{"response":{"docs":[{"id":"vrc_pec_35916","title":"Robert Russa Moton Museum, Farmville, Va., 50th anniversary of the student strike, view of audience, 2001","collection_id":"vrc_pec","collection_title":"Edward H. Peeples Prince Edward County (Va.) Public Schools","dcterms_contributor":["Peeples, Edward H. (Edward Harden), 1935-","James Branch Cabell Library. Special Collections and Archives","VCU Libraries"],"dcterms_spatial":["United States, Virginia, Prince Edward County, 37.2243, -78.44108","United States, Virginia, Prince Edward County, Farmville, 37.3021, -78.39194"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["2001-04-23"],"dcterms_description":["View of audience at the Robert Russa Moton Museum, Farmville, Va., on April 23, 2001 on the 50th Anniversary of the Prince Edward County African American student strike at Robert R. Moton High School.","37.2651527","-78.3991619","http://maps.google.com/maps?q=37.2912633,%20-78.3977735","Robert Russa Moton Museum"],"dc_format":["image/tiff"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":null,"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Edward H. Peeples Prince Edward County (Va.) Public Schools"],"dcterms_subject":["Anniversaries","Robert Russa Moton Museum (Farmville, Va.)--Anniversaries, etc.","R. R. Moton High School (Farmville, Va.)--Student strike, 1951--Anniversaries, etc."],"dcterms_title":["Robert Russa Moton Museum, Farmville, Va., 50th anniversary of the student strike, view of audience, 2001"],"dcterms_type":["StillImage"],"dcterms_provenance":["James Branch Cabell Library. Special Collections and Archives"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["https://digital.library.vcu.edu/islandora/object/vcu%3A35916"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["In Copyright - Non-Commercial Use Permitted","This material is protected by copyright, and copyright is held by VCU. You are permitted to use this material in any way that is permitted by copyright. In addition, this material is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 4.0 International license (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0) (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/). Acknowledgment of Virginia Commonwealth University Libraries as a source is required."],"dcterms_medium":["color negatives"],"dcterms_extent":["6 x 9 cm."],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"vrc_pec_35917","title":"Robert Russa Moton Museum, Farmville, Va., 50th anniversary of the student strike, view of tent, 2001","collection_id":"vrc_pec","collection_title":"Edward H. Peeples Prince Edward County (Va.) Public Schools","dcterms_contributor":["Peeples, Edward H. (Edward Harden), 1935-","James Branch Cabell Library. Special Collections and Archives","VCU Libraries"],"dcterms_spatial":["United States, Virginia, Prince Edward County, 37.2243, -78.44108","United States, Virginia, Prince Edward County, Farmville, 37.3021, -78.39194"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["2001-04-23"],"dcterms_description":["View of tent at the Robert Russa Moton Museum, Farmville, Va., on April 23, 2001 on the 50th Anniversary of the Prince Edward County African American student strike at Robert R. Moton High School.","37.2651527","-78.3991619","http://maps.google.com/maps?q=37.2912633,%20-78.3977735","Robert Russa Moton Museum"],"dc_format":["image/tiff"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":null,"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Edward H. Peeples Prince Edward County (Va.) Public Schools"],"dcterms_subject":["Anniversaries","Robert Russa Moton Museum (Farmville, Va.)--Anniversaries, etc.","R. R. Moton High School (Farmville, Va.)--Student strike, 1951--Anniversaries, etc."],"dcterms_title":["Robert Russa Moton Museum, Farmville, Va., 50th anniversary of the student strike, view of tent, 2001"],"dcterms_type":["StillImage"],"dcterms_provenance":["James Branch Cabell Library. Special Collections and Archives"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["https://digital.library.vcu.edu/islandora/object/vcu%3A35917"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["In Copyright - Non-Commercial Use Permitted","This material is protected by copyright, and copyright is held by VCU. You are permitted to use this material in any way that is permitted by copyright. In addition, this material is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 4.0 International license (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0) (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/). Acknowledgment of Virginia Commonwealth University Libraries as a source is required."],"dcterms_medium":["color negatives"],"dcterms_extent":["6 x 9 cm."],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"vrc_pec_35918","title":"Robert Russa Moton Museum, Farmville, Va., 50th anniversary of the student strike, view of tent, 2001","collection_id":"vrc_pec","collection_title":"Edward H. Peeples Prince Edward County (Va.) Public Schools","dcterms_contributor":["Peeples, Edward H. (Edward Harden), 1935-","James Branch Cabell Library. Special Collections and Archives","VCU Libraries"],"dcterms_spatial":["United States, Virginia, Prince Edward County, 37.2243, -78.44108","United States, Virginia, Prince Edward County, Farmville, 37.3021, -78.39194"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["2001-04-23"],"dcterms_description":["View of audience and tent at the Robert Russa Moton Museum, Farmville, Va., on April 23, 2001 on the 50th Anniversary of the Prince Edward County African American student strike at Robert R. Moton High School.","37.2651527","-78.3991619","http://maps.google.com/maps?q=37.2912633,%20-78.3977735","Robert Russa Moton Museum"],"dc_format":["image/tiff"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":null,"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Edward H. Peeples Prince Edward County (Va.) Public Schools"],"dcterms_subject":["Anniversaries","Robert Russa Moton Museum (Farmville, Va.)--Anniversaries, etc.","R. R. Moton High School (Farmville, Va.)--Student strike, 1951--Anniversaries, etc."],"dcterms_title":["Robert Russa Moton Museum, Farmville, Va., 50th anniversary of the student strike, view of tent, 2001"],"dcterms_type":["StillImage"],"dcterms_provenance":["James Branch Cabell Library. Special Collections and Archives"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["https://digital.library.vcu.edu/islandora/object/vcu%3A35918"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["In Copyright - Non-Commercial Use Permitted","This material is protected by copyright, and copyright is held by VCU. You are permitted to use this material in any way that is permitted by copyright. In addition, this material is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 4.0 International license (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0) (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/). Acknowledgment of Virginia Commonwealth University Libraries as a source is required."],"dcterms_medium":["color negatives"],"dcterms_extent":["6 x 9 cm."],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1456","title":"\"2000-01 Enrollment and Racial Balance in the Little Rock School District and Pulaski County Special School District,\" Office of Desegregation and Monitoring","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":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring (Little Rock, Ark.)"],"dc_date":["2001-04-11"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--21st Century","Little Rock School District","School districts--Arkansas--Pulaski County","Office of Desegregation Monitoring (Little Rock, Ark.)","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Educational law and legislation","Educational statistics","School enrollment","School improvement programs","School integration","School management and organization","Magnet schools"],"dcterms_title":["\"2000-01 Enrollment and Racial Balance in the Little Rock School District and Pulaski County Special School District,\" Office of Desegregation and Monitoring"],"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/1456"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Available for use in research, teaching, and private study. Any other use requires permission from the Butler Center."],"dcterms_medium":["reports"],"dcterms_extent":["50 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_27","title":"Arkansas Department of Education's (ADE's) Project Management Tool","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118"],"dcterms_creator":["Arkansas. Department of Education"],"dc_date":["2001-04","2001-05","2001-06"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Education--Arkansas","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/27"],"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 ! RECEIVED \\t.\\~1 4 - 100\\ Qff\\ttOf lllfll6'1\\0ll tAQll{roR\\tlQ LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF v. No. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al. DEFENDANTS NOTICE OF FILING In accordance with the Court's Order of December 10, 1993, the Arkansas Department of Education hereby gives notice of the filing of ADE's Project Management Tool for April, 2001. Respectfully Submitted, MARK PRYOR Attorney General ~~T . HAGEMEIER # 127 Assistant Attorney =a1 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 682-3643 Attorney for Arkansas Department of Education CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Mark A Hagemeier, certify that on April 26, 2001, I caused a copy of the foregoing document to be served by U.S. mail, postage prepaid, on the following person(s) at the address(es) indicated: M. Samuel Jones, III Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 2000 ationsBank Bldg. 200 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 John W. Walker John Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Richard Roachell P.O. Box 17388 Little Rock, AR 72222-7388 - Timothy G. Gauger Mitchell, Williams, Selig, Gates \u0026amp; Woodyard 425 West Capitol Ave. Suite 1800 Little Rock, AR 72201-3525 Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 2000 Regions Center 400 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Ann Brown 201 E. Markham, Ste. 510 Little Rock, AR 72201 INTHE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL PLAINTIFFS V. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENORS KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS ADE'S PROJECT MANAGEMENT TOOL In compliance with the Court's Order of December 10, 1993, the Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) submits the following Project Management Tool to the parties and the Court. This document describes the progress the ADE has made since March 15, 1994, in complying with provisions of the Implementation Plan and itemizes the ADE's progress against timelines presented in the Plan. - IMPLEMENTATION PHASE ACTIVITY I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS A. Use the previous year's three quarter average daily membership to calculate MFPA (State Equalization) for the current school year. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of April 30, 2001 Based on the information available.at March 31, 2001, the ADE calculated the Equalization Funding for FY 00/01, subject to periodic adjustments. B. Include all Magnet students in the resident District's average daily membership for calculation. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) B. Include all Magnet students in the resident District's average daily membership for calculation. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 2001 Based on the information available at March 31, 2001, the ADE calculated for FY 00/01, subject to periodic adjustments. C. Process and distribute State MFPA. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of April 30, 2001 On March 31, 2001 , clistributions of State Equalization Funding for FY 00/01 were as follows: LRSD - $38,391,330 NLRSD - $20,491,872 PCSSD - $41,159,823 The allotments of State Equalization Funding calculated for FY 00/01 at March 31 , 2001, subject to periodic adjustments, were as follows: LRSD - $52,788,081 NLRSD - $28,176,324 PCSSD - $56,594,757 D. Determine the number of Magnet students residing in each District and attending a Magnet School. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of April 30, 2001 Based on the information available, the ADE calculated at March 31, 2001 for FY 00/01, subject to periodic adjustments. E. Desegregation Staff Attorney reports the Magnet Operational Charge to the Fiscal Services Office. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing, as ordered by the Court. 2 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) E. Desegregation Staff Attorney reports the Magnet Operational Charge to the Fiscal Services Office. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 2001 Basea on the information availa6Ie, the ADE calculated at March 31, 2001 for FY 00/01, subject to Rerioaic adjustments. It should be noted that currently the Magnet Review Committee is reporting this information instead of the staff attorney as indicated in the Implementation Plan. F. Calculate state aid due the LRSD based upon the Magnet Operational Charge. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of April 30, 2001 Based on the information available, the ADE calculated at March 31, 2001 for FY 00/01, subject to periodic adjustments. G. Process and distribute state aid for Magnet Operational Charge. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of April 30, 2001 Distributions for FY 00/01 at March 31, 2001, totaled $7,753,631. Allotment calculated for FY 00/01 was $10,763,339 subject to periodic adjustments. H. Calculate the amount of M-to-M incentive money to which each school district is entitled. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of April 30, 2001 Calculated for FY 00/01, subject to periodic adjustments. I. Process and distribute M-to-M incentive checks. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, September - June. 3 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) I. Process and distribute M-to-M incentive checks. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 2001 Distributions for FY 00701 at Marcli 31, 2001 were: LRSD - $2,620,338 NLRSD - $1,486,323 PCSSD -$5,190,668 Tfie allotments calculated for FY 00/01 at March 31, 2001, subject to periodic adjustments, were: LRSD - $3,816,614 NLRSD - $2,092,977 PCSSD - $7,301,748 J. Districts submit an estimated Magnet and M-to-M transportation budget to ADE. 1. Projected Ending Date 2. Ongoing, December of each year. Actual as of April 30, 2001 In September 2000, the Magnet and M-to-M transportation budgets for FY 00/01 were submitted to the ADE by the Districts. K. The Coordinator of School Transportation notifies General Finance to pay districts for the Districts' proposed budget. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing, annually. 2. Actual as of April 30, 2001 In January 2001, General Finance was notified to pay the second one-third payment for FY 00/01 to the Districts. It should be noted that the Transportation Coordinator is currently performing this function instead of Reginald Wilson as indicated in the Implementation Plan. L. ADE pays districts three equal installments of their proposed budget. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing, annually. 4 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) L. ADE pays districts three equal installments of their proposed budget. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 2001 In January 2001, General Finance made the second one-third payment to the Districts for their FY 00/01 transportation budget. The budget is now paid out in three equal installments. At February 28, 2001, the following had been paid for FY 00/01 : LRSD- $2,197,201.00 NLRSD - $437,233.34 PCSSD -$1,184,784.28 M. ADE verifies actual expenditures submitted by Districts and reviews each bill with each District's transportation coordinator. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing, annually. 2. Actual as of April 30, 2001 In August 1997, the ADE transportation coordinator reviewed each district's Magnet and M-to-M transportation costs for FY 96/97. In July 1998, each district was asked to submit an estimated budget for the 98/99 school year. In September 1998, paperwork was generated for the first payment in the 98/99 school year for the Magnet and M-to-M transportation program. School districts should receive payment by October 1, 1998 In July 1999, each district submitted an estimated budget for the 99/00 school year. In September 1999, paperwork was generated for the first payment in the 99/00 school year for the Magnet and M-to-M transportation program. In September 2000, paperwork was generated for the first payment in the 00/01 school year for the Magnet and M-to-M transportation program. 5 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) N. Purchase buses for the Districts to replace existing Magnet and M-to-M fleets and to provide a larger fleet for the Districts' Magnet and M-to-M Transportation needs. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing, as stated in Exhibit A of the Implementation Plan. 2. Actual as of April 30, 2001 In FY 94/95, the State purchased 52 buses at a cost of $1,799,431 which were added to or replaced existing Magnet and M-to-M buses in the Districts. The buses were distributed to the Districts as follows: LRSD - 32\nNLRSD - 6\nand PCSSD -14. The ADE purchased 64 Magnet and M-to-M buses at a cost of $2,334,800 in FY 95/96. The buses were distributed accordingly: LRSD - 45\nNLRSD - 7\nand PCSSD -12. In May 1997, the ADE purchased 16 Magnet and M-to-M buses at a cost of $646,400. In July 1997, the ADE purchased 16 Magnet and M-to-M buses at a cost of $624,879. In July 1998, the ADE purchased 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses at a cost of $695,235. The buses were distributed accordingly: LRSD - 8\nNLRSD - 2\nand PCSSD- 6. Specifications for 16 school buses have been forwarded to state purchasing for bidding in January, 1999 for delivery in July, 1999. The ADE accepted a bid on 16 buses for the Magnet and M/M transportation program. The buses will be delivered after July 1, 1999 and before August 1, 1999. The buses will be distributed accordingly: LRSD - 8\nNLRSD - 2\nPCSSD - 6. In July 1999, the ADE purchased 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses at a cost of $718,355. The buses were distributed accordingly: LRSD - 8\nNLRSD - 2\nand PCSSD - 6. In July 2000, the ADE purchased 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses at a cost of $724,165. The buses were distributed accordingly: LRSD - 8\nNLRSD - 2\nand PCSSD-6. 6 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) N. Purchase buses for the Districts to replace existing Magnet and M-to-M fleets and to provide a larger fleet for the Districts' Magnet and M-to-M Transportation needs. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 2001 The bid for 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses was let by State Purchasing on February 22, 2001 . The contract was awarded to Ward Transportation Services, Inc. The buses to be purchased include two type C 47 passenger buses and fourteen type C 65 passenger buses. Prices on these units are $43,426.00 each on the 47 passenger buses, and $44,289.00 each on the 65 passenger buses. The buses will be distributed accordingly: LRSD - 8 of the 65 passenger\nNLRSD - 2 of the 65 passenger\nPCSSD - 2 of the 47 passenger and 4 of the 65 passenger buses. 0 . Process and distribute compensatory education payments to LRSD as required by page 23 of the Settlement Agreement. 1. Projected Ending Date 2. July 1 and January 1, of each school year through January 1, 1999. Actual as of April 30, 2001 Obligation fulfilled in FY 96/97. P. Process and distribute additional payments in lieu of formula to LRSD as required by page 24 of the Settlement Agreement. 1. Projected Ending Date Payment due date and ending July 1, 1995. 2. Actual as of April 30, 2001 Obligation fulfilled in FY 95/96. Q. Process and distribute payments to PCSSD as required by Page 28 of the Settlement Agreement. 1. Projected Ending Date Payment due date and ending July 1, 1994. 2. Actual as of April 30, 2001 Final payment was distributed July 1994. 7 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) R. Upon loan request by LRSD accompanied by a promissory note, the ADE makes loans to LRSD. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing through July 1, 1999. See Settlement Agreement page 24. 2. Actual as of April 30, 2001 The LRSD received $3,000,000 on September 10, 1998. As of this reporting date, the LRSD has received $20,000,000 in loan proceeds. S. Process and distribute payments in lieu of formula to PCSSD required by page 29 of the Settlement Agreement. T. 1. Projected Ending Date Payment due date and ending July 1, 1995. 2. Actual as of April 30, 2001 Obligation fulfilled in FY 95/96. Process and distribute compensatory education payments to NLRSD as required by page 31 of the Settlement Agreement. 1. Projected Ending Date July 1 of each school year through June 30, 1996. 2. Actual as of April 30, 2001 Obligation fulfilled in FY 95/96. U. Process and distribute check to Magnet Review Committee. 1. Projected Ending Date Payment due date and ending July 1, 1995. 2. Actual as of April 30, 2001 Distribution in July 1997 for FY 97/98 was $75,000. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 97 /98. Distribution in July 1998 for FY 98/99 was $75,000. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 98/99. 8 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) U. Process and distribute check to Magnet Review Committee. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 2001 (Continued) Distribution in July 1999 for FY 99/00 was $92,500. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 99/00. Distribution in July 2000 for FY 00/01 was $92,500. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 00/01 . V. Process and distribute payments for Office of Desegregation Monitoring . 1. Projected Ending Date Not applicable. 2. Actual as of April 30, 2001 Distribution in July 1997 for FY 97/98 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 97/98. Distribution in July 1998 for FY 98/99 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 98/99. Distribution in July 1999 for FY 99/00 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 99/00. Distribution in July 2000 for FY 00/01 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 00/01 . 9 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. 1. Projected Ending Date January 15, 1995 2. Actual as of April 30, 2001 In May 1995, monitors completed the unannounced visits of schools in Pulaski County. The monitoring process involved a qualitative process of document reviews, interviews, and observations. The monitoring focused on progress made since the announced monitoring visits. In June 1995, monitoring data from unannounced visits was included in the July Semiannual Report. Twenty-five per cent of all classrooms were visited, and all of the schools in Pulaski County were monitored. All principals were interviewed to determine any additional progress since the announced visits. The July 1995 Monitoring Report was reviewed by the ADE administrative team, the Arkansas State Board of Education, and the Districts and filed with the Court. The report was formatted in accordance with the Allen Letter. In October 1995, a common terminology was developed by principals from the Districts and the Lead Planning and Desegregation staff to facilitate the monitoring process. The announced monitoring visits began on November 14, 1995 and were completed on January 26, 1996. Copies of the preliminary Semiannual Monitoring Report and its executive summary were provided to the ADE administrative team and the State Board of Education in January 1996. A report on the current status of the Cycle 5 schools in the ECOE process and their school improvement plans was filed with the Court on February 1, 1996. The unannounced monitoring visits began in February 1996 and ended on May 10, 1996. In June 1996, all announced and unannounced monitoring visits were completed, and the data was analyzed using descriptive statistics. The Districts provided data on enrollment in compensatory education programs. The Districts and the ADE Desegregation Monitoring staff developed a definition for instructional programs. 10 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 2001 (Continued) The Semiannual Monitoring Report was completed and filed with the Court on July 15, 1996 with copies distributed to the parties. Announced monitoring visits of the Cycle 1 schools began on October 28, 1996 and concluded in December 1996. In January 1997, presentations were made to the State Board of Education, the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee, and the parties to review the draft Semiannual Monitoring Report. The monitoring instrument and process were evaluated for their usefulness in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on achievement disparities. In February 1997, the Semiannual Monitoring Report was filed. Unannounced monitoring visits began on February 3, 1997 and concluded in May 1997. In March 1997, letters were sent to the Districts regarding data requirements for the July 1997 Semiannual Monitoring Report and the additional discipline data element that was requested by the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee. Desegregation data collection workshops were conducted in the Districts from March 28, 1997 to April 7, 1997. A meeting was conducted on April 3, 1997 to finalize plans for the July 15, 1997 Semiannual Monitoring Report. Onsite visits were made to Cycle 1 schools who did not submit accurate and timely data on discipline, M-to-M transfers, and policy. The July 15, 1997 Semiannual Monitoring Report and its executive summary were finalized in June 1997. In July 1997, the Semiannual Monitoring Report and its executive summary were filed with the court, and the ADE sponsored a School Improvement Conference. On July 10, 1997, copies of the Semiannual Monitoring Report and its executive summary were made available to the Districts for their review prior to filing it with the Court. In August 1997, procedures and schedules were organized for the monitoring of the Cycle 2 schools in FY 97 /98. 11 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 2001 (Continued) A Desegregation Monitoring and School Improvement Workshop for the Districts was held on September 10, 1997 to discuss monitoring expectations, instruments, data collection and school improvement visits. On October 9, 1997, a planning meeting was held with the desegregation monitoring staff to discuss deadlines, responsibilities, and strategic planning issues regarding the Semiannual Monitoring Report. Reminder letters were sent to the Cycle 2 principals outlining the data collection deadlines and availability of technical assistance. In October and November 1997, technical assistance visits were conducted, and announced monitoring visits of the Cycle 2 schools were completed. In December 1997 and January 1998, technical assistance visits were conducted regarding team visits, technical review recommendations, and consensus building. Copies of the infusion document and perceptual surveys were provided to schools in the ECOE process. The February 1998 Semiannual Monitoring Report was submitted for review and approval to the State Board of Education, the Director, the Administrative Team, the Attorney General's Office, and the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee. Unannounced monitoring visits began in February 1998, and technical assistance was provided on the school improvement process, external team visits and finalizing school improvement plans. On February 18, 1998, the representatives of all parties met to discuss possible revisions to the ADE's monitoring plan and monitoring reports. Additional meetings will be scheduled. Unannounced monitoring visits were conducted in March 1998, and technical assistance was provided on the school improvement process and external team visits. In April 1998, unannounced monitoring visits were conducted, and technical assistance was provided on the school improvement process. 12 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 2001 (Continued) In May 1998, unannounced monitoring visits were completed, and technical assistance was provided on the school improvement process. On May 18, 1998, the Court granted the ADE relief from its obligation to file the July 1998 Semiannual Monitoring Report to develop proposed modifications to ADE's monitoring and reporting obligations. In June 1998, monitoring information previously submitted by the districts in the Spring of 1998 was reviewed and prepared for historical files and presentation to the Arkansas State Board. Also, in June the following occurred: a) The Extended COE Team Visit Reports were completed, b) the Semiannual Monitoring COE Data Report was completed, c) progress reports were submitted from previous cycles, and d.) staff development on assessment (SAT-9) and curriculum alignment was conducted with three supervisors. In July, the Lead Planner provided the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Committee with (1) a review of the court Order relieving ADE of its obligation to file a July Semiannual Monitoring Report, and (2) an update of ADE's progress toward work with the parties and ODM to develop proposed revisions to ADE's monitoring and reporting obligations. The Committee encouraged ODM, the parties and the ADE to continue to work toward revision of the monitoring and reporting process. In August 1998, the ADE Implementation Phase Working group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. The Assistant Attorney General, the Assistant Director for Accountability and the Education Lead Planner updated the group on all relevant desegregation legal issues and proposed revisions to monitoring and reporting activities during the quarter. In September 1998, tentative monitoring dates were established and they will be finalized once proposed revisions to the Desegregation Monitoring Plan are finalized and approved. In September/October 1998, progress was being made on the proposed revisions to the monitoring process by committee representatives of all the Parties in the Pulaski County Settlement Agreement. While the revised monitoring plan is finalized and approved, the ADE monitoring staff will continue to provide technical assistance to schools upon request. In December 1998, requests were received from schools in PCSSD regarding test score analysis and staff Development. Oak Grove is scheduled for January 21, 1999 and Lawson Elementary is also tentatively scheduled in January. 13 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 2001 (Continued) Staff development regarding test score analysis for Oak Grove and Lawson Elementary in the PCSSD has been rescheduled for April 2000. Staff development regarding test score analysis for Oak Grove and Lawson Elementary in the PCSSD was conducted on May 5, 2000 and May 9, 2000 respectively. Staff development regarding classroom management was provided to the Franklin Elementary School in LRSD on November 8, 2000. Staff development regarding ways to improve academic achievement was presented to College Station Elementary in PCSSD on November 22, 2000. On November 1, 2000, the ADE Implementation Phase Working group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. The Assistant Director for Accountability updated the group on all relevant desegregation legal issues and discussed revisions to monitoring and reporting activities during the quarter. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for February 27, 2001 in room 201-A at the ADE. The Implementation Phase Working Group meeting that was scheduled for February 27 had to be postponed. It will be rescheduled as soon as possible. 14 Ill. A PETITION FOR ELECTION FOR LRSD WILL BE SUPPORTED SHOULD A MILLAGE BE REQUIRED A. Monitor court pleadings to determine if LRSD has petitioned the Court for a special election. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing. 2. Actual as of April 30, 2001 Ongoing. All Court pleadings are monitored monthly. B. Draft and file appropriate pleadings if LRSD petitions the Court for a special election. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of April 30, 2001 To date, no action has been taken by the LRSD. 15 IV. REPEAL STATUTES AND REGULATIONS THAT IMPEDE DESEGREGATION A. Using a collaborative approach, immediately identify those laws and regulations that appear to impede desegregation. 1. Projected Ending Date December, 1994 2. Actual as of April 30, 2001 The information for this item is detailed under Section IV. E. of this report. B. Conduct a review within ADE of existing legislation and regulations that appear to impede desegregation. C. 1. Projected Ending Date November, 1994 2. Actual as of April 30, 2001 The information for this item is detailed under Section IV.E. of this report. Request of the other parties to the Settlement Agreement that they identify laws and regulations that appear to impede desegregation. 1. Projected Ending Date November, 1994 2. Actual as of April 30, 2001 The information for this item is detailed under Section IV.E. of this report. D. Submit proposals to the State Board of Education for repeal of those regulations that are confirmed to be impediments to desegregation. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of April 30, 2001 The information for this item is detailed under Section IV.E. of this report. 16 IV. REPEAL STATUTES AND REGULATIONS THAT IMPEDE DESEGREGATION (Continued) E. Submit proposals to the Legislature for repeal of those laws that appear to be impediments to desegregation. 2. Actual as of April 30, 2001 A committee within the ADE was formed in May 1995 to review and collect data on existing legislation and regulations identified by the parties as impediments to desegregation. The committee researched the Districts' concerns to determine if any of the rules, regulations, or legislation cited impede desegregation. The legislation cited by the Districts regarding loss funding and worker's compensation were not reviewed because they had already been litigated. In September 1995, the committee reviewed the following statutes, acts, and regulations: Act 113 of 1993\nADE Director's Communication 93-205\nAct 145 of 1989\nADE Director's Memo 91-67\nADE Program Standards Eligibility Criteria for Special Education\nArkansas Codes 6-18-206, 6-20-307, 6-20-319, and 6-17- 1506. In October 1995, the individual reports prepared by committee members in their areas of expertise and the data used to support their conclusions were submitted to the ADE administrative team for their review. A report was prepared and submitted to the State Board of Education in July 1996. The report concluded that none of the items reviewed impeded desegregation. As of February 3, 1997, no laws or regulations have been determined to impede desegregation efforts. Any new education laws enacted during the Arkansas 81 st Legislative Session will be reviewed at the close of the legislative session to ensure that they do not impede desegregation. In April 1997, copies of all laws passed during the 1997 Regular Session of the 81 st General Assembly were requested from the office of the ADE Liaison to the Legislature for distribution to the Districts for their input and review of possible impediments to their desegregation efforts. In August 1997, a meeting to review the statutes passed in the prior legislative session was scheduled for September 9, 1997. On September 9, 1997, a meeting was held to discuss the review of the statutes passed in the prior legislative session and new ADE regulations. The Districts will be contacted in writing for their input regarding any new laws or regulations that they feel may impede desegregation. Additionally, the Districts will be asked to review their regulations to ensure that they do not impede their desegregation efforts. The committee will convene on December 1, 1997 to review their findings and finalize their report to the Administrative Team and the State Board of Education. 17 IV. REPEAL STATUTES AND REGULATIONS THAT IMPEDE DESEGREGATION (Continued) E. Submit proposals to the Legislature for repeal of those laws that appear to be impediments to desegregation. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 2001 (Continued) In October 1997, the Districts were asked to review new regulations and statutes for impediments to their desegregation efforts, and advise the ADE, in writing, if they feel a regulation or statute may impede their desegregation efforts. In October 1997, the Districts were requested to advise the ADE, in writing, no later than November 1, 1997 of any new law that might impede their desegregation efforts. As of November 12, 1997, no written responses were received from the Districts. The ADE concludes that the Districts do not feel that any new law negatively impacts their desegregation efforts. The committee met on December 1, 1997 to discuss their findings regarding statutes and regulations that may impede the desegregation efforts of the Districts. The committee concluded that there were no laws or regulations that impede the desegregation efforts of the Districts. It was decided that the committee chair would prepare a report of the committee's findings for the Administrative Team and the State Board of Education. The committee to review statutes and regulations that impede desegregation is now reviewing proposed bills and regulations, as well as laws that are being signed in, for the current 1999 legislative session. They will continue to do so until the session is over. The committee to review statutes and regulations that impede desegregation will meet on April 26, 1999 at the ADE. The committee met on April 26, 1999 at the ADE. The purpose of the meeting was to identify rules and regulations that might impede desegregation, and review within the existing legislation any regulations that might result in an impediment to desegregation. This is a standing committee that is ongoing and a report will be submitted to the State Board of Education once the process is completed. The committee met on May 24, 1999 at the ADE. The committee was asked to review within the existing legislation any regulations that might result in an impediment to desegregation. The committee determined that Mr. Ray Lumpkin would contact the Pulaski County districts to request written response to any rules, regulations or laws that might impede desegregation. The committee would also collect information and data to prepare a report for the State Board. This will be a standing committee. This data gathering will be ongoing until the final report is given to the State Board. On July 26, 1999, the committee met at the ADE. The committee did not report any laws or regulations that they currently thought would impede desegregation, and are still waiting for a response from the three districts in Pulaski County. 18 IV. REPEAL STATUTES AND REGULATIONS THAT IMPEDE DESEGREGATION (Continued) E. Submit proposals to the Legislature for repeal of those laws that appear to be impediments to desegregation. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 2001 (Continued) The committee met on August 30, 1999 at the ADE to review rules and regulations that might impede desegregation. At that time, there were no laws under review that appeared to impede desegregation. In November, the three districts sent letters to the ADE stating that they have reviewed the laws passed by the 82nd legislative session as well as current rules \u0026amp; regulations and district policies to ensure that they have no ill effect on desegregation efforts. There was some concern from PCSSD concerning a charter school proposal in the Maumelle area. The work of the committee is on-going each month depending on the information that comes before the committee. Any rules, laws or regulations that would impede desegregation will be discussed and reported to the State Board of Education. On October 4, 2000, the ADE presented staff development for assistant superintendents in LRSD, NLRSD and PCSSD regarding school laws of Arkansas. The ADE is in the process of forming a committee to review all Rules and Regulations from the ADE and State Laws that might impede desegregation. The ADE Committee on Statutes and Regulations will review all new laws that might impede desegregation once the 83rd General Assembly has completed this session. 19 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES A. Through a preamble to the Implementation Plan, the Board of Education will reaffirm its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement and outcomes of programs intended to apply those principles. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of April 30, 2001 The preamble was contained in the Implementation Plan filed with the Court on March 15, 1994. B. Through execution of the Implementation Plan, the Board of Education will continue to reaffirm its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement and outcomes of programs intended to apply those principles. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of April 30, 2001 Ongoing C. Through execution of the Implementation Plan, the Board of Education will continue to reaffirm its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement by actions taken by ADE in response to monitoring results. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of April 30, 2001 Ongoing D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 20 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 2001 At each regular monthly meeting of the State Board of Education, the Board is provided copies of the most recent Project Management Tool (PMT) and an executive summary of the PMT for their review and approval. Only activities that are in addition to the Board's monthly review of the PMT are detailed below. In May 1995, the State Board of Education was informed of the total number of schools visited during the monitoring phase and the data collection process. Suggestions were presented to the State Board of Education on how recommendations could be presented in the monitoring reports. In June 1995, an update on the status of the pending Semiannual Monitoring Report was provided to the State Board of Education. In July 1995, the July Semiannual Monitoring Report was reviewed by the State Board of Education. On August 14, 1995, the State Board of Education was informed of the need to increase minority participation in the teacher scholarship program and provided tentative monitoring dates to facilitate reporting requests by the ADE administrative team and the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee. In September 1995, the State Board of Education was advised of a change in the PMT from a table format to a narrative format. The Board was also briefed about a meeting with the Office of Desegregation Monitoring regarding the PMT. In October 1995, the State Board of Education was updated on monitoring timelines. The Board was also informed of a meeting with the parties regarding a review of the Semiannual Monitoring Report and the monitoring process, and the progress of the test validation study. In November 1995, a report was made to the State Board of Education regarding the monitoring schedule and a meeting with the parties concerning the development of a common terminology for monitoring purposes. In December 1995, the State Board of Education was updated regarding announced monitoring visits. In January 1996, copies of the draft February Semiannual Monitoring Report and its executive summary were provided to the State Board of Education. 21 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 2001 (Continued) During the months of February 1996 through May 1996, the PMT report was the only item on the agenda regarding the status of the implementation of the Monitoring Plan. In June 1996, the State Board of Education was updated on the status of the bias review study. In July 1996, the Semiannual Monitoring Report was provided to the Court, the parties, ODM, the State Board of Education, and the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee. In August 1996, the State Board of Education and the ADE administrative team were provided with copies of the test validation study prepared by Dr. Paul Williams. During the months of September 1996 through December 1996, the PMT was the only item on the agenda regarding the status of the implementation of the Monitoring Plan. On January 13, 1997, a presentation was made to the State Board of Education regarding the February 1997 Semiannual Monitoring Report, and copies of the report and its executive summary were distributed to all Board members. The Project Management Tool and its executive summary were addressed at the February 10, 1997 State Board of Education meeting regarding the ADE's progress in fulfilling their obligations as set forth in the Implementation Plan. In March 1997, the State Board of Education was notified that historical information in the PMT had been summarized at the direction of the Assistant Attorney General in order to reduce the size and increase the clarity of the report. The Board was updated on the Pulaski County Desegregation Case and reviewed the Memorandum Opinion and Order issued by the Court on February 18, 1997 in response to the Districts' motion for summary judgment on the issue of state funding for teacher retirement matching contributions. During the months of April 1997 through June 1997, the PMT was the only item on the agenda regarding the status of the implementation of the Monitoring Plan. The State Board of Education received copies of the July 15, 1997 Semiannual Monitoring Report and executive summary at the July Board meeting. 22 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 2001 (Continued) The Implementation Phase Working Group held its quarterly meeting on August 4, 1997 to discuss the progress made in attaining the goals set forth in the Implementation Plan and the critical areas for the current quarter. A special report regarding a historical review of the Pulaski County Settlement Agreement and the ADE's role and monitoring obligations were presented to the State Board of Education on September 8, 1997. Additionally, the July 15, 1997 Semiannual Monitoring Report was presented to the Board for their review. In October 1997, a special draft report regarding disparity in achievement was submitted to the State Board Chairman and the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee. In November 1997, the State Board of Education was provided copies of the monthly PMT and its executive summary. The Implementation Phase Working Group held its quarterly meeting on November 3, 1997 to discuss the progress made in attaining the goals set forth in the Implementation Plan and the critical areas for the current quarter. In December 1997, the State Board of Education was provided copies of the monthly PMT and its executive summary. In January 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and discussed ODM's report on the ADE's monitoring activities and instructed the Director to meet with the parties to discuss revisions to the ADE's monitoring plan and monitoring reports. In February 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and discussed the February 1998 Semiannual Monitoring Report. In March 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary and was provided an update regarding proposed revisions to the monitoring process. In April 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary. In May 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary. 23 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 2001 (Continued) In June 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary. The State Board of Education also reviewed how the ADE would report progress in the PMT concerning revisions in ADE's Monitoring Plan. In July 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary. The State Board of Education also received an update on Test Validation, the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Committee Meeting, and revisions in ADE's Monitoring Plan. In August 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary. The Board also received an update on the five discussion points regarding the proposed revisions to the monitoring and reporting process. The Board also reviewed the basic goal of the Minority Recruitment Committee. In September 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed the proposed modifications to the Monitoring plans by reviewing the common core of written response received from the districts. The primary commonalities were (1) Staff Development, (2) Achievement Disparity and (3) Disciplinary Disparity. A meeting of the parties is scheduled to be conducted on Thursday, September 17, 1998. The Board encouraged the Department to identify a deadline for Standardized Test Validation and Test Selection. In October 1998, the Board received the progress report on Proposed Revisions to the Desegregation Monitoring and Reporting Process (see XVIII). The Board also reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary. In November, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board also received an update on the proposed revisions in the Desegregation monitoring Process and the update on Test validation and Test Selection provisions of the Settlement Agreement. The Board was also notified that the Implementation Plan Working Committee held its quarterly meeting to review progress and identify quarterly priorities. In December, the State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board also received an update on the joint motion by the ADE, the LRSD, NLRSD, and the PCSSD, to relieve the Department of its obligation to file a February Semiannual Monitoring Report. The Board was also notified that the Joshua lntervenors filed a motion opposing the joint motion. The Board was informed that the ADE was waiting on a response from Court. 