23, 1995 and December 15, 1995. The school reports identify conditions that were evident on the day of the visit. Many acceptable conditions were observed by the monitors during the visits. However, the intent of this report is to identify the degree to which each school is progressing toward the goals of desegregation (See LRSD Desegregation Plan pages 28-29). At the conclusion of each visit, a conference is held with the building principal or designee to review the findings of the team. The principals comments from this conference are included in the reports for clarification. In addition, the Office of Desegregation, through the appropriate central office administrator, provides guidance for corrective actions. Therefore, current conditions may be different.EDUCATIONAL EQUITY MONITORING 1995-96 FIRST SEMESTER SUMMARY REPORT PAGE 3 1.0 EQUITABLE PLACEMENT BY RACE/GENDER IN SCHOOL PROGRAMS At each school the monitors expected to find: Racially balanced (at least 25% black) certified and (at least 25% white) non-certified staff reflects appropriate percentage Racial/Gender Balance (at least 25% black) in staff assignments, programs, content areas, and grade level School enrollment to be within the appropriate racial range for 1994-1995 elementary 40% to 60%, junior high 51.25% to 76.88%, senior high 49.11% to 73.67% Racial/gender enrollment of classrooms and courses to generally reflect the racial/gender composition of the school Racial and gender enrollment of extended educational programs to generally reflect the racial/gender composition of the school Plans to eliminate one-race classes, if one-race classes are identified Class enrollments comply with state standards Strategies to increase the number of minority students in upper level courses/class groups FINDINGS: Area Elementary Schools: Six schools had not attained the goal for equitable staffing. McDermott, Meadowcliff and Otter Creek fell below the staffing goal of at least 25% black certified staff members although McDermott missed this goal by less than 1%. Brady, Jefferson and Pulaski Heights fell below the staffing goal of at least 25% white non-certified staff members, with Jefferson missing the goal by only 1%.EDUCATIONAL EQUITY MONITORING 1995-96 FIRST SEMESTER SUMMARY REPORT PAGE 4 Seven schools, Forest Park, Fulbright, Jefferson, McDermott, Pulaski Heights, Otter Creek and Terry, reflected the acceptable range for black student enrollment for 1995-1996. Eight schools (Brady, Fair Park, Fulbright, Geyer Springs, Mabelvale, Pulaski Heights, Otter Creek and Terry) had class enrollments that did not reflect the racial/ethnic composition of the school. Fair Park had six of 15 classes out of range. Geyer Springs kindergarten was out of range. Pulaski Heights 4th grade and Otter Creeks 3rd grade were out of range. A one-race special education class was found at Geyer Springs where 11 black students were enrolled. Response from Principal(s)\nThe Jefferson principal reported that two black certified staff members have been added during the current academic year. The Meadowcliff principal explained that all efforts are being made to recruit black certified staff. The Fair Park principal indicated that strategies were being implemented to address disproportionate enrollments which included teacher recruitment teams and parent involvement activities to market the school. The Forest Park principal requested principals have more input into determining class size, pending needs of students and circumstances unique within a building at particular times. The Fulbright principal stated that classroom assignments are based on three factors: class size at each grade level, distribution of class by race and distribution among classes by gender. The Geyer Springs principal noted thatEDUCATIONAL EQUITY MONITORING 1995-96 FIRST SEMESTER SUMMARY REPORT PAGE 5 openings in kindergarten are filled by the student assignment office with regard to total kindergarten racial composition, but not individual kindergarten black/white enrollment. The Pulaski Heights principal stated that the school staff does not assign students to the school. However, all but two of the 4th graders were there last year. The Otter Creek principal said that when the school year started, classes were balanced based on percent in each grade level. When students move in and out of the school, it is difficult to control the class racial composition. Original Magnet Elementary Schools: The composition of the school staff (certified and non-certified members) was adequate to ensure student contact with varied staff personnel at Williams. At Booker, 6% of the non-certified staff were white. At Gibbs, 13% of the noncertified staff members were white. At Carver, 23% of the certified staff members were black. School enrollments reflected the racial composition prescribed by the court- approved desegregation plan. Class enrollments generally reflected the racial/ethnic composition of the school at all four schools. Principals provided strategies used to balance class enrollments. No one-race classes were reported at any of these schools. Response from Principal(s): The principal from Carver said that according to the PN agreement, she had to use the transfer file in filling open positions. There were only whiteEDUCATIONAL EQUITY MONITORING 1995-96 FIRST SEMESTER SUMMARY REPORT PAGE 6 teachers in this file. Therefore, she had no options to hire anyone other than a teacher from this file. Interdistrict Elementary Schools: King, Romine and Washington attained the goal for equitable staffing for certified staff members. The goal for non-certified staff was not achieved. Noncertified staff was 18% white at King, 24% white at Romine, and 14% white at Washington which was not very different from last years equity report. The school enrollment at Romine and Washington did not reflect the racial composition prescribed for the interdistrict schools. Washington had four classes out of range. No one-race classes were observed. Response from Principal(s): None Area Junior High Schools: Forest Heights, Mabelvale and Southwest attained the equitable staffing goal. The non-certified staff at Cloverdale was 11% white and the certified staff at Pulaski Heights was 22% black. The school enrollment at Cloverdale and Southwest did not reflect the racial composition prescribed for area junior high schools. None of the schools had class enrollments that reflected the ethnic composition of the school population. Principals provided strategies to eliminate disproportionate class/course enrollments. One-race classes were reported at Cloverdale, Mabelvale, andEDUCATIONAL EQUITY MONITORING 1995-96 FIRST SEMESTER SUMMARY REPORT PAGE? Pulaski Heights. Response from Principal(s): The Forest Heights principal said some classes are disproportionate due to the low test scores of students. Students scoring low on Stanford 8 will be enrolled in classes to improve their skills in a specific subject. Original Magnet Junior High School: The equitable staffing goal was attained at Mann. The 53% black student enrollment was within the range approved by the Court. Sixty-five percent of the classes did not generally reflect the ethnic population of the school. The principal provided strategies to eliminate disproportionate class/course enrollments. There were no one-race classes reported. Response from Principal: None Area Junior High Schools with Magnet Programs: Dunbar and Henderson attained the equitable staffing goal for certified staff. The goal for non-certified was not attained at Dunbar where only 18% of noncertified employees are white. The school population at Dunbar and Henderson reflected the acceptable range of 40% to 60% black. Approximately 64% of the classes at Dunbar and 28% of the classes at Heiiderson did not reflect the school population. The principals provided strategies to eliminate disproportionate class/course enrollments. Four one-race classes were reported at Dunbar.EDUCATIONAL EQUITY MONITORING 1995-96 FIRST SEMESTER SUMMARY REPORT PAGE 8 Response from Principal(s): None Alternative Learning Center: The ALC did not attain the equitable staffing goal for non-certified positions with only 11% white personnel. School enrollment was 89% black. Classes generally reflected the ethnicity of the student population. No one-race classes were observed. Response from Principal: None Area Senior High Schools: Fair and Hall attained the equitable staffing goal. School enrollments at both schools reflected the acceptable range of 49.11% - 73.67%. Class/course enrollments did not generally reflect the composition of the student population at either school. Fair reported 39% of their classes were over or under-represented by blacks, and Hall had 41% of their classes out of compliance. Fifteen one-race classes existed at Hall. Written strategies to eliminate disproportionate classes were provided. Response from Principal(s): None Original Magnet Senior High School: Parkview attained the equitable staffing goal. Fifty-two percent of theEDUCATIONAL EQUITY MONITORING 1995-96 FIRST SEMESTER SUMMARY REPORT PAGE 9 student population was black. Forty-nine percent of classes were above or below the acceptable range for black student enrollment. Three one-race classes were reported which included eight white students in a German class and six black students in a Language Plus II class. There were 18 black students in kindergarten. Response from Principal: None Area Senior High Schools with Magnet Programs: The composition of the school staff at Central and McClellan met the goal for certified and non-certified personnel. Central's school enrollment was 63% black and within the prescribed range of 49.11% - 73.67%. McClellan did not meet this goal with an 80% black enrollment. Class/course enrollments did not reflect the composition of the student body. Seventy-six percent of the classes at Central and 25% of the classes at McClellan were over or under the acceptable range. The principals provided strategies to eliminate disproportionate classes and the 19 one-race classes at Central and the four one-race classes at McClellan. Response from Principal(s): None Metropolitan Vocational-Technical Education Center: Metropolitan did not achieve the staffing goal for certified or non-certifiedEDUCATIONAL EQUITY MONITORING 1995-96 FIRST SEMESTER SUMMARY REPORT PAGE 10 staff. Staff included 22% certified black staff and 20% non-certified white staff. The school population was 50% black. There were no one-race classes reported. Response from Principal: None 2.0 CURRICULUM At each school the monitors expected to find: Implementation of a culturally diverse, scoped, sequenced, multicultural, interdisciplinary and bias free LRSD curriculum Interaction among students promoted by classroom seating patterns An adequacy of materials and equipment to support the prescribed curriculum (Adequacy - can you implement the curriculum with what you have) Varied teaching strategies reflected by display of student work Current and complete documentation of student progress. Teachers demonstrating use of multiculturally infused curriculum Students participating in heterogeneous groups to allow for cross racial interaction Displays of bulletin boards, materials, and publications that reflect the cultural diversity of the student population and/or multiculturalism FINDINGS: Area Elementary Schools: In all twenty-three (23) area elementary schools most of the teachers said that materials and equipment were adequate for curriculum delivery. Some teachers at Brady School needed more spelling and reading instructional material.EDUCATIONAL EQUITY MONITORING 1995-96 FIRST SEMESTER SUMMARY REPORT PAGE 11 Also at Brady School, it was mentioned that more multicultural materials could be used in the library. Some monitored teachers at Dodd Elementary School mentioned that more copy paper was needed and more supplies were needed in the third grade. At Woodruff School, it was reported as it was in a previous school year that more computers in the classrooms would enhance instruction and facilitate the use of ABACUS. It was also reported that some pull-down wall maps of the United States and of the world were needed at Woodruff. At Fair Park School, some monitored teachers said that there were not enough consumable books for new students when they arrive at the school. It was reported that new students had to wait several weeks for these consumable books. At Forest Park School, it was reported that the kindergarten instruction would be enhanced if individual handwriting booklets and mathematics workbooks could be provided. In most of the classrooms monitored, most of the student records were found to be current and complete in all of the area elementary schools. In all of the area elementary schools, most students in the monitored classrooms were actively involved in instruction. Such activities as students participating in a music lesson, marching, clapping hands, pupils in a classroom discussion of a story the teacher had read to the class, creative writing following aEDUCATIONAL EQUITY MONITORING 1995-96 FIRST SEMESTER SUMMARY REPORT PAGE 12 teacher read story and students working on making a globe were observed. Other student activities observed were participation in oral word games with students acting as detectives, learning the sounds of letters, testing, learning about teamwork and diversity, writing poetry, doing art work, watching a video on phonics, working on spelling, vocabulary and alphabetizing and discussion of tornado safety. Some students were observed working on book reports. In all area elementary schools, classroom seating patterns observed promoted interaction among students of different race/gender. In all the area elementary schools bulletin boards, displays of projects, publications, and productions throughout the school including the media centers reflected the racial/ethnic/gender differences of the student body and/or multiculturalism. Examples of this were \"Christmas Around the World,\" Egyptian, European, African-American and American Indian cultures, and a poster with the theme \"We are all children under the same sky.\" At Fulbright School, there was a commercial poster observed promoting achievement with only white students depicted. In most of the area elementary classrooms visited, a reflection of the racial/ethnic and gender differences of the student body and/or multiculturalism was observed. Some examples were at Otter Creek School a \"Being a Good Neighbor\" bulletin board, at Western Hills School there were pictures of actual students on the honor roll bulletin board, and at McDermott there was a \"Lets Be Friends\" poster. At Forest Park, posters of famous black Americans wereEDUCATIONAL EQUITY MONITORING 1995-96 FIRST SEMESTER SUMMARY REPORT PAGE 13 observed as well as friends around the world and children of other cultures. In most of these classrooms visited, there were many displays of student work observed. Examples of this at Geyer Springs School were art work on the Thanksgiving theme, graphs, poetry written by students, book report projects, and science experiments. At McDermott School, examples of this were rhyming word papers, time lines of their lives drawn by pupils, art work, and clay pots made by students. However, of the six classrooms monitored at Pulaski Heights Elementary School, there were three teachers who had student work displayed. and three who did not. At Fulbright Elementary, science work, art work. handwriting displays and story maps were in evidence in the visited classrooms. Multicultural objectives of the curriculum guides were being taught in all of these schools visited. At Otter Creek School, astronauts and scientists of the various races were studied. Various multicultural books and materials were being used at Otter Creek. At Geyer Springs School, the students made a tepee and sat in it and read a book about American Indians. At Pulaski Heights Elementary School, the media specialist helped initiate a theme of \"Winter Holidays Around the World.