24 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 2001 (Continued) In January, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board also received an update on the joint motion of the ADE, LRSD, PCSSD, and NLRSD for an order relieving the ADE of filing a February 1999 Monitoring Report. The motion was granted subject to the following three conditions: (1) notify the Joshua intervenors of all meetings between the parties to discuss proposed changes, (2) file with the Court on or before February 1, 1999, a report detailing the progress made in developing proposed changes and (3) identify ways in which ADE might assist districts in their efforts to improve academic achievement. In February, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board was informed that the three conditions: (1) notify the Joshua lntervenors of all meetings between the parties to discuss proposed changes, (2) file with the Court on or before February 1, 1999, a report detailing the progress made in developing proposed changes and (3) identify ways in which ADE might assist districts in their efforts to improve academic achievement had been satisfied. The Joshua lntervenors were invited again to attend the meeting of the parties and they attended on January 13, and January 28, 1999. They are also scheduled to attend on February 17, 1998. The report of progress, a collaborative effort from all parties was presented to court on February 1, 1999. The Board was also informed that additional items were received for inclusion in the revised report, after the deadline for the submission of the progress report and the ADE would: (1) check them for feasibility, and fiscal impact if any, and (2) include the items in future drafts of the report. In March, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board also received and reviewed the Desegregation Monitoring and Assistance Progress Report submitted to Court on February 1, 1999. On April 12, and May 10, 1999, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board also was notified that once the financial section of the proposed plan was completed, the revised plan would be submitted to the board for approval. On June 14, 1999, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board also was notified that once the financial section of the proposed plan was completed, the revised plan would be submitted to the board for approval. 25 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 2001 (Continued) On July 12, 1999, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board also was notified that once the financial section of the proposed plan was completed, the revised plan would be submitted to the board for approval. On August 9, 1999, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board was also notified that the new Desegregation Monitoring and Assistance Plan would be ready to submit to the Board for their review \u0026amp; approval as soon as plans were finalized. On September 13, 1999, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board was also notified that the new Desegregation Monitoring and Assistance Plan would be ready to submit to the Board for their review \u0026amp; approval as soon as plans were finalized. On October 12, 1999, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board was notified that on September 21 , 1999 that the Office of Education Lead Planning and Desegregation Monitoring meet before the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee and presented them with the draft version of the new Desegregation Monitoring and Assistance Plan. The State Board was notified that the plan would be submitted for Board review and approval when finalized. On November 8, 1999, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of October. On December 13, 1999, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of November. On January 10, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of December. On February 14, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of January. On March 13, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of February. On April 10, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of March. 26 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 2001 (Continued) On May 8, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of April. On June 12, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of May. On July 10, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of June. On August 14, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of July. On September 11, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of August. On October 9, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of September. On November 13, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of October. On December 11, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of November. On January 8, 2001 , the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of December. On February 12, 2001, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of January. On March 12, 2001 , the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of February. On April 9, 2001 , the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of March. 27 VI. REMEDIATION A. Through the Extended COE process, the needs for technical assistance by District, by School, and by desegregation compensatory education programs will be identified. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of April 30, 2001 During May 1995, team visits to Cycle 4 schools were conducted, and plans were developed for reviewing the Cycle 5 schools. In June 1995, the current Extended COE packet was reviewed, and enhancements to the Extended COE packet were prepared. In July 1995, year end reports were finalized by the Pulaski County field service specialists, and plans were finalized for reviewing the draft improvement plans of the Cycle 5 schools. In August 1995, Phase I - Cycle 5 school improvement plans were reviewed. Plans were developed for meeting with the Districts to discuss plans for Phase II - Cycle 1 schools of Extended COE, and a school improvement conference was conducted in Hot Springs. The technical review visits for the FY 95/96 year and the documentation process were also discussed. In October 1995, two computer programs, the Effective Schools Planner and the Effective Schools Research Assistant, were ordered for review, and the first draft of a monitoring checklist for Extended COE was developed. Through the Extended COE process, the field service representatives provided technical assistance based on the needs identified within the Districts from the data gathered. In November 1995, ADE personnel discussed and planned for the FY 95/96 monitoring, and onsite visits were conducted to prepare schools for the FY 95/96 team visits. Technical review visits continued in the Districts. In December 1995, announced monitoring and technical assistance visits were conducted in the Districts. At December 31 , 1995, approximately 59% of the schools in the Districts had been monitored. Technical review visits were conducted during January 1996. In February 1996, announced monitoring visits and midyear monitoring reports were completed, and the field service specialists prepared for the spring NCA/COE peer team visits. 28 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) A. Through the Extended COE process, the needs for technical assistance by District, by School, and by desegregation compensatory education programs will be identified. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 2001 (Continued) In March 1996, unannounced monitoring visits of Cycle 5 schools commenced, and two-day peer team visits of Cycle 5 schools were conducted. Two-day team visit materials, team lists and reports were prepared. Technical assistance was provided to schools in final preparation for team visits and to schools needing any school improvement information. In April and May 1996, the unannounced monitoring visits were completed. The unannounced monitoring forms were reviewed and included in the July monitoring report. The two-day peer team visits were completed, and annual COE monitoring reports were prepared. In June 1996, all announced and unannounced monitoring visits of the Cycle 5 schools were completed, and the data was analyzed. The Districts identified enrollment in compensatory education programs. The Semiannual Monitoring Report was completed and filed with the Court on July 15, 1996, and copies were distributed to the parties. During August 1996, meetings were held with the Districts to discuss the monitoring requirements. Technical assistance meetings with Cycle 1 schools were planned for 96/97. The Districts were requested to record discipline data in accordance with the Allen Letter. In September 1996, recommendations regarding the ADE monitoring schedule for Cycle 1 schools and content layouts of the semiannual report were submitted to the ADE administrative team for their review. Training materials were developed and schedules outlined for Cycle 1 schools. In October 1996, technical assistance needs were identified and addressed to prepare each school for their team visits. Announced monitoring visits of the Cycle 1 schools began on October 28, 1996. In December 1996, the announced monitoring visits of the Cycle 1 schools were completed, and technical assistance needs were identified from school site visits. In January 1997, the ECOE monitoring section identified technical assistance needs of the Cycle 1 schools, and the data was reviewed when the draft February Semiannual Monitoring Report was presented to the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee, the State Board of Education, and the parties. 29 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) A. Through the Extended COE process, the needs for technical assistance by District, by School, and by desegregation compensatory education programs will be identified. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 2001 (Continued) In February 1997, field service specialists prepared for the peer team visits of the Cycle 1 schools. NCA accreditation reports were presented to the NCA Committee, and NCA reports were prepared for presentation at the April NCA meeting in Chicago. From March to May 1997, 111 visits were made to schools or central offices to work with principals, ECOE steering committees, and designated district personnel concerning school improvement planning. A workshop was conducted on Learning Styles for Geyer Springs Elementary School. A School Improvement Conference was held in Hot Springs on July 15-17, 1997. The conference included information on the process of continuous school improvement, results of the first five years of COE, connecting the mission with the school improvement plan, and improving academic performance. Technical assistance needs were evaluated for the FY 97 /98 school year in August 1997. From October 1997 to February 1998, technical reviews of the ECOE process were conducted by the field service representatives. Technical assistance was provided to the Districts through meetings with the ECOE steering committees, assistance in analyzing perceptual surveys, and by providing samples of school improvement plans, Gold File catalogs, and web site addresses to schools visited. Additional technical assistance was provided to the Districts through discussions with the ECOE committees and chairs about the process. In November 1997, technical reviews of the ECOE process were conducted by the field service representatives in conjunction with the announced monitoring visits. Workshops on brainstorming and consensus building and asking strategic questions were held in January and February 1998. In March 1998, the field service representatives conducted ECOE team visits and prepared materials for the NCA workshop. Technical assistance was provided in workshops on the ECOE process and team visits. In April 1998, technical assistance was provided on the ECOE process and academically distressed schools. In May 1998, technical assistance was provided on the ECOE process, and team visits were conducted. 30 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) A. Through the Extended COE process, the needs for technical assistance by District, by School, and by desegregation compensatory education programs will be identified. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 2001 (Continued) In June 1998, the Extended COE Team Visit Reports were completed. A School Improvement Conference was held in Hot Springs on July 13-15, 1998. Major conference topics included information on the process of continuous school improvement, curriculum alignment, \"Smart Start,\" Distance Learning, using data to improve academic performance, educational technology, and multicultural education. All school districts in Arkansas were invited and representatives from Pulaski County attended. In September 1998, requests for technical assistance were received, visitation schedules were established, and assistance teams began visiting the Districts. Assistance was provided by telephone and on-site visits. The ADE provided inservice training on \"Using Data to Sharpen the Focus on Student Achievement\" at Gibbs Magnet Elementary school on October 5, 1998 at their request. The staff was taught how to increase test scores through data disaggregation, analysis, alignment, longitudinal achievement review, and use of individualized test data by student, teacher, class and content area. Information was also provided regarding the \"Smart Start\" and the \"Academic Distress\" initiatives. On October 20, 1998, ECOE technical assistance was provided to Southwest Jr. High School. B. Identify available resources for providing technical assistance for the specific condition, or circumstances of need, considering resources within ADE and the Districts, and also resources available from outside sources and experts. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of April 30, 2001 The information for this item is detailed under Section VI.F. of this report. C. Through the ERIC system, conduct a literature search for research evaluating compensatory education programs. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 31 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) C. D. Through the ERIC system, conduct a literature search for research evaluating compensatory education programs. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 2001 An updated ERIC Search was conducted on May 15, 1995 to locate research on evaluating compensatory education programs. The ADE received the updated ERIC disc that covered material through March 1995. An ERIC search was conducted in September 30, 1996 to identify current research dealing with the evaluation of compensatory education programs, and the articles were reviewed. An ERIC search was conducted in April 1997 to identify current research on compensatory education programs and sent to the Cycle 1 principals and the field service specialists for their use. An Eric search was conducted in October 1998 on the topic of Compensatory Education and related descriptors. The search included articles with publication dates from 1997 through July 1998. Identify and research technical resources available to ADE and the Districts through programs and organizations such as the Desegregation Assistance Center in San Antonio, Texas. 1. Projected Ending Date Summer 1994 2. Actual as of April 30, 2001 The information for this item is detailed under Section VI.F. of this report. E. Solicit, obtain, and use available resources for technical assistance. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of April 30, 2001 The information for this item is detailed under Section VI.F. of this report. F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 32 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 2001 From March 1995 through July 1995, technical assistance and resources were obtained from the following sources: the Southwest Regional Cooperative\nUALR regarding training for monitors\nODM on a project management software\nADHE regarding data review and display\nand Phi Delta Kappa, the Desegregation Assistance Center and the Dawson Cooperative regarding perceptual surveys. Technical assistance was received on the Microsoft Project software in November 1995, and a draft of the PMT report using the new software package was presented to the ADE administrative team for review. In December 1995, a data manager was hired permanently to provide technical assistance with computer software and hardware. In October 1996, the field service specialists conducted workshops in the Districts to address their technical assistance needs and provided assistance for upcoming team visits. In November and December 1996, the field service specialists addressed technical assistance needs of the schools in the Districts as they were identified and continued to provide technical assistance for the upcoming team visits. In January 1997, a draft of the February 1997 Semiannual Monitoring Report was presented to the State Board of Education, the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee, and the parties. The ECOE monitoring section of the report included information that identified technical assistance needs and resources available to the Cycle 1 schools. Technical assistance was provided during the January 29-31 , 1997 Title I MidWinter Conference. The conference emphasized creating a learning community by building capacity schools to better serve all children and empowering parents to acquire additional skills and knowledge to better support the education of their children. In February 1997, three ADE employees attended the Southeast Regional Conference on Educating Black Children. Participants received training from national experts who outlined specific steps that promote and improve the education of black children. On March 6-9, 1997, three members of the ADE's Technical Assistance Section attended the National Committee for School Desegregation Conference. The participants received training in strategies for Excellence and Equity: Empowerment and Training for the Future. Specific information was received regarding the current status of court-ordered desegregation, unitary status, and resegregation and distributed to the Districts and ADE personnel. 33 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 2001 (Continued) The field service specialists attended workshops in March on ACT testing and school improvement to identify technical assistance resources available to the Districts and the ADE that will facilitate desegregation efforts. ADE personnel attended the Eighth Annual Conference on Middle Level Education in Arkansas presented by the Arkansas Association of Middle Level Education on April 6-8, 1997. The theme of the conference was Sailing Toward New Horizons. In May 1997, the field service specialists attended the NCA annual conference and an inservice session with Mutiu Fagbayi. An Implementation Oversight Committee member participated in the Consolidated COE Plan inservice training. In June and July 1997, field service staff attended an SAT-9 testing workshop and participated in the three-day School Improvement Conference held in Hot Springs. The conference provided the Districts with information on the COE school improvement process, technical assistance on monitoring and assessing achievement, availability of technology for the classroom teacher, and teaching strategies for successful student achievement. In August 1997, field service personnel attended the ASCD Statewide Conference and the AAEA Administrators Conference. On August 18, 1997, the bi-monthly Team V meeting was held and presentations were made on the Early Literacy Learning in Arkansas (ELLA) program and the Schools of the 21st Century program. In September 1997, technical assistance was provided to the Cycle 2 principals on data collection for onsite and offsite monitoring. ADE personnel attended the Region VI Desegregation Conference in October 1997. Current desegregation and educational equity cases and unitary status issues were the primary focus of the conference. On October 14, 1997, the bi-monthly Team V meeting was held in Paragould to enable members to observe a 21st Century school and a school that incorporates traditional and multi-age classes in its curriculum. In November 1997, the field service representatives attended the Governor's Partnership Workshop to discuss how to tie the committee's activities with the ECOE process. 34 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 2001 (Continued) In March 1998, the field service representatives attended a school improvement conference and conducted workshops on team building and ECOE team visits. Staff development seminars on Using Data to Sharpen the Focus on Student Achievement are scheduled for March 23, 1998 and March 27, 1998 for the Districts. In April 1998, the Districts participated in an ADE seminar to aid them in evaluating and improving student achievement. In August 1998, the Field Service Staff attended inservice to provide further assistance to schools, i.e., Title I Summer Planning Session, ADE session on Smart Start, and the School Improvement Workshops. All schools and districts in Pulaski County were invited to attend the \"Smart Start\" Summit November 9, 10, and 11 to learn more about strategies to increase student performance. \"Smart Start\" is a standards-driven educational initiative which emphasizes the articulation of clear standards for student achievement and accurate measures of progress against those standards through assessments, staff development and individual school accountability. The Smart Start Initiative focused on improving reading and mathematics achievement for all students in Grades K-4. Representatives from all three districts attended. On January 21 , 1998, the ADE provided staff development for the staff at Oak Grove Elementary School designed to assist them with their efforts to improve student achievement. Using achievement data from Oak Grove, educators reviewed trends in achievement data, identified areas of greatest need, and reviewed seven steps for improving student performance. On February 24, 1999, the ADE provided staff development for the administrative staff at Clinton Elementary School regarding analysis of achievement data. On February 15, 1999, staff development was rescheduled for Lawson Elementary School. The staff development program was designed to assist them with their efforts to improve student achievement using achievement data from Lawson, educators reviewed the components of the Arkansas Smart Initiative, trends in achievement data, identified areas of greatest need, and reviewed seven steps for improving student performance. Student Achievement Workshops were rescheduled for Southwest Jr. High in the Little Rock School District, and the Oak Grove Elementary School in the Pulaski County School District. 35 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 2001 (Continued) On April 30, 1999, a Student Achievement Workshop was conducted for Oak Grove Elementary School in PCSSD. The Student Achievement Workshop for Southwest Jr. High in LRSD has been rescheduled. On June 8, 1999, a workshop was presented to representatives from each of the Arkansas Education Service Cooperatives and representatives from each of the three districts in Pulaski County. The workshop detailed the Arkansas Comprehensive Testing, Assessment and Accountability Program (ACTAAP). On June 18, 1999, a workshop was presented to administrators of the NLRSD. The workshop detailed the Arkansas Comprehensive Testing, Assessment and Accountability Program (ACTAAP) . On August 16, 1999, professional development on ways to increase student achievement and the components of the new ACTAAP program was presented during the preschool staff development activities for teaching assistant in the LRSD. On August 20, 1999, professional development on ways to increase student achievement and the components of the new ACTAAP program was presented during the preschool staff development activities for the Accelerated Learning Center in the LRSD. On September 13, 1999, professional development on ways to increase student achievement and the components of the new ACTAAP program were presented to the staff at Booker T. Washington Magnet Elementary School. On September 27, 1999, professional development on ways to increase student achievement was presented to the Middle and High School staffs of the NLRSD. The workshop also covered the components of the new ACTAAP program, and ACT 999 of 1999. On October 26, 1999, professional development on ways to increase student achievement was presented to LRSD personnel through a staff development training class. The workshop also covered the components of the new ACT AAP program, and ACT 999 of 1999. On December 7, 1999, professional development on ways to increase student achievement was scheduled for Southwest Middle School in the LRSD. The workshop was also set to cover the components of the new ACTAAP program, and ACT 999 of 1999. However, Southwest Middle School administrators had a need to reschedule, therefore the workshop will be rescheduled. On January 10, 2000, professional development on ways to increase student achievement was conducted for both Dr. Martin Luther King Magnet Elementary School \u0026amp; Little Rock Central High School. The workshops also covered the components of the new ACT AAP program, and ACT 999 of 1999. 36 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 2001 (Continued) On March 1, 2000, professional development on ways to increase student achievement was conducted for all principals and district level administrators in the PCSSD. The workshop also covered the components of the new ACTAAP program, and ACT 999 of 1999. On April 12, 2000, professional development on ways to increase student achievement was conducted for the LRSD. The workshop also covered the components of the new ACT AAP program, and ACT 999 of 1999. Targeted staffs from the middle and junior high schools in the three districts in Pulaski County attended the Smart Step Summit on May 1 and May 2. Training was provided regarding the overview of the \"Smart Step\" initiative, \"Standard and Accountability in Action,\" and \"Creating Learning Environments Through Leadership Teams.\" The ADE provided training on the development of alternative assessment September 12-13, 2000. Information was provided regarding the assessment of Special Education and LEP students. Representatives from each district were provided the opportunity to select a team of educators from each school within the district to participate in professional development regarding Integrating Curriculum and Assessment K-12. The professional development activity was directed by the national consultant, Dr. Heidi Hays Jacobs, on September 14 and 15, 2000. The ADE provided professional development workshops from October 2 through October 13, 2000 regarding, \"The Write Stuff: Curriculum Frameworks, Content Standards and Item Development.\" Experts from the Data Recognition Corporation provided the training. Representatives from each district were provided the opportunity to select a team of educators from each school within the district to participate. The ADE provided training on Alternative Assessment Portfolio Systems by video conference for Special Education and LEP Teachers on November 17, 2000. Also, Alternative Assessment Portfolio System Training was provided for testing coor.dinators through teleconference broadcast on November 27, 2000. On December 12, 2000, the ADE provided training for Test Coordinators on end of course assessments in Geometry and Algebra I Pilot examination. Experts from the Data Recognition Corporation conducted the professional development at the Arkansas Teacher Retirement Building. 37 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 2001 (Continued) The ADE presented a one-day training session with Dr. Cecil Reynolds on the Behavior Assessment for Children (BASC). This took place on December 7, 2000 at the NLRSD Administrative Annex. Dr. Reynolds is a practicing clinical psychologist. He is also a professor at Texas A \u0026amp; M University and a nationally known author. In the training, Dr. Reynolds addressed the following: 1) how to use and interpret information obtained on the direct observation form, 2) how to use this information for programming, 3) when to use the BASC, 4) when to refer for more or additional testing or evaluation, 5) who should complete the forms and when, (i.e., parents, teachers, students), 6) how to correctly interpret scores. This training was intended to especially benefit School Psychology Specialists, psychologists, psychological examiners, educational examiners and counselors. During January 22-26, 2001 the ADE presented the ACT AAP Intermediate (Grade 6) Benchmark Professional Development Workshop on Item Writing. Experts from the Data Recognition Corporation provided the training. Representatives from each district were invited to attend. On January 12, 2001 the ADE presented test administrators training for mid-year End of Course (Pilot) Algebra I and Geometry exams. This was provided for schools with block scheduling. On January 13, 2001 the ADE presented SmartScience Lessons and worked with teachers to produce curriculum. This was shared with eight Master Teachers. The SmartScience Lessons were developed by the Arkansas Science Teachers Association in conjunction with the Wilbur Mills Educational Cooperative under an Eisenhower grant provided by the ADE. The purpose of SmartScience is to provide K-6 teachers with activity-oriented science lessons that incorporate reading, writing, and mathematics skills. The following training has been provided for educators in the three districts in Pulaski County by the Division of Special Education at the ADE since January 2000: On January 6, 2000, training was conducted for the Shannon Hills Pre-school Program, entitled \"Things you can do at home to support your child's learning.\" This was presented by Don Boyd - ASERC and Shelley Weir. The school's director and seven parents attended. On March 8, 2000, training was conducted for the Southwest Middle School in Little Rock, on ADD. Six people attended the training . There was follow-up training on Learning and Reading Styles on March 26. This was presented by Don Boyd - ASERC and Shelley Weir. 38 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 2001 (Continued) On September 7, 2000, Autism and Classroom Accommodations for the LRSD at Chicot Elementary School was presented. Bryan Ayres and Shelley Weir were presenters. The participants were: Karen Sabo, Kindergarten Teacher\nMelissa Gleason, Paraprofessional\nCurtis Mayfield, P.E. Teacher\nLisa Poteet, Speech Language Pathologist\nJane Harkey, Principal\nKathy Penn-Norman, Special Education Coordinator\nAlice Phillips, Occupational Therapist. On September 15, 2000, the Governor's Developmental Disability Coalition Conference presented Assistive Technology Devices \u0026amp; Services. This was held at the Arlington Hotel in Hot Springs. Bryan Ayres was the presenter. On September 19, 2000, Autism and Classroom Accommodations for the LRSD at Jefferson Elementary School was presented. Bryan Ayres and Shelley Weir were presenters. The participants were: Melissa Chaney, Special Education Teacher\nBarbara Barnes, Special Education Coordinator\na Principal, a Counselor, a Librarian, and a Paraprofessional. On October 6, 2000, Integrating Assistive Technology Into Curriculum was presented at a conference in the Hot Springs Convention Center. Presenters were: Bryan Ayers and Aleecia Starkey. Speech Language Pathologists from LRSD and NLRSD attended. On October 24, 2000, Consideration and Assessment of Assistive Technology was presented through Compressed Video-Teleconference at the ADE facility in West Little Rock. Bryan Ayres was the presenter. On October 25 and 26, 2000, Alternate Assessment for Students with Severe Disabilities for the LRSD at J. A. Fair High School was presented. Bryan Ayres was the presenter. The participants were: Susan Chapman, Special Education Coordinator\nMary Steele, Special Education Teacher\nDenise Nesbit, Speech Language Pathologist\nand three Paraprofessionals. On November 14, 2000, Consideration and Assessment of Assistive Technology was presented through Compressed Video-Teleconference at the ADE facility in West Little Rock. Bryan Ayres was the presenter. On November 17, 2000, training was conducted on Autism for the LRSD at the Instructional Resource Center. Bryan Ayres and Shelley Weir were presenters. On December 5, 2000, Access to the Curriculum Via the use of Assistive Technology Computer Lab was presented. Bryan Ayres was the presenter of this teleconference. The participants were: Tim Fisk, Speech Language Pathologist from Arch Ford Education Service Cooperative at Plumerville and Patsy Lewis, Special Education Teacher from Mabelvale Middle School in the LRSD. 3 9 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 2001 (Continued) On January 9, 2001, Consideration and Assessment of Assistive Technology was presented through Compressed Video-Teleconference at the ADE facility in West Little Rock. Bryan Ayres was the presenter. Kathy Brown, a vision consultant from the LRSD, was a participant. On January 23, 2001, Autism and Classroom Modifications for the LRSD at Brady Elementary School was presented. Bryan Ayres and Shelley Weir were presenters. The participants were: Beverly Cook, Special Education Teacher\nAmy Littrell, Speech Language Pathologist\nJan Feurig, Occupational Therapist\nCarolyn James, Paraprofessional\nCindy Kackly, Paraprofessional\nand Rita Deloney, Paraprofessional. The ADE provided training on Alternative Assessment Portfolio Systems for Special Education and Limited English Proficient students through teleconference broadcast on February 5, 2001. Presenters were: Charlotte Marvel, ADE\nDr. Gayle Potter, ADE\nMarcia Harding, ADE\nLynn Springfield, ASERC\nMary Steele, J. A. Fair High School, LRSD\nBryan Ayres, Easter Seals Outreach. This was provided for Special Education teachers and supervisors in the morning, and Limited English Proficient teachers and supervisors in the afternoon. The Special Education session was attended by 29 teachers/administrators and provided answers to specific questions about the alternate assessment portfolio system and the scoring rubric and points on the rubric to be used to score the portfolios. The LEP session was attended by 16 teachers/administrators and disseminated the common tasks to be included in the portfolios: one each in mathematics, writing and reading. On February 12-23, 2001, the ADE and Data Recognition Corporation personnel trained Test Coordinators in the administration of the spring Criterion-Referenced Test. This was provided in 20 sessions at 10 regional sites. Testing protocol, released items, and other testing materials were presented and discussed. The sessions provided training for Primary, Intermediate, and Middle Level Benchmark Exams as well as End of Course Literacy, Algebra and Geometry Pilot Tests. The LRSD had 2 in attendance for the End of Course session and 2 for the Benchmark session. The NLRSD had 1 in attendance for the End of Course session and 1 for the Benchmark session. The PCSSD had 1 in attendance for the End of Course session and 1 for the Benchmark session. 40 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 2001 (Continued) On March 15, 2001 , there was a meeting at the ADE to plan professional development for staff who work with Limited English Proficiency (LEP) students. A $30,000 grant has been created to provide LEP training at Chicot Elementary for a year, starting in April 2001 . A $40,000 grant was created to provide a Summer English as Second Language (ESL) Academy for the LRSD from June 18 through 29, 2001. Andre Guerrero from the ADE Accountability section met with Karen Broadnax, ESL Coordinator at LRSD, Pat Price, Early Childhood Curriculum Supervisor at LRSD, and Jane Harkey, Principal of Chicot Elementary. On March 1-2 and 8-29, 2001 , ADE staff performed the following activities: processed registration for April 2 and 3 Alternate Portfolio Assessment video conference quarterly meeting\nanswered questions about Individualized Educational Plan (IEP) and LEP Alternate Portfolio Assessment by phone from schools and Education Service Cooperatives\nand signed up students for alternate portfolio assessment from school districts. On March 6, 2001, ADE staff attended a Smart Step Technology Leadership Conference at the State House Convention Center. On March 7, 2001 , ADE staff attended a National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) Regional Math Framework Meeting about the Consensus Project 2004. On March 8, 2001 , there was a one-on-one conference with Carole Villarreal from Pulaski County at the ADE about the LEP students with portfolios. She was given pertinent data, including all the materials that have been given out at the video conferences. The conference lasted for at least an hour. On March 14, 2001, a Test Administrator's Training Session was presented SP.ecifically to LRSD Test Coordinators and Principals. About 60 LRSD personnel attended. The following meetings have 15een conducted with educators in the three districts in Pulaski County sinye July 2000. On July 10-13, 2000 the ADE provided Smart Step training. The sessions covered Standards-based classroom practices. 41 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 2001 (Continued) On July 19-21, 2000 me ADE fiela tne Math/Science Leadership Conference al UCA. This provided services for Arkansas math and science teachers to SUPROrt s~stemic retorm in matfi/scierice ana training for 8th grade Benchmark. There were 200 teachers from across the state in attendance. On August 14-31, 2000 the ADE presented Science Smart Start Lessons and workea with teachers to produce curriculum. This will provide K-6 teachers with activity-oriented science lessons that incorporate reading, writing, and mathematics skills. On Septemoer 5, 2000 the ADE held an Eisenhower Informational meeting with Teacher Center Coordinators. The purgose of the Eisenhower Professional Development Program is to prepare teachers, school staff, and administra1ors to help all students meet challenging standards in the core academic subjects. A summary of the program was presented at the meeting. On November 2-3, 2000 the ADE held the Arkansas Conference on Teaching. This presented curriculum and activity workshops. More than 1200 attended the conference. On November 6, 2000 there was a review of Science Benchmarks and sample model curriculum. A committee of 6 reviewed and revised a drafted document. The committee was made up of ADE and K-8 teachers. On November 7-10, 2000 the ADE held a meeting of the Benchmark and End of Course Mathematics Content Area Committee. Classroom teachers reviewed items for grades 4, 6, 8 and EOC mathematics assessment. There were 60 participants. On December 4-8, 2000 the ADE conducted grades 4 and 8 Benchmark Scoring for Writing Assessment. This professional development was attended by approximately 750 teachers. On December 8, 2000 the ADE conducted Rubric development for Special Education Portfolio scoring. This was a meeting with special education supervisors to revise rubric and plan for scoring in June. On December 8, 2000 the ADE presented the Transition Mathematics Pilot Training Workshop. This provided follow-up training and activities for fourth-year mathematics professional development. On December 12, 2000 the ADE presented test administrators training for midyear End of Course (Pilot) Algebra I and Geometry exams. This was provided for schools with block scheduling. 42 VII. TEST VALIDATION A. 8. Using a collaborative approach, the ADE will select and contract with an independent bias review service or expert to evaluate the Stanford 8, or other monitoring instruments used to measure disparities in academic achievement between black students and white students. 1. Projected Ending Date March, 1995 2. Actual as of April 30, 2001 On March 29, 1995, letters were sent to four national experts about conducting a test bias validation of the Stanford Achievement Test, Eighth Edition, Form K (SAT-8). Dr. Paul Williams, Deputy Director of Educational Testing Service (ETS), contacted the ADE in April of 1995 concerning the proposal for validating the SAT- 8 test. The ADE requested that Dr. Williams conduct a validity study of test items used in the SAT-8. Dr. Williams submitted a final proposal for his services. The ADE Bias Review Test Committee met Friday, July 7, 1995, and approved Dr. William's contract proposal. The final contract was forwarded to Dr. Williams for his signature. The contract was signed in August 1995, thereby, completing this goal. By April 1994, establish a bias review committee to oversee the bias review process, and invite representatives of the Districts and parties to meet with the bias review committee. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of April 30, 2001 Complete. ADE established a Bias Review Committee in April 1994. In accordance with the Implementation Plan, representatives from the Districts and the parties were invited to attend and participate in this and all meetings of the Bias Review Committee. C. Upon completion of test validation procedures by the bias review service or expert, the ADE will adopt and use a validated test as a monitoring instrument. 1. Projected Ending Date March 1995 and ongoing 43 VII. TEST VALIDATION (Continued) C. Upon completion of test validation procedures by the bias review service or expert, the ADE will adopt and use a validated test as a monitoring instrument. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 2001 Dr. Paul Williams met with the staff of the Psychological Corporation to review their methods and procedures. In August 1995, he met with the staff at Georgia State University to review the statistical methods that would be used in the analysis. Dr. Williams reported difficulty with the bias-review study in receiving the names of the bias panel and the complete SAT-8 data set from the Psychological Corporation. Dr. Williams submitted an invoice totaling $8,961 for Task I activities of the SAT-8 validity study for partial fulfillment of the test validation study. On December 6, 1995, a contract extension for Dr. Williams was reviewed by the Legislative Council. In January 1996, he indicated that he was in the final stages of the test validation, and the ADE was presented a draft report in March 1996. In May 1996, Dr. Williams stated that the wrong data sets were sent to him by the Psychological Corporation resulting in Task 3 having to be redone. A new draft of the final report was received by the ADE in July 1996. In August 1996, copies of the test validation report were provided to the State Board of Education and the ADE administrative team for their review. On September 10, 1996, the LRSD notified the ADE that they had reviewed the test validation report and would like to meet with the ADE to discuss the report. The ADE Director indicated that he would schedule a meeting with the LRSD to discuss the report. In October 1996, historical files and data were provided to the ADE Director, the ADE Assistant Director for Technical Services, and the ADE Assistant Director for Planning and Curriculum for their review in preparation for a meeting with the LRSD regarding the validity study. Test validation procedures by the expert have been completed. A recommendation was drafted proposing the use of the SAT-8 by the ADE as the validated test for monitoring. The ADE is presently working to arrange a meeting with the Administration of the LRSD to discuss the test validation study. Effective September 22, 1997, the State Board of Education hired a new Director of the General Education Division, which should allow the ADE to move forward in this matter. 44 VII. TEST VALIDATION (Continued) C. Upon completion of test validation procedures by the bias review service or expert, the ADE will adopt and use a validated test as a monitoring instrument. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 2001 (Continued) In October 1997, the GED Director was updated on the history of the test validation process to provide the Director with background information in preparation for a meeting with the LRSD. In February 1998, ADE staff met with senior staff members to discuss the test validation and appropriate test scores for consideration by the LRSD. The ADE Director met with the Superintendent of the LRSD to discuss test validation issues. In June 1998, the ADE Director directed the Assistant Director for Accountability to recommend staff to discuss how the ADE would measure LRSD's progress toward meeting the loan forgiveness thresholds of the Settlement Agreement. Plans were made to meet with the staff Tuesday, June 30, 1998. The Test Validation Committee met on June 30, 1998, and discussed the following: 1. The appropriateness of the use of scaled scores on the SAT-8 test as the metric for assessing LRSD compliance with the loan forgiveness provisions of the Settlement Agreement\nand 2. The need for an independent analysis of LRSD students' test scores to determine compliance or noncompliance with loan forgiveness standard, and who would bear the cost of such an independent analysis. The Test Validation Committee met on September 10, 1998, to review recent correspondence from LRSD and to further discuss issues related to the loan forgiveness provisions of the Settlement Agreement. A follow-up administrative meeting was held on October 13, 1998, to discuss issues related to the test validation process. Participants included Tim Gauger, Assistant Attorney General, Dr. Charity Smith, Lead Planner for Desegregation, and Frank Anthony, Assistant Director for Accountability. A meeting was scheduled with Dr. Les Carnine, LRSD Superintendent and Mr. Ray Simon, ADE Director, regarding Test Validation and loan forgiveness provisions of the Settlement Agreement on May 12, 1999. 45 VII. TEST VALIDATION (Continued) C. Upon completion of test validation procedures by the bias review service or expert, the ADE will adopt and use a validated test as a monitoring instrument. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 2001 (Continued) On June 14, 1999, the State Board of Education was briefed on the status of LRSD's refusal to make principal and interest payments into escrow as required by the loan provisions of the Settlement Agreement and related documents. The Board requested that a draft motion to enforce the Settlement Agreement be prepared and submitted to the Board for review and discussion at the Board's next regularly scheduled meeting. On July 12, 1999, the State Board of Education authorized the filing of a motion to compel LRSD to make interest and principal payments into escrow pursuant to the loan provisions of the Settlement Agreement. The State Board of Education instructed the Attorney General's Office to file a motion by March 1, 2000 if a determination is made that the LRSD is not in compliance with Section 6 B of the Pulaski County Settlement Agreement regarding the establishment and funding of the escrow account in the loan provision section. On May 8, 2000, the Assistant Director of Accountability was directed by the Director of Education to contact Harcourt Brace Educational Measurement Company about the possibility of conducting a research study on the standardized test composite scores from 1990 through 1999 of LRSD (excluding special education students). The Test Selection Committee met on May 23, 2000, at the ADE and discussed ways to measure LRSD's progress toward meeting the loan forgiveness threshold of the Pulaski County Settlement Agreement. An update on the progress with Harcourt Brace was made at that time. Harcourt Brace has been contacted about conducting an initial research report on LRSD's progress toward meeting the loan forgiveness threshold of the settlement agreement. This report will review all composite scores since 1990 of LRSD's black and white students (excluding special education students). The purpose of the report is to determine if at any time from Spring 1990 to Fall 1999 did the composite scores of LRSD's black students (excluding special education students) reach 90% or greater of the composite scores of LRSD's white students (excluding special education students) on the State mandated norm-referenced test. Company representatives will advise the ADE of the cost and feasibility of producing the report by May 31, 2000. If the report indicates that LRSD has not meet the loan forgiveness requirements of the Pulaski County Settlement Agreement, an additional analysis of the Fall 2000 standardized tests results will be made. 46 VII. TEST VALIDATION (Continued) C. Upon completion of test validation procedures by the bias review service or expert, the ADE will adopt and use a validated test as a monitoring instrument. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 2001 (Continued) Harcourt Brace indicated that they would be able to provide the data, but indicated that analysis of the data should be done by an independent consultant. The search for an independent consultant has been undertaken. On February 12, 2001, the ADE Director provided the State Board of Education with a special update on desegregation activities. 47 VIII. IN-SERVICE TRAINING A. Through an interactive process with representatives of desegregating districts, identify in-service training needs. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of April 30, 2001 The information for this item is detailed under Section VIII.D. of this report. B. Develop in-service training programs to address in-service training needs of desegregating districts. C. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of April 30, 2001 The information for this item is detailed under Section VIII.D. of this report. Implement in-service training programs to address in-service training needs of desegregating districts. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of April 30, 2001 The information for this item is detailed under Section VIII.D. of this report. D. Evaluate in-service training programs developed and executed to address in-service training needs of desegregating districts. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of April 30, 2001 In April 1995, the Tri-District Staff Development Committee were provided an overview of the Scott Alternative Learning Center's operation and met with students and staff. In May 1995, the Districts were in the process of self-assessment and planning for fall staff development. 48 VIII. IN-SERVICE TRAINING (Continued) D. Evaluate in-service training programs developed and executed to address in-service training needs of desegregating districts. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 2001 (Continued) The Districts worked on staff development to be incorporated into their fall 95/96 preschool calendars. The uniqueness of each district's needs and their schools was considered in the planning by utilizing the results of needs assessment instruments. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met on September 13, 1995 to plan for an ADE administered Classroom Management grant. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met on September 19, 1995 to finalize the Classroom Management grant proposal. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met on October 24, 1995 to discuss program and staff development evaluation models that might be available to the Districts. On November 15, 1995, the ADE met with an ODM representative to discuss the progress the ADE had made in attaining the objectives outlined in the Implementation Plan with regard to inservice training. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met on November 21 , 1995 to discuss upcoming training events and various NLR programs that focus on non-academic needs. A new program consisting of placing a graduate student of social work, a field supervisor, and a OHS worker in the district at no cost to the district was discussed. Additionally, NLR provided an overview of their program for credit deficient students. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met on December 19, 1995 to discuss information dealing with ways to broaden the perspective of multicultural education. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met on January 17, 1996 to discuss proposed changes in the standards regarding media centers and NLRSD's staff development strategic planning committee. The committee reviewed a video on diversity produced by the Arkansas Elementary Principals Association. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met on February 21, 1996 to discuss the implications of budget cuts on staff development programs and PCSSD's request for unitary status for their staff development program . They also discussed the need for computer literacy, technology training, and acquisition of hardware and software by the Districts. 49 VIII. IN-SERVICE TRAINING (Continued) D. Evaluate in-service training programs developed and executed to address in-service training needs of desegregating districts. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 2001 (Continued) The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met on March 27, 1996 to discuss available resources concerning sexual harassment. ADE regulations in relation to staff members attending professional association conferences as well as the district staff development and potential sites for training seminars were also discussed. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met on April 30, 1996 to discuss the reconfiguring of Jacksonville Junior High, PCSSD professional development schedules, and APSCN on-line time lines. A tour of the Washington Magnet school was also conducted. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee received a demonstration of UALR's Baum Decision Support Center's capabilities regarding consensus and planning on May 29, 1996. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee did not meet during September, October, and November 1996 because of scheduling conflicts and the extended medical leave of the ADE liaison. On December 18, 1996, the Tri-District Staff Development Committee met to discuss the linkage between the Implementation Plan, staff development, and student achievement. On January 21 , 1997, the Tri-District Staff Development Committee met and discussed sharing middle school strategies and the Districts' training catalogs. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met on February 25, 1997 to discuss their current staff development programs and an overview of the relationship of their current programs with their desegregation plans. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met on March 26, 1997 to observe the Great Expectations Program. The principal and mentor teachers provided information on the components and philosophy of the program, and students demonstrated selected components. The PCSSD may adopt the program for selected schools in their district. The committee was provided with an update of pertinent information on resources available to the Districts. The committee decided that the ADE liaison to the committee would gather documentation of completed staff development directly from the Districts, instead of the Districts providing this information at the committee meetings. 50 VIII. IN-SERVICE TRAINING (Continued) D. Evaluate in-service training programs developed and executed to address in-service training needs of desegregating districts. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 2001 (Continued) New information on teacher licensure and rules and regulations was shared with the Tri-District Staff Development Committee at their April 1997 meeting. A report was presented to the committee on information from the Arkansas Council for Social Studies about an October 1997 meeting on integrated curriculum. The Districts will provide principal retreats this summer as a part of their staff development. The PCSSD will sponsor a renowned speaker on strategies to serve at risk youth in August 1997 in which the committee is invited to attend. The LRSD shared survey results from a pilot administration to four teachers in each district. The survey found the sample to be strong in content but lacking in context and process. Plans to address these needs will be developed. In another survey to certified and non-certified LRSD staff, stress management was the major concern. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met on May 14, 1997 to participate in a teleconference with the five 1996 awardees of the National Awards Program for Model for Professional Development. The PCSSD shared their summer and fall staff development catalog with the members. The committee will reconvene in the fall of the 97/98 school year. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee is scheduled to meet on September 30, 1997 to discuss collaborative actions for FY 97/98. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met on September 30, 1997 to discuss their staff development for the 1997 /1998 school year. The PCSSD had a pre-school in-service for the faculty, and the LRSD conducted a Principals Academy with an expert on the math and science initiative which lasted several days. The NLRSD is provid ing staff development by satellite. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met on October 28, 1997. The LRSD and NLRSD shared some of their staff development course offerings with the committee, and the PCSSD discussed ways of optimizing opportunities for staff development with specific emphasis on the junior high school conflict resolution training. In November 1997, the Lead Planner provided technical assistance to Central High School staff regarding data disaggregation, test score analysis and ways to improve student achievement. 51 VIII. IN-SERVICE TRAINING (Continued) D. Evaluate in-service training programs developed and executed to address in-service training needs of desegregating districts. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 2001 (Continued) The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met on November 25, 1997 to discuss the Standards for Staff Development. The LRSD will begin providing technology training to their employees in January by utilizing business teachers. Additionally, they discussed a collaborative venture of the Districts involving a workshop from Chicago on a program called \"Great Expectations.\" The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met on December 16, 1997 to discuss technology plans, strategies for obtaining information currently being provided to the education cooperatives, scheduling of Arkansas history, and the development of a comprehensive list of locations available for staff development. Members agreed to bring information on available locations to the January meeting and have set a tentative completion date for the project of May 1998. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met on January 27, 1998 to share information for developing a comprehensive list of locations available for staff development. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met on February 24, 1998 to work on the development of the list of locations available for staff development. The committee also discussed the meeting on student achievement sponsored by the ADE for the Districts, principals' staff development in the Districts and emphasis on improving achievement as reflected on the SAT-9. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met on March 19, 1998 to discuss the math and science grant received by the LRSD, the Districts' inservice calendars for August, TESA and Student-Team Learning trainers, and team building for staff. The ADE Deputy Director is scheduled to discuss ways the committee can strengthen their relationship with the regional cooperatives at their May meeting. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met on April 27, 1998 to discuss their proposal for involvement with the regional cooperatives. The ADE Deputy Director is scheduled to discuss committee's concerns regarding their relationship with the regional cooperatives at their next meeting. 52 VIII. IN-SERVICE TRAINING (Continued) D. Evaluate in-service training programs developed and executed to address in-service training needs of desegregating districts. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 2001 (Continued) The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met Thursday, May 21 , 1998, in the Instructional Resources Center at Little Rock School District. Dr. Woodrow Cummins, ADE Deputy Director, joined the group to discuss ways to develop a closer connection with the Education Service Cooperatives. He also discussed other issues concerning Tri-District Staff Development. Tentative plans were made to meet with the Teacher Center Coordinators at their next regular meeting. The next Central Office meeting will be at 9:00 a.m., Thursday, September 29, 1998, in the PCSSD. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee will attend the Educational Cooperative Teacher Center Coordinators' meeting September 1, 1998, in the ADE auditorium. The next regular meeting of the committee is tentatively set for 9:00 a.m., Thursday, September 29, 1998, in the PCS SD Central Office. The Tri-County Staff Development Committee met Monday, August 24, 1998, at PCSSD central office with four members present: Marion Woods, LRSD\nDoug Ask and Mary McClendon, PCSSD\nand Betty Gale Davis, ADE. Topics of discussion included the September 1 meeting scheduled with the regional cooperatives' teacher center coordinators\nthe staff development task force on which Marion Woods is serving\nthe property tax issue\nand various mathematics and reading programs being used in the districts. The committee met Tuesday, September 1, 1998, with the Teacher Center Coordinators, at which time Dr. Woody Cummins presented. Six Tri-District Staff Development Committee members were present: Marion Woods, LRSD\nDoug Ask and Mary Mcclendon, PCSSD\nDana Chadwick and Estelle Crawford, NLRSD\nBetty Gale Davis, ADE. The next committee meeting will be 9:00 a.m., Thursday, September 24, 1998, at the Little Rock District Instructional Resources Center. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met Thursday, September 24, 1998, at the Instructional Resources Center, Little Rock, with five present: Marion Woods and Dr. Bonnie Lesley, LRSD\nDoug Ask, PCSSD\nDana Chadwick, NLRSD\nand Dr. Betty Gale Davis, ADE. Topics of discussion included the meeting with the regional cooperatives' teacher center coordinators\nthe staff development task force on which Marion Woods is serving and the NSCI training\ntraining provided by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)\ntraining provided by Casio\nand the proposal of a Principals Academy. 53 VIII. IN-SERVICE TRAINING (Continued) D. Evaluate in-service training programs developed and executed to address in-service training needs of desegregating districts. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 2001 (Continued) Doug Ask will serve as representative to the October 6, 1998 meeting of the Teacher Center Coordinators. He will submit to Donna Harris, president of the group, a request for one other member of the Tri-County Committee (Dana Chadwick) to attend the meeting. Representatives for future meetings (second Tuesday of each month) will be: Marion Woods, November\nMary McClendon, December\nDana Chadwick, January. The next committee meeting will be 9:00 a.m., Tuesday, October 13, 1998, at the North Little Rock School District Central Office. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met on Tuesday, October 13, 1998, in the NLRSD Administration Building. Doug Ask represented the committee at the Teacher Center Coordinators' meeting in Fayetteville, October 6. He shared with the Tri-District Committee information regarding the upcoming NSCI/Smart Start Training. James Smith spoke with the group about Amendment 4. Members of the Tri-District Staff Development Committee also met with the Teacher Center Coordinators, Wednesday, October 28. Doug Ask, Marion Woods, and Esther Crawford were trained as facilitators, October 29, for the initial Smart Start Summit to be held November 9-12, 1998. Marion Woods will represent the committee at the next regular Teacher Center Coordinators' meeting, Tuesday, November 3, 10:00 a.m. at the ADE. The next Tri-District Committee meeting will be at 9:00 a.m., November 10, in the PCSSD Administration Building. Members of the Tri-District Staff Development Committee met several times with the Teacher Center Coordinators in preparation for the Smart Start Summit. During the Smart Start Summit, they served as facilitators. The meeting planned for November 10 was postponed due to the conflict with the Summit. Doug Ask, Marion Woods, and Esther Crawford met with the Teacher Center Coordinators on Tuesday, December 1, 1998, for the regular monthly meeting. Principal topics discussed were the Smart Start Initiative and Principals' Institute. The next meeting of the Teacher Center Coordinators is scheduled for January 6, 1999, 9:00 a.m., in the ADE Auditorium. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee will meet at 9:00 a.m., Tuesday, December 8, 1998, at the Little Rock School District Instructional Resources Center. 54 VIII. IN-SERVICE TRAINING (Continued) D. Evaluate in-service training programs developed and executed to address in-service training needs of desegregating districts. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 2001 (Continued) Doug Ask, PCSSD\nMarion Woods, LRSD\nand Esther Crawford, NLRSD, met with the Teacher Center Coordinators on Tuesday, December 1, 1998, for the regular monthly meeting. Principal topics discussed were the Smart Start Initiative and Principals' Institute. The Teacher Center Coordinators held their monthly meeting on January 6, 1999, 9:00 a.m., in the ADE Auditorium, with Doug Ask, Marion Woods, and Esther Crawford in attendance. At the January meeting, the primary focus was on the Smart Start Initiative. Dates for the future committee meetings have been tentatively scheduled to coincide with meetings with the Teacher Center Coordinators. Due to the Tri-District Committee's involvement with the Smart Start Initiative, no formal meeting of the committee was held in January. Members of the TriDistrict Staff Development Committee met with Teacher Center Coordinators, January 6 and 25, 1999, preparing for and facilitating Smart Start activities. Dates for future meetings have been tentatively scheduled to coincide with meetings of Teacher Center Coordinators. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met Wednesday, February 17, 1999, at the Best Western lnntowne with four members in attendance. Most of the discussion centered on Smart Start and Character Centered Teaching. A March meeting date was not determined. Members of the Tri-District Staff Development Committee met with the Teacher Center Coordinators at their regular monthly meeting, April 6, 1999, at the ADE. Much of the meeting centered on the Smart Start Initiative and the Getting Smarter Summer Conference to be held in Hot Springs, July 28-31, 1999. The next meeting of the Tri-District Staff Development Committee will be May 11, 1999, at the Northeast Arkansas Educational Cooperative, Walnut Ridge. Members of the Tri-District Staff Development Committee met with the Teacher Center Coordinators at their regular monthly meeting, Tuesday, May 11, 1999, at the Northeast Arkansas Educational Cooperative, Walnut Ridge, with Mary McClendon, PCSSD, Marion Woods, LRSD, Esther Crawford, NLRSD, and Janinne Riggs, ADE, attending. Much of the meeting centered on the Smart Start Initiative. The next meeting was scheduled as a retreat, June 7-9, 1999, at Hot Springs. Members of the Tri-District Staff Development Committee met with the Teacher Center Coordinators for their annual retreat, June 7-9, 1999, at Hot Springs. The next regular meeting will be in September, the date and place to be announced later. Summer activities will include the Getting Smarter Conference. 55 VIII. IN-SERVICE TR!\\INING (Continued) D. Evaluate in-service training programs developed and executed to address in-service training needs of desegregating districts. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 2001 (Continued) Members of the Tri-District Staff Development Committee met during the Getting Smarter Conference, July 28-31 , 1999, at Hot Springs. In collaboration with the Teacher Center Coordinators, those participating in the conference as facilitators were: Doug Ask, PCSSD\nEsther Crawford, NLRSD\nand Marion Woods, LRSD. The next regular meeting will be in September, the date and place to be announced later. Target, Teach, and Test for Student Success, a workshop aimed at improving interpretation of test data and applying that knowledge toward more effective lesson planning, was adapted for presentation in conjunction with the Multicultural Institute. Members of the Standards Assurance Unit (Dee Cox, Betty Gale Davis, Bob Maddox, and Lonzo Gatlin) presented an all-day workshop (Target, Teach, and Test for Student Success) for Pulaski County Special School District in connection with the Multicultural Institute, July 27, 1999. Members of the Tri-District Staff Development Committee met Tuesday, September 7, 1999, at the ADE, with five members in attendance: Doug Ask and Mary McClendon, PCSSD\nEsther Crawford, NLRSD\nMaron Woods, LRSD\nand Betty Gale Davis, ADE. Discussion included Smart Start activities and performance assessment. Following the meeting, the committee met with the Teacher Center Coordinators at their regular monthly meeting. The next meeting will be Tuesday, October 5, 1999, at the ADE. Members of the Tri-District Staff Development Committee met Tuesday, October 5, 1999 at the ADE. Discussion included middle level training (LRSD), inservice for administrators in retreat (PCSSD), and Smart Start activities. Following the meeting, the committee met with the Teacher Center Coordinators at their regular monthly meeting. The next meeting will be November 2, 1999 at the ADE. Members of the Tri-District Staff Development Committee met Tuesday, November 2, 1999 at the ADE. Following the meeting, the committee met with the Teacher Center Coordinators at their regular monthly meeting. The next meeting will be December 7, at the ADE. The December meeting was canceled due to conflicts in scheduling. The TriDistrict Staff Development Committee will hold its next meeting January 3, 2000 at the ADE. The Committee continues to work in cooperation with the Teacher Center Coordinators in the Smart Start Initiative. 56 VIII. IN-SERVICE TRAINING (Continued) D. Evaluate in-service training programs developed and executed to address in-service training needs of desegregating districts. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 2001 (Continued) The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met January 4, 2000 at the ADE. Major discussion included the upcoming three day meeting with Teacher Center Coordinators (January 4-6, 2000), benchmarks training (NLRSD), balance literacy training (PCSSD), alternative learning training (LRSD), and activities of the Smart Start Initiative. The next meeting will be February 3, 2000 at the ADE. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met Monday and Tuesday, February 7-8, 2000, at Ferncliff, with four members present: Doug Ask and Mary McClendon, PCSSD\nEsther Crawford, NLRSD\nand Marion Woods, LRSD. The meeting was held in conjunction with the Teacher Center Coordinators' retreat. Several presenters shared information on various topics, and the Getting Smarter summer conference was discussed. Plans were tentatively made to conduct the April meeting via distance learning. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met March 7, 2000, at the ADE. Following the meeting, the committee met with the Teacher Center Coordinators at their regular monthly meeting. Items discussed were: documentation of clock hours for professional development, Middle School training, and the use of staff development days. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met by Distance Learning through the Sherwood School Site with the Teacher Center Coordinators for its April meeting. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met with the Teacher Center Coordinators, in conjunction with the Smart Step Summit, May 1-2, 2000, at the Convention Center. Three members participated: Doug Ask and Mary Mcclendon, PCSSD\nand Marion Woods, LRSD. A June meeting date has not been set. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met with the Teacher Center Coordinators at their annual summer conference in Hot Springs, June 5-7, 2000. Among the discussions were the formation of a chapter of the National Staff Development Council, the Pathwise Mentor program grant, Smart Start, and Smart Step. In lieu of a regular monthly meeting, the Tri-District Staff Development Committee met and worked with the Teacher Center Coordinators during the Smart Start/Smart Step conferences, July 10-13, 2000, at the Little Rock Convention Center. The next meeting date has not yet been set. 57 VIII. IN-SERVICE TRAINING (Continued) D. Evaluate in-service training programs developed and executed to address in-service training needs of desegregating districts. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 2001 (Continued) The Tri-District Staff Development Committee will reconvene in September, with no meeting during August. LRSD, NLRSD, and PCSSD applied for the Arkansas Pathwise Mentoring Pilot Model as a collaborative effort and were awarded $445,875 for the new teachers for the 2000-2001 school year - one of many collaborative successful ventures for the districts. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee has been working with Smart Start and Smart Step Initiatives in collaboration with the Teacher Center Coordinators throughout the month of August. No regular meeting is scheduled for September. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met Tuesday, October 3, 2000, at the Arkansas Department of Education, Room 3058, with three members present: Marion Woods, LRSD\nEsther Crawford, NLRSD\nand Dr. Betty Gale Davis, ADE. The procedures for dissemination of information within the respective districts were discussed. Members of cabinet level administrators from LRSD and PCSSD will be included in future meetings. Other topics of discussion were the Arkansas Pathwise Mentoring Program and topics of presentations for LRSD administrators. The next meeting will be Tuesday, November 7, 2000, in Room 3038, ADE. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met Tuesday, November 7, 2000, at the ADE, Room 3038, with seven members present: Doug Ask, John Mccraney, and Dr. Ruth Simmons Herts, PCSSD\nEsther Crawford, NLRSD\nDr. Bonnie Lesley and Marion Woods, LRSD\nand Dr. Betty Gale Davis, ADE. Dr. Herts and Dr. Lesley have been added to the committee in response to each district's request to include a member of the cabinet. Many of the recent staff development activities in each of the districts have been related to Smart Start and Smart Step. Other topics discussed included: the upcoming National Staff Development Council conference and the availability of math specialists and literacy specialists. The next meeting will be at 9:00 a.m., Tuesday, December 5, 2000, in Room 3038, ADE. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met Tuesday, December 5, 2000, at the ADE, Room 3038, with three members present: Esther Crawford, NLRSD\nSue Walls, LRSD\nand Dr. Betty Gale Davis, ADE. Many of the recent staff development activities in each of the districts have been related to Smart Start and Smart Step. Other topics discussed included: the ongoing Pathwise training of mentors, the writing training provided by the ADE, and the ongoing collaborative work with the Teacher Center Coordinators. The next meeting has not been scheduled. 58 VIII. IN-SERVICE TRAINING (Continued) D. Evaluate in-service training programs developed and executed to address in-service training needs of desegregating districts. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 2001 (Continued) The Tri-District Staff Development Committee did not hold its monthly meeting in January. The next meeting will be Tuesday morning, February 6, at 8:30 a.m., in the ADE third floor conference room. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee, rather than meeting separately from the Teacher Center Coordinators in February, chose to meet during the regular monthly meeting of Teacher Coordinators, at Ferndale, on February 6. The staff development topics were Smart Start and Smart Step. John Mccraney from PCSSD and Esther Crawford from NLRSD attended. The next meeting will be on March 6, 2001 , at 8:30 a.m ., in the ADE third floor conference room. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee did not formally meet during the month of March. The connection and work with Teacher Center Coordinators continued through meeting informally at the conferences, i.e. , \"Smart Steps to Technology Leadership\", March 5-6, 2001 . Committee members Esther Crawford from NLRSD, and Doug Ask from PCSSD attended. The April meeting date has not been determined. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met April 3, 2001 , at the Amerisuites Hotel in Little Rock. Committee members attending were: Marion Woods, LRSD\nDoug Ask, PCSSD\nand Esther Crawford, NLRSD. The committee met with Teacher Center Coordinators at first, then separately. The discussion included Gates training , Pathwise and Middle School training. The Arkansas Association of Middle Level Education (AAMLE) and the ADE presented the Twelfth Annual Middle Level Education Conference \"AAMLE: In Step With Smart Step\" at the Hot Springs Convention Center on April 8-10, 2001 . Dr. Neila Connors gave practical tips on improving school climate and communication skills for teachers, principals, and administrators. Dr. Charles Beaman gave dynamic strategies for coping with at-risk and marginal learners within the school and classroom setting . Dr. Howard Johnson proposed a model and action plan for refocusing middle level schools on achievement. Lucinda Johnston outlined a systematic, humane and effective school-wide productive behavior model and plan with meaningful rewards for productive behavior, and effective r\nThis project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resoources.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\u003cdcterms_creator\u003eArkansas. Department of Education\u003c/dcterms_creator\u003e\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1728","title":"Court filings concerning NLRSD July 1998 - June 1999 status report, ODM report, ''2000-01 Enrollment and Racial Balance in the Little Rock School District (LRSD) and Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD)'', motion of the PCSSD to approve middle school construction modification, and PCSSD motion to approve middle schools and revamped high schools","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":["United States. District Court (Arkansas: Eastern District)"],"dc_date":["2001-04"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--21st Century","Little Rock School District","School districts--Arkansas--North Little Rock","Office of Desegregation Monitoring (Little Rock, Ark.)","Special districts--Arkansas--Pulaski County","Arkansas. Department of Education","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Education--Finance","Educational planning","Educational law and legislation","School buildings","School facilities","School improvement programs","School management and organization"],"dcterms_title":["Court filings concerning NLRSD July 1998 - June 1999 status report, ODM report, ''2000-01 Enrollment and Racial Balance in the Little Rock School District (LRSD) and Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD)'', motion of the PCSSD to approve middle school construction modification, and PCSSD motion to approve middle schools and revamped high schools"],"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/1728"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Available for use in research, teaching, and private study. Any other use requires permission from the Butler Center."],"dcterms_medium":["judicial records"],"dcterms_extent":["84 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"District Court, order; District Court, motion for extension of time to respond to Little Rock School District's (LRSD's) notice of filing and request for scheduling order; District Court, notice of filing, North Little Rock School District (NLRSD) July 1998 - June 1999 status report; District Court, notice of filing, Office of Desegregation Management report, ''2000-01 Enrollment and Racial Balance in the Little Rock School District (LRSD) and Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD)''; District Court, separate motion of the Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) to approve middle school construction modification; District Court, supplement to separate motion of the Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) to approve middle school construction modification; District Court, supplement to Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) motion to approve middle schools and revamped high schools; District Court, supplemental memorandum in support of Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) motion to approve middle schools and revamped high schools; District Court, notice of filing, Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) project managment tool  The transcript for this item was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.  - RECEIVED APR 'J 2001 OfftCEOF 111116ATIONMONITORIN6 FILED U.S. DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION APR 0 4 2001 JA~~sw. M~cc MACK, CLiRK .By. '5J- I ~k, ~ /\\f\\ 1!A DEPCLERK\"\" LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT * * Plaintiff, * * * VS. * No. 4:82CV00866 SWW * * PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL * DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. * * Defendants, * * MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. * * Intervenors, * * KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL. * * Intervenors. * ORDER On March 15, 2001, the Little Rock School District (\"LRSD\") filed a Compliance Report and asked the Court to issue a Scheduling Order setting a date by which the parties must file any objections or challenges to the report.1 The LRSD suggests that the parties be given no more than twenty days within which to file their challenges and, in the event any party files a timely challenge, that the Court schedule a hearing before June 30, 2001. The Court has heard informally from one of the parties, who contends he needs more time to review the report and file challenges. See Attachment A 1See docket entry 3410. Having reviewed the Compliance Report, and considering the informal request for additional time, the Court finds that the parties need more than twenty days to review the many details set forth in the Report and prepar~ any challenges. After having consulted the Court's own calendar, the Court hereby establishes the following deadlines and hearing dates~ Any challenges to the LRSD's Compliance Report must be filed on or before May 18, 2001. If challenges to the report are filed, a hearing will be held on July 5 and July 6, 2001, beginning at 9:00 a.m. If necessary, the hearing will continue on August 1 and August 2, 2001. If the parties desire the Court to examine any documents pertaining to this hearing, those documents shall be submitted to the Court no later than June 29, 2001. Also before the Court is the motion of Tim C. Humphries to withdraw his appearance as counsel for separate defendant Arkansas Department of Education. The motion [ docket entry 3411] is granted.2 The Clerk is directed to remove Mr. Humphries as counsel for the Arkansas Department of Education. SO ORDERED this ~11\\.__day of April 2001. a;z_\u0026,,~ CHIEF JUDGE ' UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT THIS DOCUMENT ENTERED ON . DOCKET SHEET IN COMPLIANCE 0~1~~8 A~~/m::a) FRCP 2On February 21, 2001, Sammye L. Taylor and Mark Hagemeier entered their appearances as counsel for the Arkansas Department of Education. See docket entries 3405 \u0026 3406. 2 JOHN W. WALKER SHAWN CHILDS JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. ATIORNEY AT LAW 1723 BROADWAY LlTILE ROCK, .ARKANSAS 72206 TELEPHONE (501) 374-3758 FAX (501) 374-418~ Via Facsimile March 26, 2001 Honorable Judge Susan Webber Wright Chief Judge United States District Court 600 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, AR 72201 Re: LRSD v PCSSD Dear Judge Wright: OF COUNSEL ROBERT McHENRY, P.A. DONNAJ. McHENRY 8210 HENDERSON ROAD Li'ITLE RocK, ARKANSAS 72210 PHONE: (501) 372-3425  FAX (501) 372-3428 EMAIL: mchenryd@swbell.net Due to the fact that I was in trial before the Honorable George Howard Jr. in Pine Bluff, Arkansas from March 19-22, 2001 and in intense preparation for the days preceding the 191\\ I am just getting in position to address the Little Rock filing, Notice of Filing Compliance Report and Request for Scheduling Order. I further note that Little Rock has indicated that it wishes to limit our time for filing challenges to twenty (20) days. This letter is being written to request that the Court set a time for a conference before addressing the issue of a scheduling order so that all parties, as well as the Office of Desegregation Monitoring, would have an opportunity to address the propriety of the scheduling order request. The compliance report is extensive. It appears to be more than two hundred (200) pages in length, is very detail oriented and it makes many claims which are unfamiliar to us and probably to the ODM as well. I am writing the Court this letter, rather than filing a motion, because Mr. Heller, who I am advised is away until Wednesday, expressed an interest in having some dialogue regarding this matter, and the State settlement as well, before this matter becomes, if it ever does, a public dispute which the Court must resolve. ! I understand that the Court .intends to schedule a hearing in the near future regarding the middle s~hool issues raised by the PCS SD. May I suggest that the matter of the hearing of the : scheduling order be set for the same day inasmuch as all parties-are expected to be in court for the PCSSD matter. Although I have been unable to speak with Mr. Heller and I have not attempted to reach his co-counsel, Mr. Clay Fendley who I intend to try and reach immediately, I have informed Ms. Ann Marshall regarding my concerns herein and will be having further conversations with the parties until such time I receive the Court's reply to this letter. With due respect to the court, I remain, JWW:js cc: Mr. Chris Heller Ms. Ann Brown Mr. Sam Jones  Y...r. Steve Jones Mr. Richard Roachell Mr. Timothy Gauger Sincerely yours, ) i APR 12 2001 r:11 Glf.GEif u.!.o1s~fD EASTERN DISTAi r OURT l'Bn!atll!! C AFlKAMc:~c: lllillPII~ A PR O 4 2 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT CO_MRT OOl EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARK.ANSAp)i~S W ..eggRMACK, CLERK WESTERN DIVISION  I \" ' ....   DFP.'TJt[Af LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF VS. CASE NO. 4:82CV00866 SWW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF Tll.VIE TO RESPON~ TO LRSD'S NOTICE OF FILING AND REQUEST FOR SCHEDULING ORDER DEFENDANTS Come now the Joshua Intervenors, through undersigned counsel, for their Motion for - Extension of Time to Respond to LRSD Notice of Filing Compliance Report and Request for Scheduling Order, state: 1. Due to undersigned counsel's trial schedule and other obligations, additional time is needed to review LRSD's Compliance Report. 2. In addition, undersigned adopts, by reference, his letter to the Court dated March 26, 2001. A copy is attached hereto as Exhibit 1. 3. This request is not for purposes of delay. WHEREFORE, for the reasons stated above, plaintiffs respectfully move the Court for an Order extending the time in which to file their Response LRSD's Notice of Filing Compliance Report and.Request for Scheduling Order for an additional thirty days including and up to May 4, 2001 Respectfully submitted, John W Walker, PA. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 501-374-3758 501-3 74-4187 (fax) CERTIFICATE O.F SERVICE I do hereby state that a copy of the foregoing motion has been sent to all counsel of record. \u003c)L JI/ ~~ / ~ ,JOHN W. WALKER SHAWN CHlLDS JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. ATTORNEY AT LAW 1723 BROADWAY LITTLE ROCK, AR1\u003c.,\\.\\S..\\S 72206 T ELEPHONE (501) 374-3758 FAX (501) 374-4187 Via Facsimile March 26, 200 I Honorable Judge Susan Webber Wright Chief Judge United States District Court 600 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, AR 7220 l Re: LR.SD v PCSSD Dear Judge Wright : OF cou:--:SEL ROBERT McHENRY. P.A. DONNA .J. McHENRY 82 10 Ht::sOF.RSO~ ROAD LITTLE ROCK. :\\.JlK,\\:SS,IS i22 l 0 PHO:sf.: (501) 3i2-3-l25  F.-\\X (50l) 3i2-3-128 E~l\\lL: mchenryd'!!-swbell.nct Due to the fact that I was in trial before the Honorable George Howard Jr. in Pine Bluff, Arkansas from March l 9-22, 2001 and in intense preparation for the days preceding the 191\\ I am. just getting in position to address the Little Rock filing, Notice of Filing Compliance Report and Request for Scheduling Order. I further note that Little Rock has indicated that it wishes to limit our time for filing challenges to twenty (20) days. This letter is being written to request that the Court set a time for a conference before addressing the issue of a scheduling order so that all parties, as well as the Office of Desegregation Monitoring, would have an opportunity to address the propriety of the scheduling order request. The compliance report is extensive. It appears to be more t_han two hundred (200) pages in lengJh, is very detail oriented and it makes many claims which are unfamiliar to us and probably to the ODM as well. I am writing the Court this letter, rather than filing a motion, because Mr. Heller, who I am advised is away until Wednesday, expressed an interest in having some dialogue regarding this matter, and the State settlement as well, before this matter becomes, if it ever does, a public dispute which the Court must resolve. I understand that the Court intends to schedule a hearing in the near future regarding the middle school issues raised by the PCS SD. May I suggest that the matter of the hearing of the scheduling order be set for the same day inasmuch as all parties are expected to be in court for the PCSSD matter. Although I have been unable to speak with Mr. Heller and I have not attempted to reach his co-counsel, Mr. Clay Fendley who T intend to try and reach immediately, I have informed Ms. Ann Marshall regarding my concerns herein and will be having further conversations with the parties until such time I receive the Court's reply to this letter. ,../ I -r-, ---I With due res pect to the court, 1 remain, JWW:js cc: Mr. Chris Heller Ms. Ann Brown Mr. Sam Jones Mr. Steve Jones Mr. Richard Roachell Mr. Timothy Gauger 1 Sincerely yo~urs, . ' , ~~? r.. / 1 tA'r;Jf!-(!,c v fo'hn w. Walker l JACK, LYON \u0026 JONES, P.A. ATTORNEYS AT LAW .. Nashville Office #11 Music Circle South Suite 202 Nashville, Tennessee 37203 (615) 259-4664 Telecop;er (615) 259-4668 3400 TCBY TOWER REce,,,EDrk ~:;:~i~~:mplex 425WESTCAPITOLAVENUE Cf~, 400SalemRd .. Suite3 LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 7220 1-3472 Conway,Arkansas72032 (501) 375-1 122 (501) 329-1133 TELECOPIER (50 1) 375- 1.027 ! APR 5 Telecopier (501) 336-9089 April 5, 2001 200/ VIA HAND DELIVERY OffiCE Of Christopher J. Heller, Esq. fBIREsAnoN MONITliRINS FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026 CLARK 2000 Regions Bldg. 400 West Capitol Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 M. Samuel Jones, Ill, Esq. WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026 JENNINGS 200 West Capitol Avenue 2200 Bank of America Bldg. Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 John W. Walker, Esquire JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 Sammye Taylor, Esq. Mark Hagemeier, Esq. Arkansas Attorney General's Office 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Ann Brown OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Heritage West Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Richard W. Roachell, Esq. Roachell Law Firm 401 W. Capitol Avenue, Suite 504 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Tim Gauger, Esq. Mitchell, Williams, Selig, Gates \u0026 Woodyard 425 W. Capitol, Suite 1800 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3525 RE: NLRSD Status Report/July 1998 - June 1999 Dear Ms. Brown and Counsel: Enclosed please find a copy of the above referenced Status Report. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. SWJ:tl Enclosures yours, IN THE UNITED STA TES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DEFENDANTS DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS RECEIVED APR 5 2001 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING NOTICE OF FILING PLAINTIFF North Little Rock School District hereby gives notice of the filing of the following document: 1. North Little Rock School District's July 1998 - June 1999 Status Report. Respectfully Submitted, JACK, LYON \u0026 JONES, P.A. 3400 TCBY Tower 425 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (50 75-1122 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Stephen W. Jones, hereby certify that I have this 5th day of April, 2001, sent one copy of the foregoing via Hand Deliv~i;y, to the following: Christopher J. Heller, Esq. FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026 CLARK 2000 Regions Center 400 West Capitol Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 M. Samuel Jones, Ill, Esq. WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026 JENNINGS 200 West Capitol Avenue 2200 Bank of America Bldg. Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 John W. Walker, Esquire JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 172;3 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 Sammye Taylor, Esq. Mark Hagemeier, Esq. Arkansas Attorney General's Office 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Ann Brown OFFIC.E OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING 201 East Markham, Suite 51 O Heritage West Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Richard W. Roachell, Esq. Roachell Law Firm 401 W. Capitol Avenue, Suite 504 Little Roak, Arkansas 72201  Tim Gauger, Esq. Mitchell, Williams, Selig, Gates \u0026 Woodyard 425 W. Capitol, Suite 1800 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3525 1. I I I I I I I 1e I I I I I I ~ I I tT  FILED 2000-01 ENROLLMENT AND RACIAL BALANCE IN 'Ufflt r/~;1i;:.~g9..i~~sAs LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT AND PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT APR 1 1 2001 Melissa R. Guldin Associate Monitor April 11, 2001 Office of Desegregation Monitoring United States District Court Little Rock, Arkansas Ann S. Marshall Federal Monitor  JAMES W. McCORMACK, CLERK .By: DEP CLERK Polly Ramer Office Manager !'