\" She was heard reading a story of the Japanese Winter Holiday to a group of children in the library. Classes at Pulaski Heights Elementary School were observed working on the Kwanza theme and Aesops Fables. At Cloverdale Elementary School, the students were observed talking about the cultures of Africa, Mexico, and Canada. At Fulbright School, the ThanksgivingEDUCATIONAL EQUITY MONITORING 1995-96 FIRST SEMESTER SUMMARY REPORT PAGE 14 theme of the pilgrims and the American Indians was replete throughout the building. King Tut and Socrates were taught in some rooms. Harriet Tubman and Kachina dolls of the Pueblo Indians were taught in other rooms visited. Response from Principal(s): The Fair Park principal said that with the districts being in difficult financial straits, the LRSD does not routinely send extra books to the school to await the arrival of new students. Original Magnet Elementary Schools: Materials and equipment were reported to be sufficient for curriculum delivery by most monitored teachers. At Carver Magnet School, overhead projectors, computers, and televisions were observed in the visited classrooms. Some visited Carver teachers said that they had gone to various state and local facilities to provide materials for class. Some visited teachers said that all they had to do was ask for materials and equipment, and it was provided. At Williams School, it was reported in some monitored classrooms that more computers were needed. All observed student records were current and complete. In most classrooms visited, all students were actively involved in classroom instruction. At Gibbs School, observed students were actively involved in gardening, small group discussions and question/answer sessions. At Williams School, a sixth grade student was observed reading to a second grade class, andEDUCATIONAL EQUITY MONITORING 1995-96 FIRST SEMESTER SUMMARY REPORT PAGE 15 the pupils were preparing to write a creative paper about the story. Williams' students were also observed writing book reports, drawing a mural, doing independent study, reading a book about Native Americans, and completing a project about the Pilgrims. In all classrooms visited, seating patterns promoted interaction of the races/genders. Throughout these schools, publications, bulletin boards, and productions reflected the racial/ethnic and gender differences of the student body and/or multiculturalism. At Carver School, there was a display of book reports of the last books read in one classroom visited. A poster was observed of black scientists and inventors in history in another visited classroom. There was another poster observed with the theme that reading opens up new worlds with different cultures pictured around it. At Williams School, international menus were posted for the international food fair. There was a display at Carver School of an American Indian theme exhibited on the bulletin boards throughout the school. A bulletin board in the hallway with student art work was observed as well as a \"Fall into Autumn' bulletin board. At Gibbs School, one week before the monitoring visit, there was an Italian Festival held. At Williams School, there was a display on China and Japan.EDUCATIONAL EQUITY MONITORING 1995-96 FIRST SEMESTER SUMMARY REPORT PAGE 16 Displays of Egyptian and Indian cultures were noted in the classrooms visited at Booker School. In most classrooms monitored, displays of student work reflecting various teaching strategies were observed. The various resources of the different states were displayed artistically on shoe boxes around a visited classroom at Carver Magnet School. At Williams School, a writers corner in one classroom displayed student writing, test papers, art and mathematics work, and spelling. Multicultural objectives of the curriculum guides were being taught in all classrooms visited at all these schools. In one classroom visited at Carver Magnet School, corn was sprouted the way the native Americans did it. The United Nations and different cultures were studied in another visited classroom at Carver. Three ways of multiplying numbers were studied in another Carver classroom visited: Egyptian doubling, Russian peasant and lattice from India. At Williams Magnet School, units of study on Kenya and China were observed as well as the studying of other lands in a \"Walking in the shoe steps of other people\" theme. Students from Booker Magnet School went to Wildwood Park to performances with a multicultural theme. The media specialists at Booker, Carver and Williams Magnet Schools annually evaluated the adequacy of the multicultural materials in the media collection and continually evaluated new materials to be considered for purchase. There was no answer to this item on the Gibbs Team Consensus report becauseEDUCATIONAL EQUITY MONITORING 1995-96 FIRST SEMESTER SUMMARY REPORT PAGE 17 it was reported that the media specialist was not in the building on the day of the program for equity monitoring. Response from Principal(s): None Interdistrict Elementary Schools: At King, Romine and Washington Schools, most monitored teachers had adequate materials and equipment to deliver the curriculum. However, at King School computers in some classrooms at one grade level were not functional on the day of the monitoring visit. At Washington School, overhead projectors. televisions and encyclopedias were observed in most of the visited classrooms. and most monitored teachers said that they had adequate materials and equipment. However, a power surge burned out two computers in the media center. These computers needed to be fixed, and a CD drive computer was needed. At Washington School, it was also reported that there were certain experiments to do in the science curriculum. A problem was that no one prepared materials for the science experiments. Two visited classrooms needed encyclopedias. At Washington School, it was reported that the LRSD had a policy that computers in the laboratory cannot be moved to the classroom. It was noted that Washington School was a big school with many students. Yet, rather routinely the same amount of materials was sent to Washington as a smaller school with fewerEDUCATIONAL EQUITY MONITORING 1995-96 FIRST SEMESTER SUMMARY REPORT PAGE 18 pupils. Most observed records were current and complete at these schools. However, at Washington School, one visited teacher had no grade book at the school. At these schools, all observed students were actively involved in classroom instruction. Some visited teachers were observed asking questions, with the students answering questions. ABACUS testing was observed. In most classrooms observed, students of both races and genders were observed seated together. However, in one monitored classroom at King School, when the students were allowed to work in groups, the equity monitor noted that one small group consisted of three white students. All monitors reported observing an abundance of multicultural displays throughout the schools on bulletin boards, displays of projects, publications and productions. Multiculturalism was reflected in all classrooms visited in these schools. At Washington School, Caddo and Quapaw Indians of Arkansas displays, student art work with multicultural aspects, and a bulletin board display of the Central High School crisis were observed. In all monitored classrooms, numerous displays of student work were evident. Examples of this were pictures drawn by students, writing samples, and seed planting systems. At all three of these schools, it was reported that the multicultural objectivesEDUCATIONAL EQUITY MONITORING 1995-96 FIRST SEMESTER SUMMARY REPORT PAGE 19 of the curriculum guides were taught. Some examples of this were integration and Chinese writing. At King School, the media specialist reported that the budget was increased this year and the multicultural media collection was increased. It was reported to be continually evaluated. The library media specialist at Romine School was sensitive to the need to include multicultural materials in the holdings. Moreover, there was sufficient evidence in the files to support this conclusion. A book order with multicultural materials such as American Indians was seen at Washington Elementary. Response from Principal(s): The principal from King School commented that computers in the first grade classrooms have been temporarily inoperative at times this school year. The situation has been closely monitored. Repairs were in progress on the day of the monitoring visit. Area Junior High Schools: Four of the five schools, Cloverdale, Mabelvale, Pulaski Heights and Southwest, had adequate materials and equipment to deliver the curriculum. The ninth grade English Department at Forest Heights Junior High School needed 50 textbooks for all students to have one book. Teachers visited in the science department at Forest Heights needed hands-on projects materials to supplement the textbooks.EDUCATIONAL EQUITY MONITORING 1995-96 FIRST SEMESTER SUMMARY REPORT PAGE 20 At Mabelvale Junior High School, a science laboratory room was badly needed, as well as additional science equipment. It was reported that the LRSD Science supervisor was quite helpful in seeing that supplementary science materials were provided. Teachers at Mabelvale spent personal funds for materials. English classes at this school needed more current reading materials which contained extensive multicultural selections. All records observed at these schools were current and complete. In four (Cloverdale, Mabelvale, Pulaski Heights and Southwest) of five of these junior high schools, all observed students were actively involved in classroom instruction. However, at Forest Heights Junior High School, in some classrooms visited the students were not actively involved with such activities going on as throwing of spit wads, talking, playing around, and moving around in the room. In these rooms it appeared that the students did whatever they wanted to do. apparently without teacher direction. Most observed classroom seating patterns promoted interaction among students of different race/gender in all of these junior high schools. The Mabelvale Junior High School media center was equipped with a computer/CD/ROM that has SIRS available and offers multicultural research capability for students. Mabelvale Junior High School has completed all of the requirements to become a GLOBE school and will be the only such school in the LRSD. GLOBEEDUCATIONAL EQUITY MONITORING 1995-96 FIRST SEMESTER SUMMARY REPORT PAGE 21 is a worldwide science and education program coordinating the work of students, teachers, and scientists to study and understand the global environment. GLOBE is an international partnership, involving countries around the world. Wal-Mart-Geyer Springs donated a Zoomfax Modem/External/v.32 bis computer modem, cable and phone cable that will assist Mabelvale Junior High School to have an Internet connection for the GLOBE program. SECME, Science Engineering, Communication, and Mathematics Enrichment, a new program being implemented at Mabelvale Junior High School, gave a grant of $500 to the school to cover the cost of a dedicated phone line ($38/month). The media specialist has been instrumental in securing these donations for an INTERNET connection. Response from Principal(s): The Forest Heights Junior High School Principal said that the problem with the lack of materials in the two departments was evidently the result of a communication problem between the two department chairs and him. He said that he would meet with the department chairs of English and science to rectify the shortage of materials. Magnet Junior High School: All interviewed teachers at Mann Junior High School said that materials and eguipment were adequate. All records observed were current and complete. Most observed students were working in groups and participating in discussions. All observed classroom seating patterns were adequate to promote interactionEDUCATIONAL EQUITY MONITORING 1995-96 FIRST SEMESTER SUMMARY REPORT PAGE 22 among students of different race/gender. Bulletin boards throughout the school and displays were reported by all the monitors to be multicultural. All visited classrooms displayed multicultural materials. Monitors observed student work displayed in all visited classrooms. Examples of this were mathematics projects, science displays, and biographies of scientists of different cultures. Multicultural objectives were reflected in the student work displayed. Multicultural objectives were observed in lesson plans. The media specialist evaluated multicultural materials in the media collection. Teachers were encouraged to recommend new multicultural materials for purchase. The media specialist said that an intensive effort was being made to purchase more materials on Asian and Hispanic populations. Response from Principal: None Area Junior High Schools with Magnet Programs: Although at Dunbar and Henderson Junior High Schools most classrooms visited had adequate materials and equipment, the Henderson choir was reported to need more money in the budget for sheet music which costs $1.25 for one sheet of music. All observed student records at these two schools were current and complete.EDUCATIONAL EQUITY MONITORING 1995-96 FIRST SEMESTER SUMMARY REPORT PAGE 23 At Henderson, in most classrooms visited, all students were actively involved in classroom instruction. Dunbar students were observed working in groups, participating in discussions, taking a test, watching an overhead transparency presentation and watching an educational film. In most classrooms visited at these two schools, the seating patterns promoted interaction among students of different race/gender. Posters and bulletin boards throughout Dunbar and Henderson reflected the racial/ethnic/ gender differences of the student body and/or multiculturalism. In all monitored classrooms, there were displays of multicultural materials. At Henderson, different countries were reflected in an observed bulletin board. Flamingo dancing was a theme for another observed bulletin board at Henderson. In most monitored classrooms at Dunbar, there was a display of student work. However, the traveling teachers at Dunbar had no display of student work. Although posters of students work were displayed in one visited Henderson classroom, in most monitored rooms there was not a display of pupil work. At Henderson Junior High School, pictures of the different cultures were observed in the visited classrooms. It was reported that discussions of the accomplishments and music of the different races and cultures occurred. At Dunbar Junior High School, in most classrooms visited, multicultural objectives of the curriculum guides were taught. In one Dunbar