.I I, IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. SEPARATE MOTION OF THE PCSSD TO APPROVE MIDDLE SCHOOL CONSTRUCTION MODIFICATION The PCSSD for its separate motion states: RECEIVED APR J 4 200:li illfflCEQf 1lESl!HfEGATION1MONITORINW PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS 1. The PCSSD Board of Directors approved a conversion to middle schools on May 9, 2000. 2. On September 27, 2000 PCSSD submitted to this court, the ODM and the other parties its comprehensive Business Case which explains and justifies the overall middle school conversion. 3. On February 16, 2001 PCSSD filed its motion to approve middle schools and revamped high schools. A copy of the business case referred to in paragraph two was appended to that motion as was a comprehensive bound set of materials explaining the work and preparation that the District had done since May of 2000 to implement the middle school conversion. 4. As part of the conversion, physical modifications to Robinson High School and Mills University Studies High School were deemed necessary and were explained 248200-v1 - in the Business Case. The details of the modifications are set forth at page 57 of the booklet of materials filed February 16, 2001. For the convenience of the court and the parties, this page is re-appended to this motion as Exhibit\"!('. 5. The renovations referred to Exhibit'~' are already in progress. Because of the general oversight which this court has pursuant to the PCSSD, the PCSSD requests that this court formally approve the renovations described in Exhibit'!A!'. WHEREFORE, the PCSSD respectfully requests an order of this court approving the renovation activities described in Exhibit'~' and for all proper relief. Respectfully submitted, WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026 JENNINGS LLP 200 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3699 (501) 371-0808 FAX: (501) 376-9442 By ____ ,.-a-+-----~1-'-\"'------ M. Ill (76060 Att ski Coun ial Sch On April 13, 2001, a copy of the foregoing was served via U.S. mail on each of the following: Mr. John W. Walker John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026 Clark 2000 First Commercial Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 248200-v1 2 Ms. Ann Brown ODM One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Richard W. Roachell Roachell and Street First Federal Plaza 401 West Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Brian Brooks Assistant Attorney General 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 248200-v1 ~ ~ 3 EXHIBIT I A FACILITY NEEDS TO IMPLEMENT MIDDLE SCHOOL~OGRAM Robinson Hi'3h Item Amount  Construct new 2 classroom addition ... ... . ..... .. .... . $160,000  Convert Ex. CR 11 into 2 classrooms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $5,000  Convert Ex. CR 12 into 2 art labs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $5,000  Renovate Ex. Rm. 29 into a classroom . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $5,000  Renovate Ex. Rm. 30 into a classroom . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $5,000  Convert Ex. CR 27 ( choir room )into 2 classrooms . . . . . . . . $20.,.000 Sub-total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $200,000 Contingency, 10% ( +/-) . . .... . .... . ... '. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $10,000 Sub-total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $210,000 Architect fee, Misc. tests, etc., 8% ( +/-) ..... . ... . : . .... . . $15,000 Total ........ . . : . .. .. . ..... . ... .'. - : -: . . .. ... ..... .. .. $225,000 Mills University Studies High  Convert existing Media Center into additional Cafeteria Space and teacher Amount work room ..... . ... . .. . . . ............. . ..... . . ....... . $85,000  Construct new Media Center  . . ..... . ... .. ... . ..... .. .. $637,500 Sub-total .... . . . . . ...... . . .. ... . ... . .. .. .. . .... . ... . $722,500 Contingency, 10% ( +/-) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $72,300 Total . . ....... . ........ . . . .... . .... .. ... . .. _. ...... .. $794,800 .Total of Robinson High and Mills High .... . .......... . .... . ... .. ... $1,019,800 057  . . ' IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION R!C!JVa, APR 1 9 ZOOt ~~~OF --.vlll.1MIIUJJ IIJIJro- LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAI NTI FF V. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS I NTERVENORS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. SUPPLEMENT TO SEPARATE MOTION OF THE PCSSD TO APPROVE MIDDLE SCHOOL CONSTRUCTION MODIFICATION For its supplement to its renovation motion, the PCSSD states: 1. Attached as Exhibit \"A\" is a business case in support of the renovation motion which the PCSSD respectfully requests this Court to consider as part of its submissions in this matter. 249171-v1 Respectfully submitted, WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026 JENNINGS LLP 200 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3699 (501) 371-0808 FAX: (501) 376-9442 B -~,..::;...~----:-:-:-::::'='\"::-:~-..;;;:....---Jones Ill (76 r Pulaski C Special rict CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE On April [1, 2001, a copy of the foregoing was served via U.S. mail on each of the following: Mr. John W. Walker John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026 Clark 2000 First Commercial Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Ms. Ann Brown ODM One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Richard W. Roachell Roachell and Street First Federal Plaza 401 West Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Ms. Sammye L. Taylor Mr. Mark A. Hagemeier Arkansas Attorney General's Office 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 249171-v1 2 Executive Summary: Implementation of Middle Schools Construction Pulaski County Special School District April 2001 The Pulaski County Special School District (District) currently has 24 elementary schools, each encompassing grades kindergarten through six; one existing middle school, Jacksonville Middle School; and six junior high schools, each encompassing grades seven through nine. The six senior high schools currently contain students in grades ten through twelve. After discussions, workshops, and community meetings, the District's Board of Directors voted at its May 9, 2000, meeting to approve a district-wide conversion to middle schools, effective for the 2001-2002 school year. This decision to pursue middle school conversion included construction for the Mills University Studies High School campus and the Robinson High School campus. Staff estimated that costs for facility remodeling would total $983,734.00. Background: The implementation of the middle school concept will not change student assignments, only the configuration of the existing junior and senior high schools. Oak Grove Junior/Senior High School, Jacksonville Middle School, Jacksonville Junior High School and Jacksonville High School will be the exceptions to the proposed conversion. Toward this end, the District contracted a general evaluation of all of its schools. The facilities study provided the Board with a blueprint of construction needs. At this time, the District anticipates that the conversion to middle schools can be accomplished by converting the existing junior high facilities to middle school campuses and s ending ninth grade students to the senior high school facilities. Existing facilities have been examined for this movement of students. Two sites would need renovation to accomplish the conversion: Robinson High School will require classroom space conversion and renovation. Mills University Studies High School will need additional cafeteria space and a new media center. Problem Statement: Increasing the capacity at the Robinson and Mills sites is recommended for a successful conversion to 9-12 grade high schools. Without the proposed construction, student capacity would be severely limited. Recruitment within and to those areas would also be hampered. Failure to increase the student capacity at these two campuses would result in overcrowding, discipline problems and displacement of students. In turn, this would result in increased student displacement, busing and negative school-community relations. EXHIBIT 249145-v1 J II I I I I I I I I I Alternatives: The alternative to this recommendation for construction would be to keep the campuses in their current configurations. This would cripple the ability to make the complete middle school conversion and conversion to 9-12 grade high schools. Action Recommended: By its vote on May 9, 2000, the Board of Directors approved a district-wide conversion to middle schools, to become effective for the 2001-2002 school year. The Board chose to delay the conversion of Oak Grove Junior/Senior High School to the middle school concept at this time. On March 13, 2001, the Board decided to delay the conversion of Jacksonville Middle School, Jacksonville Junior High School, and Jacksonville High School as well. Once the Board authorized the middle school concept, an examination of all secondary school facilities was conducted for student capacity. As a result of this examination, it was determined that addition construction would be needed at Mills and at Robinson High Schools. At Mills University Studies High School, a new media center is being built and the old media center would be converted into addition cafeteria space. These renovations will increase the capacity of the school media center and cafeteria. At Robinson High School, two additional classrooms will be constructed, the choir room would be divided and two dressing rooms will be converted into classroom space. This construction would increase the student capacity at Robinson High School by at least 250 students, both to accommodate the addition of the 9th grade and to provide for future desegregated growth. Objectives: The implementation of middle schools works to support the District's overall goals which includes the District's commitments to desegregation. Foremost, the creation of effective learning environments for all students support the District's goal of raising student achievement and successfully raising expectations. Students in sixth grade will have intensive use of technology and more opportunities to participate in co-curricular activities than is available in elementary schools. Ninth graders will enjoy increased opportunities for advanced academic pursuits and extra-curricular activities. Impact: Increased capacity will help to improve discipline, enhance recruitment efforts, and assist in maintaining racial balance at these campuses. It will also enhance student achievement and increase the opportunity for success of these students. Ninth grade students will benefit from the challenge of high school classes, increased curriculum opportunities and extra-curricular activities. 249145-v1 2 Student population at Mills for the current school year is 587 students for grades 10 through 12. Of that total, 343 students are white and 244 students are black. Present student capacity at Mills is 780. The projected student enrollment for 2001- 2002 school year, in grades 9 through 12, is 900. Of that projection, 483 students would be white, 417 students would be black. Student population at Robinson High School for the current school year is 435 students for grades 10 through 12. Of that total, 320 students are white and 115 students are black. Present student capacity at Robinson High School is 506. Robinson's projected enrollment for the 2001-2002 school year, in grades 9 through 12, is 638. Of that projection, 458 students would be white and 180 students would be black. Resources: The conversion to middle schools can be accomplished with few facility changes. Robinson High School and Mills University Studies High School have been identified as the only buildings needing immediate renovations. These costs are estimated to be $983,734. The construction at Mills will cost $766,680. Additional renovation at Robinson will cost $217,054 and will increase student capacity by about 250 students. Plan for Implementation: The Pulaski County Special School District will make the facility renovations required to accommodate a middle school conversion. At both Mills University Studies High School and Robinson High School construction started January 30, 2001. Estimated completion of construction is August 1, 2001. 249145-v1 3 EDWARD L. WRIGHT (1903-1977) ROBERT S. LINDSEY (1913-1991) ISAAC A. SCOTT, JR. JOHN G. LILE WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026 JENNINGS LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW JUDY SIMMONS HENRY KIMBERLY WOOD TUCKER RAY F. COX, JR. TROY A. PRICE GORDON S. RATHER, JR. TERRY L. MATHEWS DAVID M. POWELL ROGER A. GLASGOW C. DOUGLAS BUFORD, JR. PATRICK J. GOSS ALSTON JENNINGS, JR. JOHN R. TISDALE KATHLYN GRAVES M. SAMUEL JONES Ill JOHN WILLIAM SPIVEY Ill LEE J . MULDROW N.M. NORTON CHARLES C. PRICE CHARLES T. COLEMAN JAMES J, GLOVER EDWIN L. LOWTHER, JR. CHARLES L. SCHLUMBERGER WALTER E. MAY GREGORY T. JONES H. KEITH MORRISON BETTINA E. BROWNSTEIN WALTER McSPADDEN ROGER D. ROWE JOHN D. DAVIS Mr. John Walker John Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 Ms. Ann Brown Marshall ODM One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell Law Firm P.O. Box 17388 Little Rock, Arkansas 72222-7388 RE: PCSSD Dear Counsel and Ms. Marshall: 200 WEST CAPITOL AVENUE SUITE 2200 LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201-3699 (501) 371-0808 FAX (501) 376-9442 www.wlj .com OF COUNSEL ALSTON JENNINGS RONALD A. MAY M. TODD WOOD Writer's Direct Dial No. 501-212-1273 mjonesCwlJ.com April 27, 2001 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026 Clark 400 W. Capitol, Suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026 Jones 3400 TCBY Tower PATRICIA SIEVERS HARRIS JAMES M. MOODY, JR. 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 BETSY MEACHAM KYLE R. WILSON JENNlfER S. BROWN C. TAD BOHANNON MICHELE SIMMONS ALLGOOD KRISTI M. MOODY J. CHARLES DOUGHERTY\" M. SUN HATCH PHYLLIS M. McKENZIE ELISA MASTERSON WHITE JANE W. DUKE ROBERT W. GEORGE J . ANDREW VINES JUSTIN T. ALLEN CHRISTINE J. DAUGHERTY, Ph,O. LJcensad to practlca be/'orB the Unled Sla'9s Patent and Trademarl\u003c Office RECEJ.\\fED 425 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 APR 3 0 zom CIIIE81f -lllllQfflRIIS Ms. Sammye L. Taylor Assistant Attorney General 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Enclosed are copies of supplement to PCSSD motion to approve middle schools and revamped high schools and supplemental memorandum in support which are being filed today. MSJ/ao Encls. 251317-v1 Cordially, WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026 JENNINGS LLP ~~ M. S muues, Ill IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION APR 3 0 20m Gffll(lf De~IIJIIDJRlli LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. NO. 4:82CV00866SWW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KA THERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. SUPPLEMENT TO PCSSD MOTION TO APPROVE MIDDLE SCHOOLS AND REVAMPED HIGH SCHOOLS PCSSD, for its supplement to motion, states: 1. Contemporaneously with this supplement, the PCSSD is submitting for filing additional documents numbered 17 4 through 232 for the Court's review and consideration. 2. The numbering of this submission begins with the next number of the documents submitted February 16, 2001. In large measure, the documents are sequenced chronologically and several of them are discussed in the accompanying memorandum. 251097-v1 Respectfully submitted, WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026 JENNINGS LLP 200 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3699 (501) 371-0808 FAX: (501) 376-9442 '---  \"'  (7~ B ~ ---,, \\:::  ones Ill (76Q60) Pulaski'eounty Special ct CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE On April,ZJ, 2001, a copy of the foregoing was served via U.S. mail on each of the following: Mr. John W. Walker John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026 Clark 2000 First Commercial Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Ms. Ann Brown Marshall ODM One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell Law Firm P.O. Box 17388 Little Rock, Arkansas 72222-7388 Ms. Sammye L. Taylor Mr. Mark A. Hagemeier Arkansas Attorney General's Office 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 251097-v1 M. S~el Jo~es Ill ,.  ) ~ u 2 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. NO. 4:82CV00866SWW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. SUPPLEMENTAL MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENOR$ INTERVENORS OF PCSSD MOTION TO APPROVE MIDDLE SCHOOLS AND REVAMPED HIGH SCHOOLS Work on the implementation of middle schools has continued since the District's - original filing dated February 16, 2001. The supplemental document submission covers both documents generated since the first filing as well as supplies a handful of documents that were not available to counsel in February. Documents 174. and 175 represent the memorandum of understanding between PACT and PCSSD dealing with the placement of teachers in middle schools. Documents 176 through 181 represent a presentation made by Dr. Gloria Rousseau to administrators at the PCSSD which contains useful information concerning the process since January 2001. Documents 183 through 193 represent various committee reports and activities as do Documents 195 through 196. Documents 197 through 200 explain the formal Board policies which have been adopted and Documents 201 through 204 contain information regarding the middle school curri "},{"id":"noa_sohpcr_k-0206","title":"Oral history interview with Sam Holton, March 28, 2001","collection_id":"noa_sohpcr","collection_title":"Oral Histories of the American South: The Civil Rights Movement","dcterms_contributor":["Matthews, Jenny Lynn","Southern Oral History Program"],"dcterms_spatial":["United States, North Carolina, Durham County, Durham, 35.99403, -78.89862","United States, North Carolina, Orange County, 36.0613, -79.1206","United States, North Carolina, Orange County, Carrboro, 35.91014, -79.07529","United States, North Carolina, Orange County, Chapel Hill, 35.9132, -79.05584"],"dcterms_creator":["Holton, Samuel M., 1922-"],"dc_date":["2001-03-28"],"dcterms_description":["Sam Holton discusses the Chapel Hill school board's efforts to desegregate its public schools. In 1968, after serving as PTA president, he was elected to the school board. There he was immediately faced with escalating racial tensions following the assassination of Martin Luther King Jr. --tensions that were also felt in the newly constructed and integrated Chapel Hill High School. The school failed to incorporate the traditions of the former all-black Lincoln High School, which increased blacks' feelings of marginality. The inclusion of blacks into the Chapel Hill High student culture and the high numbers of disciplinary infractions for black students eventually fueled altercations between whites and blacks, say Holton. He explains how school board members sought ways to accommodate low-income students and blacks, including curricular and extracurricular offerings. A professor of education at the University of North Carolina, Holton also provides a socioeconomic analysis of achievement gaps. He contends that students' low test achievement scores can be directly correlated to the educational level and economic class of their parents. Although a large divide exists between upper-class and low-income Chapel Hill residents, Holton is careful to argue that Chapel Hill is not racist. He insists that the local school board remains committed to the education of all students. He stresses that racial and economic balance in Chapel Hill schools is necessary to prevent middle-class whites from abandoning public schools. Without middle-class white support, Holton implies, a quality education for blacks would not exist.","The Civil Rights Digital Library received support from a National Leadership Grant for Libraries awarded to the University of Georgia by the Institute of Museum and Library Services for the aggregation and enhancement of partner metadata."],"dc_format":["text/html","text/xml","audio/mpeg"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":null,"dc_relation":["Forms part of Oral histories of the American South collection."],"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":null,"dcterms_subject":["School integration--North Carolina--Chapel Hill","African Americans--North Carolina--Chapel Hill","Chapel Hill-Carrboro City Schools (N.C.). Board of Education","Race riots--North Carolina--Chapel Hill","Segregation in education--North Carolina--Durham","Chapel Hill High School (Chapel Hill, N.C.)","School board members--North Carolina--Chapel Hill","Chapel Hill (N.C.)--Race relations"],"dcterms_title":["Oral history interview with Sam Holton, March 28, 2001"],"dcterms_type":["Text","Sound"],"dcterms_provenance":["University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Documenting the American South (Project)"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://docsouth.unc.edu/sohp/K-0206/menu.html"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["transcripts","sound recordings","oral histories (literary works)"],"dcterms_extent":["Title from menu page (viewed on November 13, 2008).","Interview participants: Sam Holton, interviewee; Jenny Matthews, interviewer.","Duration: 01:22:28.","This electronic edition is part of the UNC-Chapel Hill digital library, Documenting the American South. It is a part of the collection Oral histories of the American South.","Text encoded by Jennifer Joyner. Sound recordings digitized by Aaron Smithers."],"dlg_subject_personal":["Holton, Samuel M., 1922-2010"],"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"noa_sohpcr_k-0208","title":"Oral history interview with Fran Jackson, March 23, 2001","collection_id":"noa_sohpcr","collection_title":"Oral Histories of the American South: The Civil Rights Movement","dcterms_contributor":["Broadnax, Christa","Southern Oral History Program"],"dcterms_spatial":["United States, North Carolina, Orange County, 36.0613, -79.1206","United States, North Carolina, Orange County, Chapel Hill, 35.9132, -79.05584"],"dcterms_creator":["Jackson, Fran"],"dc_date":["2001-03-23"],"dcterms_description":["Fran Jackson attended Northside Elementary until her parents petitioned for her transfer to the integrated Guy B. Phillips Junior High School. She argues that her parents and other black adults supported integration because better resources would be available to black students. Her parents' dedication to integration included paying for cab rides to and from the integrated school. Jackson herself, however, was less enthusiastic about integration. She enjoyed the assortment of extracurricular activities and caring teachers at Northside Elementary but felt isolated from the other white students and the predominantly white faculty. After graduating from high school in the late 1960s, she made a conscious choice to attend a historically black school, Johnson C. Smith University. There she adopted Afrocentric ideas, which she shared with her younger sisters, who helped lead the student call for more black teachers, the inclusion of black school traditions, and the creation of a black studies curriculum at Chapel Hill High School. Jackson also describes what she views as the hypocrisy of Chapel Hill's liberalism. She argues that tight racial and class boundaries maintained white privilege and that school desegregation hastened the demise of black cultural institutions.","The Civil Rights Digital Library received support from a National Leadership Grant for Libraries awarded to the University of Georgia by the Institute of Museum and Library Services for the aggregation and enhancement of partner metadata."],"dc_format":["text/html","text/xml","audio/mpeg"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":null,"dc_relation":["Forms part of Oral histories of the American South collection."],"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":null,"dcterms_subject":["School integration--North Carolina--Chapel Hill","African Americans--North Carolina--Chapel Hill","Chapel Hill (N.C.)--Race relations--20th century","African American students--North Carolina--Chapel Hill","High schools--North Carolina--Chapel Hill","African Americans--Social conditions"],"dcterms_title":["Oral history interview with Fran Jackson, March 23, 2001"],"dcterms_type":["Text","Sound"],"dcterms_provenance":["University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Documenting the American South (Project)"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://docsouth.unc.edu/sohp/K-0208/menu.html"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["transcripts","sound recordings","oral histories (literary works)"],"dcterms_extent":["Title from menu page (viewed on Nov. 14, 2008).","Interview participants: Fran Jackson, interviewee; Christa Broadnax, interviewer.","Duration: 00:55:04.","This electronic edition is part of the UNC-Chapel Hill digital library, Documenting the American South. It is a part of the collection Oral histories of the American South.","Text encoded by Jennifer Joyner. Sound recordings digitized by Aaron Smithers."],"dlg_subject_personal":["Jackson, Fran"],"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"bcri_bcri-ohpc_63","title":"Joel S. Boykin Jr.","collection_id":"bcri_bcri-ohpc","collection_title":"Birmingham Civil Rights Institute Oral History Project Collection","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, Alabama, Jefferson County, Birmingham, 33.52066, -86.80249"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["2001-03-22"],"dcterms_description":["Joel S. Boykin Jr. discusses participating in the Movement after attending Morehouse and dental school. Dr. Boykin bailed demonstrators out of jail while his wife directed the Office of Economic Opportunity."],"dc_format":["video/mp4"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":null,"dcterms_publisher":null,"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-NC/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":null,"dcterms_subject":["Civil rights movements--Alabama--Birmingham","Morehouse College (Atlanta, Ga.)","Office of Economic Opportunity"],"dcterms_title":["Joel S. Boykin Jr."],"dcterms_type":["MovingImage"],"dcterms_provenance":["Birmingham Civil Rights Institute (Birmingham, Ala.)"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://bcriohp.org/items/show/63"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["oral histories (literary works)"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":["Shuttlesworth, Fred L., 1922-2011","King, Martin Luther, Jr., 1929-1968"],"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1112","title":"Little Rock School District Revised Desegregation and Education Plan Compliance Report","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":["Little Rock School District"],"dc_date":["2001-03-15"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--21st Century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Educational law and legislation","Educational statistics","School discipline","School employees","School improvement programs","School integration","Student activities","Student assistance programs","Little Rock (Ark.). Office of Desegregation Monitoring"],"dcterms_title":["Little Rock School District Revised Desegregation and Education Plan Compliance Report"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/1112"],"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\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\nThe transcript for this item was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.\nPROPERTY OF O0M LIBRARY RECEIVED M.4R 1 ~ 200! OriiGEGF Little Rock School District Revised Desegregation and Education Plan Compliance Report March 15, 2001 TABLE OF CONTE:\\'TS INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................... I\\\" C0:\\1PLIANCE REPORT .................................................................................. 1 I. Good Faith Section 2.1 ............................................................................... 1 Section2.l.l ............................................................................... 3 II. Facultv and Staff III. IV. V. Section 2.2 ................................................................................ 5 Section 2.2.1 ........................................................................... 5 Section 2.2.2 .............................................................................. 7 Section 2.2.3 .............................................................................. 8 Section 2.2.4 ............................................................................... 9 Section 2.2.5 ............................................................................ 9 Section 2.2.6 ............................................................................ 9 Section2.2.7 ........................................................................... 14 Student Assignment Section 2.3 ......................................................................... 15 Section 3.6 ......................................................................... 18 Special Education and Related Programs Section 2.4 ............................... .-.......................................... 20 Discipline Section 2.5 ........................................................................... 24 Section 2.5 .1 ............................................................................ 25 Section 2.5.2 ........................................................................ 25 Section 2.5.3 ......................................................................... 25 Section 2.5.4 .......................................................................... 26 VI. Extracurricular Activities Section 2.6 ......................................................................... 27 Section 2.6.3 ............................................................................... 29 VII. Advanced Placement Courses and the Gifted and Talented Program Section 2.6.1 ........................................................................ 30 Section 2.6.2 ........................................................................ 30 VII. Academic Achievement A. Generally Section 2. 7 ...................................................................... 51 B. Transition to Middle Schools Section 3.4 .................................................................... 66 C. Early Childhood Education Section 5.1 ........................................................................ 72 D. Reading and Language Arts Section 5.2 ...................................................................... 75 Primary Grades Section 5.2.1 ...................................................................... 75 Section 5.2.l(a) ......................................................... 77 Section 5.2.l(b) ......................................................... 77 Section 5.2.l(c) ......................................................... 77 --------------~- Section 5.2.l(d) ........................................ ................. 78 Section 5.2.l(e) ......................................................... 78 Section 5.2.l(f) ................... . ....................... . .............. 79 Section 5 .2.1 (g) ....................... .................................. 79 Section 5.2.1 (h) .................................... : .................... 80 Section 5 .2.1 (i) .......................................................... 80 Section 5.2.l(j) .......................................................... 81 Section 5 .2.1 (k) ......................................................... 90 Section 5 .2.1 (I) .......................................................... 90 Intermediate Grades Section 5.2.2 ..................................................................... 93 Section 5.2.2(a) ......................................................... 94 Section 5.2.2(b) ......................................................... 94 Section 5.2.2(c) .......................................................... 95 Section 5.2.2(d) .......................................................... 95 Section 5.2.2(e) .......................................................... 95 Section 5.2.2() .......................................................... 96 Section 5.2.2(g) ......................................................... 96 Section 5.2.2(h) ........................................................ 102 Secondary Schools E. Section5.2.3 ..................................................................... 105 Section 5.2.3(a) ........................................................ 107 Section 5.2.3(b) ........................................................ 108 Section 5 .2.3( c) ........................................................ 108 Section 5.2.3(d) ........................................................ 109 Section 5.2.3(e) ........................................................ 109 Section 5.2.3() ............................................... ...... : ... 111 Mathematics F. Section 5.3 ...................................................................... 115 Section 5.3.1 ..................................................................... 115 Section 5.3.2 ..................................................................... 125 Section 5.3.3 ..................................................................... 125 Section 5.3.4 ..................................................................... 126 Section 5.3.5 ..................................................................... 129 Computer Literacy G. H. Section 5.4 ....................................................................... 136 Alternative Educational Opportunities Section5.6.l ..................................................................... 145 Program Evaluation IX. Section2.7.l ...................................................................... 148 Parental Involvement Section 2.8 ................................................................................ 149 ii I ~ I I I I I I I I I I X. Equitable Allocation of Resources Section.2.9 ............................................................................ 158 Section 2.10 .......................................................................... 158 XI. Guidance and Counseling Section 2.11 ............................................................................... 160 Section 2.11.1 ......................................................................... 160 Section 5.8 ........................................................................... 162 XII. Cultural Sensitivity Section 2.12 .............................................................................. 163 Section 2.12.1 ............................................................................ 163 Section 2.12.2 ......................................................................... 165 XIII. Compliance Section 2.13 ............................................................................ 166 APPENDIX Resource Allocation Review (Three-year Comparison and 2000-01 Correlation Analysis) Dedicated Millage Projects Proposed Bond Projects iii INTRODUCTIO'.\\' The Little Rock School District (hereinafter \"LRSD\" or \"'District\") submits this Compliance Report in accordance with Section 11 of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan (\"Revised Plan\"). On March 15, 2000, the District filed with the Court an Interim Compliance Report. The purpose of the Interim Compliance Report was to advise the Court, the other parties to this case, and interested persons of the status of the District's efforts to meet its obligations under the Revised Plan and to develop a format for this report. The District asked the parties and other interested persons to provide comments or suggestions with regard to the substance and format of the Interim Compliance Report. It received none. Accordingly, this report will follow a similar format as the Interim Compliance Report. The Interim Compliance Report cataloged the programs, policies and procedures implemented by the District in an effort to comply with the Revised Plan. To avoid duplication, the Interim Compliance Report is hereby incorporated by reference. The programs, policies and procedures implemented by the District and identified in the Interim Compliance Report will not be repeated in this report. Where there is nothing new to report, this report will simply refer the reader to the Interim Compliance Report. This report assumes that the reader is familiar with the Interim Compliance Report. This report will vary in one significant respect from the Interim Compliance Report. The Interim Compliance Report included information related to every substantive section of the Revised Plan. This resulted in some redundancy within that report. This report attempts to avoid this redundancy by focusing on the core obligations contained in Section 2 of the Revised Plan. This report is divided into thirteen sections, each of which correlates to a Section 2 obligation. Other sections of the Revised Plan are discussed along with the underlying Section 2 obligation. Effort has been made to refer the reader to other related sections of the report rather than iv repeating information in multiple sections. A table of contents also has been added to assist readers in finding information based on either subject area or section number. Finally, this report was prepared for the Board of Directors (\"Board\") by the District's Compliance Committee. However, it reflects the hard work of a large group of dedicated District employees, including administrators, principals, teachers, counselors and other staff members. While that group is too large for individual acknowledgement, their efforts are greatly appreciated and should not go without mention. Thank you. Compliance Committee V COMPLIANCE REPORT I. Good Faith. Section 2.1 LRSD shall in good faith exercise its best efforts to comply with the Constitution, to remedy the effects of past discrimination by LRSD against African-American students, to ensure that no person is discriminated against on the basis of race, color or ethnicity in the operation of LRSD and to provide an equal educational opportunity for all students attending LRSD schools. The Covenant During the term of this Revised Plan, the District attempted to demonstrate its good faith by meeting its plan obligations. As the term of the Revised Plan nears its end, the District sought a means to manifest its good faith commitment for the future. On January 11, 2001, the Board adopted a \"Covenant for the Future\" (hereinafter \"Covenant\"). In the Covenant, the Board promised to continue to exercise its best efforts to:  improve the academic achievement of all students,  comply with the Constitution, and ensure that no person is discriminated against on the basis of race, color or ethnicity in the operation of the District, and  provide equitable educational resources, programs and opportunity in a nondiscriminatory environment for all students attending District schools. On January 12, 2001, the District brought together administrators from every school in the District to affirm the Covenant. Participants were presented with the Covenant and then asked to outline strategies to be implemented at their respective schools to fulfill the promises made in the Covenant. Participants were later required to share the Covenant with their Campus Leadership Teams (\"CL Ts\"). Campus Leadership Teams and Total Quality Management The District's success in fulfilling the promises set forth in the Covenant will in large measure depend on the continued success of the CLTs. The CLT program was at the heart of the District's efforts to meet its obligations under the Revised Plan. Since their formation in 1998, the CL Ts have provided the horsepower driving the District's efforts to improve student achievement. They derive their power from the philosophy of Total Quality Management (\"TQM\"). TQM stresses four basic principals: continuous improvement, continuous education, customer satisfaction and data-driven decisions. Training in TQM has been a top priority for the District. Training began during the 1998-99 school year. Principals meet monthly for TQM group study sessions. The CL Ts, including principals, and the Cluster Coordinating Committees conduct a monthly-\"leadership\" meeting. The Cluster Coordinating Committees also meet quarterly. Dr. Terrence Roberts has provided additional professional development to school principals and the CLTs. In October 2000, high school principals and some administrators involved in the TQM initiative attended the National Quality Conference in Raleigh-Durham, North Carolina. All principals have had an opportunity to receive additional TQ\n,.,.1 training thro ugh a series of four-day intensive training sessions conducted by the Arkansas Leadership Academy in the summer of 2000. This training has continued during the 2000-01 school year with two-day training sessions in November 2000 and February 2001 and with rigorous \"homework\" assignments in the interim. During the 1998-99 school year, the District sought to be formally recognized as a quality school district by the Arkansas Quality Award (\"AQA\"), a non-profit agency formed to provide opportunities for interested organizations in the state to measure their progress toward quality. AQA's team of examiners scrutinized the District using the nationally recognized Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Program criteria. These criteria are considered to be organizational best practices and are the foundation for developing and integrating all processes in an organization's operation. The award criteria are divided into seven categories that reflect the major areas for organizations to develop and improve: Leadership, Strategic Planning, Customer and Market Focus, Information and Analysis, Human Resource Focus, Process Management, and Business Results. There are four quality award levels: Level 1 -- Quality Interest Award: For an organization expressing an interest in adopting and applying quality principles. Recognition is given to any organization completing the basic elements associated with quality awareness and understanding. Level 2 -- Quality Commitment Award: For an organization that has advanced from the knowledge and skills gained from initial steps and has a plan to move the organization toward total quality improvement and has progressed to a point of potential serious commitment. Level 3 -- Quality Achievement Award: For an organization that has demonstrated significant progress in building sound and notable processes through its cornmitme~t and practice of quality principles. Level 4 -- Governor's Quality Award: For an organization which is an outstanding example of a quality organization in the state of Arkansas exhibiting \"World Class\" processes which serve as a role model for others. In the fall of 1999, the District received the \"Quality Interest Award.\" In the feedback report, the examiners wrote: Overall, this applicant has established a strong initial process to achieve performance excellence . . .. Substantial planning and training have taken place and the organization is clearly committed to the process .... Significantly, the success of this particular organization will be applauded as a success for the organization and for the State as a whole. 2 Motivated by this positive feedback, the District submitted its second application to AQA in the spring of 2000. Last fall, AQA awarded the District the Quality Commitment A\\\\'ard. The A.QA. provided the following feedback: [T]he applicant has a systematic approach that is responsive to the basic purposes of Leadership, Strategic Planning, Customer and Market Focus, Information and Analysis, Human Resource Focus, Process Management, and Business Results: The early stages of developing trends and obtaining comparative information are evident from the data that are presented .... Work systems are designed to promote cooperation and collaboration by the use of work teams, teacher teams, cluster teams, and Campus Leadership Teams. This applicant's approach to education and training balances both short and longer term goals by providing professional development for certified personnel geared toward successful implementation of new initiatives .... Currently, the District is reviewing AQA's feedback and compiling data in preparation for submitting its application for the \"Quality Achievement Award.\" A quality school district meets the needs of all students. In adopting the CLT program, the District committed itself to providing each school the leadership and autonomy necessary to meet the needs of each school's unique student population. With that autonomy comes a responsibility to ensure the success of each student. The TQM training provided by the District to principals and CL Ts represents an effort to ensure that they are equipped to meet that responsibility. Section 2.1.1 LRSD shall retain a desegregation and/or education expert approved by the JoshuaIntervenors to work with LRSD in the development of the programs, policies and procedures to be implemented in accordance with this Revised Plan and to assist LRSD in devising remedies to problems concerning desegregation or racial discrimination which adversely affect African-American students. Dr. Terrence Roberts continues to assist the District in meeting its plan obligations by:  Consulting with teachers, counselors, and administrators\n Reviewing programs, policies and/or procedures\n Identifying areas in need of reshaping and problem solving\n Providing methods for maintaining District goals and focus\n Aiding in future projections to address the District needs and strategies for improvement\n Developing the \"Leaming to Cope With Difference\" employee training program\n Meeting with individuals and groups to rethink and/or affirm their commitment and personal development plan\n Working to establish a level of enthusiasm toward personal commitment, growth, and development\nand 3  Seeking to formulate the concept that each individual \\\\ ould be so committed to personal growth that results would be seen District-wide, resulting in the District becoming a positive model for our nation. Likewise, Dr. Steven Ross continues to assist the District in meeting its plan obligations by:  Consulting with Department of Planning, Research, and Evaluation (\"PRE\") and the Director of Federal Programs on the evaluation of Title I programs\n Advising PRE staff on school profiles\n Planning with PRE regarding program evaluation models\n Assisting the Superintendent and PRE in determining appropriate categories of data to present in order to determine whether there has been improvement in student achievement\n Reviewing drafts of data reports for program evaluation\n Discussing data reports with PRE staff and making suggestions for improvement\n Meeting with the Compliance Committee to discuss program evaluation issues\n Providing assistance in securing a consultant for outsourcing some program evaluation responsibilities\nand  Making a presentation to the Board on program evaluation and the formation of a research committee. 4 II. Facultv and Staff. Section 2.2 LRSD shall implement programs, policies and/or procedures designed to ensure that LRSD hires, assigns, utilizes and promotes qualified African-Americans in a fair and equitable manner. Total Administrative Staff The overall percentage of African-American administrative staff increased from 48.86 percent to 50.29 percent from 1998-99 through 2000-01. While the number of African-American administrators has remained relatively constant (86, 84, 86), the number of white administrators has decreased slightly each year (90, 89, 85). There has been no change in the racial composition of assistant and associate superintendents (three African-American and four white/other). Total Administrative Staff Year African-American White/Other Percent A-A* 1998-1999 86 90 48.86% 1999-2000 84 89 48.55% 2000-2001 86 85 50.29% * African-Arnencan will be abbreviated \"A-A\" where necessary because of space Iurutat1ons. Building Level Administrators The majority of building level administrators continues to be African-American with a slight increase in the percentage of African-American administrators in the 2000-01 school year. In schools with more than one administrator, the District attempts to maintain racial diversity among administrators where practicable and consistent with other legal requirements. Building Level Administrators Year African-American White/Other Percent A-A 1998-1999 55 46 54.5% 1999-2000 55 46 54.5% 2000-2001 57 42 57.6% Section 2.2.1 LRSD shall maintain in place its current policies and practices relating to the recruitment of African-American teachers which have allowed LRSD to maintain a teaching staff which is approximately one-third African-American. The District continues to aggressively and successfully recruit qualified African-American teachers. From July 1, 2000, through September 1, 2000, there were 198 full-time teachers hired, 42 percent of whom were African-American. As the table below demonstrates, this raised 5 the District 's percentage of African-American teachers to 3 percent, up from 37 percent in the 1997-98 school year. Total District Teachers Year African-American White/Other Percent A-A 1997-1998 704 1205 37% 1998-1999 728 1192 38% 1999-2000 719 1218 37% 2000-2001 757 1208 39% Recruiting and Retaining Teachers The District's success in recruiting and retaining African-American teachers has not been matched by the other school districts in Pulaski County. Twenty-one percent of the Pulaski County Special School District's certfied staff and 18 percent of the North Little Rock School District's certified staff are African-American. Even so, all of the districts are doing a good job in this regard considering that only 8 percent of college graduates in Arkansas are AfricanAmerican. During the 2000-2001 school year, 84 percent of District recruitment binders were issued to African-Americans. Recruitment binders are advanced commitment agreements enabling applicants to be assured of employment. New recruitment and retention strategies being implemented or developed include:  Tuition assistance programs for full-time students to complete their undergraduate degree, for full-time students to complete a master's degree and for non-certified employees to obtain an undergraduate degree\n The Teachers of Tomorrow Program which provides scholarships to District high school graduates interested in becoming teachers\n Waiver of the tenure requirement for tuition reimbursement for African-American teachers willing to complete an additional certification in a critical supply area\nand  Arkansas New Teacher Mentor Program which partners first year teachers with master teachers. Desegregation of Teaching Staffs The District has also sought to ensure desegregation of the teaching staff at each school. It has measured success in this regard by looking at the number of schools whose percentage of African-American teachers is within plus or minus 15 percentage points (+/-15%) of the overall percentage of African-American teachers at that grade level. As the table below demonstrates, three schools fall outside +/- 15% measure at the elementary level. This is down from seven in 1998-99 school year. At the secondary level, only one school, Metropolitan Career Technical Center, remains outside the +/-15% measure, compared to four schools in the 1998-99 school year. 6 Year 1997-98 1998-99 1999-2000 2000-01 Year 1997-1998 1998-1999 1999-2000 2000-2001 Section 2.2.2 Percentage Of Elementary Schools Within+ / -15% Of Overall ElementanRacial Composition Total Schools Schools Inside Range 36 29 36 29 36 31 36 33 % Of Secondary Schools Within+ / -15% Of Overall Elementary Racial Composition Total Schools Schools Inside Range 15 12 15 11 15 13 15 14 Percent Inside Range 81% 81% 86% 92% Percent Inside Range 80% 73% 87% 93% LRSD shall implement programs, policies and/or procedures designed to increase the number of African-American media specialists, guidance counselors, early childhood teachers, primary grade teachers and secondary core subject teachers, including offering incentives for African-American teachers to obtain certification in these areas, and to assign those teachers to the LRSD schools where the greatest disparity exists. The District's efforts at increasing the number of African-American media specialists, guidance counselors, early childhood teachers, primary grade teachers and secondary core subject teachers have met with modest success. While the percentage of African-Americans in these areas has increased, the increase has been small, as shown in the tables below. Media Specialists Year African-American White/Other Percent A-A 1997 8 44 14% 1998 8 I 43 16% 1999 8 43 16% 2000 9 43 17% 7 Counselors Year African-American White/Other Percent A-A 1997 36 48 43% 1998 39 49 44% 1999 39 49 44% 2000 40 49 45% Core Secondary Year African-American White/Other Percent A-A 1997 156 230 40% 1998 179 227 44% 1999 189 249 43% 2000 206 259 44% Earlv Childhood Year African-American White/Other Percent A-A 1997 40 104 28% 1998 47 116 29% 1999 47 109 30% 2000 46 107 30% Primary Grade Teachers Year African-American White/Other Percent A-A 1997 94 186 34% 1998 92 180 34% 1999 92 198 32% 2000 105 197 35% Section 2.2.3 LRSD shall establish a uniform salary schedule for all positions within the District, including a salary range for director and associate and assistant superintendent positions, designed to provide compensation in accordance with qualifications and to minimize complaints of favoritism. See Interim Compliance Report filed March 15, 2000. 8 L Section 2.2.4 LRSD shall implement a policy for the centralized hidng and assignment of teachers b) the LRSD Human Resources Department designed to provide an equitable distribution of teaching resources and to prevent nepotism and pre-selection by a school principal. See Interim Compliance Report filed March 15, 2000. Section 2.2.5 LRSD shall implement a policy of promotion from within which shall include procedures for notifying District employees of open positions. Over the last three years, between 62 percent and 71 percent of administrative positions have been filled by promoting existing District employees. The percentage of African-Americans promoted has roughly mirrored the percentage of African-Americans in the District as a whole. Administrative Positions Filled Via Promotion Year Vacancies Promotions Percent Promotions 1998-99 15 10 67% 1999-00 1.7 12 71% 2000-01 13 8 62% Section 2.2.6 LRSD shall implement programs, policies and /or procedures designed to ensure that the teaching staffs at all LRSD schools are substantially similar with regard to average years of experience and percentage of teachers with advanced degrees. The District decided not to require involuntary transfers in order to meet this obligation. Rather, the District compiled data on each school's average years of teaching experience, percentage of teachers with advanced degrees and percentage of teachers with a master's degree and nine or more years of experience. These data are provided in the tables below. Principals were expected to take this information into account when making hiring recommendations. Average Years of Experience The average length of service of teachers by school ranges from 6.65 years (Baseline) to 16.74 (McDermott) in the elementary schools\n6.95 years (Mabelvale) to 12.96 years (Henderson) in the middle schools\nand 7.9 years (McClellan) to 13.96 years (Parkview) in the high schools. 9 Average Years of Experience Elementarv School 1998-99 1999-2000 2000-01 Badgett 11.63 10.26 8.29 Bale 11.88 12.24 10.81 Baseline 10.52 9.29 6.65 Booker 14.29 13.04 12.62 Brady 11.38 11.54 12. 71 Carver 10.85 10.10 10.12 Cloverdale 12.96 12.70 12.32 Charter NIA NIA 3.00 Chicot 11.69 10.00 9.07 Dodd 8.77 8.94 8.05 Fair Park 16.00 17.16 14.89 Franklin 10.30 8.73 10.00 Forest Park 12.44 10.95 9.95 Fulbright 15.51 13.60 13.64 Garland 9.50 Closed Closed Geyer Springs 10.60 10.47 11.36 Gibbs 12.25 12.45 12.52 Jefferson 15.06 15.42 14.08 King 11.40 11.97 10.95 McDermott 16.25 17.32 16.74 Meadowc!iff 14.80 12.95 14.68 Mitchell 7.63 6.77 7.38 Mabel vale 11.06 11.25 11 .23 Otter Creek 12.28 11.44 9.21 Pulaski Heights 10.72 11.35 9.41 Rightsell 11.33 11.04 7.38 Rockefeller 9.86 9.76 10.19 Romine 15.29 14.37 15.92 Stephens Closed Closed 6.85 Terry 13.23 11.71 12.79 Wakefield 15.80 15.17 15.61 Washington 10.47 9.32 9.31 Watson 10.39 9.95 9.45 Western Hills 14.77 13.35 12.50 Williams 16.51 16.09 14.79 Wilson 13.70 12.72 13.67 Woodruff 9.18 7.00 7.38 Secondary School 1998-99 1999-::?000 ! 2000-01 Middle Schools Cloverdale Middle 9.84 8.62 -8.36 Dunbar 10.02 8.54 7.42 Forest Heights 12.78 10.50 10.16 Henderson 12.88 13.27 12.96 Mann 12.92 12.38 12.19 Mabelvale Middle 7.90 8.55 6.95 Pulaski Heights 14.84 10.23 9.73 Southwest 10.16 10.22 10.40 High Schools Central 14.54 11.66 12.04 Fair 12.17 9.03 8.84 Hall 14.48 11.94 11.37 McClellan 9.67 8.59 7.90 Metro 14.26 13.81 14.72 Parkview 15.36 14.38 13.96 Percentage of Teachers with Advanced Degrees The table below provides the percentage of teachers with advanced degrees at each District school for the last three school years. Elementary schools have so few teachers that looking only at the percentage of teachers with advanced degrees can be misleading. A school's percentage can change substantially with the change of only a few teachers. At the middle and high school levels, the alternative schools and Metropolitan High School have the lowest percentage of teachers with advanced degrees. The alternative schools' percentages may be explained by the relative newness of those staffs. Metropolitan's percentage is low due to the nature of the vocational subjects being taught. There simply are not many advanced degrees in those areas. Percentage of Teachers with Advanced Degrees Elementary School 1998-99 1999-2000 2000-01 Badgett 57% 47% 60% Bale 56% 40% 58% Baseline 61% 52% 38% Booker 63% 54% 56% Brady 63o/cl 58% 50% Carver 55% 50% 50% Cloverdale Elem. 54% 52% 52% Chicot 49% 50% 48% 11 Dodd 50% -1-t 52% Fair Park 62% 5S 0 0 I 50~-o I Franklin 36% 36% I 41% Forest Park 47% 50% 50% Fulbright 56% 54% i 58% Garland 29% 42% Closed Geyer Springs 62% 40% 33% Gibbs 65% 59% 63% Jefferson 74% 74% 74% King 52% 41% 42% McDermott 50% 44% 48% Meadowcliff 46% 42% 40% Mitchell 57% 40% 38% Mabel vale 42% 24% 23% Otter Creek 64% 54% 64% Pulaski Heights Elem. 56% 71% 55% Rightsell 65% 54% 32% Rockefeller 49% 41% 45% Romine 41% 45% 48% Stephens Closed Closed 40% Teny 45% 50% 50% Wakefield 71% 67% 71% Washington 47% 38% 37% Watson 53% 55% 52% Wes tern Hills 52% 55% 60% Williams 80% 76% 57% Wilson 75% 70% 68% Woodruff 44% 45% 48%, Secondary School 1998-99 1999-2000 2000-01 Middle Schools Cloverdale Middle 48% 38% 32% Dunbar 69% 56% 50% Forest Heights 55% 48% 40% Henderson 41% 48% 40% Mann 54% 54% 59% Mabelvale Middle 47% 51% 50% Pulaski Heights Middle 56% 45% 47% Southwest 56% 51% 50% ACC- Metro 67% 59% 67% ALT Agency 25% 40% 25% ALC 62% 53% 47% High Schools 12 Central 69% 62% 63% Fair 61% . 60% 5 -o , ) / 0 Hall 60% 54% 56% McClellan 50% 44% 49% Metropolitan 37% 28% 23% Parkview 75% 67% 71% Master's Plus Nine The District also compiled data on the percentage of teachers with a master's degree and nine or more years of experience since this was the measure used in the District's resource allocation review. See Section 2.9. The percentage of teachers with a master's degree and nine or more years of experience ranges from 19 percent (Mabelvale) to 67 percent (Wakefield) in the elementary schools\n27 percent (Cloverdale and Forest Heights) to 52 percent (Mann) in the middle schools\nand 35 percent (McClellan) to 55 percent (Parkview) in the high schools. Overall, there are 40 schools where more than 33 percent of the teachers have a master's degree and nine or more years of experience . . Master's Degree Plus Nine or More Years of Experience Elementary School 1998-99 ..  1999-2000 2000-01 Badgett 10/28 36% 8/17 47% 8/15 53% Bale 15/36 42% 12/35 34% 11/26 42% Baseline 13/36 36% 12/27 44% 10/26 38% Booker 23/59 39% 20/52 38% 24/55 44% Brady 14/30 47% 10/26 38% 10/26 38% Carver 19/47 40% 14/44 32% 15/42 36% Cloverdale Elem. 12/37 32% 10/29 34% 9/27 33% Chicot 14/43 33% 13/42 31% 14/42 33% Dodd 9/28 32% 8/20 40% 9/21 43% Fair Park 11/26 42% 10/19 53% 10/20 50% Franklin 11/45 24% 11/45 24% 13/41 32% Forest Park 9/64 14% 7/26 27% 8/22 36% Fulbright 16/41 39% 15/35 43% 14/31 45% Garland 4/25 16% 6/26 24% Closed Geyer Springs 13/34 38% 10/25 40% 6/21 29% Gibbs 12/31 39% 14/29 48% 15/27 56% Jefferson 22/39 56% 17/27 63% 17/27 63% King 19/52 ,37% 17/46 37% 18/45 40% McDermott 12/38 32% 10/27 37% 10/27 37% Meadowcliff 11/26 42% 7/19 37% 9/25 36% Mitchell 9/28 32% 7/25 28% 7/24 29% Mabelvale 7/36 19% 5/29 17% 5/26 19% 13 Otter Creek 11/28 39% 11 26 42% 12/25 48% Pulaski Heights Elem. 13/36 36% 12 23 52~0 I I 10 22 -+) ~o Rightsell 10/23 43% 11 '2-+ 46% 5/28 18% Rockefeller 11 /43 28% 11/39 28% 12/38 32% Romine 11 /32 34% 11 /29 38% 11 /27 41% Stephens Closed Closed 9/30 30% Terry 12/31 39% 13/40 33% 14/36 39% Wakefield 17/28 61% 14/27 52% 16/24 67% Washington 18/34 53% 17/55 31% 17/51 33% Watson 12/60 20% 12/13 92% 13/31 42% W estem Hills 10/23 43% 10/20 50% 9/20 45% Williams 25/41 61% 23/34 68% 23/35 66% Wilson 17/32 53% 14/23 61% 15/25 60% Woodruff 5/27 19% 7/22 32% 8/21 38% Secondary School 1998-99 1999-2000 2000-01 Middle Schools Cloverdale Middle 16/54 30% 15/56 27% 16/60 27% Dunbar 28/68 41% 22/63 35% 19/62 31% Forest Heights 22/64 34% 18/65 28% 17/63 27% Henderson 18/63 29% 21/61 34% 19/60 32% Mann 30/59 51% 29/61 48% 34/66 52% Mabelvale Middle 17/53 32% 18/47 38% 18/48 38% Pulaski Heights Middle 30/61 49% 25/62 40% 23/58 40% Southwest 18/54 33% 20/55 36% 21/56 38% ACC- Metro 7/12 59% 8/16 50% 10/21 48% ALT Agency 0/4 0% 1/5 20% 1/17 1% ALC NIA 4/15 27% 3/17 18% High Schools . Central 60/108 56% 60/135 44% 64/125 51% Fair 27/67 40% 28/75 37% 27/75 36% Hall 36/70 51% 39/102 38% 44/102 43% McClellan 30/78 38% 31/91 34% 32/91 35% Metropolitan 7/19 37% 5/18 28% 5/22 23% Parkview 37/67 55% 43/87 49% 45/82 55% Section 2.2. 7 LRSD shall negotiate with the Knight lntervenors to establish a procedure for the mandatory reassignment of teachers as necessary to enable LRSD to meet its obligations under Section 2.2 of this Revised Plan. See Interim Compliance Report filed March 15, 2000. III. Student Assignment. 14 I I I Section 2.3 LRSD shall implement student assignment programs, policies and /or procedures designed to ensure the desegregation of LRSD schools to the extent practicable, including but not limited to Sections 3 and 4 of this Revised Plan. Policies Policy JC, School Attendance Zones, and JCA, Student Assignment, were approved and adopted by the Board on May 25, 2000. Overall Enrollment From the 1998-99 school year through the 2000-01 school year, the District's enrollment increased a total of 627 students, and the overall racial composition moved from 67 percent African-~erican to 68 percent African-American. Total Enrollment Year Total Enrollment Percent African-American 1998-99 24,898 67% 1999-2000 25,159 68% 2000-01 25,525 68% Enrollment by School The table on the following page shows the percentage of African-American students attending the District's schools for the years 1996-97 through the current school year. The District has used two measures to assess the degree of desegregation within the District. First, it has looked at the number ofracially isolated schools, defined as schools that are 90 percent or more AfricanAmerican. These schools are shaded in the table. While the number of racially isolated schools has increased from four to nine, this occurred with very little change in the racial composition at the affected schools. 15 Percentage African-American B, School Elementarv Schools School 1996-97 1997-98 1998-99 1999-2000 2000-01 Badgett 84 92 94 91 93 Bale 71 73 73 74 76 Baseline 80 83 84 85 84 Booker 52 52 49 51 55 Brady 64 63 65 71 75 Carver 51 52 51 52 53 Chicot 70 69 71 67 68 Cloverdale 88 92 93 89 89 Dodd 64 65 66 64 65 Fair Park 76 76 73 72 73 Forest Park 48 48 53 44 38 Franklin 91 92 94 96 97 Fulbright 53 48 57 41 40 Garland 92 93 93 94 closed Geyer Springs 75 75 78 82 86 Gibbs 51 52 50 52 52 Jefferson 42 44 45 39 42 King 53 54 52 55 54 Mabelvale 74 73 69 73 75 McDermott 57 57 59 57 53 Meadowcliff 76 79 78 79 74 Mitchell 95 92 95 98 97 Otter Creek 42 46 46 47 51 Pulaski Heights 54 55 55 57 53 Rightsell 96 94 96 97 99 Rockefeller 61 59 56 61 61 Romine 66 63 62 65 66 Stephens closed closed closed closed 94 Terry 45 46 52 46 46 Wakefield 88 86 87 84 81 Washington 55 53 52 61 60 Watson 82 89 94 94 95 Western Hills 70 70 73 75 74 Williams 52 52 52 51 52 Wilson 81 82 85 89 90 Woodruff 69 71 78 80 85 Total Elem. 65 65 67 68 68 16 Middle Schools - Middle Schools 1996-97 1997-98 1998-99 1999-2000 2000-01 Cloverdale 86 89 89 88 -- 86 Dunbar 58 57 59 60 59 Forest Heights 77 70 64 65 65 Henderson 82 86 88 76 76 Mabelvale 74 75 76 73 79 Mann 52 52 51 52 53 Pulaski Heights 59 57 62 60 56 Southwest 78 83 85  -.,:. --~--. , ...... 91 -\"J:v/ -~v\n: :. 92 Total Middle 69 69 70 69 69 High Schools High Schools 1996-97 1997-98 1998-99 1999-2000 2000-01 Central 62 59 59 57 55 Fair 79 81 82 80 80 Hall 72 71 70 71 72 McClellan 83 84 86 89 ...... _ -t ....\nf.\"l~~l:~..,--~o Parkview 52 51 51 50 51 Total H.S. 68 67 66 68 68 The District also looked at the number of schools within plus or minus 20 percentage points(+/- 20%) from the district-wide percentage African-American by organizational level. Twenty-three of the 35 elementary schools (66 percent) fall within the+/- 20%. Of the 12 remaining elementary schools, eight have an African-American population more than 20 percent above overall African-American percentage at the elementary level. The racial population at 11 of the 13 secondary schools (85 percent) remains within+/- 20% of the overall African-American percentage at the secondary level. While the number of schools outside the+/- 20% range increased under the Revised Plan, the increase occurred with very little change in the racial balance at the affected schools. Schools Outside +/- 20% Range Year Schools Outside Range 1996-97 9 1997-98 9 1998-99 I 11 1999-2000 15 2000-01 14 17 Assignment Options A significant number of the District 's students continue to take adrnntage of altcmati\\e assignment options provided by the District. In the current school year. 70 percent of high school students are attending their zone schools (80 percent if Parkview students are removed) and 75 percent of middle school students are attending their zone schools (83 percent if Mann students are removed). At the elementary level 62 percent of the students are attending their zone schools (68 percent if stipulation magnet students are removed). Not including students attending a Stipulation Magnet or attending school in another district based on an M-to-M transfer, 731 students are attending a school other than their zone school pursuant to the Revised Plan. In total, 20 percent of the District's students take advantage of an alternative assignment option available under the Revised Plan. The District's Stipulation Magnets remain a very attractive option. Enrollment has increased under the Revised Plan, as shown on the table below. Student numbers for the six Stipulation Magnets show growth and reflect a 2 percent increase over the past three years. Stipulation Magnet School Enrollment 1998-99 1999-2000 2000-01 3763 3787 3837 Similarly, students in Pulaski County continue to take advantage of the M-to-M Transfer program in large numbers, as shown in the table below. Although the number of incoming PCSSD students to elementary interdistrict magnets dropped, this was partly due in part to the middle school transition and grade restructuring. Summary of M-To-M Transfer Students NLR 1998-99 1999-2000 2000-01. Sending 8 0 Receiving 65 27 PCSSD 0 21 Sending 482 399 366 Receiving 1310 1122 1128 LRSD Sending 1375 1149 1149 Receiving 490 399 366 Section 3.6 LRSD-shall construct at least two new area elementary schools, one in west Little Rock and one at the site of the former Stephens school. When the new Stephens Elementary opens, it shall receive additional funding as described in Section 5.5 of this Revised Plan and one or more of the schools identified in Section 5.5 will be closed. When a school identified in 18 Section 5.5 is closed, LRSD shall exercise its best efforts to find a community or educational use for the property. Otherwise, LRSD shall not seek-to close schools in African-American neighborhoods solely because of age or poor maintenance except when a new school will be located in the same general area. The new Stephens Elementary School held its first classes on January 8, 2001. It receives double funding in accordance with the current formula as described in the August 16, 1995, report of the Office of Desegregation Monitoring. Plans for construction of an elementary school in west Little Rock are being developed. A site selection committee is currently investigating potential school sites. The first meeting of the West Little Rock School Site Selection Committee was held on February 5, 2001. 19 IV. Special Education and Related Programs. Section 2.4 LRSD shall implement programs, policies, and/or procedures designed to ensure that there is no racial discrimination in the referral and placement of students in special education or in other programs designed to meet special student needs. Policies The Board of Education revised Policy IKF, General Education Graduation Requirements, in December 2000. The revision included among the diploma-earning options, \"Diploma with waived or altered requirements established by an Individual Education Program (\"IEP\") team for a student identified with disabilities.\" Procedures A new \"504\" Handbook was distributed in fall 2000 to campus \"504\" coordinators and to selected central office staff to ensure greater consistency and equity in administering the \"504\" program. A group of secondary Advanced Placement (\"AP\") teachers was convened in fall 2000 to meet with the District's \"504\" supervisor in order to define reasonable accommodations for teachers of AP classes to employ in order to open access to the courses for \"504\" students. They agreed on a set of accommodations to pennit students with disabilities to participate in AP courses. A fonn was developed for the \"504\" committee to use in meeting with parents to establish agreedupon accommodations. The list of available accommodations was published in both the 2001-02 Middle School Curriculum Catalog and the 2001-02 High School Curriculum Catalog. Department staff worked throughout spring 2000 and fall 2000 with the English-as-a-Second Language (\"ESL\") Supervisor and consultant in establishing procedures for the screening/identification of limited-English proficient students who are referred for special education testing.  Programs School-Based Day Treatment Program The Division of Exceptional Children has instituted a school-based day treatment program consisting of two elementary classrooms at Romine Elementary staffed by two certified teachers and two paraprofessionals. The program is coordinated by a school psychology specialist and receives support services from a clinical therapist and psychiatrist provided by The Centers for Youth and Family. The purpose of the program is to provide a school-based placement option that is less restrictive than an off-campus day treatment program. The program addresses academic and social skills individually identified for each student. Students obtain the skills necessary to return to their home campuses and are afforded the opportunity to strengthen those skills by participating in regular classrooms at Romine. Language Arts In order to assure linkage of curriculum with specialized programs and to provide consistent and balanced literacy instruction for special education students, District reading materials and 20 curriculum implementation training were provided to all elementary special education teachers. along with general education teachers. Additionally, special education teachers have participated in the middle and high school teacher training on the implementation of the Reading and Writing Workshop in grades 6-9. Mathematics and Science All special education teachers have been trained in the implementation of both the mathematics and science curricula. Special education teachers share materials with the general education teachers in their building. Inclusion The Director for Exceptional Children was on the agenda for all three of the curriculum orientation workshops for counselors in January 2001. In his presentation he emphasized the importance of reducing the number of hours in which middle school special education students are served in the resource room to assure equitable exposure to the general education curriculum. He advised counselors to be prepared to place virtually all students who might formerly have been placed in resource room programs in the regular levels of Reading/Writing Workshop based on the IEP team's recommendations during annual reviews. He and the Director of Secondary Language Arts collaborated on the design of that curriculum and on professional development and determined that appropriate modifications could be made in the regular classroom for most special education students. Special education teachers have been informed of the curricular modifications and have been strongly encouraged to have IEP teams place students in regular Reading/Writing Workshop. School Psychology Specialists In 2000-01 the Department of Exceptional Children relocated to school sites the school psychology specialists. By placing school psychology specialists at school sites, they now:  participate on individual schools' Pupil Service Teams to provide technical assistance in pre-referral interventions to the general classroom teachers\n participate in pre-referral and referral conferences to assure students are not inappropriately referred for consideration of special education services\nand  are available to meet and confer with parents and staff regarding behavioral interventions for all students. In addition, the Department redistributed school assignments to school psychology specialists, assuring that no school psychology specialist serves more than three school sites. During fall 2000 the Department assigned three school psychology specialists specifically to middle schools to conduct activities outlined in the Safe School/Healthy Students grant proposal. Compliance Staff The Department recruited and hired compliance personnel to ensure that due process documentation is monitored and corrected for compliance and equity. 21 \"504\" Coordination A new District-level \"504\" supervisor was designated to provide technical assistance and training to school-based \"504\" coordinators, principals, and teachers to ensure that students are not inappropriately referred for consideration of special education services. Identified Students The following three tables are reports of ( 1) the numbers of identified students with disabilities for 1998-99, 1999-2000, and 2000-01 by race and gender\n(2) the numbers of identified students with mental retardation and learning disabilities, again by race and gender, for the same three years\nand (3) the numbers of special education students according to free/reduced lunch eligibility in 2000-01. Numbers ofldentified Students with Disabilities School Year A-A A-A White White Other Other Total Males Females Males Females Males Females 1998-99 1239 547 383 220 28 13 2430 Percents 51% 23% 16% 9% 1% 1% 1999-2000 1233 536 362 199 30 13 2373 Percents 52% 23% 15% 8% 1% 1% 2000-01 1257 584 379 193 39 22 2474 Percents 51% 24% 15% 8% 2% 1% Percents add up to more than I 00% due to roundmg. Numbers ofldentified Students with Mental Retardation and Learning Disabilities School Year A-A A-A White White Other Other Totals Males Females Males Females Males Females 1998-99 842 360 165 96 14 7 1484 Percents 57% 24% 11% 7% 1% 1% 1999-2000 839 369 160 87 14 7 1476 Percents 57% 25% 11% 6% 1% 1% 2000-01 873 399 144 74 21 12 1523 Percents 57% 26% 10% 5% 1% 1% Percents add up to more than JOO% due to rounding. Students Identified with Disabilities A-A A-A White White Other Other Totals Percents Status Males Females Males Females Males Females Free 855 399 63 33 15 12 1377 61% Reduced 79 32 23 15 0 2 151 1% Total ldent. 1257 584 379 193 39 22 2474 100% Free/Reduced 74% 74% 23% 25% 38% 64% Percent of Total Interpretations of this data are difficult since African-American students with disabilities are more likely to be enrolled in public education than are their white peers with disabilities. For instance, according to the December 2000 Child Count, there were 44 white students identified 22 with disabilities who were being educated either in private or home schools as compared to zero African-American children. Other factors impacting the relative percentage of AfricanAmerican students with disabilities are the disproportionate percentage of African-Americans who live in poverty and lower levels of pre-natal care among African-Americans. 23 V. Discipline. Section 2.5 LRSD shall implement programs, policies, and/or procedures designed to ensure that there is no racial discrimination with regard to student discipline. Overall, the number of disciplinary sanctions issued decreased by 21 percent from the 1997-98 school year through the 1999-2000 school year, as shown in the table below. For that same time period, the number of students committing offenses decreased 16 percent. Thus, fewer students are committing offenses, and those that do commit an offense are less likely to commit a second offense. Moreover, fewer than 2 percent of the students enrolled in the District were involved in violent offenses. Violent offenses are considered by the Arkansas Department of Education as incidents involving drugs, alcohol, student assaults, knives, handguns, rifles, shotguns, explosives, clubs, and gang activity. Overall Disciplinary Sanctions 1996-97 1997-98 1998-99 1999-2000 Short Term 5486 5664 4865 4588 Suspensions Long Term 453 474 446 335 Suspensions Expulsions 82 109 1 3 TOTALS 6021 6247 5312 4926 Number of Students 3585 3672 3237 3011 Committing Offenses The number of African-American students suspended decreased 20 percent consistent with the overall reduction in disciplinary sanctions. The proportion of suspensions issued to AfricanAmerican students remained in the neighborhood of 85 percent. Suspensions By Race 1997-98 1998-99 1999-2000 Suspensions issued to African-American 5341 4470 4274 students Suspensions issued to White/ Other 906 842 652 students Total Suspensions 6247 5312 4926 The decrease in discipline sanctions has had a positive impact on parents' and teachers' perceptions of District schools. A survey of parents and teachers conducted during the 1999- 2000 school year revealed that 93 percent of African-American parents and 95 percent of white/other parents that expressed on opinion agreed that their child was safe at school. Ninetyone percent of both African-American and white/other parents that expressed an opinion agreed 24 that their child has a feeling of belonging at schools. Ninety-seven percent of African-American teachers and 96 percent of white/other teachers that expressed an opinion indicated that they felt safe at school. Section 2.5.1 LRSD shall strictly adhere to the policies set forth in the Student Rights and Responsibilities Handbook to ensure that all students are disciplined in a fair and equitable manner. Policy JBA, Nondiscrimination in Programs and Activities, and Regulation JI, Student Rights and Responsibilities, were approved and adopted by the Board on May 25, 2000. The policy and related regulations affirmed the District's ongoing commitment to make decisions involving students based on individual merit and free from discrimination in all its forms. Section 2.5.2 LRSD shall purge students' discipline records after the fifth grade and eighth grade of all offenses, except weapons offenses, arson and robbery, unless LRSD finds that to do so would not be in the best interest of the student. Building administrators purge students' discipline records at the end of each school year unless the student has been disciplined for an identified offense. In that case, the Student Hearing Office determines if it is in the best interest of the student for the records to be purged. Section 2.5.3 LRSD shall establish the position of \"ombudsman\" the job description for which shall include the following responsibilities: ensuring that students are aware of their rights pursuant to the Student Rights and Responsibilities Handbook, acting as an advocate on behalf of students involved in the discipline process, investigating parent and student complaints of race-based mistreatment and attempting to achieve equitable solutions. As a new position for the District, the ombudsman needed substantial training in order to fulfill his responsibilities. Since the position was established, the ombudsman has received training in conflict resolution (Fred Pryor Seminars), mediation (Center for Dispute Resolution, Austin, Texas), the role of an ombudsman (United States Ombudsman Association) and racial diversity (Dr. Terrence Roberts, \"Learning to Cope with Differences\"). In order to increase public awareness of the services available through the ombudsman, information about the ombudsman was disseminated by way of the District's cable network and printed publications. The ombudsman's rple in the discipline process has been included in the Student Rights and Responsibility Handbook, and the ombudsman made presentations at local churches, PT A, civic, and community meetings and participated in school/community activities, e.g., the Wright Avenue Neighborhood Association's Annual Fall Fest and the Magnet School Fair. 25 Efforts to raise public awareness of the ombudsman appear to h::iYe been successful. In the last year, the ombudsman has been contacted by over 358 parents and/or students. In addition, the ombudsman has implemented intervention activities at Badgett Elementary and McClellan High School designed to assist African-American males who demonstrate unacceptable behavior. Efforts are in place to expand these activities to include other schools. Section 2.5.4 LRSD shall work with students and their parents to develop behavior modification plans for students who exhibit frequent misbehavior. Behavior modification plans are developed by the Pupil Services Team or Educational Management Team. The Team typically includes the student, his or her parent, a building administrator, a counselor and one or more of the student's teachers. Others, such as the \"504\" Coordinator or a Special Education Supervisor, may be included depending on the student's individual needs. All members of the Team share responsibility for monitoring implementation of the behavior modification plan. 26 VI. Extracurricular Activities. Section 2.6 LRSD shaH implement programs, policies, and/or procedures designed to promote participation and to ensure that there are no barriers to participation by qualified AfricanAmericans in extracurricular activities, advanced placement courses, honors and enriched courses, and the gifted and talented program.  Extracurricular Activities Participation of African-Americans in extracurricular and co-curricular activities showed a significant increase through the 1999-2000 school year. Extracurricular activities are activities designed to provide opportunities for students to explore areas of interest that compliment and enrich the curriculum. These activities include athletics, clubs and organizations such as Student Council, Y-Teens, and Beta Club. As the table below demonstrates, the number of AfricanAmerican students participating in extracurricular activities increased 76 percent in the 1998-99 school year and an additional 26 percent in the 1999-2000 school year. Sixty-two percent of the District's African-American students participated in an extracurricular activity during the 1999- 2000 school year. Data for the 2000-01 school year are not yet available. Extracurricular Activity Participation A-A I W/O I A-A I W/O I A-A I 2335 I 393 I 4121 I 803 I 5203 I Co-Curricular Activities Extracurriclar Participation (Secondary) 4000 2000 0 African-American Participation a91.9s  98-99  99~0 W/O I 902 I African-American participation in co-curricular activities also showed an increase through the 1999-2000 school year. Co-curricular activities are activities designed to extend learning experiences through group or individual activities at school or public events, including band, orchestra, choir, or debate. As the table below demonstrates, the number of African-American students participating in co-curricular activities increased 9 percent in the 1998-99 school year and an additional 30 percent in the 1999-200 school year. Sixty-six percent of the District's African-American students participated in a co-curricular activity during the 1999-2000 school year. Data for the 2000-01 school year are not yet available. 27 Co-Curricular Activity Participation A-A I W/O I A-A I W/O I 2579 I 1222 I 2806 I u 15 I CO-CURRICULAR PARTICIPATION (SECONDARY) 2000 African-American Participation 11:198-99   99-00 -  00-01 A-A 3988 I W/O I I 1864 I The increased participation in extracurricular and co-curricular activities is likely the result of active recruitment by activity sponsors, coaches, principals, and the athletic director. School incentives and community involvement also played a role in increasing student interest and participation in activities. Specifically in terms of athletics, implementation by the District of a \"no cut\" policy for the new middle school sixth graders has been responsible for the tremendous escalation of numbers of young African-American athletes. Finally, the adherence of the District to the Supplemental Instruction Plan (\"SIP\") has had a positive effect on growth of student participants. The SIP program allows athletes to continue to participate in sports while they attend tutoring to improve their grades. Parent and Teacher Survey The 1999-2000 survey of parents and teachers reflects the District's success in the area of ' extracurricular activities. Ninety percent of African-American parents and 93 percent of white/other parents that expressed an opinion agreed that activities were open to students. Ninety-three percent of African-American teachers and 95 percent of white/other teachers that expressed an opinion agreed that students have opportunities for activities. Activities Advisory Board At the time of the District's Interim Compliance Report, a steering committee had been formed to organize an Activities Advisory Board (\"AAB\") for the purpose of promoting, supporting, and enhancing extracurricular and co-curricular activities at all schools. The AAB, comprised of District staff, parents, students, and community representatives, began monthly meetings in April of 2000. Specific areas related to activities have been targeted for discussion and implementation. The focus of these discussions has been on a disproportionate number of African-American students who do not have the financial resources to participate in activities. Other areas of discussion and implementation include marketing, facilities, funding, accessibility, procedural process, and 28 scheduling. Each area has been discussed in connection with increasing student participation. with emphasis on assuring African-American participation. Fine Arts Director The Board has approved the position of Fine Arts Director. One of the basic responsibili.Hes of the Fine Arts Director is to provide leadership in improving student participation and success in fine arts courses, perfonnances, and competitions. In addition, the Fine Arts Director will be responsible for ensuring equitable opportunities are available to qualified African-American students. Section 2.6.3 LRSD shall provide transportation to students otherwise eligible for transportation to school to allow those students to participate in after-school activities required for participation in an extracurricular activity. The District provides transportation to students otherwise eligible for transportation to allow those students to participate in after-school extracurricular activities. Through December 7, 2000, the District averaged 74.3 extracurricular activity runs per day, 29.1 for high schools and 45.2 for the middle schools. No records are kept of the students taking advantage of this service because the number and type of activities vary so greatly day to day. However, no extracurricular activity transportation request made by an eligible student has been denied. 29 VII. Advanced Placement Courses and the Gifted and Talented Program. Section 2.6.1 LRSD shall implement a training program during each of the next three years designed to assist teachers and counselors in identifying and encouraging African-American students to participate in honors and enriched courses and advanced placement courses. Section 2.6.2 LRSD shall implement programs to assist African-American students in being successful in honors and enriched courses and advanced placement courses. Policies The Board approved the revision of Policy IKF, General Education Graduation Requirements, in December 2000. This revision included enhancements of the recommended curriculum. Effective for the class of 2004, students taking the recommended Curriculum must complete a total of 28 units, including at least eight Pre-AP or AP courses. The University Studies courses offered at Hall High School may substitute, as well as any other approved dual-credit courses taken by District students. To receive an Honors Seal on their diploma, students must complete the recommended curriculum and earn a grade-point average of at least 3.5. Criteria for earning the new Arkansas Scholars Seal and a Magnet Program Seal were also included. These changes provide incentives and recognition for more students to take the most challenging courses. Procedures With the revision of Policy IKF, the Board also revised the related regulations. The new regulations include new career focus areas for Teachers of Tomorrow, Computer Technology, and International Studies at Central High School, as well as new programs in Career and Technical Education, such as the new Aviation Technology courses. New courses were also added to the list of courses that will satisfy the Technology Applications requirement. See Section 2.4 for a discussion of procedures for participation of students with disabiliti~s in AP courses. The 2001-02 Middle School Curriculum Catalog and the 2001-02 High School Curriculum Catalog included the following language in bold print: \"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.\" The curriculum catalogs also contained language making it clear that ESL students must have access to AP courses. All this information was presented to counselors, registrars, and principals during the January 2001 curriculum orientation workshops conducted by the Associate Superintendent for Instruction. She emphasized the importance of increasing the participation and performance of African-American students in advanced programs and in extracurricular activities. 30 The middle school and high school Student/Parent Guides to Course Selection for 2001-02 also included extensive information about Pre-AP and AP courses. as well as strong encouragement to students to take the courses. The District's Quality Index continues to include indicators that the District is achieving_!he goals of improved access and success in AP courses among all students, especially AfricanAmerican students. These indicators include the enrollment and completion rates in advanced courses, including Pre-AP and AP, as well as University Studies courses at Hall High School\nthe percent of seniors who graduate earning the Honors Seal\nthe percent of grade 8 students who have completed Algebra I\nand the percent of students scoring at a \"3\" or above on the Advanced Placement examinations. Data with regard to some of these indicators are presented below. Programs Gifted and Talented Program The Gifted and Talented (\"GT\") Program specialists and facilitators (teachers) are responsible for being resources in their respective schools to aid in the academic achievement of identified gifted students as well as aiding teachers in providing enrichment for all students. The teachers are, therefore, encouraged to participate in all professional activities that would help them to be more effective in their jobs. The teachers are provided opportunities for professional growth through various inservice sessions and conferences. GT facilitators representing each secondary school (middle and high) meet each month to share ideas, develop materials, receive new information regarding gifted programs, and learn new ideas to enhance their schools. Facilitators share curricular and co-curricular activities at their respective schools through a publication called \"Sharing the Good News.\" This publication is published six times per year. GT specialists provide a connection between the regular curriculum and the gifted curriculum\ntherefore, they must be well informed of both curricula. The professional development activities that they receive must connect to all of the curriculum departments because they are the advocates and resources in their schools for high achievement. They in turn become resources to the various departments because of their expertise. The table on the following page outlines the professional development growth opportunities for and by the GT Department. 