mathematics classroom monitored, the teacher said that there was nothing multicultural to teach butEDUCATIONAL EQUITY MONITORING 1995-96 FIRST SEMESTER SUMMARY REPORT PAGE 24 Arabic numbers, an obvious difference from the reality of the curriculum guides for mathematics which were replete with multicultural objectives. Multicultural objectives were observed in the lesson plan books of the other Dunbar monitored teachers. Many multicultural displays were observed in the media center at Henderson. It was reported that the media specialist annually evaluated the adequacy of multicultural materials in the Henderson media collection and continually evaluated new materials to be considered for purchase. One visited teacher at Dunbar said that the media center materials needed multicultural updating. On the day of the monitoring visit, the library staff was in the process of making an order of multicultural materials. It was reported that in order to get ready to make this order, evaluation of the adequacy of the multicultural materials occurred. Response from Principal(s): None Alternative Learning Center: In the seven classrooms observed, the teachers at the Alternative Learning Center had adequate materials and equipment to deliver the curriculum. All records observed were current and complete. Observed students were working in groups, taking exams and engaged in meaningful discussion. In the classrooms visited, the seating patterns promoted desired exchange among students.EDUCATIONAL EQUITY MONITORING 1995-96 FIRST SEMESTER SUMMARY REPORT PAGE 25 Throughout the school, posters and murals reflected a multicultural commitment. Also, bulletin boards were of a similar nature. All classrooms monitored revealed multicultural themes. Student work was displayed in all classrooms visited. Multicultural objectives of the curriculum guides were being taught in the majority of the classrooms visited. This Alternative Learning Center (ALC) site is without a library/media center. However, the English teacher and principal worked closely together in annually evaluating the adequacy of multicultural materials in the media collection, and they continually evaluated new materials to be considered for purchase. Response from Principal: None Area Senior High Schools: Televisions, puzzles, manipulatives and numeral cards were observed in the visited classrooms at Fair High School. Although most of the visited teachers at Hall High School had adequate materials and equipment to deliver the curriculum, one teacher said that the budget for their department was cut in half this semester. However, this teacher said that mini-grants have been provided by the PTSA to fund the purchase of additional materials and equipment. All records observed at these schools were current and complete. All observed students in the visited classrooms were listening, asking questions or quietly working at computer stations in both of these schools.EDUCATIONAL EQUITY MONITORING 1995-96 FIRST SEMESTER SUMMARY REPORT PAGE 26 In all classrooms visited, the seating patterns promoted interaction among students of different race/gender. At Fair High School, bulletin boards were observed with pictures of black students and white students throughout the school. In the media center there were posters depicting multiculturalism. All monitors at Hall High School said that multicultural displays were evident throughout the school. At Fair High School, there were two monitored classrooms with no displays reflecting racial/ethnic/gender differences of the pupils. The monitors at Hall High School observed multicultural bulletin boards in all monitored classrooms. Multicultural objectives were observed in lesson plans and reflected in displays at Hall High School. Stories dealing with the various cultures were told in one monitored classroom at Fair High School. In one visited class, the teacher emphasized the differences in business of the various cultures. In another classroom at Fair, it was explained how different kinds of families were found in the different cultures. The Scottish culture was being studied in one class. At Hall High School, student and teacher recommendations for new multicultural materials were encouraged. The Hall media specialist evaluated these requests and the holdings to purchase needed books and materials as needs changed. Many and varied cultures were observed on display in the book holdings at Fair High School. New books with multicultural themes were observed beingEDUCATIONAL EQUITY MONITORING 1995-96 FIRST SEMESTER SUMMARY REPORT PAGE 27 displayed. A library staff member said that the adequacy of multicultural materials in the media collection was annually evaluated. Response from Principal(s): The Hall High School principal said that the budget for the current school year was determined before she became principal. Original Magnet Senior High School: A majority of the teachers interviewed reported having adequate materials and equipment. However, it was reported that some new band instruments were needed, and some sheet music and a CD/cassette player/recorder were needed for choral music. According to the teacher, additional funds were needed to purchase videotapes for the Theater History course. All monitored records were current and complete. In all classes visited, all students were actively involved in instruction. Examples were: practicing for a band program, individual students reading parts of a play, testing, classroom discussion and teacher explanations. In all but one of the monitored classrooms, the monitors observed that classroom seating patterns promoted interaction among students of different race/gender. Monitors also observed that bulletin boards, displays of projects. publications, and productions throughout the school including the media center reflected the racial/ethnic/gender differences of the student body and/or multiculturalism. Examples were: a poster with a theme of blacks in the arts, andEDUCATIONAL EQUITY MONITORING 1995-96 FIRST SEMESTER SUMMARY REPORT PAGE 28 murals on the walls. In all but one classroom monitored, there were pictures of students of the different races engaged in various activities, multicultural posters, pictures of a multiracial play from the young playwrights festival in New York and posters concerning Greek drama. In a majority of classrooms visited, student work was on display. Examples of this were: student writing, art work, primitive and Greek masks, posters, and creative literature projects. All Parkview High School teachers interviewed reported teaching the multicultural objectives. Examples were\nsinging songs in languages other than English and studying scientists of other cultures. The Parkview media specialist continually purchased new multicultural materials after a thorough evaluation of available materials. Lists were accepted from students and teachers before buying decisions were made. The media specialist recently purchased \"Discovering Multicultural America.\" a multimedia CD-ROM, which contains extensive data on Africa, Asian, Hispanic and native North Americans. Response from Principal: The Parkview principal reported that efforts were underway to improve the holdings of the Music Department. A proposal, \"The Curriculum Review/Update,\" contained full information regarding the equipment/instrumentation housed in theEDUCATIONAL EQUITY MONITORING 1995-96 FIRST SEMESTER SUMMARY REPORT PAGE 29 school music department. Information concerning this proposal can also be found in the \"Extended Program Evaluation Document.\" Area Senior High Schools with Magnet Programs: All teachers interviewed at both Central and McClellan High Schools reported having adequate materials and equipment to deliver the curriculum. However, one mathematics teacher at Central High School reported that some computers in the classroom would greatly enhance instruction. Although the science teachers interviewed at Central High School reported having adequate materials and equipment, the science facilities needed updating and upgrading. It was also necessary that supplemental kits be provided for various instructional units in order to have adequate materials and equipment for those units of study. All observed records were current and complete. All students in all visited classrooms were actively involved in instruction. Examples were\nteacher preparing students for an activity, analyzing a sonnet, watching a video from the Humanities Council, working in a small group, taking examinations and fruitful debate. In all classrooms visited, the seating patterns promoted the desired interaction among students of varying races and genders. Multicultural displays and posters were observed on bulletin boards in the media center, counselors offices and the whole school in general. In a majority of the classrooms monitored, famous black American posters, posters on mathematics from variousEDUCATIONAL EQUITY MONITORING 1995-96 FIRST SEMESTER SUMMARY REPORT PAGE 30 countries, maps and posters of African kings and queens were observed. In a majority of the classrooms monitored, student work was displayed. Examples were: maps made by students, science projects and student writing. All visited teachers reported that multicultural objectives of the were taught. curriculum guides At both Central and McClellan High Schools, the media specialists constantly evaluated the adequacy of multicultural materials in the media collection and continually evaluated new materials to be considered for purchase. Faculty members made suggestions. Media specialists sent reviews of materials and books to teachers to ask for their opinions. Central has added a great deal of multicultural material in the fields of science and mathematics. Response from Principal(s): None Metropolitan Vocational-Technical Education Center: The visited teachers said that the materials and equipment were adequate. However, more advanced camera equipment was needed in the television production class. A new IBM computer with CD ROM was added in the Health Occupations classroom this school year. Students could now access medical encyclopedic technology using the computer. Another example of new equipment was the computerized paint mixing system in the paint and body class. The system was supplied by a partner in education.EDUCATIONAL EQUITY MONITORING 1995-96 FIRST SEMESTER SUMMARY REPORT PAGE 31 Current and complete parent conference documentation, lesson plans and interim reports were observed. Students were observed making preparation for producing video Christmas cards. In other classrooms visited students were reviewing for tests. Observed student seating patterns were well mixed. School-wide multicultural displays were observed, such as student photographs in the front hallway. These reflected the student population. Classroom bulletin boards observed were multicultural. Student work projects, videos made by pupils, and photographs were observed. The visited teachers said that multicultural objectives were taught as an integral part of the curriculum. A media specialist was not employed at Metropolitan. The vocational teachers in each area ordered current magazines and materials to supplement required textbooks. All current materials were ordered by each teacher. It was reported that the most recent material ordered was multicultural in nature. Response from Principal: None 3.0 SCHOOL/DISTRICT INITIATED HONORS AND AWARDS At each school the monitors expected to find: A variety of awards and honorsEDUCATIONAL EQUITY MONITORING 1995-96 FIRST SEMESTER SUMMARY REPORT PAGE 32 Written procedures and requirements governing honors and awards are evident and distributed to staff, students and parents A process to evaluate the honors and awards program for equity Plans to eliminate any racial/gender inequities relative to distribution of honors and awards FINDINGS: Area Elementary Schools: There was only one negative answer given to all items of this section for all area elementary schools. The negative answer came on the Wilson School checklist. Procedures and requirements in a written form had not been distributed to parents and students at Wilson School. Student of the Month,\" honor roll, good behavior, perfect attendance, and \"Caught Being Good\" were awards and honors given at Otter Creek School. Examples of honors and awards at Badgett School were honor roll, perfect attendance and \"Student of the Week. II At Geyer Springs School, procedures and requirements were distributed to staff, students and parents through the opening bulletin, newsletters and written announcements. The distribution of honors and awards will be reported the second monitoring visit. Response from Principal(s): The Wilson Principal said that the issue of getting written procedures and requirements on honors and awards distributed to parents and students would beEDUCATIONAL EQUITY MONITORING 1995-96 FIRST SEMESTER SUMMARY REPORT PAGE 33 rectified. Original Magnet Elementary Schools: The various honor rolls and the \"Caught Being Good\" programs at Carver Magnet made for a variety of awards and honors. A large honor roll bulletin board in the hallway outside the office area showed the variety of students who received this honor at Carver. The other three original magnet elementary schools also provided a variety of awards and honors. The honors and awards were discussed in the Carver Student Handbook. The handbook was presented to each student and his/her family upon enrollment, and they were encouraged to read it. The other three original magnet elementary schools also distributed written procedures and requirements governing honors and awards to staff, students and parents. All four of the original magnet elementary schools regularly evaluated the offerings and procedures for honors and awards for equity and to determine if new awards were necessary to meet student needs. The distribution of honors and awards will be reported on the second monitoring visit next semester. Response from Principal(s): None Interdistrict Elementary Schools: There were no negative answers given in this section of honors and awards for the Interdistrict Elementary Schools. The distribution of honors and awards willEDUCATIONAL EQUITY MONITORING 1995-96 FIRST SEMESTER SUMMARY REPORT PAGE 34 be monitored during the second semester visit. Response from Principal(s): None Area Junior High Schools: There were no negative answers given in this section of honors and awards for the five Area Junior High Schools. Trophies, science fair and honor society were in evidence at Forest Heights Junior High School. At Cloverdale Junior High School, the academic honor rolls, citizenship honor roll, athletic awards, and \"Most Improved Student\" awards offered a variety. At Forest Heights Junior High School, it was reported that the staff notebook takes care of distributing to staff, students and parents the written procedures and requirements governing honors and awards by delineating how teachers can inform parents and students. At Cloverdale Junior High School, the written procedures and requirements governing honors and awards were distributed in the Cloverdale Student Handbook and in a bulletin to parents. Teachers also received the above. At Pulaski Heights Junior High School, interdisciplinary teaching teams determine offerings and procedures regarding honors and awards. Results were shared with