31 Gifted and Talented Program Professional Development Date Title I Number Participating 1/30/98 Tn-District GT Specialists lnserv1ce (Pulaski Co, NLR and 66 LRSD) 3/19/98 Kingore Observauon Inventory Traimng (Designed to 32 observe gifted behaviors of students in grades K-2 whole group enrichment) 9/3/99 GT Student Achievement and Assessment (Rubrics and 16 Ponfolios) Cluster B 9/10/98 GT Student Achievement and Assessment (Rubrics and 17 Ponfolios) Cluster C 9/28/98 Office for Civil Rights Visit - Identification of Gifted 7 Students 10/15/98 AVID Awareness (Advancement Via Individual 24 Determination - Program designed to help underachieving and underrepresented students in advanced classes/programs)(lncluded principals, community persons, counselors and teachers) 10/9/98 GT Curriculum Writing Workshop 5 11/17/98 GT Student Achievement and Assessment - Cluster A 10 11 / 18/98 GT Student Achievement and Assessment - Cluster B 7 11 /19/98 GT Student Achievement and Assessment - Cluster C II 12/4/98 Testing Procedures and Research Development 35 515-5/7/99 Implementation of the Research Guide 35 6/2/99 Curriculum Development 32 6/3/99 Curriculum Development 32 6/4/99 Curriculum Development 33 9/29/99 Introduction to Windows 95 (Technology Course- This 3 course was provided according to the skills and needs of the specialists) I 0/1/99 Introduction to Word Processing (Technology Course) 8 10/5/99 Curriculum Mapping and Content Standards/Performance 10 Assessment- Cluster A 10/6199 Curriculum Mapping and Content Standards/Performance 11 Assessment- Cluster B 10/7/99 Curriculum Mapping and Content Standards/Performance 11 Assessment - Cluster C 10/8/99 Introduction to Word Processing (Technology Course) JO 10/ 14/99 Senior High Counselors- Recruiting and Preparing Students for a Rigorous Academic Curriculum 11 /9/11 Using E-Mail and the Internet (Technology Course) 12 32 Date Title - Number Participating 12/3/99 Curriculum Mappmg and Portfolios, ESL Students and 33 Refrigerator Curriculum 2/22/00 PowerPoint Productions 8 2/24/00 PowerPoint Productions 7 3/9/00 PowerPoint Productions 10 3/6/00 ESL Training/Curriculum Issues - Cluster A 11 3/21/00 ESL Training/Curriculum Issues - Cluster B 7 3/23/00 ESL Training/Curriculum Issues - Cluster C 13 3/16/00 PowerPoint Productions 12 4/6/00 Marco Polo Training (Technology Course) l* 4/7/00 Marco Polo Training (Technology Course) 2* 4/10/00 Effective Literacy Training 35 4/11/00 Marco Polo Training (Technology Course) 17 4/17/00 ELLA Training 33 4/18/00 Graphic Organizers in the Classroom (Technology Course) 11 4/20/00 Graphic Organizers in the Classroom (Technology Course) 10 4/25/00 ESL Students (LEP) in Gifted Programs and Pre-AP and AP 10 Programs (GT Facilitators) 4/27/00 Science Program - Hands On 32 5/30/00 Math Program - Hands On 32 9/11/00 Middle School Research - 6w Grade Teachers  24 9/11/00 Teaching Thinking Using CoRT and the Six Thinking Hats 19 9/12/00 Middle School Research- 7w Grade Teachers** 23 9/13/00 Middle School Research- 8w Grade Teachers 25 9/18/00 Teaching Thinking Using CoRT and the Six Thinking Hats 17 10/3 and Instructional Strategics of GIT Unit Design 31 10/5/00 10/27/00 ESL Strategies for GT Specialists (ESL Designated Schools) 6 11/10/00 ESL Strategics for GT Specialists 8 12/09/00 GT Instructional Strategies and Assessment 31  Teachers mcluded ma larger group  GT Staff Provided Instruction for Classroom Teachers New AP and Pre-AP Courses Two new AP courses, Human Geography and Economics, were added to the curriculum for 2000-2001. An additional two new AP courses, World History and Physics II, were added to the curriculum for 2001-2002. One new science Pre-AP course, Advanced Science/Theoretical Research II, was added to the curriculum for 2001-02. Proposed International Baccalaureate Programme at Cloverdale Middle School and McClellan High School The magnet school grant proposal submitted by the District to the U.S. Department of Education in December 2000 included the proposed implementation of the International Baccalaureate Programme at Cloverdale Middle School and McClellan High School. This plan includes the introduction of the International Baccalaureate Middle Years Programme in grades 6-8, integrated with three other curricula themes: Economics, Multimedia, and Engineering. The planning team stated that they see this approach as necessary to ensure academic rigor at their 33 school. The Middle Years Programme will continue at McClel lan High School in grades 9-1 0. and then the International Baccalaureate Diploma program \\\\ill be implemented in grades 11 -12. At McClellan the International Baccalaureate courses will be integrated with that school 's themes -- Business and Finance, Multimedia and Graphic Design, and Engineering Design and Fabrication -- creating a continuity of curricula purpose throughout the high school and from its feeder middle school. If this grant is funded (notification is expected in April 2001), then the International Baccalaureate Programme courses will be another category of advanced and challenging courses available to students, and their enrollment will be tracked and analyzed, along with the AP, PreAP, and University Studies courses. Middle School Research and Writing Pre-AP The English department for secondary schools worked with teachers, librarians/media specialists, and gifted/talented teachers during summer 2000 to write a new curriculum guide for Research and Writing 6 Pre-AP, 7 Pre-AP, and 8 Pre-AP. Then teachers were trained in how to use the guide in fall 2000. This work grew out of the Middle School Curriculum Refinement Plan that was developed in summer 2000 and included an activity to create qualitatively differentiated courses at the Pre-AP level. High School Reading and Writing Workshop I Three high schools (Fair, Hall, and McClellan) opted to include the two-period English I Workshop and English I Workshop Pre-AP in their master schedules for 2000-01. As of January 2001, all three of those schools plan to continue the program in 2001-02, plus Parkview High School and, perhaps, Central High School. Additionally, effective fall 2001, the Fair, Hall and McClellan have plans to implement the two-period English II Workshop and English II Workshop Pre-AP. This program incorporates some of the characteristics of the Project A YID support class for students so that they can be more successful in their advanced courses. The course was also created to improve student performance on the End-of-Level Literacy test. that all students must take in grade 11 as a part of the State Benchmark examinations, as well as performance on the SAT/ACT necessary for college admission. Teacher and Counselor Training The District has committed to providing teachers with the appropriate training to ensure that all students are successful in upper-level courses. Teachers are involved in the training offered through the College Board. The District has provided the funds to participate though a reimbursement program provided by the State. During summer 2000, 28 teachers participated in Advanced Placement Summer Institutes in Hot Springs and Fayetteville. The subject areas were science, mathematics, social studies, art, and foreign language. During fall 2000, 53 teachers in English, social studies and foreign language attended an AP workshop. The number of teachers attending is lower this fall because Pre-AP training in social studies was not available. 34 Forty-four teachers participated in the Gifted Programs Secondary Content Workshop on August 4, 2000. This training is designed to help teachers work more effectively with identified students in their classes. All counselors and registrars participated in training on January 9-11, 2001, during the ammal curriculum orientations conducted by the Division oflnstruction on the importance of student access to and success in Pre-AP and AP courses. Results of Policies/Procedures/Programs Implementation Identified GT Students The following table displays the number of identified GT students at the elementary school level for school years 1998-99, 1999-2000, and 2000-01 ( as of January 2001 ). There was a significant reduction in elementary school numbers in 1999-2000 when grade 6 students moved from the elementary schools to the middle schools. Then there was an increase of 131 students identified and served from 1999-2000 to 2000-01. Eighty-nine of those were African-American (or 68 percent of the increase). The percentage of African-American students in the elementary program has remained steady at 45 percent. White student participation has declined slightly over three years from 50 percent to 48 percent, with \"other\" students improving from 5 percent to 7 percent. The total number of identified students at the elementary level in 2000-01 was 1516. A-A White Other Total Little Rock School District Gifted Program Elementary Participants 1998-99 Percent 1999-2000 Percent 2000-2001 883 45% 599 43% 688 986 50% 708 51% 723 106 5% 78 6% 105 1975 1385 1516 Percent 45% 48% 7% Secondary students include those in middle schools (grades 6-8) and in high schools (grades 9- 12). At the secondary level GT students are served primarily through the Pre-AP and AP courses. The only school that serves GT students in courses separate from Pre-AP and AP courses is Dunbar Magnet Middle Schoolj which is a GT magnet. GT courses are offered at Dunbar in all three grade levels and in all the core subject areas. In addition, a GT Seminar course is available to students at all three grade levels. The following table displays secondary student enrollment over three school years: 1998-99, 1999-2000 and 2000-01. Although the numbers of African-American students participating in the gifted/talented program have increased from 1224 to 1333 (an increase of 109), the percentage of the total enrollment has declined slightly from 50 percent to 48 percent. White student enrollment went up only one percentage point over the three-year period, as did \"other\" student enrollment. The total number of identified students at the secondary level in 2000-01 was 2758. 35 1998-99 A-A 1224 Whne 1136 Other 93 Total 2453 Little Rock School District Gifted Program Secondary Participants Percent 1999-2000 Percent 2000-2001 50% 1468 49% 1333 46% 1404 47% 1298 4% 124 4% 127 2996 2758 Advanced Placement Courses Percent 48% 47% 5% Great effort has been expended in improving student, especially African-American student, access to AP courses. In summary, the following strategies were implemented:  Improved recruitment of students by teachers and counselors for AP course enrollment\n Added several new AP courses to the curriculum in 1999-2000 and again in 2000- 01\n Authorized all AP courses to be available in all five high schools\n Included enrollment in AP courses as one of the Quality Index indicators\n Changed regulations so that students may now enroll in a Pre-AP or AP course if they earned at least a \"C\" in the previous course\n Increased awareness of goals through the Revised Plan, the National Science Foundation Project, policies and regulations adoption, and professional development for teachers, counselors, and principals\n Published in the curriculum catalogs the guidelines for ensuring access of students to the AP and Pre-AP courses, including those with disabilities, those identified as \"504,\" ESL students, and those who are non-traditional students\n Ensured equal access to the professional development courses for teachers oy advancing the funds so that teachers could participate in the AP and Pre-AP conferences and Institute, thereby ensuring more equity for students at all schools\n Conducted parent night meetings at secondary schools to provide infonnation to parents about AP and Pre-AP programs, the importance of enrollment in courses, and the need for parental support in keeping students in courses\nand  Increased communication with parents through direct conferences and through the High School Student/Parent Guide to Course Selection and Graduation Requirements. 36 Enrollment in AP Courses The table on the following page displays enrollment in each of the AP courses offered by the College Board for African-American students as compared to .. other\" students for school years 1997-98, 1998-99, 1999-2000, and 2000-01. Important findings are as follows: Improvements in Total Enrollments in AP Courses  The total enrollment of African-American students in AP courses increased from 4 71 in 1997-98 to 797 in 2000-0 I-an increase of 326 students or 69 percent.  The total enrollment of \"other\" students in AP courses increased from 964 in 1997-98 to 1495 in 2000-01-an increase of 53 I students or 55 percent.  The total enrollment of all students in AP courses increased from 1435 in 1997-98 to 2292 in 2000-01-an increase of 857 students or 60 percent. Changes in Enrollments in Specific AP Courses  In 1997-98 the District had students enrolled in 16 AP courses. The number of courses taught in 1998-99 increased to 18, in 1999-2000 to 20, and remained at 20 in 2000-01. According to the College Board's 1998 Advanced Placement Yearbook, \"the average participating high school offers six AP courses.\" A greater variety of courses in the District contributed to the attraction of more diverse students to the program. (Note: Spanish IV-VI was counted as one course, as were the multiple levels of French, German, and Latin, so the total number of courses may be higher than the numbers provided.)  The most popular AP course in 1997-98 was American History, with 284 students enrolled, followed closely by English IV with 277 students. These two AP courses substituted for graduation requirements, which, no doubt, contributed to the high enrollment. A similar pattern in course taking occurred in 1998-99, with 287 students enrolled in English IV and 260 in American History. With the addition of AP English ill in fall 1999, the enrollment shifted somewhat: 320 students enrolled in American History, 246 in English IV, and 186 in English III. English IV was the most popular course in 2000-01, with 359 students enrolled. American History had 299 students, and English III had 261.  Over the three-year period the biggest enrollment increases among AfricanAmerican students were in American History-an increase of 60 students\nEnvironmental Science-an increase of 57 students\nEnglish IV--an increase of 49 students\nand Statistics-an increase of 42 students. Also, 75 African-American students were enrolled in AP English ill in 2000-01 (that course was not offered in 1997-98).  The biggest improvements over the three-year period in AP enrollment were in English III (increase of 261), Environmental Science (increase of 174), in English IV (increase of 82)\nPsychology (increase of 63)\nin Art History (increase of 58)\nand Statistics (increase of 53). Some of the improvement in English III AP comes from a reduced number of students taking English ill Pre-AP\nand some of the improvement in Statistics AP is the result of fewer students taking Algebra II PreAP. 37 Enrollment in Advanced Placement Courses APCoune 1997-98 19~8-99 1999-2000 2 Yr. Change 2000--01 3 Yr. Change A-A Other Total A-A Other Total A-A Other Total A-A Other Total A-A Other Total A-A Other Total English Ill 0 0 0 22 13 3S 70 116 186 +70 +116 186 7S 186 261 +7S +186 261 English IV 93 184 277 98 189 287 I0S 141 246 +12 -43 -31 142 217 3S9 +49 +33 82 Caltulus AB 55 96 ISi 53 79 132 50 66 116 -5 -30 -35 58 122 180 +3 +26 29 Caltulus BC 2 IS 17 4 10 14 0 8 8 -2 -7 -9 0 10 10 -2 -5 -7 Slalislits 8 46 54 10 40 50 36 36 72 +28 -10 18 so S7 107 +42 +II 53 Biology JI 42 52 94 31 59 90 58 66 124 +16 +14 30 42 116 128 0 +34 34 Chemistry II s 27 32 13 43 56 20 42 62 +IS +15 30 2S 311 63 +20 +II 31 Physits II 2 25 27 0 14 14 8 25 33 +6 0 6 3 30 33 +I +5 6 Env. Stitncr 2 s 7 16 42 58 41 42 83 +39 +37 76 59 122 181 +57 +117 174 Eur. History 88 114 202 90 90 180 so 79 129 -38 -35 -73 54 90 144 -34 -24 -SIi Amtr. llislory 107 177 284 115 145 260 127 193 320 +20 +16 36 167 132 299 +60 -45 15 Psythology 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 26 36 +10 +26 36 18 4S 63 +18 +45 63 Gov. \u0026amp; Polilits 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 3 7 +4 +3 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 Etonomits 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Human Geog. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 s 9 14 +5 +9 14 Frtnth IV-VI 12 56 68 10 24 34 18 31 49 +6 -25 -19 16 56 72 +4 0 4 Gtrman IV-VI I 27 28 0 15 IS 0 16 16 -I -II -12 0 17 17 -I -10 -11 Spanish IV-VI 32 96 128 27 57 84 so 74 124 +18 -22 -4 38 128 166 +6 +32 311 Lalin 111-V I 3 4 0 2 2 0 2 2 -1 -I -2 2 32 34 +I +29 30 Art llislory 0 0 0 29 70 99 18 67 85 +18 +67 85 6 52 58 +6 +52 58 Studio Art 9 16 25 14 21 3S 12 30 42 +3 +14 17 18 37 ss +9 +21 ~o Mus. Theory 12 2S 37 9 23 32 18 33 51 +6 +8 14 19 29 48 +7 +4 ~ Comp. Stitnte 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Totals 471 964 1435 541 936 1477 695 1096 1791 +224 +132 356 797 1495 2292 +326 +531 857 Ptrttnt or Total 33 67 100 37 63 100 39 61 .,,. 100% 35% 65% 100%  I Yr.lncreast IS -3 3% 28 17% 21% IS 36% 28%  2 Yr.lntrtan 48 14 25% 47% 60% 55%  3 Yr. Increase 69% 5S - 60% The ltst of co11rses above mc/11des all AP courses ava,lable through Jhe College Board.  The greatest decline in enrollment over the three-year period has been in AP European History. Enrollment has declined 58 students-from 202 to 144. The major reason for this decline is that under the former graduation policy, students could substitute this course for the requirement of World History. Effectiye fall 1998, the State Board of Education changed their rules and stated that European History could no longer substitute for World History-thus reducing student interest in the course, especially among African-American students who accounted for 34 of the 58-student decline.  The District also experienced a drop in German IV-V-VI enrollment over the three-year period-from 28 students in 1997-98 to only 17 in 2000-01, a decrease of 11 students. Ten of the I I-student decrease in enrollment were \"other\" students. The District sees increased student interest in Spanish and the difficulty of staffing German classes as contributing to the change in this area. Pre-Advanced Placement Courses In December 1998 the Board approved a major revision of the high school curriculum. Among the changes were the elimination of all former courses labeled \"honors,\" \"advanced,\" or \"enriched.\" The District made a decision to label all such courses as Pre-AP so that the alignment behind the AP courses was more evident for everyone and for greater consistency and ease of communication. Another change was the establishment of Pre-AP courses in the core subject areas, beginning in grade 6, with the transition to middle school. Data were collected in 1999-2000 and again in 2000-01 on the enrollment in the Pre-AP program since this is the pipeline through which the District plans to develop the talent already in the District. Through these courses teachers can build the students' capacity to perform at higher and higher levels and, thus, to succeed in the AP courses in grades 11 and 12. Improvements in Enrollments in High School Pre-AP Courses The table on the following page displays enrollment in all Pre-AP courses at the high school level for both school years of implementation, 1999-2000 and 2000-01. 39 Enrollment in High School Pre-AP Courses Course 1999-2000 2000-2001 One-Year Change A-A Other Total A-A Other Total A-A Other English I 267 293 560 340 346 686 73 53 English II 253 284 537 298 316 614 45 32 English III 149 187 336 208 155 363 59 -32 Algebra II 169 330 499 168 257 425 -1 -73 Geometry 152 184 336 200 291 491 48 107 Trig/Adv. 92 168 260 79 222 301 -13 54 Biology I 280 277 557 289 332 621 9 55 Chemistry I 189 234 423 247 269 516 58 35 Physics I 171 191 362 177 274 451 6 83 Sci. Rsrch. 10 10 20 2 14 16 -8 4 Civics 283 282 565 333 347 680 50 65 World Hist. 326 284 610 374 415 789 48 131 World Geog. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Totals 2341 2724 5065 2715 3238 5953 374 514 Percents 46% 54% 100% 46% 54% 100% 1-Yr. Growth 16% 15% 15% Key findings are as follows:  The total number of high school students who enrolled in Pre-AP courses improved in 2000-2001 from 5065 to 5953-an increase of 888 students or a 15 percent improvement.  African-American student enrollment improved at a slightly higher rate-from 2341 in 1999-2000 to 2715 in 2000-01, an increase of 374 students or 16 percent. \"Other\" student enrollment also improved-from 2724 in 1999-2000 to 3238 in 2000-01 for an increase of 514 students or 15 percent.  The percentage of African-American students in the total high school Pre-AP enrollment remained the same- 46 percent in 1999-2000 and in 2000-2001.  The most popular high school Pre-AP course in 1999-2000 was World History . Pre-AP with 610 students enrolled and the only course with more than 600 students. In 2000-01 five courses surpassed 600, but World History remained the favorite: English II Pre-AP with 614, Biology I Pre-AP with 621, Civics Pre-AP with 680, English I Pre-AP with 686, and World History Pre-AP with 789.  African-American student enrollment improved in English III Pre-AP by 59 students\n\"other\" student enrollment, however, declined by 32. Seventy AfricanAmerican students chose English III AP at this level, rather than the Pre-AP option, and 116 \"other\" students made this decision, which most likely accounts for the decline in \"other\" enrollment in the Pre-AP course.  African-American enrollment in Pre-AP Algebra II declined by one student, and \"other\" student enrollment declined by 73. A partial explanation for this situation is that Statistics AP, which is an alternative course to Algebra II Pre-AP, increased by 22 students in 2000-01.  The largest one-year improvement in enrollment was in World History Pre-AP with 179. Close behind were Geometry with a 155 improvement, English I with 40 Total 126 77 27 -74 155 41 64 93 89 -4 115 179 0 888 126, and Civics with 115. The largest grm~'th for African-American students was in English I Pre-AP (73), and the largest gtowth for \"other\" students was in \\\\'orld History Pre-AP ( 131).  Freshman and sophomore-level course enrollments were generally much higher than those at the junior level. Just as in middle school, it is important to keep these students in the pipeline toward talcing the AP courses. If the District is successful in doing so, AP English enrollment, as an example, could potentially increase a great deal in just two years. Improvements in Enrollments in Middle School Pre-AP Courses The table on the following page displays enrollment in all Pre-AP courses at the middle school level for both years of implementation, 1999-2000 and 2000-0 I. Key findings are as follows:  Even though some feared that students were over-enrolled in the Pre-AP courses at the middle school level in 1999-2000, even more students stepped up to the challenge in 2000-01. The African-American student enrollment grew 937 in one year for an improvement of 19 percent\n\"other\" students grew by 1076 for an improvement of 24 percent. The District as a whole grew by 2013 students or 22 percent.  In contrast to enrollment in the high school AP courses, where African-American enrollment was 35 percent of the total in 2000-01, the African-American enrollment in middle school Pre-AP courses was 51 percent of the total.  If students currently in the middle school pipeline continue through high school in the Pre-AP courses and then take AP courses in grades 11-12, the District can project significant improvements in the AP course enrollments as the current middle school students move into grade 11. As an example, there are currently 828 students enrolled in English 6 Pre-AP and 80 additional students enrolled in English 6 GT for a total of 908 students taking an advanced English course in grade 6 during 2000-01. At the high school level there are only 261 students talcing AP English III in 2000-01. If AP English III enrollment increased to 908, the District would have almost a 250 percent improvement. Enrollment in Specific Middle School Pre-AP Courses   The most popular Pre-AP courses at any grade level in middle schools are the English courses. For example, 908 grade 6 students are enrolled in a Pre-AP or GT English course. Enrollment in other core areas is less: 742 in Pre-AP/GT mathematics\n792 in Pre-AP/GT science\nand 754 in Pre-AP/GT social studies. Algebra I enrollment in middle school made a big jump in 2000-01-from 300 students in 1999-2000 to 426 in 2000-01, a 42 percent increase. In addition, four students were enrolled in 2000-01 in Algebra II and another 19 in Geometry for a total of 449 students enrolled in high school mathematics courses in 2000-01 , as compared to 308 in 1999-2000. That is an increase of 46 percent in one year. 41 - - II - \n1 I I I 111 I Enrollment in Middle School Pre-AP Courses I Course 1999-2000 2000-2001 One-Year Change 1~ 1 A-A Other Total A-A Other Total A-A Other Total i- Read/Write 6 Pre-AP 370 299 669 438 390 828 68 91 159 Read/Write 7 Pre-AP 391 305 696 411 318 729 20 13 33 Read/Write 8 Pre-AP 321 241 562 365 322 687 44 81 125 Read/Write 6 GT 14 37 51 21 59 80 7 22 29 Read/Wnte 7 GT 17 58 75 14 48 62 -3 -10 -13 I-Read/ Write 8 GT 18 41 59 15 59 74 -3 18 15 Rsrch/Write 6 Pre-AP 187 152 339 302 208 510 115 56 171 Rsrch/Write 7 Pre-AP 156 107 263 309 196 505 153 89 242  Rsrch/Write 8 Pre-AP 118 65 183 243 132 375 125 67 192 Rsrch/Write 6 GT 2 14 16 21 59 80 19 45 64 Rsrch/Write 7 GT 7 22 29 14 48 62 7 26 33  Rsrch/Write 8 GT 4 6 10 15 59 74 11 53 64 Mathematics 6 Pre-AP 313 266 579 363 314 677 50 48 98 Mathematics 7 Pre-AP 287 322 609 345 290 635 58 -32 26 - '\\ Mathematics 8 Pre-AP 261 142 403 233 104 337 -28 -38 -66 Algebra I Pre-AP 124 176 300 130 296 426 6 120 126 Algebra II Pre-AP 0 0 0 0 4 4 0 4 4 Geometry Pre-AP 0 8 8 I 18 19 I 10 11 II Mathematics 6 GT 13 32 45 12 53 65 -1 21 20 Mathematics 7 GT 9 28 37 9 28 37 Science 6 Pre-AP 330 291 621 381 339 720 51 48 99 II I! Science 7 Pre-AP 365 320 685 399 339 738 34 19 53 Science 8 Pre-AP 299 256 555 379 341 720 80 85 165 Science 6 GT 19 39 58 19 53 72 0 14 14 I 11 Science 7 GT 15 54 69 16 48 64 1 -6 -5 Science 8 GT 15 43 58 14 61 75 -1 18 17 Health Sci. 6 Pre-AP 31 17 48 30 24 54 -1 7 6 Health Sci. 7 Pre-AP 18 30 48 32 22 54 14 -8 6 - Health Sci. 8 Pre-AP 12 17 29 18 30 48 6 13 19 Lab Science 6 Pre-AP 22 28 50 25 37 62 3 9 12 Lab Science 7 Pre-AP 23 32 55 27 31 58 4 -1 3 II Lab Science 8 Pre-AP 24 26 50 28 39 67 4 13 17 Soc. Studies 6 Pre-AP 337 291 628 359 323 682 22 32 54 Soc. Studies 7 Pre-AP 344 303 647 374 324 698 30 21 51 Soc. Studies 8 Pre-AP 322 241 563 347 316 663 25 75 100 I Soc. Studies 6 GT 11 36 47 19 53 72 8 17 25 Soc. Studies 7 GT 16 56 72 16 45 61 0 -11 -11 Soc. Studies 8 GT 14 44 58 13 63 76 -1 19 18 II Totals 4820 4417 9237 5757 5493 11,250 937 1076 2013 Percents 52% 48% 100% 51% 49% 100% One-Year Change 19% 24% 22% I 11 I\\ I II 42  -  Enrollment in Pre-AP courses predictably declines at each grade level as students drop out of the program. Interestingly, ho\\vever, in 1999-2000 there were 720 students enrolled in grade 6 Pre-AP/GT English. In 2000-01 those students enrolled in Pre-AP/GT English 7 in even greater numbers: 791-an increase of 71 students in one grade level and a trend that runs counter to what usually h_appens.  There were large increases of enrollment in 2000-01 in the Research and Writing Pre-AP/GT course -- 171 in grade 6,242 in grade 7, and 192 in grade 8. This change reflects a change in the schools' policy. In 1999-2000 Pre-AP/GT students were enrolled in only one period of the Reading/Writing Workshop, and they were free to choose the second period as an elective-Research and Writing. Given the importance of this course, most schools decided to register all PreAP/ GT students into both periods in 2000-01. AP Examination The District's major emphasis in 1999-2000 and 2000-01 has been on encouraging enrollment in the advanced courses so that increasing numbers of students experience a more rigorous curriculum and begin to see themselves as college-bound. College Board research shows that students talcing an AP course and earning even a \"2\" on the test (\"3\" is the minimum score required to earn college credit) do better in college courses than those who did not talce the course. Although the District's priority during 1999-2000 and 2000-01 was not in increasing the number of students talcing AP examinations or in improving the percent who earned college credit on the examinations (but rather on improvements in enrollment), some notable improvements did occur in the number of examinations talcen. AP Examination Participation 1997-98 1998-99 1999-2000 Change Number of candidates 249 298 251 1% Number of exams 427 508 489 15% The District also recognized that when the numbers of students talcing any test increase, average scores generally decline since the test was formerly reserved for a more select group of students. The trade-off is worthwhile, since in the long run greater participation in the AP program will reap more benefits for greater numbers of students than simply meeting the goal of raising the average scores of a small group. The following table displays the percentage of District students earning a score of \"3\" or above on AP examinations over the past three years, 1997-98, 1998-99, and 1999-2000. The District anticipates that the percentage of students earning college credit will continue to be stagnant until the increased numbers of students talcing the AP examinations are those who have been in the Pre-AP courses for several years. Many of the new students currently talcing the tests are in their first advanced course and have simply not had enough years of preparation to do well. For now, the celebration is that more students took the examination in 1998-99 and 1999-2000 than in the baseline year, 1997-98, and more students are earning a \"3\" or more on the examinations than in 43 the baseline year. Fifty-five percent of 489 (or 268) is, therefore, better than 59 percent of 427 (or252). Number and Percent of Students Earning a '3\" or More on AP Examinations 1997-98 1998-99 1999-2000 252 (59%) 273 (54%) 268 (55%) Grades in Advanced Placement Courses The table on the following page displays the percentage of students, by race, earning a grade of \"C\" or above in AP courses in 1999-2000, spring semester. Data for earlier years could not be retrieved for comparison purposes due to changes in the course numbers and titles that occurred in fall 1999. Final grades for 2000-01 will not be available until June 2001. Percentage of Students Earning a \"C\" or Above in AP, 1999-2000 Spring Semester AP Course A-A White Other Total English III 87 96 95 93 English IV 82 93 93 89 Calculus AB 77 87 100 85 Calculus BC -- 88 100 89 Statistics 89 83 92 87 Biology II 80 97 86 89 Chemistry II 85 90 100 91 Physics II 88 95 91 92 Env. Science 91 90 100 90 Eur. History 86 88 90 88 Amer. History 72 88 81 81 Psychology 80 96 100 92 Gov. \u0026amp; Politics -- -- -- -- Economics -- - -- -- Human Geog. -- -- -- -- French IV 73 85 100 81 French V 75 100 -- 91 French VI -- 100 -- 100 German IV -- 100 -- 100 German V -- 100 -- 100 German VI -- 100 -- 100 Spanish IV 75 96 92 88 Spanish V 100 86 86 91 Spamsh VI 89 92 100 92 Laun III 100 96 100 97 Latin IV -- -- -- -- Latin V -- -- -- -- Art History 83 90 89 89 Studio Art 91 82 100 86 Mus. Theory 100 97 100 98 Comp. Science -- -- -- -- -- denotes no enrollment m course m spnng 2000. 44 Grades in High School Pre-AP Courses, Spring 1999-2000 The following table provides information relating to the p-ercentage of students, by race, who earned a \"C\" or above in Pre-AP courses at the high school level in spring 2000. Percentage of Students Earning a \"C\" or Above in High School Pre-AP Courses, 1999-2000 Spring Semester Pre-AP Course A-A White Other Total English I 74 90 97 83 English II 64 81 91 74 English III 74 77 90 76 Algebra II 77 89 96 85 Geometry 68 87 89 79 Trig/Adv. 78 90 93 86 Biology I 73 85 79 79 Chemistry I 67 81 87 76 Physics I 71 84 93 80 Sci. Research 70 100 - 85 Civics 90 94 93 92 World History 81 88 87 85 Grades in Middle School Pre-AP Courses, Spring 1999-2000 The following table displays the percent of students, by race, who earned a \"C\" or above in middle school Pre-AP courses in spring, 1999-2000. Percentage of Students Earning a \"C\" or Above in Middle School Pre-AP Courses, 1999-2000 Spring Semester Pre-AP Course A-A White Other Total Read/Write 6 Pre-AP 92 96 100 94 Read/Write 7 Pre-AP 80 89 92 85 Read/Write 8 Pre-AP 83 91 94 87 Read/Write 6 GT 100 100 100 100 Read/Write 7 GT 88 98 88 95 Read/Write 8 GT 39 78 100 70 Rsrch/Write 6 Pre-AP 93 95 100 94 Rsrch/Write 7 Pre-AP 89 97 100 92 Rsrch/Write 8 Pre-AP 82 92 100 87 Rsrch/Write 6 GT 100 100 100 100 Rsrch/Write 7 GT 100 100 100 100 Rsrch/Write 8 GT 75 83 100 83 Mathematics 6 Pre-AP 88 95 100 92 Mathematics 7 Pre-AP 74 90 86 83 Mathematics 8 Pre-AP 67 75 69 70 Algebra I Pre-AP 76 85 81 81 Algebra II Pre-AP - -- 100 100 Geometry Pre-AP .. 100 100 100 Mathematics 6 GT 100 94 100 96 Science 6 Pre-AP 96 99 100 97 Science 7 Pre-AP 79 91 89 85 Science 8 Pre-AP 91 91 94 91 45 Science 6 GT 95 100 100 : 98 I Science 7 GT 80 100 - 89 95 I Science 8 GT 67 82 I 100 I Sl Health Sci. 6 Pre-AP 84 77 S.3 s::: I Health Sci. 7 Pre-AP 63 46 100 57 Health Sci. 8 Pre-AP 92 88 88 89 ' Lab Science 6 Pre-AP 95 100 100 98 Lab Science 7 Pre-AP 83 90 100 88 Lab Science 8 Pre-AP 78 85 86 82 Soc. Studies 6 Pre-AP 89 96 96 92 Soc. Studies 7 Pre-AP 87 94 100 91 Soc. Studies 8 Pre-AP 87 92 94 89 Soc. Studies 6 GT 100 100 100 100 Soc. Studies 7 GT 94 100 100 99 Soc. Studies 8 GT 79 90 100 89 -- denotes no enrollment m course dunng spnng 2000. Enrollment in University Studies Courses at Hall High School Another category of advanced-level courses is the University Studies program at Hall High School, made available through a collaboration with UALR. The program began in 1999-2000 and continued in 2000-01. The following table displays the enrollment of students by race in these courses, where students earn concurrently both high school and university credit. Each course listed is a one-semester course, earning the student one-half high school credit and three semester hours of university credit. Course A-A Composition I 23 Composition II 19 Communications 6 Biology 8 Inrroduction to 14 Sociology Introduction to 9 Psychology Physics I Physics II College Algebra U.S. History I U. S. History II Totals 79 Percents 58% Enrollment in Universitv Studies Courses Hall High School, 1999-2000, 2000-01 1999-2000 2000-01 Other Total A-A Other 16 39 7 9 13 32 7 7 7 13 2 3 5 13 2 9 10 24 8 12 6 15 9 10 4 7 2 6 4 6 6 18 6 18 57 136 57 105 42% 100% 35% 65% Key observations are as follows: Total 16 14 5 11 20 19 11 8 10 24 24 162 100%  Enrollment in University Studies courses increased 26 students in 2000-01 over the initial year enrollment in 1999-2000 (from 136 to 162), representing an increase of 19 percent. 46  African-American student enrollment declined in 2000-01 from 79 the first year to 57-a decrease of22 students. \"Other\"srudent enrollment increased from 57 to 105 for an increase of 48. Numbers of Students Earning a \"C\" or Above in University Studies The following table shows the number and percent of students earning a grade of \"C\" or above in the University Studies courses at Hall High School. ACT Results Students Earning a Grade of \"C\" or Above University Studies, Hall High School, 1999-2000, 2000-01 Course 1999-2000 A-A Other Total Composition I 22/23 12/ 16 34/39 96% 75% 87% Composition II 16/19 12/13 28/32 84% 92% 88% Communications 5/6 7/7 12/13 83% 100% 92% Biology 6/8 4/5 10/13 75% 80% 77% Introduction to 10/14 519 15/23 Sociology 71% 56% 65% Introduction to 6/9 4/6 10/15 Psychology 67% 67% 67% Totals 65/79 44/56 109/122 82% 79% 89% The District has two quality indicators in its accountability system that relate to performance on the ACT, the college admission examination that most District students take. The first goal is to improve the numbers of students who take the ACT, and the second goal is to improve the performance of students on the ACT. Just as with the Advanced Placement examinations, the emphasis during the first few years is on encouraging students to take the test, to see themselves as college-bound, and to use the results for post-secondary planning. At the same time, a number of initiatives has been undertaken to improve student performance. They include:  Enhancing graduation requirements so that all students take the courses that are recommended in ACT preparation materials\n Including at least eight advanced courses to the recommended curriculum so that students are encouraged to take the most rigorous curriculum possible\n Revising ACT preparation courses for both English and mathematics and offering these courses in all five high schools\n Providing comprehensive Pre-AP and AP courses for students who see themselves going to college\n Aligning the Pre-AP curriculum, not only with the AP course requirements, but also with the ACT expectations\n47  Providing a series of pre-test workshops in each of the subject areas through the Community Education Department\nand. -  Better communicating with students and parents about ACT test dates, advantages of taking the test, financial aid, how to make scholarship applications, and how to apply to college. The following table includes the ACT results for school years 1997-98 through 1999-2000, disaggregated by race. The results are provided for each sub-test, as well as the composite (average) score. Students are required to earn a composite score ofat least a \"19\" to qualify for an Arkansas Challenge Scholarship. Year Total 1997-98 ' No:_ofTest\"s ~~-91 ~ ,-..:~~ akers.,,_'!i~ -~ - English Math Reading Sci. Reasoning Composite 1998-99 l\n\\~~2,.,.0~st~ ,.,. 929  .\n~alcers~ ~ English Math Reading Sci. Reasoning Composite 1999-00 ~ 9\n-ofJpt?f. e~- ,,_:_'Takers.~ ~ --- ~ English Math Reading Sci. Reasoning Composite ACT Results by Race and Gender 1997-98, 1998-99, and 1999-2000 Male Female A-A All White Mex./ Alsk. Chicano Ntv.\nJ:-,  ,1 .5,.\" '_ \"'=4.1ll\n-,,410~ -,,. -. 6- ---~-. -?268irj il~~JJ:~ ~ , ~ -a!:\",g~ : - ~ - .! it. -~ ~~'l-R )~i,..--.W. '- ,~. ~~~- 18.8 19.9 17.2 25.2 22.5 17 19.2 18 16.5 23 20.7 16.5 19.5 20.4 17.4 26.2 23.4 18.3 19.8 18.9 17.2 23.2 21.8 17.3 19.4 19.4 17.2 24.7 22.2 17.5 ~ ~5fb\"\"' ,~_ 55~4 \n\u0026gt;480 '.t? ,  .r1, ,. ' ' 3414 1\n'\n\".t: _~6\n\"l ~ ~ ' ,,_ ~ ~ :.\u0026lt;, - ~ .. ,\nl~ ~ t ... ~. ~ - ~~.: :?i! '_\n,..\",\"~'~ ~ -''. ''ii.-_ C .. ~- ., 19 20.3 17.1 20 23.2 16 18.6 18.3 16.5 20 20.6 15.5 19.6 20.2 17.2 24 23 .6 14.8 19.3 19.4 17.3 26 22 17 19.2 19.7 17.2 23 22.5 16.2 ~ .4.1'1.~- ~,.609,~ - ,, 111,,., 3 ... l,\nl t'.:-3~5t' rf6'1\u0026lt;,.~l? m~ ~~ -~1~$,.f~ \u0026amp;'ttil ~it ~ !) .. ~ :-..-, . .. ~~ 18.2 20 17.4 12.3 22.2 18.3 18.l 17.6 16.4 13.7 19.6 16.8 18.6 19.9 17.4 14 22.2 21.5 19.l 19 17.4 15.7 21.4 17.7 18.6 19.2 17.3 14 21.5 18.7 Asian/ P.R./ Mean PL Hispanic ~ 24,\n.\n,-~.:. s irs ' :~- ~~ -~:~~-1~~~tl ~. ~~ ~ .. ~- e ,,, .. l( 23.4 24.3 19.4 24.4 21.6 18.3 24.2 24.8 20.3 23 .6 21.1 19.5 24 23 19.5\n.i:.19~\n~ {,.\n~ ~:-ti... * ~\n,\n,.,..'lj ~-:f~::.8 .\ni: )~].,: cl'\"'.}, ~'\\IF,~~\n,.., .. - ~. 20.1 24.3 19.8 21.8 21.6 18.4 20.2 24.8 19.9 20.7 21.1 19.3 20.8 23 19.5 ., 20 \" ' ~:If ' 6 \\#1, 1 ..\n.~f~ ~j}\n. ff::i~ft ~.i'-'i~ l1,i1, . ,1::\"\n.'.,,c,\n~ .\n-'if.. . \u0026amp;i 21.6 16 19.3 23 .3 16.3 17.8 21.3 18.8 19.3 21.8 19.2 19 22.1 17.7 19 Key observations are as follows:  The number oftest-takers improved from 786 in 1997-98 to 1026 in 1999-2000 for an increase of 240 or a 31 percent improvement. The number of AfricanAmerican test-takers improved from 410 to 570--an increase of 160 students or a 39 percent improvement. The number of white test-takers also increased-from 268 in 1997-98 to 345 in 1999-2000--an improvement of77 students or a 29 percent improvement. 48  Only 40 percent of the test-takers in 1997-98 were male. This percentage remained at 40 percent in 1998-99 and went up slightly to 41 percent in 1999- 2000. These figures suggest the need for initiatives to increase the percentage of male test-takers.  African-American students improved their English scores from 17.2 in 1997-98 to 17.4 in 1999-2000. White students' scores declined from 22.5 to 22.2 in the same period. The District's average scores in English went down from 19 .4 to 19 .3.  African-American students' mathematics scores over the three years declined from 16.5 to 16.4, and white students' scores went down from 20.7 to 19.6. The average for the District went down from 18.3 to 17.8 between 1997-98 and 1999- 2000.  Reading scores for African-American students stayed at 17.4 from 1997-98 to 1999-2000, even though many more students were taking the test in 1999-2000. White students' scores went down from 23.4 to 22.2, and the District average declined in reading from 20.3 to 19.3.  African-American students improved their Science Reasoning scores from 17.2 in 1997-98 to 17.4 in 1999-2000-again with many more students taking the test. During the same period white students' scores declined from 21.8 to 21.4. The District's average score declined from 19.5 to 19.  African-American students improved their average composite score from 17.2 in 1997-98 to 17 .3 in 1999-2000, again with many more students taking the test. During the same period, white students' composite scores declined from 22.2 to 21.5. The District average declined from 19.5 to 19. That African-American participation in taking the ACT has improved so dramatically over three years (39 percent) while at the same time achievement has generally gone up is evidence that the initiatives to enroll these students in advanced courses are paying off already. It is very difficult for any group to increase its numbers and at the same time to improve their average scores. Parent Survey African-American students' willingness to move into more rigorous academic courses may reflect their belief that they will get the support they need to succeed. In the 1999-2000 parent survey, 88 percent of African-American parents who expressed on opinion agreed that their child received academic support. Eighty-six percent of white/other parents who expressed an opinion agreed with this statement. Summary and Next Steps Continued improvements are necessary for full equity of access to Pre-AP, AP, and other advanced courses, but the District is clearly on the right track in making these improvements, with large percentages of African-American students now taking advantage of the opportunity to participate. District and school-level staff members will continue to seek additional funding to 49 improve the program, especially for enhancements in student recruitment, parent involvement, and student support systems, as well as for curriculum development and staff development. 50 VIII. Academic Achievement. A. Generally. Section 2.7 LRSD shall implement programs, policies, and/or procedures designed to improve and remediate the academic achievement of African-American students, including but not limited to Section 5 of this Revised Plan. Policies On August 24, 2000, the Board approved a new policy on Home Schooling (IKED). This policy reflects state law and State Board of Education regulations, as well as District views. In December 2000 the Board approved a revision to Policy IKF, General Education Graduation Requirements. The new policy moved much of the detail about required courses that was formerly in regulations into policy. Changes included the following:  Increasing for the Class of 2004 the number of required units from 24 to 26 and the number of units in the recommended curriculum from 27 to 28\n Modifying the recommended curriculum to include eight Pre-AP/AP or University Studies courses\n Establishing criteria for the Magnet Program Seal\n Establishing criteria for the Arkansas Scholars Seal\n Modifying slightly the requirements for the Honors Diploma Seal\nand  Changing the one unit requirement in oral communications to one-half unit in oral communications and an additional one-half unit in any English, communications, or journalism course. A new course in Modem Grammar is recommended. The Board adopted in February 2001 Policy lAA on Professional Development. This new policy states that the Board will \"commit the necessary time and other resources to a comprehensive professional development program that will be driven primarily by student performance data and result in improved educational achievement and equity of outcomes for all students.\" Procedures The regulations for Policy ID on the School Day were revised on May 25, 2000. Formerly, grade 12 students were not required to take more than four units of credit if that was all they needed to complete graduation requirements. The regulations were changed to require seniors to take eight courses, one of which could be a study hall or enrollment as a student monitor/assistant. The principal is authorized to modify this requirement if there are extenuating circumstances, which are defined. The Board reviewed on August 24, 2000, the new regulations for the policy on Remedial Instruction, 1HBDA-R2. These regulations establish the Student Academic Improvement Plan (\"SAIP\"). Effective fall 2000, a SAIP is to be developed for all students who are (1) not performing on grade level (K-4)\n(2) not proficient on any part of the state's Benchmark examinations -primary (grade 4), intermediate (grade 51 6), middle (grade 8)\nand (3) not scoring \"proficient\" on End-of-Course examinations in literacy, geometry, and/or algebra. An electronic form was de\\eloped for teacher use, and all schools received a reference text and software to use in writing the SAIPs. During fall 2000 the Board amended regulations IK.f--R. They eliminated the former procedures that had been established to provide for semester test exemptions for students with good grades, attendance, and behavior I This change was in response to the expressed concerns of many parents and teachers that such exemptions were not in the best interests of students. The exception was reinstated in February 2001 for seniors only. The Board reviewed on October 21, 1999, and then reviewed proposed revisions on May 25, 2000, the regulations on Class Rankings/Grade-Point Averages, IKC-R. These regulations delineate the kinds of grades that will be included in the calculations for class rankings/grade-point averages\nthe kinds of grades that will not be included\nprocedures to be used when students re-enroll for a course to make up a failing grade or to improve a low grade\nhow to calculate transfer grades\nthe grade points of regular-level and AP course grades\nprocedures for determining rank-inclass\nprocedures to be used in determining senior honors\nand definitions of key terms. The May revisions included a new provision that allows a student who earns a grade of \"C\" or \"D\" to retake a course to improve the grade. Both the first and second grades will be included in the calculation of the grade-point average. A new set of regulations, IKEC-R, Credit for Courses Taken Through Distance Learning, was reviewed by the Board on September 14, 2000. These regulations allow District students to take certain high school courses through the Arkansas Virtual High School. Such opportunities open doors to meet more students' needs. The regulations note that these courses might especially be appropriate for \"students who need to make up failed courses, for the resolution of scheduling conflicts, for students transferring in from other high schools, to provide courses where there is a lack of certified teachers available, for home-bound students, for returning home school students who lack credits, for pregnant teens and teen parents, and others with extenuating circumstances.\" The Board reviewed on August 24, 2000, the proposed regulations IKED-R on Home Schooling. The procedures that were established include how to place home school students in grade levels or courses upon their entry or re-entry into the District. The Board reviewed in December 2000 new regulations for General Education Graduation Requirements, IKF-R. The new regulations delineate the procedures for placing students in English and social studies courses\nadded new technology courses that c.an satisfy the requirements for Technology Applications\nand added new Career Focus areas, including one for Teachers of Tomorrow, one in Aviation Technology, and another for the out-of-zone students transferring into Central High School. 52 The Board reviewed on January 11, 2001, proposed new Professional Development regulations, IAA-R. These regulations defined the required professional development hours\nthe necessity of a professional development individual improvement plan\nthe use of the school day for professional development\nprocedures for awarding salary credit\nprocedures for paying stipends\nprocedures for tuition reimbursement\nprocedures for earning time off on Turkey Day (the Wednesday before Thanksgiving)\nencouragement to teachers to become National Board certified\nthe status of AEA Days\na definition of the District's induction program for beginning teachers\nthe importance of professional development in school improvement plans\nand the requirement for program evaluation. On May 1, 2000, a new Administrative Directive ID was issued on the Length of the Instructional Day. Administrative Directive IIB on Minimum Class Enrollment was issued on May 1, 2000. Administrative Directive IKA(2) on Grading Procedures was issued on January 21, 2000. Administrative Directive IKAB on Reporting Pupil Progress was issued on May 1, 2000. Administrative Directive IKC on Implementation of Policy IKC was issued on May 1,2000. Administrative Directive IKF A on Scheduling High School Students was issued on May5,2000. The Middle School Curriculum Catalog, 2001-02, was published and distributed during January 2001. The High School Curriculum Catalog, 2001-02, was published and distributed during January 2001. The Middle School Parent/Student Guide to Course Selection, 2001-02, was published and distributed to schools during January 2001. The High School Parent/Student Guide to Course Selection and Graduation Requirements, 2001-02, was published and distributed to schools during January 2001. Priority Intervention Procedures In early September 2000 the District adopted a set of Priority Intervention Procedures (\"PIP\"). PIP is the system for providing support, corrective actions, and sanctions for schools identified by the Arkansas Department of Education for improvement. This 53 system includes both a set of supportive interventions to help schools improve and a set of corrective actions if schools fail to improve. The procedures include a variety of interventions for schools identified for improvement: I  Accessible data for principals, Campus Leadership Teams, and others involved in school improvement\n Professional development for teachers, principals, and instructional support personnel\n School Improvement Plan coaching for principals and Campus Leadership Teams\n School Improvement Audits and/or Curriculum Audits conducted by District staff and then shared with the principal, Campus Leadership Team, and the faculty\n Technical assistance, on demand, for all schools.  Equitable resources to all schools\nprovision for extra resources for schools in need\nand  Principal evaluation system that is aligned with the accountability system. The PIP also includes a list of possible corrective actions for schools that are identified for improvement:  Diminished autonomy\n Required professional development for the principal and/or other staff.  