steering committees. Distribution results were provided for a review by team members.EDUCATIONAL EQUITY MONITORING 1995-96 FIRST SEMESTER SUMMARY REPORT PAGE 35 The distribution of honors and awards will be reported on the second monitoring visit. Response from Principal(s): None Original Magnet Junior High School: There were no areas of concern noted at Mann Magnet Junior High School with regard to the distribution of honors and awards. Response from Principal: None Area Junior High Schools with Magnet Programs: There was one area of concern in this section of the checklist for Dunbar. Although there was a statement in the teachers handbook and bulletin announcements at Dunbar, there was nothing written for parents on honors and awards. Response from Principal(s): None Alternative Learning Center: It was reported that each Friday at the Alternative Learning Center an awards assembly was held to recognize students. It was noted that 82% of the award recipients were black.EDUCATIONAL EQUITY MONITORING 1995-96 FIRST SEMESTER SUMMARY REPORT PAGE 36 Response from Principal: None Area Senior High Schools: A variety of honors and awards was provided in areas including the \"Sidney Moncrief Award,\" course achievement awards, academics, citizenship and attendance. At Fair High School, oral and written guidelines were disseminated during assemblies, open house, and certified staff communicated the procedures for honors and awards to individual classes. Criteria for \"Hall of Fame\" and \"I Eagle Track Awards\" were in the Fair school profile. \"Eagle Track\" and \"Hall of Fame recipients were selected by any teachers wishing to participate. Any teacher may nominate students who meet the requirements, then the field is narrowed in an open forum of teachers\nthe recipient is finally selected by a vote by teachers. The distribution of honors and awards will be reported on the second monitoring visit next semester. Response from Principal(s): None Original Magnet Senior High School: At Parkview, academic honor roll, citizenship honor roll, athletic awards, and academic district awards offered a variety. Information was presented each quarter through notices and scope sheets from the counselors, school newspaper and Honors Night bulletin. Counselors, teachers, the principal, and assistantEDUCATIONAL EQUITY MONITORING 1995-96 FIRST SEMESTER SUMMARY REPORT PAGE 37 principals, plus the Parkview Biracial Committee reviewed and evaluated honors/awards for equity. The distribution will be reported on the second monitoring visit. Response from Principal: None Area Senior High Schools with Magnet Programs: At Central High School, a variety of honors and awards was offered via honor rolls, recognition for academic achievement, service to school and community, and participation in extra-curricular activities. Also at Central, department chairs, working with school administrators, evaluated honors and awards for equity and to determine if new awards should be added. At McClellan High School, 80% of the honors and awards went to black students. Responses from Principal(s): None Metropolitan Vocational-Technical Education Center: All of the answers in this honors and awards section were positive for Metropolitan. Distribution of honors and awards will be monitored on the second semester visit. Response from Principal: NoneEDUCATIONAL EQUITY MONITORING 1995-96 FIRST SEMESTER SUMMARY REPORT PAGE 38 4.0 COMMITTEES At each school the monitors expected to find\nRacial/gender composition of appointed school- based committees (-25% to 12.5% of black student enrollment) generally reflects the school population FINDINGS: Area Elementary Schools: The monitoring teams at twelve schools (Bale, Baseline, Chicot, Cloverdale, Dodd, Forest Park, Geyer Springs, Jefferson, McDermott, Wakefield, Wilson, and Woodruff) reported that the composition of the school-based staff/parent committees was generally reflective of the staff/student populations. The composition of the parent committees was not reflective of the school population at Badgett, Brady, Fair Park, Fulbright, Mabelvale, Meadowcliff, Otter Creek, and Western Hills. Employee committees were not reflective of the staff population at Meadowcliff. There was no information reported for employee committees at Fair Park. The school profile at Chicot did not contain information on committees. However, the Chicot principal assured monitors that employee and parent committees are reflective of the school population. The 23% black parent representation on committees was not within range for Terry Elementary School. The school profile at Pulaski Heights Elementary showed that 33% of parent committee members were black. This percentage was not within the expected range of 35%- 53% black parents for the school. The participation rate for blackEDUCATIONAL EQUITY MONITORING 1995-96 FIRST SEMESTER SUMMARY REPORT PAGE 39 parents at Watson was below the expected range. Response from Principal(s): The principal at Badgett said that district required guidelines for parent committees have been followed. The principal assured monitors at Terry that the school staff will continue to work to increase black parent participation at Terry. Original Magnet Elementary Schools: Appointed school-based committees were generally reflective of the applicable populations at Booker, Gibbs, and Williams. At Carver, staff committees reflected the composition of the staff. Thirty-five percent of the Carver parents participating on committees were black. This percentage is slightly below the recommended range of 38% - 57% for black parents. Response from Principal(s)\nNone Interdistrict Elementary Schools: School-based committees at Romine and Washington reflected the staff/student populations. The percentage of black parents serving on committees at King was slightly below the recommended range. Staff committees were reflective of the employee population at King. Response from Principal(s): NoneEDUCATIONAL EQUITY MONITORING 1995-96 FIRST SEMESTER SUMMARY REPORT PAGE 40 Area Junior High Schools: School-based committees generally reflect the staff/student population at Cloverdale, Mabelvale, and Southwest. Staff committees at Forest Heights and Pulaski Heights were reflective of the staff population. However, parent participation rates at Forest Heights and Pulaski Heights were not within the recommended range for each school. Response from Principal(s): None Original Magnet Junior High School\nThe monitors at Mann did not identify any areas of concern. Response from Principal: None Area Junior High Schools with Magnet Programs: At Dunbar and Henderson, committees generally reflected the staff/student populations. Response from Principal(s): None Alternative Learning Center: Monitors reported that committee percentages were within the expected range for the school population.EDUCATIONAL EQUITY MONITORING 1995-96 FIRST SEMESTER SUMMARY REPORT PAGE 41 Response from Principal\nNone Area Senior High Schools: The composition of parent committees at Fair and Hall were not reflective of the student population. Response from Principal(s): The vice-principal at Fair reported that there will be some new committees formed for COE. These committee formations will allow for a balance on committees by race. Original Magnet Senior High School: The team consensus report did not identify any areas of concern with regard to committees. Response from Principal: None Area Senior High Schools with Magnet Programs: There were no areas of concern with regard to staff/parent committees at Central or McClellan. Response from Principal(s): NoneEDUCATIONAL EQUITY MONITORING 1995-96 FIRST SEMESTER SUMMARY REPORT PAGE 42 Metropolitan Vocational-Technical Education Center: Employee committees are 24% black. Parent committees are generally reflective of the student body. Response from Principal\nNone 5.0 EXTRACURRICULAR ACTIVITIES At each school the monitors expected to find\nExtracurricular activities (sports, clubs, etc.) generally balanced (-25% +12.5% of black student enrollment) by race and sex to Recruitment practices to promote participation of all races and both genders in extracurricular activities FINDINGS: Area Elementary Schools: At all area elementary schools, procedures were in place to assure that students were apprised of information regarding various opportunities in extracurricular activities/extended educational programs. Examples of ways students were informed about the aforementioned opportunities included the following\ninformation provided by teachers and counselors, newsletters, announcements via intercommunication systems, monthly rap sessions with the principal, recruitment by teachers and counselors, monitoring by principals, and postings about schools.EDUCATIONAL EQUITY MONITORING 1995-96 FIRST SEMESTER SUMMARY REPORT PAGE 43 Participation in extracurricular activities/extended educational programs generally reflected the school population in all area elementary schools except Brady. Fair Park, and Pulaski Heights Elementary School. In these three schools, there was an over-representation of black student participants. At Brady, total membership in extracurricular activities was 75% black\nthe acceptable range for Brady is 48% - 72% black students, based on a 64% black student enrollment. At Fair Park, 93% of the participants in extracurricular activities were black\nthe acceptable range is 58% - 88% black students, based on a 78% black student enrollment. Fifty-seven percent of the students participating in extracurricular activities at Pulaski Heights Elementary were black\nthe acceptable range is 35% - 53% black students, based on the 47% black student enrollment. Although student participation at Dodd generally represented the student population, there were only three white cheerleaders, and 19 black cheerleaders. Response from Principal(s): None Original Magnet Elementary Schools: All original magnet elementary schools have procedures in place to assure that students are provided information regarding opportunities to participate in extracurricular activities/extended educational programs, according to monitoring team reports. Examples of procedures cited by monitors: distribution of information via school newsletters, use of closed circuit television, recruitment atEDUCATIONAL EQUITY MONITORING 1995-96 FIRST SEMESTER SUMMARY REPORT PAGE 44 registration, use of bulletin boards for publicity about opportunities, and opening specific activities to all students in a particular grade level. Participation in extracurricular activities/extended educational programs generally reflected the school population at each original magnet elementary school except Carver, according to submitted reports. Sixty percent of the students who participated in extracurricular/extended educational activities at Carver were black, which is not within the acceptable range of 38% - 57% black students, based on the 51.8% black student enrollment at Carver. However, it should be noted that included in the calculation to determine the percentage of black students participating in the extracurricular/extended educational programs is the 86.8% black student participation in the summer reading program. Response from Principal(s): None Interdistrict Elementary Schools: No areas of concern regarding extracurricular activities were noted by monitors of the three interdistrict elementary schools. Procedures were evident at each of the schools to apprise students of opportunities to participate in extracurricular activities/extended educational programs. Additionally, participation in such activities/programs generally reflected the school population at King, Romine, and Washington, according to monitoring reports.EDUCATIONAL EQUITY MONITORING 1995-96 FIRST SEMESTER SUMMARY REPORT PAGE 45 Response from Principal(s)\nNone Area Junior High Schools: All area junior high schools have strategies to assure that students are provided information regarding opportunities to participate in extracurricular activities. Following are examples of such strategies cited by monitors: information in student handbooks, daily announcements and bulletins, recruitment activities by program/club sponsors and coaches, and through closed circuit television. Participation in extracurricular activities generally reflected the school population at each area junior high school, as reported by monitoring teams. However, the report from Forest Heights indicated that the Science Club was slightly out of the acceptable range of 58% - 87% black students, based on a 77% black student enrollment, with only 56% black student participation. At Mabelvale Jr. High School, the monitoring report noted that 13 of 20 organizations had memberships which fell within the acceptable range of 60% - 83% black students, based on a 73% black student enrollment. Three of the seven organizations that reflected an under-representation of black students had at least 50% black student memberships: MJHS Readers, 50% black members\ncheerleaders, 50% black membership\nForeign Language Club, 54.5% black student membership. The other three organizations which had an under-EDUCATIONAL EQUITY MONITORING 1995-96 FIRST SEMESTER SUMMARY REPORT PAGE 46 student membership. The other three organizations which had an underrepresentation of black students were S.C.A.T., Pep Squad, T.S.A., and soccer. The report from Cloverdale Jr. High School indicated that the Drill Team had an all black membership. Response from Principal(s)\nNone Original Magnet Junior High School: No areas of concern regarding the section on \"Extracurricular Activities\" were noted on the monitoring report from Mann. Forty-six percent of the students who participated in extracurricular activities were black. Students were fully informed of opportunities for participation in the above activities via posters, exhibits in the cafeteria, at Open House, and announcements over the public address system. Response from Principal: None Area Junior High Schools with Magnet Programs: At both Dunbar and Henderson, monitoring reports indicated that procedures were evident to assure that students were fully informed about information regarding various opportunities in extracurricular activities. Examples of procedures cited: daily bulletin announcements, school newsletters, recruiting efforts by clubs/organizations, and use of displays and posters.EDUCATIONAL EQUITY MONITORING 1995-96 FIRST SEMESTER SUMMARY REPORT PAGE 47 Participation in extracurricular activities generally reflected the school population at Dunbar and Henderson. However, the report from Henderson noted that the drill team was composed entirely of black students. Response from Principal(s): The principal at Henderson indicated that he had asked all sponsors to recruit students to organizations so that memberships are racially balanced. Alternative Learning Center: No areas of concern were noted regarding the extracurricular section of the monitoring instrument. Although the report indicated that procedures were evident to assure that students were informed regarding opportunities to participate in extracurricular activities, no examples of procedures used were cited in the report. Eighty-one percent of student participants were black. Response from Principal: None Area Senior High Schools: At both Fair and Hall High Schools, it was evident to monitors that students were provided with necessary