Negative impact on evaluations for the principal and/or other staff\n Removal of the principal after two consecutive years of a school being identified for improvement\nand  Removal of 50 percent of more of a school's teachers after three consecutive years of a school being identified for improvement. At the September 2000 Leadership Team meeting (principals and central office brokers), the PIP was presented, and a meeting schedule with clusters of principals was distributed. During early October representatives of the School Services and the Instruction Divisions met with each group of four to five principals to talk with them about what is available to support school improvement, to listen to a presentation on their School Improvement Plans, and to listen to their needs for assistance and support. Staff members took notes at these meetings so that follow-up could occur. Subsequent meetings with the same groups of principals were conducted to discuss the results of assessments as they became available. Additionally, the School Services staff conducted monthly follow-up meetings with principals, and two of the PIP gr_oups of principals are meeting to plan together for improvement. Mid-year conferences have been scheduled to follow up on recommendations made as a result of the group pre-conferences conducted in October. 54 Another planned follow-up is to provide training for the Di,ision oflnstruction staff, as well as principals and assistant principals, in the use of the School Observation Measure developed by Dr. Steve Ross and his associates at the University of Memphis. This instrument allows observers to visit classrooms and then to construct a school profile of the instructional program. These data will be used as a part of the Curriculum Audits proposed as a possible intervention in the PIP. The training will be conducted for fall 2001 implementation. Programs Assessments Achievement Level Tests The District's Achievement Level Tests (\"ALTs\") in reading, language, and mathematics are administered in grades 3-11. The ALT is administered early each fall and again in late spring so that the year's growth can be measured. These tests are criterion-referenced in that they are closely aligned with the District's curriculum content standards and grade-level benchmarks. The scores are on a continuum that allows parents, teachers, students, and others to determine a student's growth during a given year, as well as over time. Also, the scoring software allows the staff to compare a student's performance with that of all the students in the nation who also take the ALTs, and a percentile score is derived. This percentile is not the same as the one used to score the SAT9 tests. The ALT national sample is inclusive of all students who take the test, and there has been no attempt to establish a norm based on representative students acc'0rding to region, poverty, race/ethnicity, gender, and so forth. Criterion-Referenced Tests-Literacy, Grades 3-5 Also, second and third quarter criterion referenced tests are administered to third, fourth and fifth grade students. These tests are designed by the District's teacher leaders with input from classroom teachers. They are closely aligned with the District's elementary curriculum content standards and grade-level benchmarks so that they give the school and parents good information about the status of a student's performance in terms of achieving the standards. They are also intended to be predictive of how a student will perfonn on more formal measures unless appropriate interventions are made to improve perfonnance. Criterion-Referenced Tests-Literacy, Grades 6-12 To measure students' growth against the District and State benchmarks, criterion referenced tests (\"CRTs\") were developed by the English curriculum staff in the areas ofreading, writing, and grammar. These tests are used by each classroom teacher to measure students' growth and to plan instruction. Tests were carefully written to model form and procedure of the SAT9, the State Benchmark Exam, End of Course Literacy Test, and the AL Ts. Items are annotated to reflect benchmark(s) tested. The CRT's are designed to be given during the second and third quarters, but teachers have the prerogative1to administer tests during a period of several weeks for maximum value and individual needs. 55 Criterion Referenced Test (End ofUnit/Module Exams), Mathematics and Science CRTs were also developed by the District's Mathematics-and Science Departments in collaboration with PRE. This CRT measures performance at critical junctures in the new math and science curricula: specifically at the end of each mathematics \"module\" and each science \"unit.\" The test directly assesses student performance on District benchmarks in math and science. Each benchmark includes 4 test items. Stu~ents are expected to answer at least 3 of those items correctly to be proficient on the benchmark. In addition the test includes openended, free-response items that are formatted like the open-ended items on the Siate Benchmark Exam. Results on the CRT inform teachers, principals, and the District about how students are achieving the District benchmarks. A process is being implemented to efficiently convey test results to teachers, parents, and principals in order to achieve the CRT goal of identifying student performance in relation to our own curriculum and to identify students in need of additional instruction. To facilitate administration of the math and science multi-module CRTs, a systematic approach is being used for scanning, scoring, and the generation of reports for teacher, parents, and principals. The reports will include an \"item analysis\" that reveals how students performed on the test question by question. This will give the teacher detailed information about the content and skil\nThis project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resources.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\u003cdcterms_creator\u003eLittle Rock School District\u003c/dcterms_creator\u003e\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n "},{"id":"noa_sohpcr_k-0202","title":"Oral history interview with Edwin Caldwell, March 2, 2001","collection_id":"noa_sohpcr","collection_title":"Oral Histories of the American South: The Civil Rights Movement","dcterms_contributor":["White, Oliver (Oliver Gordon)","Southern Oral History Program"],"dcterms_spatial":["United States, North Carolina, Orange County, 36.0613, -79.1206","United States, North Carolina, Orange County, Chapel Hill, 35.9132, -79.05584"],"dcterms_creator":["Caldwell, Edwin, 1935-"],"dc_date":["2001-03-02"],"dcterms_description":["Edwin Caldwell Jr. describes a lifetime of civil rights activism and political involvement. A natural political organizer, Caldwell helped Howard Lee become the first black mayor of Chapel Hill. Despite losing a number of his own campaigns for office, Caldwell enjoyed a growing reputation as a political force in North Carolina. This reputation earned him a seat on the Chapel Hill-Carrboro School Board and various others positions of influence. Caldwell discusses the mechanics behind some of these positions and the influence of his race on his political life.","The Civil Rights Digital Library received support from a National Leadership Grant for Libraries awarded to the University of Georgia by the Institute of Museum and Library Services for the aggregation and enhancement of partner metadata."],"dc_format":["text/html","text/xml","audio/mpeg"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":null,"dc_relation":["Forms part of Oral histories of the American South collection."],"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":null,"dcterms_subject":["African Americans--North Carolina--Chapel Hill","Chapel Hill (N.C.)--Politics and government","Chapel Hill (N.C.)--Race relations","Church of Reconciliation (Chapel Hill, N.C.)","African American politicians--North Carolina--Chapel Hill","Chapel Hill (N.C.)--Politics and government--20th century","Chapel Hill-Carrboro City Schools (N.C.). Board of Education"],"dcterms_title":["Oral history interview with Edwin Caldwell, March 2, 2001"],"dcterms_type":["Text","Sound"],"dcterms_provenance":["University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Documenting the American South (Project)"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://docsouth.unc.edu/sohp/K-0202/menu.html"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["transcripts","sound recordings","oral histories (literary works)"],"dcterms_extent":["Duration: 02:59:20"],"dlg_subject_personal":["Caldwell, Edwin, 1935-","Lee, Howard, 1934-"],"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_308","title":"Compliance correspondence","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["2001-03/2001-07"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--21st Century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","School administrators","Educational planning","Education--Evaluation","Educational law and legislation","Educational statistics"],"dcterms_title":["Compliance correspondence"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/308"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["correspondence"],"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\ne  *- GADBERRY, BRADY L. From: Sent\nTo: Subject: CARMINE, LESLIE V. Friday, March 02, 2001 12:45 PM LESLEY. BONNIE\nBABBS, JUNIOUS\nSTEWART DONALD M  GADBERRY. BRADY L.\nMITCHELL. SADIE ' FW: Mathematics program evaluation Original Message From: Sent: To: Cc Subjecfc LESLEY, BONNIE Thursday, Mardl 01, 2001 1:25 PM CA^NE^ LEtS V ^bBERRY, BRADY L\nSTEWART, DONALD M. r^athematics program evaluation We have yet another sflrifiUfi problem concerning program evaluation, Ooew^w^ contains numarous erws of facf and anerpretetion-ao many that i1 is going to taxa me a tot of ame to 2- The District is paying Virginia Johnson full-time to do the math/science evaluation for NSF and what Nunnprv hac \"T? '1 fVirginia has done and submitted to NSK We ^n Mt Into a l o^M^usion Interpretations of the project! And we are terribly vulnerable to justified criticisr^ we say two ^^reri? . .dP Dennis and I wrote for the Compliance Report-so if Nunnery's reoort is submitted and It dMsn't Jive with the Compliance Report, we are going to look like fools again submitted and 4. The Nunnery report makes many of the same errors that PRE made originally It devoid of context\nit is incomplete in its data analysis\nthe Interoretations are nor infnr wrtten is nt^at all aligned with the reports that Virginia NSF 3. etc. is incomplete in its data analysis\nthe Interpretations are not mform^^bniTiatwTare District decide to spend yet more money on the NSF evaluation? esoeciallv t. neversuppos^ Bdo. .epaU evaluallop cTmSae^S hare or jS rSrSnSS Sb? iteTOF rfp^lL *iaveh,ent as b a,adoral cdor, information in one place. Why in the world are we allowina to continue decision-making the one person who can help the District avoid these embarrassing w^i^hdtoi^TT ''D' xpensive problems? The two meetings of the Research Committee have been scheduled absolutely could not attenrf-which happened as well in the scheduled meetings with Steve Ross I do not t that all these inci'dents are ^incidento^^ s=bdulS mtrngsStevl R^^  indication of what we are going to get with the other reports-then we don't just have one oroblem have multiple problems. I am VERY wearv of trvino to clean un the mecc uuhen we rriHrr4 r -------iP*i__ __ place. Itiple weary trying toclean up mess ^rn w^didn^ to hav?one in toe^t It makes NO sense to me, given the last year's events, to allow Kathy Lease to continue overseeino the orooram evaluation reouirements for this riiKthrt That le ,h., i h,o _______r-rZ J.l Z  2.\" Program I ra w *M wiiww ixaoiy bcci3w Lw wUliUllUC UVciScG e^luation requirements district. is why I have removed Virginia Johnson from PRE OFTI^A VA/lfn \\/in A* A A a.Uikt! I U.^. _______a a.*.. . * 'uL , , mar is wny i nave removed Virginia Johnson from PRE and moved her into the office with Vanwsa. ^d that is why I have assigned Eddie McCoy to do the ESL evaluation for this school year At least StSoffier^oS SpoS accePteble quality and do not contradict what we havi SvI%Tre,!^mmeX'inn \u0026lt;his. Otherwise, I would just let it go. You have my concerns. You I lavo iiiy I owi III I loriQowOn. Below is a list of errors that I identified in the report from just one quick read-through 1. First sentence\nThe grant began in 1998-99, not 1997-98 not'2?^Athynn^?dL^^^^^ ?.''o,^''''' performance in mathematics and science\" are not something we dreamed upbut required in the NSF program evaluation iak?hoS,tot\u0026amp;oS \" 854. Lots Of capitalization and punctuation errors. 5. Tkis dra^l uses 190 as ike baseline for SATS ficopss. Tho cdhipliancs reporf used f 55T-Sfisince il was iln year before we began to implement changes 6. Disaggregation is unclear, is it \"white\" or is it \"non-black\" scores that are reported'? a M??nDDDnDT?I ' ' * sutints themselves changel n^'^mcSr WAroHid,r science scores tell us anything since that test is in no way aligned with the 12 Achievement gap scores are not as easy to interpret on the SAT9 as they are on the Benchmark Al-sn iftr..i \u0026amp; aS science and math that are outlined and analyzed in the Compliance Report Those are the courses that should be examined. Near the end of the first paragraph ' -----------------  . A? 'J? -^Sebra I in Sth grade faifed the cou'rse.\" Our very'high^t achievinqVfadente are wha?so'^vll^] \" tt^at concYusion ^thouf a^^^ rVi laloU9Var 1 we have so far any is a gross error. He states that \"relatively large \"district is providing increasingly equitable access to Algebra 1.\" Well thats true but it is n or S^atiS ***  GeomeS and either 4ai!?LVonSis^j^he'Co''4 \"\"\" The f\u0026lt;evise\u0026lt;i Desegregation Plan-is the title of another section of the paper f 5,  G^I'Sation 2.6-the one having to do with access to and success in advanced, g/t, and AP courses^e programs that are outlined are for the most part remedial-implemented to ensure success in regular-level courses not to ensure access to or success in advanced courses, necessarily. The interpretation is all wrongX Sm and rSpTfanceWpoS\"^ achievement in this area. All those programs, etc. are outlinXthe '?  rekrence t^olicy IG as being the one allowing dual-credit courses. That is an error Policy IG has to do with curriculum adoption. There is another policy and set of regs having to do with college enrollment (IHOTA and WCDA- writer apparently had no understanding of the University Studies courses as our best examole of the PP\u0026lt;^\u0026lt;jnity to earn coIImc credit while still in high school. All that information is in the Compliance Report. *2 2.6.1. which is the section on teacher/counselor training having to ao will  ff*' fond in the Compliance Report. Are you seeing the pattern here Pf 'ofo fais paper the stuff that we have already described and analyzed in the Compliance Report? 20. 1 he writer attempted to analyze increased enrollment in AP math and science-hut aoain had no data and nn .which is the section on teacher/counselor training having to do with .rrfr,rmaHr,r, analyzc^incre^ed enrollment in AP math and science-but again had no data and no information about the many actions taken to accomplish what we have. What we have done for remediation. An w^at we have done. including most of the prMrams that he erroneously listed under the advanced course section 22. It seems to me that if he wants to evaluation Section 2.71 that a desnrintinn nf th^ now ifhe description of the new assessments would be ap^ropnate, as well as a discussion of the Quality Index, the ACTAAP accountability requirements, etc. None of ^t is 23. Obligation 2.8. This section is pitifulagain because the writer did not understand the wunyoMun i D. , Hio ,s piuiui-again oecause the writer did not understand the program or what we have done have1)X a^bfg failure of which have been wonderfully suc^ssful, and others of which most part, student 24. This section also falls to include in the analysis all of several other partnerships. 25. Now, here's the clincher\nUnder \"Findings and Conclusions,\" the writer states that \"For the most di outi^mes in Mathematics (sc) and Science (sic) did not change substantially between 1997 and 2001 m! profound finding on one measurement alone-the SAT9. No ^nchmark data. No ALT data? No CRT date of t^he tremendous increases in course enrollments, participation, etc., etc.,, etc. VJe have paid big 'P'^' 'f'\" fo \u0026gt;0 Po whatever ho has done, and now to Nunnery to declare that we tha\\1\u0026lt;wkrat/Sl^^e^ate^at we^have*^ absolutely wrong And we are continuing to pay staff to work on the NSF reporf for LRSD students\" noi Inn^aragraph about the'implementation dip,\" one of the phrases that I've heard Kathy use a lot of fim^. The fact of the matter is that we did NOT have an implementation dip. Fourth grade went up A LOT in the first year of implementationif we look at the one test that is best aligned with what we are doingthe Benchmark SAT9 declines are NOT due to implementation dips. They are due to the fact that the SAT9 does not correlate with the wmculum framework or the new curriculum and assessments we are using. Goodness! 27. The discussion about achievement gaps is based upon the same flaws in information and understanding. 86dLunX,'^n \"? 2?^ '\"' draining program-and the feet is that we have tons of also have an assessment of the oTamTkTImplementation. We also have an assessment of the quality of teacher implementation of the new curriculum-again in the Compliance Report. Vn dSRod Whdt wo hsd or for infinrmafion rwi fha tflOSe d3t3 tO N^^^d Kathy never analysis of what went wrong last year). One of 30. The Recommendations section is nothing but shallow-but then oiven what th^ writer knouu th.- ...__ . c^ld we ex^ We have some critical issJes that should ^e^ to arfo even s^ed some o^em already this school year based on our own analysis of what went wrong last vear) One of the basics in program evaluation is to derive the recommendations for improved^Kdafe^lh^te the program staff who can shed light on interpretations and on identifying what went wrong or what ' P0\"ay hink about this stuff ail the tiriie, and so d\u0026lt;^ Dwn^nlj w do^Xs^ W^^va ewry right to be outraged that people without any direct Information, with giant gaps of information without observation of knowledge of what we are doing and why. without infixmation about NSF wrthout anv ^empt to find out what we kriTO would deem it even possible to make judgments about the work about what the outcomes mean, or what should happen next. For goodness sake! * coounne worn, aoomwnattne the Dr. Bonnie A. Lesley, Associate Superintendent for Instruction Little Rock School District 3001 S. Pulaski UtOe Rock, Arkansas 72206 SO1/324-2131 501/324-0567 (fax) GADBERRY, BRADY L. From: Sent: To: Subject: CARNINE, LESLIE V. Friday, March 02, 2001 12:31 PM GADBERRY, BRADY L\nSTEWART, DONALD M. I , I W I hB.y W I V vr~il \\ I , Ivll FW\nCentral High School Parking and/or Baseball Field K  3lwa^ thrTO side to the story but this Is going to go public and there will be a lot of finger not be a good Kme to visit with Baldwin Shell about the logistics of the Central renovation. That could then determine the number of portables and feasibility of the faculty parking and the other issues. Original Message From: Sent: To: Cc Subject HOWARD, RUDOLPH Wednesday, February 28. 2001 S\n39 PM EATON, DOUGLAS LACEY, MARIAN G.\nGADBERRY, BRADY L\nCARNINE, LESLIE V. Central High School Parking anq/or Baseball Reid We keep going \"around and around\" in an effort to avoid the issue. det^ine whethw or not the district was going to support the building of a baseball field SPMifically.how mu^ was the district going to contnbute in order to match what the baseball boosters(Mr.Yancey) would contribute. After waitmn fnr a rmuhnn Inr nu^r 9 mnr.ke 1 _____t.___r,___ . '.. y'*!) waiting fora mating for over 2 months. I receive this memo ffom DouT^O^^^^ already been covered. Specifically, the issue about the parking lot and the portables. wouW give up the teacher parking lot in order to accommodate the portables. WE ARE NOT AGREEABLE TO GIVING UP ANY ADDITlOl^L SPACE ON THE PRACTICE FIELD. additional space for portables, but you ner tell us how many portables that n^ded. Therefore, we can never determine if the space on the parking lot and/or the space around uenvai is adequate or not. 875013744137 WALKER LAW FIRM 050 P02 JUL 24 01 11:20 GADBERRY, BRADY L From: Sent: To: Subject: CARNINE, LESLIE V. Friday, March 02, 2001 12:45 PM LESLEY, BONNIE: BABBS. JUNIOUS\nSTEWART, DONALD M.\nGADBERRY, BRADY L\nMITCHELL, SADIE FW: Mathematics program evaluation I understand your concern and there are some issues that should be discussed but this no more serious than the errors found in the NSF evaluation grant that we sent to the visiting team. I am sorry but I hope the other Associates can be objective. Original Message From: Sent: To: Cc Subject: LESLEY, BONNIE hiursaay, March 01, 2001 1:25 PM BAB8S, JUNIOUS, MITCHELL, SADIE\nGADBERRY, BRADY L\nSTEWART, DONALD M. CARNINE, LESUE V. Mathematics program evaluation We have yet another serious problem concerning program evaluation. I received on Monday afternoon a copy of the draft of the mathematics program evaluation that Kathy has apparently asked John Nunnery to do. I have these urgent concerns\n1. The draft contains numerous errors of fact and interpretation-so many that if is going to take me a lot of time to document. 2. The District is paying Virginia Johnson full-time to do the math/science evaluation for NSF, and what Nunnery has written is not at all aligned with the reports that Virginia has done and submitted to NSF. We can get Into a lot of confusion with such different interpretations of the project! And we are terribly vulnerable to justified criticism if we say two different things. 3. The draft is not aligned with what Dennis and I wrote for the Compliance Report-so if Nunnery's report is submitted and it doesn't \"jive\" with the Compliance Report, we are going to look like fools a^ain. 4. The Nunnery report makes many of the same errors that PRE made originally. It is based on wrong assumptions\nit is devoid of context\nit is incomplete in its data analysis\nthe Interpretations are not informed by what we are doing this year, etc. My question is this: Why in the world did the District decide to spend yet more money on the NSF evaluation? especially when what is written is of such poor quality? PRE was never supposed to do a separate evaluation of math/science from what we are required to do for NSF. NSF is just as concerned about African American achievement as is die federal court here or Joshua. Aii the relevant information will be in the NSF reports. And again, I am the only person vi^o has all the of information in one place. Why in the world are we allowing to continue the practice of excluding from decision-making the one person who can help the District avoid these embarrassing problems? these very expensive problems? The two meetings of the Research Committee have been scheduled at times when I absolutely could not attend-which happened as well in the scheduled meetings with Steve Ross. I do not believe that all these incidents are coincidental. If this first paper is any indication of what we are going to get with the other reports-then we dont just have one problem. We have multiple problems. I am VERY weary of trying to clean up the mess when we didn't need to have one in the first place. It makes NO sense to me, given the last year's events, to allow Kathy Lease to continue overseeing the program evaluation requirements for this district. That is why I have removed Virginia Johnson from PRE and moved her into the office with Vanessa. And that is why I have assigned Eddie McCoy to do the ESL evaluation for this school year. At least this way I can be sure that the reports to NSF and OCR are of acceptable quality and do not contradict what we have written in other official reports. There are serious legal and financial implications in all this. Otherwise. I would just let it go. You have my concerns. You have my recommendation. Below is a list of errors that I identified in the report from just one quick read-through. 1. First sentence\nThe grant began in 1998-99, not 1997-98. 2. The \"drivers that he says \"ostensibly influence overall levels of student performance in mathematics and science\" are not something we dreamed upbut required in the NSF program evaluation. 3. The example given about CPMSA activities makes no sense. Everything the project has done involves ail those stakeholders, not just policy formulation.\" 855013744187 UALKEP LhU firm 050 P03 JUL 24 01 11:21 4. Lots of capitalization and punctuation errors. 5. Tkis draft uses imi as Ike basalins for 8AT9 scoras. Tka ccmplianca reporl used ^95?-58-Slnce it was Ike year before we began to implement changes. 6. Disaggregation is unclear. Is it \"white\" or is it \"non-black\" scores that are reported? 7. A big problem with cohort studies is also that students themselves changel 8. MAJOR PROBLEM: Scores are reported without any context that describes where we were in program implementation. No where does the paper establish when specific grade levels were implemented-and that is the only way to look at the data in any meaningful way. Grade 10 scores, for example, could not have been impacted before f^l 2000 because we didn't have any interventions before then that could have made a difference. 9. ANOTHER MAJOR PROBLEM: This report excludes the all-important Benchmark data. The grade 4 data are the BEST evidence that we have so far that the project is working. The grade 8 data are the best evidence that we have so far that change is imperative. 10. It is a terrible error to assume that SATO science scores tell us anything since that test is in no way aligned with the new curricula. We could use the scores, I suppose, but they surely need to be Interpreted with caution. Again, there is no context laid for making interpretations in this draft. 11. Inteipretations of the cohort data are the same problem. He looked at T-scorss for grades 5 and 7 without any explanation of when the reforms were implemented. 12. Achievement gap scores are not as easy to interpret on the SAT9 as they are on the Benchmark. Also, if we are truly trying to figure out if black kids are gaining, we need to look at their movement from Below Basic to Basic since when we started all this, the vast majority 13. There is a section called \"A\u0026lt;  were in the Below Basic level. access to High-Level Math and Science Courses.\" The ONLY course that is examined is Algebra l~hardly a high-level course, especially now that it is required of all students. We have pre- and post-data on course enrollments for both science and math that are outlined and analyzed in the Compliance Report. Those are the courses that should be examined. Near the end of the first paragraph is a gross error. He states that \"relatively large proportions of students who enrolled in Algebra I in Sth grace failed the course.\" Our very highest achieving students. the ones who take Algebra I in grade 8, and almost none of them fail! He drew that conclusion without any data are whatsoever! 14. The paper states that the \"district is providing increasingly equitable access to Algebra 1.\" Well, that's true, but it is grossly understated. We are requiring ALL students now to take not only Algebra I, but also Geometry and either Algebra II or Statistics. 15. This section fails to look at any of the data on Pre-AP, and there is a note that he didn't have the AP data to examine. Again, all of this is in the Compliance Report. 16. Fulfillment of Obligations Contained in the Revised Desegregation Plan-is the title of another section of the paper. The first topic is Obligation 2.6-the one having to do with access to and success in advanced, g/t, and AP courses. The programs that are outlined are for the most part remedial-implemented to ensure success in regular-level courses, not to ensure access to or success in advanced courses, necessarily. The interpretation is all wrong. Also, the section iarnores many other initiatives taken by the District to impact achievement in this area. All those programs, etc. are ouBineo in the Interim and final Compliance Reports. 17. There is a reference to policy IG as being the one allowing dual-credit courses. That is an error. Policy IG has to do with curriculum adoption. There is another policy and set of regs having to do with college enrollment (IHCDAand IHCDA- R). 18. Further, the writer apparently had no understanding of the University Studies courses as our best example of the opportunity to earn college credit while still in high school. All that information is in the Compliance Report. 19. The writer attempted to write about Section 2.6.1, which is the section on teacher/counselor training having to do with advanced courses. He had no data-and all of that is found in the Compliance Report. Are you seeing the pattern here? Why put into this paper the stuff that we have already described and analyzed in the Compliance Report? 20. The writer attempted to analyze increased enrollment in AP math and science-but again had no data and no information about the many actions taken to accomplish what we have. 21. The writer attempted to analyze Section 2.7, but he only mentioned SAIPs as what we have done for remediation. An examination of the Interim and final Compliance Reports would reveal MANY more examples of what we have done, including most of the programs that he erroneously listed under the advanced course section. 22. It seems to me that if he wants to evaluation Section 2.71 that a description of the new assessments would be appropriate, as well as a discussion of the Quality Index, the ACTAAP accountability requirements, etc. None of that is here. 23. Obligation 2.8. This section is pitiful-again because the writer did not understand the program or what we have done to engage parents, and we've done a million things, some of which have been wonderfully successful, and others of which have been a big failure. 24. This section also fails to Include in the analysis all of several other partnerships. 25. Now, here's the clincher\nUnder \"Findings and Conclusions,\" the writer states that \"For the most part, student outcomes in Mathematics (sic) and Science (sic) did not change substantially between 1997 and 2001 for LRSD students\" He based that profound finding on one measurement alone-the SAT9. No Benchmark data. No ALT data. No CRT data. No acknowledgement of the tremendous increases in course enrollments, participation, etc., etc.,, etc. We have paid big bucksto staff to write a first report, then to Ross to do whatever he has done, and now to Nunnery to declare that we have failed-and for that declaration to be absolutely wrong. And we are continuing to pay staff to work on the NSF report that looks at ALL the data that we have. 26. Then there Is a big long paragraph about the \"implementation dip,\" one of the phrases that I've heard Kathy use a lot of times. The fact of the matter is that we did NOT have an implementation dip. Fourth grade went up A LOT in the first year of implementatlon~if we look at the one test that is best aligned with what we are doing-the Benchmark. SAT9 declines are NOT due to implementation dips. They are due to the fact that the SAT9 does not correlate with the curriculum framework or the new curriculum and assessments we are using. Goodness! 27. The discussion about achievement gaps is based upon the same flaws in information and understanding. 865013744187 WALKER LAW FIRM 050 P04 JUL 24 01 11:22 2^ The paragraph on access to higher-level courses is very disappointing. Again, he only looked at Algebra I. There is innovative freshrnan Physics course. There Is no mention of the data we already have In the NSF data reports about course completions. This section is tembly Inadequate. And again, much of it is already rn the Com^iance Report. 29. The writer states that we have no documentation about our training program-and the fact is that we have tons of documentation throughout the Compliance Report-both on advanced courses and on the curriculum Implementation. We also have an assessment of the quality of teacher implementation of the new curriculum-again in the Compliance Report. I want to note here again the arrogance of PRE in even attempting to make judgments about these programs without meeting with the program staff and me to ensure that they know what they need to know to write a report. We are collecting data everywhere, and we are analyzing those data, and we are reporting those data to NSF-and Kathy never even asked what we had or for information on the phase-in of the reforms, for documentation on training, etc., etc., etc My insistence on being included was to prevent these kinds of errors and misinterpretations. 30. The Recommendations section is nothing but shallowbut then given what the writer knew of the program, what else could we expect? We have some critical issues that should be addressed (and we are in fact addressing many of them and even solved some of them already this school year based on our own analysis of what went wrong last year). One of the basics in program evaluation is to derive the recommendations for improvement both from data analysis and from deep conversations with the program staff who can shed light on interpretations and on identifying what went wrong or what could be done better. I personally think about this stuff all the time, and so does Dennis ano so does Vanessa. We have every right to be outraged that people without any direct information, with giant gaps of information, without observation of the program implementation, without knowledge of what we are doing and why. without information about NSF. without any attempt to find out what we know would deem it even possible to make judgments about the work, about what the outcomes mean, or what should happen next. For goodness sake! Or. Bonnie A. Lesley, Associate Superintendent for Instruction Little Rock School District 3001 S. Pulaski Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 501/324-2131 501/324-0567 (fex) GADBERRY, BRADY L. From: Sent: To: Subject: CARNINE, LESLIE V. Friday, March 02, 2001 12:31 PM GADBERRY, BRADY L\nSTEWART, DONALD M. FW: Central High School Parking and/or Baseball Field As both of you know there is always three side to the story but this Is going to go public and there will be a lot of finger pointing, would this not be a good time to visit with Baldwin Shell about the logistics of the Central renovation. That could then determine the number of portables and feasibility of the faculty parking and the other issues. Original Message From: Sent: To: Cc Subject: HOWARD, RUDOLPH Wednesday, Fetxuary 28, 2001 5:39 PM EATON, DOUGLAS LACEY, MARIAN 6.\nGADBERRY, BRADY L\nCARNtNE, LESUE V. Central Htgri School Parking and/or Baseball Reid We keep going \"around and around\" in an effort to avoid the issue. I asked for a meeting to determine whether or not the district was going to support the building of a baseball field. Specifically, how much was the district going to contribute in order to match what the baseball boosters(Mr.Yancey) would contribute. After waiting for a meeting for over 2 months. I receive this memo from Doug- 2/22/01- rehashing what has already been covered. Specifically, the issue about the parking lot and the portables. Now. I have indicated and the CLT has indicated that we would give up the teacher parking lot in order to accommodate the portables. WE ARE NOT AGREEABLE TO GIVING UP ANY ADDITIONAL SPACE ON THE PRACTICE FIELD. Doug, you continue to talk about the need for additional space for portables, but you ner tell us how many portables that are going to be needed. Therefore, we can never determine if the space on the parking lot and/or the space around Central is adequate or not. 875013744187 walker LAW FIRM 050 P01 JUL 24 01 11:20 JOHN IT. WALKER. P.A. Attorney at Law 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 Telephone (501) 374-5758 Fax (501) 574-4187 TRANSMISSION COVERSHEET Date: [, To: [. ] Fax: L 1 Re: L J Sender: J YOU SHOULD RECEIVE [ rmcluding cover sheet)] PAGE(S), INCLUDING THIS COVERSHEET. IF YOU DO NOT RECEIVE ALL THE PAGES, PLEASE CALL \"\u0026lt;(501) 574-3758\u0026gt;\" The information contained in this facsimile message is attorney privileged and confidential information intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above. If the reader of this message is not die intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, piease immediate notify us by telephone, and return the original message to us at the above address via the U.S. Postal Service. Thank you. I JOHN w. walker SHAWN CHILDS 5013744187 WALKER LAW FIRM John W. Walker, P.A. Attorney At Law 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 Telephone (501) 374-3758 FAX (501) 374-4187 Via Facsimile 682-3479 March 26, 2001 388 P02Z05 MAR 26 01 13:17 OF COUNSEL ROBERT McHENRY, P.A. DONNA J. McHENRY 8210 HENDsnsoN Road LlTn. Rock, Askans.vs 72210 Phone: (5U1) 372-3425  Fax (SOl) 372-3428 Em-aiL: inchenryd@8wboU.nrc Representative Pat arker Bond House Of Represer\natives State Capitol, Rooi i 350 Little Rock, AR 7201 Dear Ms. Bond: 1 understanc annex or detach the that your bill which is now under consideration by the Legislature to deJacksonville area from the Pulaski County Special School District has not received comments from us and possibly from other interested panics in the long stating Pulaski County Desegregat on case. 1 am writing to inform you that while the bill may be popular with some of the Jacksoj ' desegregation plan\nville constituents, it may also have negative impact upon the court approved and that any legislation being considered will have to pass muster under the 14* Amendment as kvell as the law of the case concept. As you are\nrobably aware, no one has sought input from the Joshua Intervenors with respect to the legist ition or to the charter school which was approved for the Maumelle area. While our approval resort to the Coun is not required, our lack of knowledge and input will tend to cause us to o have matters ferreted out. Rather than get into a public dispute with you and the other propc nents of your legislation, 1 respectfully request that you and the other proponent legislate s meet with possibly the ODM, school officials and myself so that you have a better under landing of why opposition from Joshua, at least, is well placed. can Would you suggest that you sp :indly get in touch with me regarding this matter as soon as possible. I also with Ms. Ann Marshall of the Office of Desegregation Monitoring in order to obtain that office s perspective regarding pending legislation. !hn W. Walker f JWjS 5013744187 walker LAW FIRM 388 P03/05 MAR 26 01 13:17 cc\nMs. Ann Marshal Dr. Gary Smith Dr. Leslie Carni Mr. James Smitj Mr. Ray Simon le Ail Counsel of I ecord5013744187 WALKER LAW FIRd 388 P05/05 MAR 26 01 13:18 With due re peci lo the court, I remain, JWWjs cc: Mr. Chris Helle Ms. ,Ajin Brown Mr, Sam Jones Mr. Steve Jone: Mr. Richard Ro / Walker Sincerely yours, .chcll Mr. Timothy Gs iger '' I^EQSIVSO ^AR 3 0 200! GrBCECf ^^SESREGfiJJQSi^^- ^JIS C\u0026gt; CF John W. Walker, P.A. Attorney At Law 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 Telephone (501) 374-3758 FAX (501) 374-4187 JOHN W. WALKER SHAWN CHILDS Via Facsimile March 26, 2001 OF COUNSEL ROBERT McHENRY, P.A. DONNA J. McHENRY 8210 Henderson Road Little Rock, Arkansas 72210 Phone\n(501) 372-3425  F.ax (501) 372-3428 Email\nrachenryd@swbell.net Honorable Judge Susan Webber Wright Chief Judge United States District Court 600 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, AR 72201 Re: LRSD v PCSSD Dear Judge Wright: Due to the fact that I was in trial before the Honorable George Howard Jr. in Pine Bluff, Arkansas from March 19-22, 2001 and in intense preparation for the days preceding the 19* I am just getting in position to address the Little Rock filing. Notice of Filing Compliance Report and Request for Scheduling Order. I further note that Little Rock has indicated that it wishes to limit our time for filing challenges to twenty (20) days. This letter is being written to request that the Court set a time for a conference before addressing the issue of a scheduling order so that all parties, as well as the Office of Desegregation Monitoring, would have an opportunity to address the propriety of the scheduling order request. The compliance report is extensive. It appears to be more than two hundred (200) pages in length, is very detail oriented and it makes many claims which are unfamiliar to us and probably to the ODM as well. I am writing the Court this letter, rather than filin\nHeller, who I am advised is away until Wednesday, expressed an ig a motion, because Mr. interest in having some dialogue regarding this matter, and the State settlement as well, before this matter becomes, if it ever does. a public dispute which the Court must resolve. I understand that the Court intends to schedule a hearing in the near future regarding the middle school issues raised by the PCSSD. May I suggest that the matter of the hearing of the scheduling order be set for the same day inasmuch as all parties are expected to be in court for the PCSSD matter. Although I have been unable to speak with Mr. Heller and I have not attempted to reach his co-counsel, Mr. Clay Fendley who I intend to try and reach immediately, I have informed Ms. Ann Marshall regarding my concerns herein and will be having further conversations with the parties until such time I receive the Courts reply to this letter.With due respect to the court, I remain, JWW.js cc: Mr. Chris Heller Ms Ann Brown Mr. Sam Jones Mr. Steve Jones Mr. Richard Roachell Mr. Timothy Gauger Sincerely yours. n W. Walker ro mx JOHN W. WALKER SHAWN CHILDS John w. Walker, p.a. Attorney At Law 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 Telephone (501) 374-3758 FAX (501) 374-4187 1 4 ZOQi. urfluE OF B^eSA'nGK5fiOtSITORIM\u0026amp; OF COUNSEL ROBERT McHENRY. P.A. DONNA J. McHENRY 8210 Hender.5O.\\ Road Little Rock. Ark.a.\\s.as 72210 Phone: (501) 372-3425  F.ax (501) 372-3428 Email: mchenrydSswbell.net Via Facsimile - 310-822-4824 April 9, 2001 Tr'mfl'i on g^ECESVc Dr. Terrence Roberts 932 South Oakland Pasenda, CA 91106 Re: LRSD Dear Terrence:' Joy gave me a report of your brief conversation with her on Friday. I am writing to inquire of your opinion as to whether the Little Rock School District has made it to the point where it can be established to be a unitary school system. I need a written response to this by the end of the week. The expectancy of the plan was that the Joshua consultant would be closely associated with Joshua as policies and procedures were being developed and established. In addition, the plan contemplated that we would be integrally involved in all aspects of policy devisation and promulgation. I thought we had established that during our several conversations with you. We had the same expectancy from Dr. Ross. To date, our involvement has been superficial and mostly nonexistent except for our initiative. Accordingly, when you provide your opinion regarding the readiness of the District for unitary status, would you kindly address our non involvement, i.e., in communication with you and District officials and in the reporting process in which you were involved. We believe that good faith was required of school officials in implementing the plan and that at minimal we were not to be circumvented by any persons in the process. I am sending Mr. Junious Babbs a copy of this letter because Junious has not kept us involved and, in our opinion, has actively sought to prevent our involvement, I believe, as provided for in the plan. His position seems to be that if you were invo.lved then we were involved, for you were our consultant rather than theirs. At a hearing, he, of course, will be a necessary witness regarding this point. Please let me hear from you as requested. Furthermore, if Mr. Babbs chooses to address these points with you, would you please let us know his position in your response to us. Office of Desegregation Monitoring FILE COPYWith warm personal regards, 1 remain, Sincerely, John W. Walker JWW:js cc: Mr. Junious Babbs Ms. Ann BrownAn. O' OOXQZ.H-^Z01 L K S D Rpr 1601 10:17a RITA ROBERTS SRD 626-793-7654 PAGE 02 P-2 Terrence J. Roberts, Ph.D. P.O. Box 96 Pasadena, CA 91102 (626) 644-4956 April 16, 2001 John W. Walker, P.A. Attorney at Law 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 RE: Your April 9,2001 letter to me Dear John: As always, it was good to hear from you, and I trust the report frna Joy was useful and informative. I will schedule lime lo meet with you when I am in Little Rock in the future. The work in the School District is going well and my feeling is that the employees have found the Coping With Difference program to be challenging and substantive. You ask, in your letter, about my opinion as to whether or not the School District has marie it to the point where it can be established as a unitary school system. Briefly, in my opinion, possibly. But, it is imperative to note that there arc many factors to be weighed and my opinion is but one of many to be considered. I add this because until all interested parties can come together and the available evidence, it is simply, and only, a matter of opinion. I feel ill equipped to comment on your level of non involvement in this process since I dont have enough information about communications between you and the District When I spoke to Mr. Babbs, he was surprised to find that you were of the opinion that he has actively sought to prevent your iiivolvement. As to Uk matter of whether or not T nm a Joshua consultant or a District consultant, I must say I find this rather confusing. In one sense it bespeaks an adversarial process which seems to pit you against the District with me somewhere in the middle. On the other band, it suggests a need for me to decide where my loyalties lie. In either case, the focus appears to be on things other than those that might benefit the children of the District. John, I am in this process because I want to see positive change that will result in greater educarional opportunities for children in this school system. My commitment is to do whatever it might take to realize that goal. If that end result is best achieved by unitary Office Of Desegregation Monitoring FILE COPYai/ ib / zooi 14: 04 501-324-2281 Apr IG 01 10:18a RITR ROBERTS LRSD SRO 62B-793-7G54 PAGE 03 P-3 status, so be it. However, if the opposite is true, I will support non-unitary status with a vengeance. You see, for me, this effort has never been about integration per sc. Integration in the absence of changed mind sets about the worth and value of children of color is an unworthy goal Obviously, there remains much to be done io this arena. Thats why I say, possibly, the District is ready for unitary status. In any case, we will talk further. Sincerely, A Terrence J. Rober^ PhJ), Cc: Mi. Junious Babbs, Ms. Ann Brown Received John W. Walker, P.A. Attorney At Law 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 Telephone (501) 374-3758 FAX (501) 374-4187 JUL 2 - 200J Off ICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING JOHN W. WALKER SHAWN CHILDS Via Facsimile - 376-2147 June 29, 2001 OF COUNSEL ROBERT McHENRY, P.A. DONNA J. McHENRY 8210 Henderson Road Little Rock, Arkansas 72210 Phone: (501) 372-3425  Fax (501) 372-3428 Email: mchenryd^wbeU.net Mr. Chris Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 2000 Regions Center Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Chris: Please provide all the information that has been provided to you by District officials at any time since June 10, 1999. Our tentative list of witnesses includes your senior administrators, beginning with Dr. Carnine and going to the level of Director. I am unable to give specific names because your letter of June 29, 2001 does not give specific names of the people responsible for [the] specific section of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. These are the names that I think are responsible: Dr. Les Carnine, Dr. Bonnie Lesley, Dr. Kathy Lease\nDr. Marion Lacey\nDr. Linda Watson\nDr. Richard Hurley\nDr. Ed Williams\nDr. Don Stewart\nDr. Gary Smith\nMs. Sadie Mitchell\nMr. Junious Babbs\nMs. Jo Evelyn Elston\nMr. Brady Gadberry\nMr. James Washington\nMr. Robert Robinson\nMs. Pat Price\nMr. Leon Adams\nMs. Vanessa Cleaver\nMr. Dennis Glasgow\nMs. Frances Jones: Ms. Kay Rainey\nMr. Michael Oliver\nMr. Everett Hawks\nMr. Larry Mitchell\nMs. Gayle Bradford\nMr. Lionel Ward\nMr. William Broadnax\nMr. Ray Gillespie\nMs. Levanna Wilson\nMr. Gene Parker\nMr. Michael Oliver\nMr. Larry Mitchell\nand Mr. Jim Mobsy. Other tentative witnesses include: Dr. Terrence Roberts\nDr. Steven Ross, Dr. John Fluker\nDr. Ray Simon, Dr. Charity Smith\nDr. Ken James\nand Mr. Willie Morris. I will supplement this list on Monday after receipt of all the requested information. With respect to exhibits, I intend to use some of the documents that you submit to me by the end of the day, the ODM reports, and the FOIA responses that you have received copies of as you requested those copies from the school staff. I also may find it necessary to use correspondence between us and yourself, Dr. Carnine and staff members of the Little Rock School District. I also expect that we may make reference to information provided to the District from Drs. Steven Ross and Terrence Roberts, as well as the ADE. We have asked Dr. John Fluker to look at some of your statistical data and are not certain what he has done with it at this time. I will share any reports from him as soon as I receive them. Finally, I expect to use the Monitor and Associate Monitors of the ODM as witnesses as well. Siiicerely, / ^hn W. Walker JWW:js cc: Ms. Ann Brown Counsel of Record Friday Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark HERSCHEL H FRIDAY (1922-1994) WILLIAM H SUTTON. P A BYRON M. EISEMAN. JR.. P.A. JOE D. BELL. P.A. JAMES A. BUTTRY, P.A FREDERICK S. URSERY. P.A. OSCAR E. DAVIS, JR., P.A. JAMES C. CLARK. JR , P.A. THOMAS P. LEGGETT. P.A. JOHN DEWEY WATSON, P.A. PAUL B. BENHAM UI. P.A. LARRY W. BURKS. P.A. A. WYCKLIFF NISBET. JR.. P.A. JAMES EDWARD HARRIS. P A. J. PHILLIP MALCOM. P.A. JAMES M. SIMPSON. P.A. JAMES M. SAXTON. P.A. J. SHEPHERD RUSSELL UI. P.A. DONALD H- BACON, P.A. WILLIAM THOMAS BAXTER. P.A. BARRY E. COPLIN. P.A. RICHARD D. TAYLOR. P.A. JOSEPH B. HURST. JR . P.A. ELIZABETH ROBBEN MURRAY. P.A. CHRISTOPHER HELLER. P.A. LAURA HENSLEY SMITH. P A. ROBERT S. SHAFER. P.A WILLIAM M. GRIFFIN UI. P.A. MICHAEL S. MOORE. P.A. DIANE S. MACKEY. P.A. WALTER M. EBEL III. P.A. KEVIN A. CRASS. P.A. WILLIAM A. WADDELL. JR.. P.A. SCOTT J. LANCASTER. P.A. M. GAYLE CORLEY. P.A. ROBERT B. BEACH. JR., P.A. J. LEE BROWN. P.A. JAMES C. BAKER. JR.. P A HARRY A. LIGHT. P.A. SCOTT H. TUCKER. P.A. GUY ALTON WADE. P.A. PRICE C. GARDNER. P.A. TONIA P. JONES. P.A. DAVID D. WILSON. P.A. ATTORNEYS AT LAW A LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP www.fridayfirm.com 2000 REGIONS CENTER 400 WEST CAPITOL LITTLE ROCK. ARKANSAS 72201-3493 TELEPHONE 501-376-2011 FAX 501-376-2147 237 EAST MILLSAP. SUITE 7 FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS 72703 TELEPHONE 501-695-2011 FAX 501-695-2147 JEFFREY H. MOORE. P.A. DAVID M. GRAF. P.A. CARLA GUNNELS SPAINHOUR. P.A. JOHN C FENDLEY. JR . P.A. JONANN ELIZABETH CONIGLIO. P.A. R- CHRISTOPHER LAWSON. P.A. GREGORY D TAYLOR, P A. TONY L. WILCOX. P.A. FRAN C. HICKMAN. P.A. BETTY J. DEMORY, P.A. LYNDA M. JOHNSON. P.A. JAMES W. SMITH. P.A. CLIFFORD W. PLUNKETT, P.A. DANIEL L. HERRINGTON, P.A. MARVIN L. CHILDERS K. COLEMAN WESTBROOK. JR. ALLISON J. CORNWELL ELLEN M. OWENS JASON B. HENDREN BRUCE B TIDWELL MICHAEL E. KARNEY KELLY MURPHY MCQUEEN JOSEPH P. MCKAY ALEXANDRA A. IFRAH JAY T. TAYLOR MARTIN A. KASTEN BRYAN W. DUKE JOSEPH G. NICHOLS ROBERT T. SMITH TAMARA G. MARTIN RYAN A. BOWMAN TIMOTHY C. EZELL T. MICHELLE ATOR KAREN S. HALBERT SARAH M. COTTON OFCOUNSEL B.S. CLARK WILLIAM L. TERRY WILLIAM L. PATTON. JR. H.T. LARZELERE. P.A. JOHN C. ECHOLS. P.A. A.D. MCALLISTER 208 NORTH FIFTH STREET BLYTHEVILLE. ARKANSAS 72315 TELEPHONE 870-762-2896 FAX 870-762-2918 June 29, 2001 JOHN C. FENDLEY. JR. LITTLE ROCK TEL 501-370-3323 FAX 501-244-5341 fendleyOfec.net Via Hand Delivery RECEIVED The Honorable Susan Webber Wright 522 U.S. Post Office and Courthouse JUN 2 9 2001 600 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3325 OFRCEOF DESEGREGATION MONITIM RE: Little Rock School District v. PCSSD Dear Judge Wright: Enclosed please find two documents which the Little Rock School District may introduce as exhibits in the hearings beginning July 5, 2001, pertaining to Little Rock School Districts compliance with its revised desegregation and education plan. Little Rock School District will also rely on its interim Compliance Report filed March 15,2000, and its Compliance Report filed March 15,2001, which have already been filed with the Court. We thank you for your time and attention to this matter. Respectfully, JCF/jm Enclosures John C. Fendley, Jr. cc via hand delivery: Mr. John Walker Ms. Ann Marshall The Honorable Susan Webber Wright June 29, 2001 Page 2 cc via U.S. mail: Mr. Sam Jones Mr. Steve Jones Mr. Richard Roachell Mr. Sammye TaylorLittle Rock School District Pupil Services Department Scholarship Awards 2000-2001 School Year School # Scholar^ip Recipients BM BF WM WF OM OF Central 4 4% 11 10% 25 23% 64 4 1 HIS Male 0 HISF Female 1 58% 4% 1% 0 1% Total no BM J.A. Fair 6 22 4 8 0 0 1 1 42 14% 52% 10% 19% 0 0 1% Hall McClellan Parkview TOTALS 15 13 5 5 0 0 1 0 39 38% 8 21% 7 10% 40 13% 33% 26 68% 19 26% 91 30% 13% 0 0 7 10% 41 14% 13% 3 8% 31 42% 111 37% 0 0 0 2 3% 6 2% 0 0 0 4 5% 5 2% 1% 1 0 38 1% 0 3 73 0 3 1% 4% 5 302 2% SCHOLARSHIP AWARD TOTALS 5185,242 $32,600 $406,458 $91,496 $332,781 $1,048,577 BF WM WF HisM HisF OM $309396 $278,606 $284,752 $334,680 $425,881 $1,633,315 $454330 $116,640 $342,450 0 $97,610 $1,010330 $963,662 $40,072 $240,000 $46,316 $647,566 $1337,616 $74,000 0 0 0 $82,192 $156,192 $16,000 0 0 0 $195,662 $211,662 $10,000 $10,000 $60,000 0 0 $80,000 deceived JW 2 9 2001 OF 0 $4,000 0 0 $500 $4300 Total Award By School $2,012330.00 $481,918 $1333,660 $472,492 $1,782,192 $6,082,792.00 ScholarshipAwards.OlHighlights of Grades K-2 Results Developmental Reading Assessment 1999-2000 and 2000-2001 2 9 25\n,I OmCEOF All three grade levels improved in spring 2001. 