information regarding opportunities to participate in extracurricular activities. Methods used to inform students about extracurricular options included announcements in the daily bulletin, informational brochures. discussions with counselors, information in student handbooks, and recruitment by individual clubs/organizations. Additionally, reports indicated that participation inEDUCATIONAL EQUITY MONITORING 1995-96 FIRST SEMESTER SUMMARY REPORT PAGE 48 extracurricular activities generally reflected the school population schools. at each of the Response from Principal(s): None Original Magnet Senior High School: No areas of concern were noted regarding extracurricular activities at Parkview. Information concerning procedures used to apprise students about the availability of extracurricular activities was distributed through the Parkview Handbook, the school newspaper, The Constitution, and through bulletins. Total participation in extracurricular activities was within the acceptable range, according to the monitoring report. However, some individual activities were not within range. Examples of activities with an over-representation of black students: Lab Singers, Peer Helpers, cheerleaders, FBLA, Gentlemens Club, boys basketball, football, and girls basketball. Ones with an under-representation of black students included: Alpha Omega, golf, German Club, the newspaper staff. stage band, and tennis. The monitoring report indicated that the a spirit group, has a 100% black membership. Response from Principal: None \"Liberty Belles,\" Area Senior High Schools with Magnet Programs: At both McClellan and Central, procedures were evident to assure thatEDUCATIONAL EQUITY MONITORING 1995-96 FIRST SEMESTER SUMMARY REPORT PAGE 49 students were apprised of information regarding various opportunities in extracurricular activities. Examples of procedures used at Central included the following: announcements via daily bulletins, recruitment efforts by clubs and organizations, and try-outs for all sports. No specific examples were noted on the McClellan monitoring report. Student participation in extracurricular activities was within the acceptable range at McClellan, but not at Central, according to submitted reports. Monitors from Central noted that of the 30 organizations/athletic teams for which total membership was provided in the school profile, five were within the acceptable range. However, seven more were only slightly out of range. No activity/team was composed of 100% of any one race. The extracurricular activities with an over-representation of white students were primarily the honor and foreign language organizations and such activities as the Fellowship of Christian Athletes, Rotary Interact, and Accept No Boundaries. At Central, activities/teams with an over-representation of black students included DECA, FBI_A, the Ladies Club, and the Gentlemens Club. Response from Principal(s): None Metropolitan Vocational-Technical Education Center: No areas of concern were noted regarding extracurricular activities at Metropolitan. Forty-eight percent of the students who participate in these activitiesEDUCATIONAL EQUITY MONITORING 1995-96 FIRST SEMESTER SUMMARY REPORT PAGE 50 are black, which is within the acceptable range, according to the monitoring report. Response from Principal: None 6.0 STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT/ASSESSMENT At each school the monitors expected to find: All students strengths and weaknesses assessed and their educational programs planned accordingly Evidence that graduation/promotion/retention rates are monitored and analyzed to reduce disparities in achievement (disaggregated bv race/gender) Test results that are used for diagnostic and prescriptive purposes and reported in a manner that is clear and helpful to administrators, teachers, students, and parents Strategies to close the disparity in test scores among identifiable groups FINDINGS\nArea Elementary Schools: All team reports stated that goals and strategies are being developed and implemented to provide the best possible assistance for all students to experience successful test performance and achievement. These goals and strategies part of each schools improvement plan. Some schools mentioned specific are strategies during the monitoring interview. Pulaski Heights said that they pair more talented students with less talented students for teaching skills. Teachers ask questions after every lesson expecting that all students would be ready toEDUCATIONAL EQUITY MONITORING 1995-96 FIRST SEMESTER SUMMARY REPORT PAGE 51 answer correctly. Reteaching occurred for those who did not. Another strategy they used was to offer enrichment periods. At Terry, students who needed extra help were identified, a special records folder was created and individualized help was provided. Cloverdale chose the primary grades to highlight in closing disparity. Teachers will concentrate on those skills that were not mastered. Fulbright students with special needs are targeted. Special work is given to low achieving students. A personal plan was written for each one of these students. One-on-one remedial help was given. Otter Creek uses small group instruction, and \"Reading Recovery.\" The staff reported keeping in close contact with parents to seek their help.in education. Peer helpers were used. All test scores used in this report are the result of comparisons between Spring, 1994 and Spring, 1995. All schools had mixed results. Otter Creek and Terry were the only schools who achieved the goal in the monitoring report. Test data from Badgett Elementary evidenced an improvement for white students from Grades 2 to 3, 3 to 4 and 5 to 6. Scores for black students decreased in Grades 1 to 2 and 4 to 5. White student scores decreased in Grades 1 to 2. The Stanford achievement results from Bale showed percentile scores for white students decreasing from Grades 2 to 3. Both black and white student scores decreased. Other scores remained stable. At Baseline Grades 1, 2, 3 and 6 did not meet the goal but overall scores showed improvement.EDUCATIONAL EQUITY MONITORING 1995-96 FIRST SEMESTER SUMMARY REPORT PAGE 52 Brady had black student score decreases in Grades 1 to 2 and white student score decreases in Grades 2 to 3 and 3 to 4. White student scores increased in Grades 4 to 5. Cloverdale students scored above the 50th percentile in Grades 1, 2 and 5, slightly below in Grade 4 and at the 43rd percentile in Grade 6. Disparities were as follows: Grade 1: -10 Grade 3: -25 Grade 5: -33 Grade 2: -9 Grade 4\n-17 Grade 6: -1 Dodd s scores showed a both white and black group increase in Grades 2 and 4. Disparities are as follows: Grade 1: -21 Grade 3: -18 Grade 5: -30 Grade 2: -32 Grade 4: -6 Grade 6: -25 Forest Park had some decrease in black student scores. White student scores were higher or stable. Disparities were as follows: Grade 1: -44 Grade 3: -50 Grade 5: -52 Grade 2: -76 Grade 4: -51 Grade 6: -49 At Geyer Springs, achievement of white students, black students and total achievement increased from Grades 1 to 2, 2 to 3, and 5 to 6. At Grades 3 to 4 total scores, both black and white, decreased. Disparities were as follows: Grade 1: -19 Grade 3: -55 Grade 5: -10 Grade 2: -10 Grade 4: +1 Grade 6: -32EDUCATIONAL EQUITY MONITORING 1995-96 FIRST SEMESTER SUMMARY REPORT PAGE 53 Jefferson had white student score increases at Grades 2 and 5 and a decrease at Grade 1. Black student scores increased at Grade 6 and both groups decreased at Grade 3. Disparities are as follows\nGrade 1: -51 Grade 3: -48 Grade 5: -53 Grade 2\n-64 Grade 4: -50 Grade 6: -23 McDermotts scores included a black student score increase at Grades 2, 4 and 5 and a decrease at Grade 3. There was a white student score increase at Grade 6. Disparities were as follows: Grade 1: -46 Grade 3: -42 Grade 5: -35 Grade 2: -51 Grade 4: -30 Grade 6: -34 At Watson 70% of white students scores increased on the Basic Battery. Western Hills had both black and white student score increases in Grades 1 to 2, 3 to 4, 4 to 5 and 5 to 6. There was a white student score decrease from Grades 2 to 3. Wilson scores showed black and white student score decreases in Grades 1 to 2, 2 to 3 and 4 to 5 and an increase in black student scores from Grade 5 to 6. White student scores also decreased in Grades 3 to 4. At Woodruff, Grades 3-6 total achievement scores were at the 51st percentile or higher in Spring, 1995. Disparities were as follows: Grade 1: -13 Grade 3: -22 Grade 5: -24 Grade 2: -31 Grade 4: -25 Grade 6: -27EDUCATIONAL EQUITY MONITORING 1995-96 FIRST SEMESTER SUMMARY REPORT PAGE 54 Schools have different acceptable ranges for black student retention. Also the reporting of retention is based on the number of retentions within the particular school and do not necessarily imply the number of retentions made by a particular school. Elementary schools which fall into the acceptable range of black retention are Bale, Brady, Dodd, Geyer Springs, Jefferson, Wakefield Response from Principal(s)\nand Wilson. The Pulaski Heights principal stated that \"The test scores do not always show that we receive many new students at the school every year.\" The Forest Park principal said, \"When analyzing achievement on the Stanford 8, it is important to consider the frequent turnover of black students, which greatly contributes to fluctuating test scores. Black students are assigned to Forest Park from all areas of Little Rock and from the Pulaski Original Magnet Elementary Schools: County District.\" At Booker, scores for white students increased from Grades 3 to 4 and scores for black students increased from Grades 2 to 3, 3 to 4 and 5 to 6. Scores for both groups decreased from Grades 1 to 2 and 4 to 5. The principal reported that schoolwide, there was over a 5% increase in the number of students in the upper two quartiles on the Stanford 8 last spring. In three of five cohort groups. Carver students lost in score on the scoring Complete Battery of Stanford 8. The principal reported that overall fewer students were in the lower quartile and more students scored above the 50th percentileEDUCATIONAL EQUITY MONITORING 1995-96 FIRST SEMESTER SUMMARY REPORT PAGE 55 when comparisons were made between 1994 and 1995. Gibbs scores indicated increased achievement for black students in Grades 3 to 4. They showed a decrease from Grades 4 to 5. Achievement results for white students decreased from Grades 2 to 3 and 4 to 5. Williams School scores noted that total achievement at all grade levels except the third grade was at the 78th percentile or higher on the Spring, 1995 Stanford 8. Total achievement at the third grade was at the 69th percentile. All student scores increased or remained stable except at the third grade where black student scores decreased. Disparities were as follows: Grade 1: -14 Grade 3\n-31 Grade 5: -26 I Grade 2: -11 Grade 4: -15 Grade 6: -17 Carver. Gibbs and Williams were within the acceptable range of student retention. Response from Principal(s)\nThe Booker principal said that some parents requested retention for their children rather than send them to summer school. The Carver principal said that the magnet schools were asked to make a proposal to improve the environment of the school. Every teacher has listed technology development as a priority. The principals recommendation was also to improve computer technology. The magnet school review committee said that there has been no increase in budget for the magnet school in the last six years. Research shows that computers wereEDUCATIONAL EQUITY MONITORING 1995-96 FIRST SEMESTER SUMMARY REPORT PAGE 56 good at helping at-risk students to close that gap in achievement disparity. The extended evaluation was being used to pitch computers, staff development in use of computers and new software as essential tools for learning in the 199Os. Interdistrict Elementary Schools: Washington attained the goal for assessment. At King, white student achievement increased from Grades 4 to 5 and decreased from Grades 2 to 3. All other scores remained stable. Strategies to improve scores were found in the school improvement plans. Washington mentioned some additional strategies. It was reported that all teachers were being inserviced on test scores. They were looking at the Fall, 1995 scores and they were entering low test objective areas in their teachers handbook. There was a hands-on science program at this school. Science laboratory situations were based on deficit areas on the Stanford Test. The grade level teachers met to discuss different discrepancies students had. Comprehension materials were used to help reading scores and context clues were taught. Romine was within the acceptable range for black student retention. Response from Principal(s): The principal added that modifications in student testing below grade level on Stanford 8 are in place in each classroom. Area Junior High Schools: None of these schools attained the student assessment goal. ForestEDUCATIONAL EQUITY MONITORING 1995-96 FIRST SEMESTER SUMMARY REPORT PAGE 57 Heights eighth and ninth grade test results did not meet the criteria. Black student scores dropped from the 43rd percentile in Grade 7 in 1994 to the 29th percentile in Grade 8 in 1995 which is a significant drop. In comparisons between 1994 and 1995, Mabelvales scores were generally favorable. Grade 7 in 1994 to Grade 7 in 1995 and Grade 9 in 1994 to Grade 9 in 1995 showed total scores of both black and white students were higher. In comparison of the two eighth grades, black student scores remained stable while white student scores decreased. At Pulaski Heights, Grades 7 to 8 scores for black students decreased by five percentile points. All other scores remained stable. White student scores in Southwests Grade 8 dropped from the 60th to the 43rd percentile. Cloverdales scores improved from Grade 8 in 1994 to Grade 8 in 1995. In all other instances white achievement decreased. Achievement also decreased from Grade 9 in 1994 to Grade 9 in 1995. On the Complete Battery, disparities were as follows\nGrade 7: -18 Grade 8: -22 Grade 9\n-8 Only Cloverdale fell within their acceptable range for student retention. Testing strategies were found in the school improvement plans. However, Forest Heights teachers reported teaching higher level thinking skills and analogies to students. Some special writing assignments were developed to solve this problem. One teacher reported that small group work was used to deal withEDUCATIONAL EQUITY MONITORING 1995-96 FIRST SEMESTER SUMMARY REPORT PAGE 58 achievement differences. Response from Principal(s): None Original Magnet Junior High School: When test results on the Complete Battery were compared, Mann white student scores decreased by six percentile points between 7th grade scores of 1994 and 1995. Black student scores increased from Spring, 1994 to Spring, 1995 in Grades 8 and 9 by five percentile points. Response from Principal: None Area Junior High Schools with Magnet Programs: Dunbar did not meet the goal as determined by the desegregation plan. In Grades 8 and 9 Stanford 8 scores for black students declined from 1994 to 1995. Henderson did meet the guidelines. Black students in the seventh grade in 1994 scored the 34th percentile and in 1995 scored the 35th percentile. The white student cohort group in seventh grade significantly improved their scores. Black students in the eighth grade in 1994 scored in the 33rd percentile and in 1995 scored in the 37th percentile. Response from Principal(s): NoneEDUCATIONAL EQUITY MONITORING 1995-96 FIRST SEMESTER SUMMARY REPORT PAGE 59 Alternative Learning Center: Test results for these students are a part of their home school records. Students are not retained at the ALC but rather at their home school. Response from Principal: None Area Senior High Schools: Neither Fair nor Hall reached the goal in student testing. At Fair, both black and white student cohort groups lost significant percentile points between 1994 and 1995. From 10th grade in 1994 to 11th grade in 1995 black student scores decreased from the 37th percentile to the 27th percentile and white student scores decreased from the 63rd percentile to the 55th percentile. At Hall, Grade 10 to 11 achievement decreased for both subgroups. Fair was within their acceptable range for retention. Hall was not. Once again, acceptable ranges differ from school to school and some of the retention may have been made at another school. Response from Principal(s): None Original Magnet Senior High School: Parkview did not meet the criteria for student assessment. At the 10th grade level, results indicate lower achievement for black students and white students. At the 11th grade level, scores of both groups decreased when oneEDUCATIONAL EQUITY MONITORING 1995-96 FIRST SEMESTER SUMMARY REPORT PAGE 60 compares the scores of 1994 10th grade students to those of Spring, 1995 11th grade students. Disparities were as follows: Grade 10\n-31 Grade 11: -35 Parkviews retention rate was within the established guidelines. Response from Principal: None Area Senior High Schools with Magnet Programs: Student scores at Central remained stable, and they met the criteria for this goal. Disparities were as follows: Grade 10: -52 Grade 11\n-48 McClellan did not meet the goal. No grade met the criteria. McClellan also met the acceptable range for retention but Central did not. Response from Principal(s): None Metropolitan Vocational-Technical Education Center: This section is not applicable to this school. Metropolitan student scores are kept in the home schools. Response from Principal\nNoneEDUCATIONAL EQUITY MONITORING 1995-96 FIRST SEMESTER SUMMARY REPORT PAGE 61 7.0 SPECIAL EDUCATION At each school the monitors expected to find: Clear, well-defined referral, assessment and placement procedures Special Education facilities that are comparable to other educational programs on the campus and integrated into the total school environment Adequate textbooks, materials, and equipment available for all students to participate in classroom learning experiences Strategies to decrease any over-representation of minorities Adequate facilities to meet the needs of the students served FINDINGS: Area Elementary Schools: Strategies were provided at each school to ensure that student placements are non-discriminatory in special education. Materials were reported to be adequate at 16 schools (Bale, Baseline, Chicot, Forest Park, Fulbright, Geyer Springs, Mabelvale, McDermott, Meadowcliff, Otter Creek, Pulaski Heights Elementary, Terry, Wakefield, Watson, Wilson, and Woodruff). A special education teacher at Badgett said that a computer in the resource room would benefit the students. At Brady, one teacher said basic supplies were adequate, but hands-on materials were needed for teaching reading and math. The teacher said she would discuss the reported need with the principal. The visited teacher at Dodd reported the need for equipment, hands-on instructional materials, and additional materials for non-readers. Both of theEDUCATIONAL EQUITY MONITORING 1995-96 FIRST SEMESTER SUMMARY REPORT PAGE 62 interviewed teachers at Jefferson said that materials and equipment were needed. The teacher at Fair reported that additional software was needed for the computer. The observed classroom at Fair Park was located in a portable building. A teacher reported that there was a lack of handicapped access for speech in the portable building. The teacher also said that at times it was necessary to carry a physically handicapped child into the portable because it was not handicapped accessible. At Jefferson, a special education teacher said that a more accessible restroom which provides privacy for students is needed. The teacher at Cloverdale Elementary was absent on the day of the monitoring visit. Materials, equipment, and records will be monitored second semester. Response from Principal(s)\nThe principal at Brady said that she was not aware of the need for instructional materials in special education. She also said that when needs are identified, efforts are made to assist teachers in meeting the needs of students. The principal at Fair Park said there were no students at Fair Park who required assistance to enter the portable building. Oriqinal Magnet Elementary Schools: No areas of concern regarding special education were reported at Booker, Carver, Gibbs, and Williams.EDUCATIONAL EQUITY MONITORING 1995-96 FIRST SEMESTER SUMMARY REPORT PAGE 63 Response from Prjncipal(s): None Interdistrict Elementary Schools: No areas of concern regarding special education were reported at King, Romine, and Washington. Strategies were available at each school to ensure that special education placement and services provided are non-discriminatory. Response from Principal(s): None Area Junior High Schools: All area junior high schools had strategies to eliminate disproportionate student assignment to special education. All teachers reported adequate facilities, materials, and equipment. Monitors at Forest Heights reported that one of the visited special education classes was housed in an annex building and that facilities were not comparable to the campus in general. Teachers at Forest Heights reported that the facilities met the needs of students. Teachers said that materials and equipment were sufficient. Records monitored at all schools were current and complete. Response from Principal(s): The principal at Forest Heights said that there are classes other than special education classes located in the annex building.EDUCATIONAL EQUITY MONITORING 1995-96 FIRST SEMESTER SUMMARY REPORT PAGE 64 Original Magnet Junior High School: There were no areas of concern reported at Mann. Response from Principal: None Area Junior High Schools with Magnet Programs: Strategies to eliminate disproportionate student assignment to special education were evident at Dunbar and Henderson. The majority of teachers at both schools reported that materials and equipment were adequate to deliver the curriculum. There were no areas of concern noted on the team consensus report. Response from Principal(s): None Alternative Learning Center: Monitors reported that this is the first year a special education class has been housed at the Alternative Learning Center. No areas of concern were noted on the consensus report. Response from Principal: None Area Senior High Schools: Strategies were found to eliminate disproportionate student assignment to special education at both area high schools. At Fair and Hall, there were no areas of concern regarding equipment, facilities, or records in the monitored classrooEDUCATIONAL EQUITY MONITORING 1995-96 FIRST SEMESTER SUMMARY REPORT PAGE 65 Response from Principal(s): None Original Magnet Senior High School: Monitors found no areas of concern at Parkview. Response from Principal: None Area Senior High Schools with Magnet Programs: Interviewed teachers at Central and McClellan reported they had adequate materials and equipment. However, at Central, the opinion was expressed that access to laboratory facilities would enhance instruction, as would the provision of workbooks. Records monitored at both schools were up-to-date and complete. Response from Principal(s): None Metropolitan Vocational-Technical Education Center: No special education classes are housed at Metropolitan Vo-Tech Center. 8.0 GIFTED, AND TALENTED EDUCATION At each school the monitors expected to find: Students identified through teacher referral, standardized test results, academic performance, and other criteria deemed appropriate by the school staffEDUCATIONAL EQUITY MONITORING 1995-96 FIRST SEMESTER SUMMARY REPORT PAGE 66 A planned and organized strategy to address any problem of underrepresentation of identifiable groups in gifted and talented programs Sufficient textbooks, materials, and equipment available to deliver the curriculum to all students in the class Gifted and talented facilities that are comparable to other educational programs on the campus and integrated into the total school environment Adequate facilities to meet the needs of the students served FINDINGS: Area Elementary Schools: There were strategies found at all area elementary schools to eliminate disproportionate student assignment to gifted and talented. It should be noted that there was no teacher for Gifted/Talented at Woodruff until the second week in November. Only two of these schools, Fulbright and McDermott, had negative answers to the item on teachers having adequate materials and equipment to deliver the curriculum. At Fulbright School, some visited teachers reported needing two more file cabinets. Also needed were a CD ROM drive computer and a set of dictionaries. At McDermott Elementary School, one of the visited teachers reported having adequate materials and supplies. The other did not. The monitors reported that more advanced materials were needed, and computer equipmentEDUCATIONAL EQUITY MONITORING 1995-96 FIRST SEMESTER SUMMARY REPORT PAGE 67 should be available in the G/T classroom. It was reported that compared to last year, funding was very low for Gifted/Talented this school year. Part of the Gifted Program at Fulbright Elementary School was held in a portable building. The Gifted Program at Fair Park Elementary School was housed in a portable building which did not seem to have room enough for proper display of student projects. At Cloverdale Elementary School, the gifted facility was too small to house the students. There was also no sink in the room. The above limits the activities that can be conducted, as well as adversely affecting the implementation of the Gifted curriculum. All of the regular classrooms have sinks, according to the teacher. Additionally, there was not enough storage capacity to store on-going student projects. The gifted class at Wilson Elementary School was housed in a smaller classroom than it was last year. The teacher said that the classroom was adequate. Response from Principal(s): The Wilson Principal said that the school enrollment was up this school year over last school year. The location of the gifted classroom was changed to accommodate an additional regular classroom. The Fulbright Principal reported that the gifted teachers had access to the computer laboratory two times per week.EDUCATIONAL EQUITY MONITORING 1995-96 FIRST SEMESTER SUMMARY REPORT PAGE 68 Original Magnet Elementary Schools: All four of these schools had strategies to eliminate disproportionate student assignment to gifted and talented. Although the Booker Magnet School gifted teacher said that the materials and equipment were adequate, one project during the school year offered the students the experience of requesting a loan, raising money through projects, marketing and repaying the loan. The money raised by students has supplemented the gifted program. The teachers of the gifted classes at Williams reported that they were using creative spending and networking in order to approach having adequate materials and equipment. Williams teachers reported having received only $85 for the Gifted program thus far this year, and that no funds had been provided by the Division of Exceptional Children for gifted. It was also reported that the Williams principal has allocated paper and other materials to the gifted program and has been very cooperative in trying to fill the needs of the program. At Carver Magnet School, in order to eliminate the minority underrepresentation (35% black students) in the gifted classes, the following strategies have been implemented. The gifted specialist met with classroom teachers to discuss differentiation in the regular classroom and to develop strategies for implementation. All K-2 classrooms received thirty minutes of enrichment per week with the gifted Learning Styles Specialist.EDUCATIONAL EQUITY MONITORING 1995-96 FIRST SEMESTER SUMMARY REPORT PAGE 69 The Carver gifted specialist and the K-2 regular classroom teachers work together to observe and record information on potentially gifted students. All teachers have been inserviced on the inclusion of higher order thinking skills in all aspects of the curriculum. Teachers have received in-service training on recognizing the multiple intelligences and developing strategies to enhance these differing intelligences in the classroom. Classroom teachers at Carver used flexible grouping and cooperative learning techniques in order to expose all children to higher level tasks and experience success. Teachers have received in-service education concerning ways in which to recognize potentially gifted characteristics in students. Although it was reported that the Carver teachers had adequate materials and equipment, with 210-220 students identified as gifted, the special teacher felt overburdened. She said that she thought the gifted pupils needed more time with the teacher. It was reported that the school staff was educating some parents on how to work with their gifted students. Although the Carver gifted facility looked comparable to those of the campus in general, the gifted specialist said that at times during the school day the room seemed very crowded. The gifted specialist was of the opinion that there were too many students for the classroom size. All observed records at all of these schools were current and complete.EDUCATIONAL EQUITY MONITORING 1995-96 FIRST SEMESTER SUMMARY REPORT PAGE 70 Response from Principal(s): None Interdistrict Elementary Schools: No areas of concern were noted in this area for King, Romine and Washington Elementary Schools. Although most teachers visited at Washington School had adequate materials and equipment, some teachers needed more materials for enrichment activities. Challenge activities were observed while students used these materials. It was reported that purchasing a computer with software was planned for the gifted program. A donated computer needed repairing. Most of the teachers visited had current and complete student records. Response from Principal(s): None Area Junior High Schools: There were no areas of concern noted in the section \"Gifted and Talented Education\" for these schools. At Forest Heights Junior High School, it was reported that a program needed to be established to help gifted students who were weak in certain areas. Despite the fact that only five white students were assigned to the gifted program at Cloverdale Junior High School, this was still within the expected range for the school because of the 86 percent black student enrollment.EDUCATIONAL EQUITY MONITORING 1995-96 FIRST SEMESTER SUMMARY REPORT PAGE 71 At Mabelvale Junior High School, it was reported that although a majority of the teachers visited had adequate materials and equipment, the teachers of the G/T science classes reported that science equipment needed updating and that a laboratory facility was needed. Also, updated reading material was needed for English classes. At Mabelvale Junior High School, it was also reported that computers for the use of gifted mathematics students were needed. At Pulaski Heights Junior High School, it was reported that more space was needed for students to work together on projects. Response from Principal(s): None Original Magnet Junior High School: All the responses on the gifted section for Mann Magnet Junior High School were positive. Response from Principal: None Area Junior High Schools with Magnet Programs: All the responses on the gifted section for Dunbar and Henderson Junior High Schools were positive. At Dunbar, it was reported that the gifted coordinator had inserviced the entire faculty regarding procedures for identifying students. The Dunbar Principal had also conducted inservice with staff on the topic.EDUCATIONAL EQUITY MONITORING 1995-96 FIRST SEMESTER SUMMARY REPORT PAGE 72 Response from Principal(s): None Alternative Learning Center: No Gifted and Talented program is housed at the Alternative Learning Center. Response from Principal: None Area Senior High Schools: There were no negative responses to the gifted section of the checklist for Fair and Hall High Schools. Response from the Principal(s): None Original Magnet Senior High School: Although all the responses on the checklist section for gifted at Parkview High School were positive, some visited teachers reported needing more funds to purchase additional materials to enhance the implementation of the curriculum. Response from Principal: None Area Senior High Schools with Magnet Programs: All the responses on the checklist section for gifted were answered in the positive for Central and McClellan High Schools. It was reported that at Central,EDUCATIONAL EQUITY MONITORING 1995-96 FIRST SEMESTER SUMMARY REPORT PAGE 73 networking was occurring with the junior high schools in providing early experience with gifted expectations and in forming a task force of successful black students from the gifted program to assist in recruitment to Advanced Placement and G/T classes. Response from Principal(s): None Metropolitan Vocational-Technical Education Center: There were no gifted classes at Metropolitan. Response from Principal: None 9.0 STAFF DEVELOPMENT At each school the monitors expected to find: Ongoing staff development programs designed to enable staff members to fulfill the district/school mission and purpose Appropriate inservice provided to enable each staff member to understand his/her role and responsibility in the implementation of the district-wide desegregation plan Documentation of staff development participation All teachers have inservice relative to the delivery of the district curriculum FINDINGS: Area Elementary Schools: The elementary schools report extensive staff development in all threeEDUCATIONAL EQUITY MONITORING 1995-96 FIRST SEMESTER SUMMARY REPORT PAGE 74 areas of priority. Additional inservices this semester include COE training. Pathway to Excellence, Hands-on science activities. Literature Rich Environment, Thematic Units, School Safety/Gang Related, Integrated Literature, 4th Grade Crusade, Maps, Clowns/Bullies, local counselor and media specialist inservice on various topics and units of study, Reading Recovery and MCRAT. This educational training was provided at faculty meetings, workshops, and by the district. Title I teachers provide on-going inservice, and Title I teachers work directly in the classroom with students in cooperation with the regular classroom teacher. Only one area of concern was voiced at Terry where no teacher visited experienced inservice on multicultural curriculum delivery this semester. There were however 59 instances of this inservice prior to 1995-96. Response from Principal(s)\nThe Terry principal stated that an equity staff development inservice was advertised at Terry. She also said that Terry teachers were constantly encouraged to go to inservice on the topic of multiculturalism. Oriqinal Magnet Elementary Schools: Reports from these schools indicated that many courses dealing with educational equity, multicultural strategies, and student management were offered. Booker reported that AEA has recently provided workshops in \"Multiculturalism in Arkansas\" and \"Multiculturalism from a Global Perspective.\" They also mentionedEDUCATIONAL EQUITY MONITORING 1995-96 FIRST SEMESTER SUMMARY REPORT PAGE 75 some workshops provided by the State Department of Education such as the K-3 Initiative. Inclusion training was also cited. The majority of Carver teachers indicated they had received equity and multicultural curriculum delivery inservice this year. All teachers also received Discipline with Dignity inservice. Gibbs focused on At-Risk student identification and had staff development to aid them in this effort. International studies teachers provided inservice during preschool week on multiculturalism. They also received classroom management and Positive Reinforcement training during the 1995-1996 school year. Williams included At-Risk Strategies and Modifications in their training, as well as Assertive Discipline and classroom management. All schools reported on-going links between classroom teachers and remedial teachers to provide a better understanding of the remedial programs. Response from Principal(s)\nNone Interdistrict Elementary Schools: All schools reported inservices that aid staff in providing equity, multiculturalism, and safety. Although there were no entries in the school profile. Washington teachers who were visited said they have received inservice in the different areas including workshops by Sanford Tollette of Pfeiffer Camp and Judy Milam of the IRC.EDUCATIONAL EQUITY MONITORING 1995-96 FIRST SEMESTER SUMMARY REPORT PAGE 76 All interdistrict school teachers visited indicated they had inservice to better understand the remedial programs. Response from Principal(s): None Area Junior High Schools: Most of these school staffs included all of the specific courses mentioned in the report. Additional inservices mentioned at Cloverdale were the Student Assistance program, vocational education, specific multicultural classes from a global perspective, and Discipline: Results, Not Outrage. Forest Heights was a concern since there was no evidence of staff development in equity education or multicultural curriculum delivery this year. Most teachers visited however did indicate training in discipline management. Mabelvale cited New Futures and Stanford 8 training. Science Crusade participation and multiculturalism inservice. Teachers had a concern about receiving multicultural training as opposed to studies about only black/white cultures. Several teachers also voiced their concern about central office decisions that do not allow them to implement their classroom management training. Pulaski Heights and Southwest reported that all suggested inservices were provided. Conflict Resolution was an addition. In all area junior high schools, regular classroom teachers teach the Language Plus and Math Assistance classes. All teachers in all schools haveEDUCATIONAL EQUITY MONITORING 1995-96 FIRST SEMESTER SUMMARY REPORT PAGE 77 been provided training in these programs. Response from Principal(s): None Original Magnet Junior High School: The staff at Mann had already experienced many workshops such as Prejudice Reduction and Cultural Relations prior to 1995. On-going training in 1995 included At-Risk student identification and modifications and Successful Year Starts. The majority of certified staff members also had Conflict Resolution and Behavior/Styles/Student workshops this year. Counselors and remedial teachers provided training in the remedial programs in conjunction with district training. Response from Principal: None Area Junior High Schools with Magnet Programs: Both schools reported that staff development in the required areas had already been received prior to 1995. This year staff members at Dunbar had inservice in cooperative learning, PET and/or TESA. Sixteen staff members had workshops on multiculturalism and four staff members had classroom management workshops. Remedial inservice was provided by Dunbar remedial teachers and the school district. Henderson Magnet School teachers had Health Science workshops last summer sponsored by UAMS. They also had a school health science workshop.EDUCATIONAL EQUITY MONITORING 1995-96 FIRST SEMESTER SUMMARY REPORT PAGE 78 Some of the teachers attended these inservices at UCA. They also attended a Partners-in-Education for Teachers class during the summer. Henderson also reported that the AEA provided a variety of inservice topics like the INTERNET. Staff development activities in teaching strategies for multicultural curriculum delivery is on-going throughout the school year. Some staff monitored had just completed an Assertive Discipline inservice. Most visited teachers said that they had not had on-going inservice in understanding the remedial programs. Response from Principal(s): None Alternative Learning Center: The School Profile documented that inservice in educational equity, multicultural curriculum delivery and classroom management was provided to staff. This year, there are no Title I teachers at the center. Response from Principal\nOur whole program is one of remediation. Our staff has continuous inservice on how to remediate all students and help them to become more successful in a special classroom setting. Area Senior High Schools: Many of the staff members at these two schools received inservice training prior to this year. The staff at Fair focused on inservice in understanding the remedial programs which was an area of concern last year. Most visited teachersEDUCATIONAL EQUITY MONITORING 1995-96 FIRST SEMESTER SUMMARY REPORT PAGE 79 received training in classroom management this year. As of the first semester of the 1995-1996 school year, none of the staff of classrooms monitored reported inservice in educational equity or teaching strategies for multiculturalism. Prior to 1995 there were 210 staff members who received education equity training and 65 who completed training in PET and Cooperative Learning. Hall included in their school profiles inservice in Prejudice Reduction, At-Risk strategies, TESA, PET and Cooperative Learning. Violence Prevention was also provided prior to 1995. All interviewed teachers said that extensive training has been provided in understanding the remedial programs and assistance is readily available. Response from Principal(s): None Original Magnet Senior High School: Parkview offered many inservices to staff in educational equity which included PET, TESA, Student Assistance, Stanford 8 instruction and test taking. Multicultural learning and cooperative learning were cited as well as Conflict Resolution and classroom management workshops. Positive Communication was also included. Remedial classes are taught by the regular classroom teachers and explained to the rest of the faculty. Response from Principal: NoneEDUCATIONAL EQUITY MONITORING 1995-96 FIRST SEMESTER SUMMARY REPORT PAGE 80 Area Senior High Schools with Magnet Programs: Both schools provided inservice training in all areas. Central cited Advanced Placement inservice and academic course inservice which included a math workshop on multiculturalism. Common Ground was another course currently being offered. The principal reported that all academic support programs have been explained to all faculty members. McClellans school profile outlined the many inservice offerings available. The administration pointed out that the regular classroom teachers have a clear understanding of the remedial programs as a result of inservice training. Response from Principal(s): None Metropolitan Vocational-Technical Education Center: Many courses have already been provided prior to the 1995-1996 school year. Additional training this year include Self Esteem, Learning Styles and Positive Discipline. Teachers were given Stanford 8 scores and achievement records to enable teachers to appropriately address students strengths and weaknesses. Response from Principal: NoneEDUCATIONAL EQUITY MONITORING 1995-96 FIRST SEMESTER SUMMARY REPORT PAGE 81 10.0 PARENTAL INVOLVEMENT At each school the monitors expected to find: Documentation of school-home communication and contact Documented evidence showing how all identifiable groups of parents have been actively solicited When financially possible, transportation provided for parents who need the service School functions conducted in community facilities near identifiable groups of parents School functions scheduled to accommodate all parent groups Provision for regularly informing and involving parents regarding all aspects of their childs school performance Documentation that parents are actively involved in remediation programs in which their students participate (support workshop attendance, conferences, ASDP signatures, etc.) Opportunities to develop leadership skills among all parent groups Documentation of parental involvement in writing the school plans FINDINGS: Area Elementary Schools: The majority of teachers at area elementary schools ranked the telephone as the most effective method of encouraging parental involvement. Personal contacts and letters/memos were also reported as effective means of communication. Home visits were rarely cited as a communication process used by the school to increase parental involvement.EDUCATIONAL EQUITY MONITORING 1995-96 FIRST SEMESTER SUMMARY REPORT PAGE 82 The majority of visited teachers said that all identifiable groups of parents are involved in school functions. However, teachers at Mabelvale and Meadowcliff said that all parent groups were not represented, and more participation by all parents is encouraged. At Fulbright, the monitoring team reported that parents were not involved in the development of the School Improvement Plan. Three area elementary schools (Mabelvale, Meadowcliff, and Woodruff) reported that district structure, policy, and programs had not been discussed at school meetings at the time of the first semester monitoring visit. Response from Principal(s): The principal at Fulbright said that it was an oversight that parents were not involved in the development of the School Improvement Plan. However, he also reported that co-presidents of the PTA reviewed the plan. The principal at Meadowcliff said that although local school meetings had not included information on district policy and programs, the counselor at Meadowcliff was conducting a five-week workshop on \"Helping Students Succeed In School.\" The Woodruff principal said that a PTA meeting was planned for the month of December. Topics to be discussed at the meeting included Stanford-8 testing results, district programs, and ways to access them. Oriqinal Magnet Elementary Schools: Parents at all schools were given opportunities to provide input regarding the School Improvement Plan. Parent involvement was encouraged throughEDUCATIONAL EQUITY MONITORING 1995-96 FIRST SEMESTER SUMMARY REPORT PAGE 83 phone calls, newsletters, and parent conferences. Teachers at Williams said that parent contract letters and a volunteer booth have also been used to enhance parental involvement. All schools reported evidence of providing parents with information on district policy and programs at PTA or other parent meetings. Response from Principal(s): None Interdistrict Elementary Schools: The team consensus reports listed phone calls, memos, and newsletters as the most frequently used methods to encourage parental involvement. Responses were positive relating to parental involvement at all three schools. Response from Principal(s)\nThe assistant principal at Washington said that grant money is used to provide parents with information through mini-seminars. Area Junior High Schools: At Mabelvale Junior High, a variety of methods is used to encourage parental involvement. All interviewed teachers at Mabelvale mentioned the effectiveness of team conferences and team newsletters. The majority of visited teachers at Mabelvale, Southwest, and Cloverdale Junior High said that all groups of parents are represented and involved in school functions, but more parental involvement is needed.EDUCATIONAL EQUITY MONITORING 1995-96 FIRST SEMESTER SUMMARY REPORT PAGE 84 Teachers at Forest Heights reported that the school provides equitable opportunities for parental involvement in the district and school activities. Phone calls were reported to be the most effective means of communication with parents. It was noted that some teachers are beginning to bring their own cellular phones to the classroom. These teachers said this is a most useful and effective way to contact parents immediately when a discipline problem occurs. Teachers also said discipline has improved since they have been able to immediately involve parents via phone calls. No evidence was provided that district policy, structure, and programs had been addressed at PTA meetings or through mini-seminars held at Forest Heights or in the community. The Pulaski Heights team reported positive responses to all parental involvement questions, except one. Fifty percent of the interviewed teachers at Pulaski Heights said that all identifiable groups of parents are not actively involved in school functions. Response from Principal(s): None Original Magnet Junior High School: Teachers at Mann reported phone calls, newsletters, and student plan books as regularly used methods to improve parent-school communication. Documentation was available as evidence that parents were involved in the remediation programs in which their children participate. Parents activelyEDUCATIONAL EQUITY MONITORING 1995-96 FIRST SEMESTER SUMMARY REPORT PAGE 85 participated in the development of the improvement plan. District policies and programs were discussed at Manns Open House and Seventh Grade Orientation. Response from Principal(s): None Area Junior High Schools with Magnet Programs: Teachers at Dunbar and Henderson said that phone calls and parent conferences were among the most effective ways to encourage parent involvement. The majority of teachers reported that all identifiable groups of parents are involved in school functions. Parents were involved in the development of the improvement plan at both schools. District policies and programs have been discussed at PTA meetings at Dunbar and Henderson. Teachers at Henderson said that the principal or guest speaker addressed LRSD programs or procedures during each PTA meeting. Response from Principal(s)\nNone Alternative Learning Center: Phone calls were reported as the most effective way the school communicates with parents. Parents were involved in the development of the improvement plan. No areas of concern were reported. Response from Principal: NoneEDUCATIONAL EQUITY MONITORING 1995-96 FIRST SEMESTER SUMMARY REPORT PAGE 86 Area Senior High Schools: Teachers at Fair and Hall said that phone calls were the most effective form of communication with parents. Interviewed teachers at Fair and Hall reported that all identifiable groups are involved in school functions. At Hall, an active PTA, a diversified parent group of regular volunteers, and VIPS were some of the examples of parental involvement cited. Regular contacts were made with parents at both schools. Documentation was available at both high schools to show that parents were involved in the development of the improvement plan. Parent conference letters were observed as evidence of parent involvement in remedial programs in which their children participate. Response from Principal(s): None Original Magnet Senior High School: Information regarding district structure, policy, and programs has been distributed and discussed at Parkview PTA meetings. Teachers said the most effective way to encourage parent involvement is offering activities in which students perform. Teachers reported that all identifiable groups of parents are involved in school functions. Parent input from the Quality of Education survey was utilized in the development of the improvement plan. Parents on the PTSA Board/ExecutiveEDUCATIONAL EQUITY MONITORING 1995-96 FIRST SEMESTER SUMMARY REPORT PAGE 87 Committee were directly involved in developing the local School Improvement Plan. Response from Principal: None Area Senior High Schools with Magnet Programs: No areas of concern were reported at Central or McClellan. Memos were reported to be the most effective method of communication with parents at McClellan. Personal contacts were reported as most effective at Central. All parent groups were represented at school functions. However, more involvement by black parents was desired at Central. Parents at both schools were involved in remedial programs in which their children participated. At Central and McClellan, parent participation in the development of the local School Improvement Plan was evident. District structure, policy, and programs were addressed at PTA at both high schools. Response from Principal(s)\nNone Metropolitan Vocational-Technical Education Center: Areas of concern were not identified at Metro. All identifiable groups of parents participate on advisory boards and serve as chaperons through the career orientation classes. Effective methods were used to encourage parent involvement. Examples include phone calls, parent conferences, and sendingEDUCATIONAL EQUITY MONITORING 1995-96 FIRST SEMESTER SUMMARY REPORT PAGE 88 home student work such as videos produced by students. Staff members and Advisory Board members were assembled for planning and developing the School Improvement Plan. Home school PTA meetings and church meetings were avenues used to apprise parents of district structure, policy, and programs. Response from Principal: None 11.0 STUDENT DISCIPLINE At each school the monitors expected to find: No disproportionality among identifiable groups of students when discipline sanctions are analyzed (-25% - +12.5% of the black student enrollment at the school) Evidence of strategies to eliminate disproportionality in disciplinary sanctions, if such disproportionality exists Discipline program monitored, evaluated, and updated to decrease any disproportionality among identifiable groups of students Evidence that a handbook/policy clearly states expectations for student conduct and that these policies are distributed and explained School staff very active and visible in directing/ controlling students FINDINGS: Area Elementary Schools: Information regarding LRSD disciplinary policies and procedures was distributed to all students and parents at all area elementary schools. The UttleEDUCATIONAL EQUITY MONITORING 1995-96 FIRST SEMESTER SUMMARY REPORT PAGE 89 Rock School District Rights and Responsibilities Handbook was taught, and a form denoting receipt thereof is kept on file at each school. School and classroom rules were carefully explained, and in most cases, were posted throughout the schools. At each of the area elementary schools, monitors reported that the school staff had plans, procedures, and practices which were designed to enable students to remain in school, promote academic success, and alleviate behavior problems. Examples of the aforementioned included incentive programs. monitoring at-risk students, use of behavior management plans, conferences with parents, practice of positive discipline, assemblies, honor/award systems. detention hall, tutoring, efforts of counselors, cooperative learning, and extracurricular activities. According to monitoring reports, classroom instruction proceeded in an orderly manner at each area elementary school. Additionally, principals, assistant principals, and teachers were considered very active/very visible in directing/controlling students at all area elementary schools. Supervision aides at each area elementary schools except Brady and Fulbright were also considered very active/very visible in directing/controlling students. At Brady, the monitoring report indicated that supervision aides were somewhat active/somewhat visible in performing that task. At Fulbright, supervision aides were considered not active/not visible in directing/controlling students. The report from FulbrightEDUCATIONAL EQUITY MONITORING 1995-96 FIRST SEMESTER SUMMARY REPORT PAGE 90 indicated that more supervision on the playground by supervision aides was needed, and further stated that upper grade level students were observed on the playground intimidating small primary level students, evidently unobserved by aides. With the exception of Watson, Pulaski Heights and Mabelvale Elementary Schools, all area elementary schools had three or fewer suspensions/expulsions the first nine weeks. At Pulaski Heights, eighty-one percent (17/21) of the students who received the above disciplinary sanctions were black. The acceptable range for Pulaski Heights Elementary is 35% - 53% black students. based on a 47% black student enrollment. At Mabelvale Elementary, eighty-six percent (6/7) students who were suspended/expelled the first nine weeks were black. The acceptable range for Mabelvale is 53% - 79% black students, based on a 70% black student enrollment. All ten of the students who were suspended/expelled the first nine weeks at Watson were black. The acceptable range for Watson is 61% - 91% black students, based on an 81% black student enrollment. Where needed, strategies to eliminate disproportionate discipline sanctions among identifiable student groups were in place at all area elementary schools. Examples of strategies cited in monitoring reports'follow: incentive programs. teacher inservices, behavior modification plans, conferences with parents. detention, functioning discipline committees, and award programs.EDUCATIONAL EQUITY MONITORING 1995-96 FIRST SEMESTER SUMMARY REPORT PAGE 91 Response from Principal(s)\nNone Oriqinal Magnet Elementary Schools: All original magnet elementary schools apprised students and parents of LRSD disciplinary policies and procedures, according to reports submitted by monitoring teams. The Little Rock School District Rights and Responsibilities Handbook was taught, and forms denoting receipt thereof are kept on file. Classroom and school rules were also explained and posted. Strategies have been implemented to enable students to remain in school. promote academic success and alleviate behavior problems at each original magnet elementary school. Examples of the foregoing cited by monitors follow: award and incentive programs, individual student contracts, peer helpers, tutors. detention hall, and academic and behavior plans for students. Classroom instruction proceeded in an orderly manner in classrooms observed by monitors at the original magnet elementary schools. All appropriate personnel were observed as being very active/very visible in directing/controlling students at Booker, Carver, and Gibbs. At Williams, monitors considered the assistant principal, teachers, and supervision aides as being very active in supervising students\nthe principal was viewed as neither active nor visible in completing that task.EDUCATIONAL EQUITY MONITORING 1995-96 FIRST SEMESTER SUMMARY REPORT PAGE 92 Monitoring reports indicated that two or fewer students received suspensions/expulsions the first nine weeks at all original elementary magnet schools except Booker. At Booker, 90% of the ten students who received disciplinary sanctions were black, which is not generally representative of the student population. All of the original elementary magnet schools have implemented strategies to eliminate disproportionate discipline sanctions among identifiable groups, per monitoring reports. Examples of the strategies follow: formation of Discipline Hearing Committees, after-school detention programs, emphasis on conflict resolution, individual counseling, intervention programs, work of Pupil Services Teams, and efforts to help students develop effective study techniques. Response from Principal(s): None Interdistrict Elementary Schools: Information regarding LRSD disciplinary policies and procedures was made available to all students and parents at King, Romine, and Washington, according to monitoring reports. Additionally, the school staff at each of the schools indicated that plans, procedures, and practices were in use to enable students to remain in school, promote academic success, and alleviate behavior problems. At King, examples of the aforementioned included incentives for appropriate behavior, cooperative discipline, and an In-school Suspension Program. AtEDUCATIONAL EQUITY MONITORING 1995-96 FIRST SEMESTER SUMMARY REPORT PAGE 93 Washington, monitors indicated that there was an emphasis on building selfesteem. No specific examples were noted on the report from Romine. Monitors reported that classroom instruction proceeded in an orderly manner in classrooms visited at the three interdistrict elementary schools. Suspension/expulsion rates generally represented the student population at King and Romine, but not at Washington. Eighty-three percent of the students receiving suspensions the first nine weeks at Washington were black, which is not within the acceptable range of 48% - 72% black students, based on a 64% black student enrollment. Strategies to eliminate disproportionate discipline sanctions among identifiable groups had been developed at Washington. Although no disproportionality in this area was evident at King, strategies to prevent disproportionate sanctions were in the narrative section of Kings school profile. The report from Romine indicted that no strategies in this area were needed. At King and Romine, monitors considered all appropriate personnel as being very active/very visible in directing/controlling students. However, at Washington, the principal was regarded as somewhat active/somewhat visible in directing/controlling students, and the supervision aides were considered as not active/not visible in completing the same task. The re\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":25,"next_page":26,"prev_page":24,"total_pages":27,"limit_value":12,"offset_value":288,"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":"School integration","hits":65},{"value":"School improvement programs","hits":64},{"value":"School management and organization","hits":64},{"value":"Arkansas. Department of Education","hits":52},{"value":"Educational statistics","hits":49}],"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":"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},{"value":"Bell, Griffin B., 1918-2009","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":1492,"missing":0},{"name":"medium_facet","items":[{"value":"documents (object genre)","hits":156},{"value":"judicial records","hits":50},{"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}}]}}