1999-2000 Kindergarten Grade 1 Grade 2 72.2 53.6 67.5 2000-2001 80 7 63.8 75.4 First grade showed the greatest improvement in spring 2001. Kindergarten Grade 1 Grade 2 Change +8.5 +10.2 +7.9 More than 75 percent of the schools improved in spring 2001. Kindergarten Grade 1 Grade 2 # of Schools Improving 27 (77%) 29 (83%) 29 (83%) 1Both area and magnet schools did well. The five highest performing schools at each grade level for each year follow. 1999-2000 2000-2001 Kindergarten McDermott* Fulbright* Rightsell* Terry * Grade 1 Grade 2 Mitchell* Woodruff* Williams Wilson* Western Hills* McDermott* Rightsell* Williams Forest Park* Western Hills* Otter Creek* Denotes area schools. McDermott* Baseline* Fulbright* Gibbs Brady* Williams Carver McDermott* Booker Forest Park* Carver Williams Western Hills* Otter Creek* McDermott* 2Many schools improved dramatically in spring 2001. Schools improving 20 or more points are as follows. All are area schools, and most are high poverty schools. Kindergarten Grade 1 Grade 2 _______2000-01 Baseline (42.9)* Badgett (28.4)* Forest Park (27.1) Cloverdale (26.1)* Stephens (25.3)* Wakefield (44.6)* Watson (41.9)* Baseline (41.2)* Stephens/Garland (27.5)* Western Hills (25.8) Chicot (24.4)* Badgett (20.6)* Dodd (31.1) Badgett (31.1)* Stephens/Gariand (30.1)* Pulaski Heights (29.3) McDermott (22.5) Denotes schools with 75% or higher eligible for free/reduced lunch. 3The Incentive Schools are, in general, improving. With the exception of Mitchell and Rightsell at grade 1, a majority of the students are performing at or above the \"readiness\" level. Kindergarten Franklin Mitchell Rightsell Rockefeller Stephens 1999-2000 64.3 90.6 92.1 75.8 40.8 2000-2001 58.6 92.3 80.5 76.2 66.1 Change -5.7 1.7 -11.6 0.4 25.3 Grade 1 Franklin Mitchell Rightsell Rockefeller Stephens 1999-2000 57.6 25.0 35.7 76.3 23.5 2000-2001 58.9 25.0 41.7 65.2 51.0 Change 1.3 0.0 6.0 -11.1 27.5 Grade 2 Franklin Mitchell Rightsell Rockefeller Stephens 1999-2000 81.2 48.6 94.7 71.4 31.3 2000-2001 83.6 50.0 70.5 84.2 61.4 Change 2.4 1.4 -24.2 12.8 30.1 4The Newcomer Centers are improving, except for Terry at kindergarten and grade 2. Kindergarten Brady Chicot Romine Terry Washington 1999-2000 76.9 56.1 66.7 91.9 81.2 2000-2001 93.4 70.9 86.4 86.7 84.1 Change 16.5 14.8 19.7 -5.2 2.9 Grade 1 Brady Chicot Romine Terry Washington 1999-2000 34.9 26.8 59.6 47.1 35.5 2000-2001 53.5 51.2 76.5 59.8 41.1 Change 18.6 24.4 16.9 12.7 5.6 Grade 2 Brady Chicot Romine Terry Washington 1999-2000 70.8 38.6 68.8 81.2 63.3 2000-2001 79.6 52.1 81.6 67.1 81.4 Change 8.8 13.5 12.8 -14.1 18.1 5There are seventeen (49 percent) elementary schools in the District where 75 percent or more of the students are eligible for free/reduced lunch. Many of these schools improved dramatically in spring 2001 and/or some are performing in the highest range of scores (80 percent or higher). Kindergarten Badgett (94%)____ Franklin (90%) Stephens (90%) Chicot (87%) Baseline (86%) Woodruff (86%) Cloverdale (85%) Wilson (85%) Mabelvale (85%) Mitchell (84%) Watson (83%) Geyer Springs (83%)____________ Rightsell (82%) Meadowcliff (81%) Wakefield (80%) Fair Park (78%) 1999-2000 21.6 64.3 40.8 56.1 51.1 69.2 56.4 66.7 61.0 90.6 56.4 85.1 2000-2001 50.0 58.6 66.1 70.9 94.0 46.2 82.5 80.0 73.3 92.3 73.7 87.7 Change 28.4 -5.7 25.3 14.8 42.9 -23.0 26.1 13.3 12.3 1.7 17.3 2.6 92.1 77.4 46.8 68.3 80.5 77.1 61.1 75.6 -11.6 -0.3 14.3 7.3 6Badgett (94%) Franklin (90%) Stephens (90%) Chicot (87%) Baseline (86%) Woodruff (86%) Cloverdale (85%) Wilson (85%) Mabelvale (85%) Mitchell (84%) Watson (83%)_____ Geyer Springs (83%)____________ Rightsell (82%) Meadowcliff (81%) Wakefield (80%) Fair Park (78%) Grade 1 1999-2000 5.9 57.6 23.5 26.8 29.6 84.2 28.4 82.9 50.8 25.0 24.7 46.8 2000-2001 26.5 58.9 51.0 51.2 70.8 61.5 33.9 53.8 60.5 25.0 66.6 38.6 Change 20.6 1.3 27.5 24.4 41.2 -22.7 5.5 -29.1 9.7 0.0 41.9 -8.2 35.7 70.0 22.0 62.5 41.7 66.6 66.6 72.7 6.0 -3.4 44.6 10.2 7Badgett (94%)____ Franklin (90%) Stephens (90%) Chicot (87%)_____ Baseline (86%) Woodruff (86%) Cloverdale (85%) Wilson (85%) Mabelvale (85%) Mitchell (84%) Watson (83%)_____ Geyer Springs (83%)____________ Rightsell (82%) Meadowcliff (81%) Wakefield (80%) Fair Park (78%) Grade 2 1999-2000 11.8 81.2 31.3 38.6 47.1 78.3 57.9 60.4 43.4 48.6 54.4 72.5 2000-2001 42.9 83.6 61.4 52.1 60.5 86.5 45.1 61.4 63.0 50.0 51.2 66.0 Change 31.1 2.4 30.1 13.5 13.4 8.2 -12.8 1.0 19.6 1.4 -3.2 -6.5 94.7 57.9 40.0 62.9 70.5 75.0 54.4 67.7 -24.2 17.1 14.4 4.8 8Most of the Success for All (SFA) schools improved in spring 2001. Most are now enriching the SFA program with ELLA strategies. Kindergarten Brady Baseline Cloverdale Fair Park Meadowcliff Romine Woodruff 1999-2000 76.9 51.1 56.4 68.3 77.4 66.7 69.2 2000-2001 93.4 94.0 82.5 75.6 77.1 86.4 46.2 Change 16.5 42.9 26.1 7.3 -0.3 19.7 -23.0 Grade 1 Brady Baseline Cloverdale Fair Park Meadowcliff Romine Woodruff 1999-2000 34.9 29.6 28.4 62.5 70.0 59.6 84.2 2000-2001 53.5 70.8 33.9 72.7 66.6 76.5 61.5 Change 18.6 41.2 5.5 10.2 -3.4 16.9 -22.7 Grade 2 Brady______ Baseline Cloverdale Fair Park Meadowcliff Romine Woodruff 1999-2000 70.8 47.1 57.9 62.9 57.9 68.8 78.3 2p00E20Ql 79.6 60.5 45.1 67.7 75.0 81.6 86.5 Change 8.8 13.4 -12.8 4.8 17.1 12.8 8.2 Schools with the Reading Recovery program in grade 1 are performing well. Grade 1 Booker Chicot* 1999-2000 69.3 26.8 2000-2001 87.4 51.2 Change 18.1 24.4 9Dodd Franklin Fulbright** Geyer Springs Gibbs Jefferson Otter Creek Pulaski Heights** Williams Wilson* 58.3 57.6 61.0 46.8 65.9 69.1 67.7 50.0 84.1 82.9 *2000-2001 was a training year. Reading Recovery not continued in 2000-2001. Grade 2 1999-2000 73.5 58.9 66.6 38.6 71.4 73.9 69.6 61.7 97.1 53.8 2000-2001 15.2 1.3 5.6 -8.2 5.5 4.8 1.9 11.7 13.0 -29.1 Change Booker Chicot* Dodd Franklin Fulbright** Geyer Springs Gibbs Jefferson Otter Creek Pulaski Heights** Williams Wilson* 79.8 38.6 51.7 81.2 79.3 72.5 80.5 71.1 87.2 45.2 81.4 52.1 82.8 83.6 88.7 66.0 82.9 85.0 90.5 74.5 1.6 13.5 31.1 2.4 9.4 -6.5 2.4 13.9 3.3 29.3 89.7 60.4 92.6 61.4 2.9 1.0 The number of schools with a majority of students performing below the \"readiness\" level is declining. Kindergarten Grade 1 Grade 2 1999-2000 3 (9%) 13 (37%) 8 (23%) 2000-2001 1 (3%) 6 (17%) 2 (6%) 10The number of schools with at least 80 percent of the students performing at the \"readiness\" level is increasing. Kindergarten Grade 1_____ Grade 2 1999-2000 15 (43%) 5 (14%) 10 (29%) 2000-2001 21 (23%) 5 (14%) 18 (51%) The gap between the lowest and highest performing schools is decreasing. Kindergarte n Grade 1 Grade 2 1999-2000 73.2 2000-2001 48.1 Change 25.1 78.3 82.9 72.1 50.2 6.2 32.7 11Black students are improving at every grade level and at a higher rate than Non-Black students. 1999-2000 Kindergarte n Grade 1____ Grade 2 69.3 48.3 63.8 2000-2001 77.0 57.4 69.8 Change 7.7 9.1 6.0 Non-Black students are improving at every grade level. Kindergarte n Grade 1 Grade 2 1999-2000 84.7 71.2 81.6 2000-2001 88.8 77.3 86.8 Change 4.1 6.1 5.2 The achievement gap is much lower in grades K-3 now than in higher grade levels and is decreasing. It is lowest at kindergarten. Kindergarte n Grade 1 Grade 2 1999-2000 15.4 2000-2001 11.8 Change -3.6 22.9 17.8 19.9 17.0 -3.0 -0.8 12John W. Walker, P.A. Attorney At Law 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 Telephone (501) 374-3758 FAX (501) 374-4187 RECEIVED JUN 2 9 2001 ^Of JOHN W. WALKER SHAWN CHILDS OF COUNSEL ROBERT McHENRY, P.A. DONNA J. McHENRY 8210 Henderson Road Little Rock, Arkansas 72210 Phone: (501) 372-3425  Fax (501) 372-3428 Email: mchenryd^wbell.net Via Facsimile June 28, 2001 Honorable Judge Susan Webber Wright Chief Judge - United States District Court 600 West Capitol Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Re: LRSD v. PCSSD, et al., Case No. 4:CV82-866 Dear Judge Wright: I am writing this letter to request that you schedule an informal conference between the Little Rock School District counsel and us regarding the forthcoming hearing. The timing of the hearing appears to be insufficient for us to prepare to make our case. The District officials simply have not cooperated with us in providing information on a voluntary basis. We are now met with the inability to communicate with any District official without going through counsel and we are experiencing other problems as well. This is due to instructions and advice of counsel. Let me cite an example of the problems that we are having. We met with Chris Heller, Clay Fendley and Ms. Marshall on Monday of this week. We were informed that there were large numbers of evaluation reports regarding the many programs that have been undertaken by the District in the past three years and before that are sitting, according to Clay, in Clays office. Those reports have been requested by us many times and we were essentially informed that no such reports existed. We still have not seen the reports. Now Clay and Chris do not make them and other District data available to us as has been the normal expectation and practice. That practice has abated since Joshua filed their objections. The timing problem also involves our inability to meet the courts directive that we provide our exhibits by tomorrow. With the Districts lack of cooperation, without there being formal discovery, and with the obstruction directed by Clay and Chris, we simply need much more time to meet our burden of proof. We request that we be allowed to use the time that you have set for trial in July and August to engage in discovery and that the matter be reset for a period of time thereafter. We also note that the District is in the process of preparing reports that it intends to submit in its portion of the hearing. If they attempt to do this, it will prejudice our presentation.This is so because they were obliged, at the time of their report in March, to have fiilly met their obligations and to have that established by documentation. A conference is sorely and urgently needed so that we can address these and other concerns of the parties. May we meet with you either by telephone, or in person, either later today or tomorrow? Sincerely, John W. Walker JWWjs cc: Mr. Chris Heller Ms. Ann Brown Mr. Richard Roachell Counsel of Record C  Cu/ RECEIVED JUL 2 - 7001 received JU12-2O(I1 OmCEOF desegregation MONITORING OmCEOF OESEgfGKnONIMHgm OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL STATE OF ARKANSAS Mark Pryor Attorney General Samrayc L. Taylor Chief Barrister Direct dial: (501)682-1320 E-mail: sammvet@aq.state.ar.us KL4 FACSIMILE Honorable Susan Webber Wright 302 U.S Post Office and Courthouse 600 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, AR 72201 604-5169 Re: LRSD V. PCSSD\nUSDC\n4:82CV866SWW Dear Judge Wright: Mark and I would like to thank you for excusing us from the hearing currently being scheduled by the court for the morning of June 29, 2001. I was not scheduled to be in the office tomorrow and Mark has a deposition scheduled to begin at 10:00 a.m. If we were to attend the hearing, we would object to Mr. Walkers untimely request to continue the hearing dates in July and August, as these dates have been set by court order since April 4, 2001. Again, we appreciate your granting us leave to not attend the June 29 hearing. Respectfully yours, Chief Barrister SLT/alh cc: Counsel of Record via Regular Mail 323 Center Street  Suite 200  Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 682-2007  FAX (501) 682-8084 Internet Website  http://www.ag.state.ar.us/ Q:\\Civil\\Sammye Taylor\\Deseg\\Judge 6-28-01 .doc 954 Peaces ju. 03 01 18:29 JOHN W. walker SHAWN CHILDS John W. Walker, P.a. AitorneyAt Law 1723 Broadway Lmts Rock, Arkansas 72206 Telephone (501) 374-3758 FAX (501) 374-4187 Via Facsimile - 376-2147 July 3. 2001 OF COUNSEL ROBERT McHENKYEa. DONNA J. McHENRY 8210 Hbjdsrson Boao Email: nwhcnrydgawbelhaet Mr. Chris Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 2000 Regions Center Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Chris\nJoshua may use the following documents as exhibits during the hearings on July 5** and 6*: 1) Compliance Plan dated June 10, 1999 and any subsequent plans I D n________ J - 1 _______________ *  * -2) LRSD Interim Report dated March 15. 2000\n-3) LRSD Compliance Report dated March 15, 2001\nODM Report dated June 21, 1995\n^5) ODM Repon dated October 26, 1999\n*^5) ODM Repon dated March 29, 2000\n^7) ODM Repon dated April 11, 2001\nt-^) ODM Repon dated August 11, 1999\n9) Draft Ev^uations from PRE\n10) Responses to request for information dated 6-8-01 to Mr. Babbs\n11) Responses to request for information dated 6-13-01 to Dr, Lesley 12) Documents listed in Dr, Lesleys letters dated 6-14-01 and 6-27-01 to Ms, Springer\n13) Responses to request for information dated 6-20-01 to Ms, Mitchell\n14) Responses to request for information dated 6-27-01\n15) Responses to request for information dated 6-28-01 to Mr. Heller 16) Loan requests to State of Arkansas from LRSD\n17) Responses to requests for information dated 6-27-01 to Ms, Mitchell\n18) Responses to requests for information dated 7-2-01 to Dr, James\n19) LRSD 2000-01 Recruitment and Placement Service Annual Report 20) Dept, Of Exceptional Children Strategic Plans - 1998 and 2001 21) Budget and Enrollment data for LRSD elementary schools\n22) Manpower Reports for 1998-99 through 2000-01, 23) Standardized test results (SAT, ACT, Stanford) from 1982 to present 24) Leners dated April 14, 1999, April 20, 1999, May 12, 1999 to Dr. Carnine5013744187 WALKER LAW FIRM 954 803/03 JUL 03 01 18:29 ----- 25) Letters dated July 8, 1999 and October to John Walker\n18, 2000 from Christopher Heller - 26) Letter dated September 13, 1999 to Mr. Larry Berkeley\nLumpkin to Junious Babbs- ^'garding equitable allocation 1-29) Settlement Agreement dated 1989 pages 15-16\n26-27\nof resources\nAgreement between State and LRSD dated 3-19-2001 321 Walker d^ed 5-11-13-99- Correspondence between Mr. Babbs and Drs. Ross and Roberts- 341 from Mr. Babbs office on 7-2-01- and -34) Dr. Camine s Pnonty Repons.   There are several requests that are still outstanding and documents as exhibitc Tf  ana we may use some of those all documents that are given to tbs XVwkh \"structed District personnel to share you. Your cooperation is appreciated. Sincerely, John W. Walker JWWjs cc: Ms. Ann Marshall5013744187 UfiLKER LfiW FIRM 954 P01Z03 JUL 03 01 18:29 W. WALKER, P.A. Anorney at Law 5723 Broadway Tittle Rock, Arkansas 72206 Telephone (501) 374-3758 Fax (501) 374-4187 FAX transmission COVER SHEET Date: To: Fax: [. [, r 'Ll3-^0! J ] Re: L Sender: YOU SHOULD RECEIVE S J ] - ---------(including cover sheet)]PAGE(S), INCLUDING THIS COVERSHEET. TF YOU DO NOT RECEIVE ALL THEPAGES PLEASECALL \"\u0026lt;(501) 374-575S\u0026gt; . only for th use of the individiiBi or andconfideatial infonnationintentted ___ I entit-y- -n--a-m---e-d-- -a--b- ove. I*f t*he rea*der of' th-is mIessSage is HnOoTt tmhee iinmteenaodeedd J Wsibie to deUver it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissenunation, distribution or copying of this communication is strirrlv i_____ received this communication in error, please immediate notify or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have to us at the above address via the U.S. Postal Service. Thank us by telephone, and return the original message :you. a 1015744187 WALKER LAW FIRM 932 P02/03 JUL 03 01 06:50 JOHN w. walker SHAWN CHILDS John w. Walker, p.a. Attorney At Law 1723 Broadway LmtE Rock, Arkansas 72206 TELEraoNE (501) 374-3758 FAX (501) 374-4187 Via Facsimile July 3, 2001 O' COUNSEL ROBERT McHENRY. Ra pONNALMcHENW 8210 Hknoceson Road Ti. . Liras Rock AaxANBAs 72210 Phons: (501) 87^3426  Faz (501) 372-3428 Email\nmcbeniydaswbellnat Honorable Judge Susan Webber Wright Chief Judge - United States District Court 600 West Capitol Little Rock, Arkansas 7220] Re: LRSD v. PCSSD, et al. - Case No, 4\nCV82-866 Dear Judge Wright\nnought to meet with Little Rock school officials since our  * Honor on Friday. After providing names of possible witnesses to Mr Heller nn R a u------- to them available on Monday. On yesterday 1 snnke m u n  Fnday, he agre the inteiviews and he indicated that he would ge?btk wth^me At Wn m that we will be unable to make thL Since our conference 5vith Her on Friday, agreed interviews this week, we will be unable to make them available for requesting a conference with the Court to assist us with an amicable resolution of this matter. ificerely, ictated but not read John W. Walker JWW:js cc\nMr Chris Heller Ms. Ann Brown Qffioeof OMsgregation MonRoring FILE COPYrxioAYdni.)^) H. lUTTOW. px. ,nm K. nioua. j., r.. ^AavmT.fA  uluny. C Aavtx. JAMtt C. CXaAX. JV F.A, tvomaa  Lcocxrr. zx. iotoi OCWT wanea. 7.A. FAUL X SXMXAM lU. r A. LAArrw auxxAF.A. A **cxurrpiSMr^jx..zA. MMXS C9WMP \"AAAiA. f-A. h FWUJF MaLCAM. F.A JAHJJ M. aWSAN. FJL ZAMttM. UXTAH. F.A. J siienBKo pj, H. MCON.  A. *nXlAMTTMH lAXrn. M AWY s. conm. f.a. UatAAA 0. TAVLOt. 7.A 5013744187 WALKER LAW FIRM iKLUAi liWKjbliGt\na CLARK 932 P03/03 JUL 03 '01 0002 06:50 Josmo. WMT. nu. i.a UZAtlTH kOMCN MUAXAt * a CttKTOnrBl Htuat F A. w/MWjunm iomTs.:RAPMu?.A vn.UAH M. oxtmw tn. f a. X noctt. ZA. iNAFCt. MACxrr r.A. OVtNA. fA. TA. A. WAPOBU. JtL. f.A. tCOTT I. a.A M.0AVVlC0V.tY..A. *O*\u0026lt;*T \u0026gt;. aCACM. flL. tjL. J. LZE BXOMr, r,A. jAMsac aAax.JK.. *y A. LWWI. F.A. rT K. rargy j fluy ALWN VAOe. FtlOSCOAMM\u0026amp;Lrx YONlA f. town. \u0026gt;.A. OAvw 0. YOMt. e.A. Friday Eldredge A Clark ATToaxeys t law * JMITSC tlAgiuTY rAfiTNBtSfllf \".friosyflrm.com 2000 AEQlONS CCNTgft 468 WZ6ST CAPITOt. ttls rock. ARKANflAa rzzovjAss TCLfPhone 501-378-4011 Fax 501-378-2,47 EAST utusAp. wire 'Avengviue. awcum \u0026gt;jj I^IEFMONE sei.AM.20lt Fax Ml.sMeMAT zM pipTM sneer eurrneviLtt. AMfA/tStit \u0026gt;ia TBLW\u0026lt;^\u0026lt; 70.m24M FAX x7eeTi.aia VIA FAZ No, 374-4187 July 2,2001 n MOOXX. ClAA F. A MO(Ar ALBteMVtA A trXAM Mtrna * CwJTOMttl tJhVSON. fJL ------------- OAlCAay a. TaVX^ Pji. WRXOX. zx. C meXMAN. r./i, tWOA K fOWiOt^ f,/c UMXX V. AMtTK r.A. msocrrr. oafju, t MtuuiiQmi XAKVatLORLOCM colbmam wunoLoox. m. AUUOKX OOwrVBU. aUXHHdWlK 'ASON 4. WN0A1N IUJC8 *. nowiu. WA.l.XAJlV OLLY ituKnrr Wttxro. woiQu nom TAMAAU MARYW ctaita. wmiAM C O'\" t T. WOBUZ ATOt s. 4AUrr \u0026lt;a\u0026lt;AAM. OITTQa XCAAXC *RiUM u. nouiT \u0026lt;r. LABxeLsix Kfk \u0026amp; COMU. F A. A\u0026gt; MGAtUlTEfc CMMstOPNCA malsx LiTTUenOCX rev Crt\u0026lt;47*tuA FAX CMeaMeMM Mr. John Walker JOHNW\nWALKER,?,A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Re: LRSD V. PCSSD Dear John\nme know the order in which they will testify so that I can mnlfB time. In accordance wrth your letter. Dr. Lesley wiU not be avaailrarbalneg uenmtieln tthse t oA hauveg thuemst pSreJseSnt? at the appropriate You have said fiiat you plan to call Ann Marshall, Gene Jones and Horace Smith fiom Desegregation Monitoring. I have called ODM to attempt as I hear something, I will let you know. to the Of\u0026amp;ce of arrange ameetingin advance of their testimony. As soon We also discussed tfaeavailability of Steve Ross and Terrence Roberts, Itold you that we have not made any arrangements to have them present on Thunday or Friday. Lk Camine is in the process of moving to FayetteviUe. Dick Hurley has not yet remmed firm not yet returned from a trip out the available for interviews\" this week to make them Yoj Christopher J. Heller CJH/dh I John W. Walker, P.A. Attorney At Law 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 Telephone (501) 374-3758 FAX (501) 374-4187 JOHN W. WALKER SHAWN CHILDS July 3, 2001 OF COUNSEL ROBERT McHENRY, PA DONNA J. McHENRY 8210 Henderson Road LnTLE Rock, Arkansas 72210 Phone\n(501) 372-3425  Fax (501) 372-3428 Email: mchenryd^wbell.net Mr. Ray Simon Arkansas Department of Education #4 Capitol Mall Little Rock, AR 72201 RECEIVED JUL 5 - 2001 Dear Mr. Simon: OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING Would you please let us have access today to your correspondence files and other files regarding the 20 million dollar loan forgiveness discussions that you have been having with Little Rock. You will recall that we asked to be included in those discussions and have not been. This is to also inform you that we expect to call you as a witness in the existing case. We may not get to you on Thursday or Friday of this week, but if we dont we, please expect to be called on either August I\" or August 2\". With best regards, I remain, Sincerely, John W. Walker JWW:js cc\nMs. Sammye Taylor Ms. Ann Brown Mr. Chris Heller / 5013744187 WALKER LAW FIRM 260 P02 AUG 15 01 11:22 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT ADMINISTRATIVE DIRECTIVE: IMH Effective\nJuly 11,2001 CLASS INTERRUPTIONS Purpose The purpose of these regulations is to increase significantly the amount of time on task or engaged learning time without increasing the school day or school year. The organization of the school and the use of time in the allotted school day send a powerful message to teachers and students about the value of learning. Keeping instructional time sacred is respectful of both teaching and learning. Extending engaged learning time\" is a research-based strategy for improving student achievement. I Interruptions to Instruction The principal and the Campus Leadership Team of each school are directed to protect instructional time from interruptions for non-instructiona! matters to every extent possible. Schools should periodically audit the amount of potential engaged time that is being lost due to teacher absences, student absences, tardiness in beginning lessons, time lost due to discipline infractions, time lost due to assemblies or presentations unrelated to the course benchmarks, early releases, field trips not tightly correlated with the course benchmarks, and similar losses. These data collections will enable the school to find ways to increase the amount of instructional time without adding to the school day, week, or year. Some specific guidelines follow: 1. 2. 3. Principals and other office personnel should not use the intercom more than twice per day (once in the morning and once in the afternoon), except when an emergency justifies the interruption of instruction. Students should generally not be allowed to miss core instruction, especially English language arts and mathematics, for field trips, presentations on non-academic topics, health screenings, school pictures, non-academic assemblies, events to reward students, early dismissals for athletic participation, etc. Principals should generally forbid the showing of rented videos to classes, even when they are loosely connected to curriculum topics. Rather, teachers should use video that is tightly correlated to the course benchmarks or use only clips from longer videos to illustrate~a point. Entertainment videos should not be used during core instructional time. 4. Allowing students during the instructional day to play games of any kind that do not have an instructional purpose (i.e., related to the course standards and/or benchmarks) is inappropriate.I [ 5013744187 WALKER LAW FIRM 260 P03 AUG 15 01 11:23 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT ADMINISTRATIVE DIRECTIVE: IMH Effective: July 11,2001 -continued- 5, Schools should not engage in the practice of giving students free time' at the beginning of school year, the day before holidays, days during semester examinations, the last week of school, for \"team\" days, and so forth. 6. Instruction should not be interrupted by pulling students out to take care of library business, to see the nurse, to see the counselor, to take unnecessary phone calls. Rather, the support staff should make arrangements with teachers ahead of time to send students at their convenience. These guidelines are not meant to suggest that classrooms should be devoid of joy. Rather, they are intended to communicate a climate of respect for teaching and learning, to communicate to students a consistent message that their learning is important, and to enable all of the Districts students to be successful learners. Each Campus Leadership Team shall include in its work a review of current practices that interrupt instruction and shall design strategies to eliminate or radically limit the times during any school day when teaching and learning are interrupted for unplanned, non-instructional issues.OlACutl/jy 5013744187 WALKER LAW FIRM 260 P01 AUG 15 01 11:22 fOHN W. WALKER, P.A. Attorn^ at Law 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 Telephone (501) 374-3758 Fax (501) 374-4187 FAX TRANSMISSION COVER SHEET To: Date: Tax: Te: Sender: YOU SHOULD receive [ (including cover sheet)] PAGE(S), INCLUDING THIS CO VEE SHEET IF YOU DO NOT RECEIVE ALL THE PAGES, PLEASE CALL \"\u0026lt;(501) 374-3758\u0026gt;\" The information contained in this facsimile message is attorney privileged and confidential information intended only for die use of the individual or entity named above. If the reader of tliis message is not the intended recipient, or die employee or agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please immediate notify us by telephone, and return the original message to us at the above address via the U.S. Postal Service. Thank you. Office of Desegregation Monitoring United States District Court  Eastern District of Arkansas Ann S. Marshall. Federal Monitor One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 376-6200 Fax (501) 371 -0100 July 23, 2001 Dr. Ken James Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Ken: My associate, Gene Jones, has been closely monitoring the districts program evaluation efforts. Gene has been able to obtain some program evaluations, but he has been unsuccessful in procuring others, so Im asking for your help. While the districts March 2001 Compliance Report reads that PRE has evaluated a number of specific programs (page 148), most of those evaluations were not available when we made our latest request for them on June 26, 2001. Below is a list of the 12 evaluations we need in order to continue our monitoring. All are for 2000-01 unless otherwise indicated. 1. NSF (We received a copy on 6-26-01, but are unsure that its a final version.) 2. Middle schools 3. Extended year schools 4. Summer schools (for 1999-00) 5. HIPPY 6. Charter school 7. Campus Leadership Teams 8. English as a Second Language 9. Lyceum Scholars Program 10. Southwest Middle Schools SEDL program 11. Watson Elementarys Onward to Excellence 12. Collaborative Action Team Please forward these program evaluations to us as soon as possible. If any are still not available, please let us know the status of their preparation and when we may expect to receive them. Thank you very much for your assistance. Sincerely yours. Ann S. MarshallFriday Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark HERSCHEL H. FRIDAY {1M2-I994) WILLIAM H. SUTTON, P.A. BYRON M. EISEMAN, JR,, P.A. JOE D. BELL. P.A. JAMES A. BUTTRY, P.A. FREDERICK S. URSERY. P.A. OSCAR E. DAVIS. JR.. P.A JAMES C. CLARK. JR.. P.A. THOMAS P. LEGGETT. P.A. JOHN DEWEY WATSON. P.A. PAUL B. BENHAM 111. P.A. LARRY W BURKS. P.A. A. WYCKLIFF NISBET. JR.. P.A. JAMES EDWARD HARRIS. P A. J. PHILLIP MALCOM. P.A. JAMES M. SIMPSON. P.A. JAMES M. SAXTON. P.A. J. SHEPHERD RUSSELL 111. P.A. DONALD H. BACON. P.A. WILLIAM THOMAS BAXTER. P.A. BARRY E. COPLIN. P.A. RICHARD D. TAYLOR. P.A. JOSEPH B. HURST. JR.. P.A. ELIZABETH ROBBEN MURRAY. P.A. CHRISTOPHER HELLER. P.A. LAURA HENSLEY SMITH. P.A. ROBERT S. SHAFER. P.A. WILLIAM M. GRIFFIN HI. P.A. MICHAEL S. MOORE. P.A. DIANE S MACKEY, P.A WALTER M EBEL III. P.A. KEVIN A. CRASS. P.A. WILLIAM A. WADDELL. JR.. P.A. SCOTT J. LANCASTER. P.A. M. GAYLE CORLEY. P.A. ROBERT B BEACH. JR . P.A. J. LEE BROWN. P.A. JAMES C. BAKER. JR.. P.A. HARRY A. LIGHT. P.A. SCOTT H. TUCKER. P.A. GUY ALTON WADE. P.A. PRICE C. GARDNER. P.A. TONIA P, JONES, P.A. DAVID D. WILSON. P.A. ATTORNEYS AT LAW A LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP www.fridayfirm.com 2000 REGIONS CENTER 400 WEST CAPITOL LITTLE ROCK. ARKANSAS 72201-3493 TELEPHONE 601-376-2011 FAX 501-376-2147 237 EAST MILLSAP. SUITE 7 FAYETTEVILLE. ARKANSAS 72703 TELEPHONE 501-695-2011 FAX 501-695-2147 JEFFREY H. MOORE. P.A. DAVID M. GRAF, P.A. CARLA GUNNELS SPAINHOUR. P.A. JOHN C. FENDLEY. JR., P.A. JONANN ELIZABETH CONIGLIO. P.A. R CHRISTOPHER LAWSON. P.A GREGORY D. TAYLOR. P.A. TONY L. WILCOX, P.A. FRAN C. HICKMAN. P.A. BETTY J. DEMORY. P.A. LYNDA M. JOHNSON. P.A. JAMES W. SMITH. P.A. CLIFFORD W. PLUNKETT. P.A. DANIEL L. HERRINGTON. P.A. MARVIN L. CHILDERS K. COLEMAN WESTBROOK. JR. ALLISON J. CORNWELL ELLEN M. OWENS JASON B. HENDREN BRUCE B TIDWELL MICHAEL E. KARNEY KELLY MURPHY MCQUEEN JOSEPH P MCKAY ALEXANDRA A. IFRAH JAY T. TAYLOR MARTIN A. KASTEN BRYAN W. DUKE JOSEPH G. NICHOLS ROBERT T. SMITH RYAN A. BOWMAN TIMOTHY C. EZELL T. MICHELLE ATOR KAREN S. HALBERT SARAH M. COTTON OFCOUNSEL B.S. CLARK WILLIAM L. TERRY WILLIAM L. PATTON. JR. H.T. LARZELERE. P.A. JOHN C. ECHOLS. P.A. A.D. MCALLISTER RECEIVED 208 NORTH FIFTH STREET BLYTHEVILLE. ARKANSAS 72315 TELEPHONE 870-762-2898 FAX 870-762-2918 JUL 17 2001 CHRISTOPHER HELLER LITTLE ROCK TEL 501-370-1506 FAX 501-244-5344 hnrg?c.rot OmCEOF DESEGREGRniianDRm July 16, 2001 Ms. Ann Marshall Desegregation Monitor One Union National Plaza RECEIVED 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 JUL 1 7 ZOOl Re\nLRSD Compliance Report - March 15, 2001 OFFlGfcOl DESEGREGATION MONITORING Dear Ann\nI will attempt to arrange a meeting among the representatives of the parties and the members of your staff in accordance with our conversation last week. In the meantime, I would like to request that you share with the parties any written information developed by your office concerning errors in LRSDs March 2001 Compliance Report. This would make it easier for the parties to prepare for possible meetings with the members of your staff as well as the hearing scheduled in August and November. Thank you for your consideration. very Christopher Heller CJH/bk cc\nMr. John W. Walker Mr. Richard Roachell Mr. Samuel Jones Ms. Sammye Taylor Mr. Steve Jones Dr. Ken JamesJohn W. Walker, P.A. Attorney At Law 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 Telephone (501) 374-3758 FAX (501) 374-4187 JOHN W. WALKEK SHAWN CHILDS Via Facsimile - 604-5106 July 23, 2001 OF COUNSEL ROBERT McHENRY, PA. DONNA J. McHENRY 8210 Hendekson Road Little Rock, Aekansas 72210 Phone: (501) 372-3425  Fax (501) 372-3428 Email: mcheiuyd^wbell.net Honorable Judge Susan Webber Wright Chief United States District Judge 600 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 RECESVED JUL 25 2001 Re: Case No. LR-C-82-866 OmCEOF OESEGi\u0026amp;GMlONHQWTOHifjS Dear Judge Wright: This IS to inform you that we have experienced some difSculty in obtaining documents from the Little Rock School District. We informed your office while you were away of one set of problems we were experiencing last week. We are mindful of the courts deadline to provide Mr. Heller and Mr. Pendley with a listing of our exhibits, which is tomorrow. Our FOIA requests were dated June 5, 2001, July 2, 2001 and July 11, 2001 respectively, well in advance of last Friday s deadline and we have not been given the data. As I am writing this letter, Mr. Hellers secretary is on the telephone requesting that we must come to his office, look at and copy whatever is in two boxes. That is entirely unacceptable and fhistrates our ability to be prepared I will ask the secretary to have the boxes delivered to our offices in order to see whether the matenal being provided is what we requested. We will safely keep the boxes and return them to Mr. Heller on tomorrow. The Court is being asked to schedule a conference for identification of documents and document delivery for Wednesday, assuming that we have been unable to get the information that we have requested. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, ictated but not read John W. Walker JWW:js cc: Mr. Chris Heller Ms. Ann MarshallOffice of Desegregation Monitoring United States District Court  Eastern District of Arkansas Ann S. Marshall, Federal Monitor One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501)376-6200 Fax (501) 371-0100 July 23, 2001 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 2000 Regions Center 400 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 Dear Chris: Your letter of July 16, 2001 arrived while I was out of state last week, so please understand my delay in responding to your request for information about errors we identified in the LRSDs March 2001 Compliance Report. Enclosed is a list of the math errors we found in the pages of the Compliance Report. These are solely errors in mathematical calculations, based on figures that the district used in its report. For example, page 13 charts the Masters Degree Plus Nine or More Years of Experience for elementary schools. In the 1999-2000 column, the numbers for Garland are 6/26 24% when 6 is actually 23% of 26. Most of the math errors we found were minor, but some are significant. For example, page 27, last paragraph, 6' line: The report claims that 66% of the districts African-American students participated in a co-curricular activity during the 1999-00 school year. The correct calculation is between 46% and 48%, depending on which enrollment numbers the district used to arrive at 62% as the corresponding proportion of African-Americans who participated in extracurricular activities, which is cited in the paragraph at the top of page 27. We have not catalogued any other errors we may have found in the report, such as a chart that erroneously lists a school as closed in a year when the building was actually open, inconsistencies among charts, or discrepancies between what a chart shows and what the accompanying narrative asserts. Sincerely yours,  Ann S. Marshall Enc. cc: All Counsel of Record Dr. Ken James . ^4 Math Errors Found by ODM in LRSDs March 15, 2001 Compliance Report 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 1. 8. 9. Page 7, bottom chart, 1997, Percent A-A Page 13, bottom chart. Garland, 1999-2000 Page 13, top of page. Rockefeller, 1\" column Page 13, bottom chart, ACC-Metro, 1998-99 Page 17, bottom chart, 1996-97 Page 17, bottom chart, 1998-99 Page 22, middle chart, 1998-99 Percents, White Females Page 22, middle chart, 1998-99 Percents, Other Females Page 22, middle chart, 1999-2000 Percents, Other Females 10. Page 22, middle chart, 2000-01 Percents, White Males 11. Page 24, 1* paragraph, 3\"* line 12. Page 27, last paragraph, 6* line 13. Page 27, last paragraph, b* line 14. Page 40, bottom row, 2000-2001, Other 15. Page 40, bottom row, 2000-2001, Total 16. Page 40, 1 bullet, second line 17. Page 40, 2\"** bullet, last line 18. Page 47, bottom row. Total 19. Page 47, bottom row. Total 20. Page 92, bottom row. Change 21. Page 93, bottom row. Change 22. Page 124, bottom row, 4\"' column 23. Page 127, 2\"* chart, 1999, Total 24. Page 129, 1 chart, 2000, Total 25. Page 129, 1* chart, Increases, Total 26. Page 129, 1* chart, % Change, Total 27. Page 132, 1 chart. All Students, % Change 28. Page 132, 1' chart. A-A Students, % Change 29. Page 145, ALC, 1999-2000, Total 30. Page 145, Totals, 1999-2000, Total 31. Page 146, ALC, 1997-98, D/0 32. Page 146, Total, 1997-98, D/0 33. Page 146, Total, 1999-2000, D/0 34. Page 146, Ft. Hgts., 1997-98 D/0 35. Page 146, Ft. Hgts., 1998-99, D/0 36. Page 146, Mann, 1998-99 D/0 37. Page 146, Pul. Hgt., 1997-98 D/0 38. Page 146, TOTAL, 1997-98 D/0 39. Page 146, TOTAL, 1999-00 Enr 40. Page 146, GRAND TOTAL, 1999-2000 Enr 41. Page 147, 1 paragraph, 4* line 42. Page 161, TOTALS, 1998-99 White 43. Page 161, 1\" paragraph, 4* line 1 /in/ 1*4 0 O-xn/ Z*4 /O 00X1/ Zo /O er\\n/  TZU 9 FL 7% -1% 1 on/ 1V / 0 1 /rn/ 1 0/0 ^on/ J V / o z-z-n/ 00 0 1 gn/ 1 3/0 . 1 gn/ 1 3/0 +5 +5 +22 ono/ oTTO 1 n ACi lo.4o F+tSO 669 1200 22 OTT 1 o 4 1 r\\ 1 n/  IvO 7% J fyv 690 oz~ *400 /in/ *4/0 6% F% 3% 339 67323 12733F YH} 3\n29e-\n46+ eight 15% 23% 26% 58% 8 9 0 0 9% 18% 42% 46% to 48% 19% 18% 18 19 135 81% 18.49 11.81 577 1282 2220 1061 92% -7% -7% 277 795 38% 600 466 5% 4% 0 0 326 5,343 12,351 173 3,290,452 nineArxwwAc -fo e.1- JOHN W. Walker, RA. Attorney Ar Law 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 Telephone (501) 374-3758 FAX (501) 374-4187 JOHN W. WALKER SHAWN CHILDS OF COUNSEL ROBERT McHENRY, RA. DONNA J. McHENRY 8210 Hendebson Road Little Rock, Arkansas 72210 Phone: (501) 372-3425  Fax (501) 372-3428 Email: mchenrydi^wbell.net Via Facsimile: 324-2146 July 24, 2001 Dr. Kenneth James Superintendent of Schools Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 received JUL 2 5 2001 Re: FOIA Office Of OSESKKfflONMONHOfflWe Dear Dr. James: This request is pursuant to the Arkansas Freedom of Information Act. Would you provide for review, inspection, and copying the responses received to the e-mail request dated July 12, 2001 from Dr. Lesley to members of the Cabinet for : the ways that ODM has been involved in our work- committees, reviews of materials, etc. By copy of this letter to Ms. Ann Marshall, we are asking that she allow us to inspect any documents that she has related to this request. We also intend to call Ms. Marshall as a witness on the good faith issue and her knowledge of the Districts implementation activities during the next hearing, if time permits. Please make all of these responses available to me by Friday, July 27, 2001 at 1:00 p. m. Sincerely, W. Walker cc: Ms. Ann Marshall JWW:fcJohn w. Walker, p.a. Attorney At Law 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 Telephone (501) 374-3758 FAX (501) 374-4187 JOHN W. WALKEE SHAWN CHILDS July 24, 2001 OF COUNSEL ROBERT McHenry pa. DONNA J. McHENEY 8210 Hendeeson Road Little RocxAskansas 72210 Phone: (501) 372-3425  Fax (501) 372-3428 Email: mcheiiryd@swbell.iiet Mr. Chris Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 2000 Regions Center 400 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 RECEIVED JUL 2 5 2001 Re: LRSD Compliance Hearings OFHCEOF DESEGREGATION MONITORING Dear Chris\nPlease find enclosed ave been told that they did not exist, we shall ask the court for sanctions that Jumous Babbs lied, i.e., perjured himself many times. It appears that r I hope that this pattern of deception and misrepresentation does not up m your exhibit list after we It is already evident continue. it was with your advice. JWW\njs Enclosure cc: Ms. Ann Marshall All Counsel of Record EXHIBIT LIST -Job description - Associate Superintendent for Desegregation -Job description - Associate Superintendent for Administrative Services -E-mails from J. Babbs desegregation folder provided by Clay Pendley on 7/18/2001 -E-mails to and from Junious Babbs provided by Clay Pendley on 7/18/01 -E-mails to and from Sadie Mitchell provided by Clay Pendley on 7/19/01 -Response from Dr. Bonnie Lesley dated July 20,2001 in response to POIA request dated 7/12/01 for test data and other data regarding Rightsell, Otter Creek, Pulaski Heights and Central -Response from Dr. Bonme Lesley dated 7/20/2001 in response to POLA request dated 7/12/01 for written instructions regarding the DRA and validation studies regarding DRA -Letter dated July 18, 2001 from Clay Pendley to Joy Springer regarding requests for information -Response to request dated June 13, 2001 requesting dis-aggregated summer school data for each of the last three years -Letter dated September 5, 2000 to Ray Simon from Brady Gadberry and Juniuos Babbs -Resource C: Standards from Programs Evaluation -Letter dated 6/26/01 from Dr. Bonme Lesley indicating that information regarding summer school should be obtained from School Services - Sadie Mitchells division -Letter dated 7/13/01 from Sadie Mitchell indicating that information regarding school should be obtained from Instruction - Dr. Bonnie Lesleys division summer -Letter dated November 16,2000 to Dr. Carnine from John Walker regarding Joshuas lack of participation in the development of program, policies and procedures -Memo dated 8/28/01 from Busbea and Preeman re: observation survey and DRA testing -Test results four (4) schools - Rightsell, Otter Creek, Pulaski Heights and Central -formats for reporting test results -Email dated 3/1/2001 from Dr. Lesley to Dr. Carnine-Letter dated 6/26/01 frora Dr. Lesley to Joy Springer -Letter dates 7/13/01 from Sadie Mitchell to Joy Springer -Email dated 8/23/99 from Bonnie Lesley to Associate Supts -Email dated 1/10/2000 re: Public Information Folder on compliance -Email dated 10/16/2000 from Babbs to Dr. Camine -Email dated 10/19/2000 from Dr. Lease to Babbs \u0026amp; Dr. Camine -Email dated 10/24/2000 from Dr. Ross to J. Babbs -Email dated 11/3/2000 from Babbs to Dr. Ross -Email dated 11/9/2000 from Babbs to Dr. Lesley -Email dated 11/19/200 and 11/18/2000 from Babbs to Dr. Lesley -Email dated 11/30/2000 from Dr. Camine to Babbs -Email dated 1/3/2001 from Lease to Camine -Email dated 1/11/2001 from Babbs to Lesley -Email dated 7/12/2001 from Lesley to Cabinet -Email dated 3/14/2001 from Babbs to Camine -Revised Desegregation Education Plan/Compliance Checklist -West Little Rock School -Letter dated 10/7/99 from Babbs to Compliance committee -Memo dated 4/20/99 from Babbs to Board -Parent Survey Results 1999-2000 -Letter dated 8/16/99 to Dr. Camine and othersE-mail dated 8/24/99 from Dr. Lesley to Compliance Committee members Arkansas Department of Education File regarding loan forgiveness Exhibits included by Little Rock School District on their exhibit listJOSHUA WITNESS LIST AUGUST 1-2, 2001 1. Dr. Leslie Camine 2. Sadie Mitchell 3. Dr. Bonnie Lesley 4. James Washington 5. Dr. Linda Watson Joshua also reserves the right to call the witnesses listed by Little Rock School District4 Friday Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark HERSCHEL H. FRIDAY (1932-1994) WILLIAM H. SUTTON. P.A. BYRON M. eiSEMAN. JR.. P.A. JOE D. BELL. P.A. JAMES A. BUTTRY. P.A. FREDERICK S. URSERY. P.A. OSCAR E. DAVIS. JR.. P.A. JAMES C. CLARK. JR.. P.A. THOMAS P. LEGGETT. P.A. JOHN DEWEY WATSON. P.A. PAUL B. BENHAM III, P.A. LARRY W. BURKS. P.A. A. WYCKLIFF NISBET. JR.. P.A. JAMES EDWARD HARRIS. P.A. J. PHILLIP MALCOM. P.A. JAMES M. SIMPSON. P.A. JAMES M. SAXTON. P.A. J. SHEPHERD RUSSELL ID. P.A. DONALD H. BACON. P.A. WILLIAM THOMAS BAXTER. P A. BARRY E. COPLIN. F.A. RICHARD D TAYLOR. P A JOSEPH B. HURST. JR.. P.A. ELIZABETH ROBBEN MURRAY. P.A. CHRISTOPHER HELLER. P.A. LAURA HENSLEY SMITH. P.A. ROBERT 5. SHAFER. P.A. WILLIAM M. GRIFFIN HI. P.A. MICHAEL S. MOORE. P.A. DIANE S. MACKEY. P.A. WALTER M. EBEL III. P.A. KEVIN A. CRASS. P.A. WILLIAM A. WADDELL. JR.. P.A. SCOTT J. LANCASTER. P.A. M GAYLE CORLEY. P A. ROBERT B. BEACH. JR.. P.A. J. LEE BROWN. F.A. JAMES C BAKER. JR.. P.A. ATTORNEYS AT LAW A LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP www.fridayfirm.corn 2000 REGIONS CENTER 400 WEST CAPITOL LITTLE ROCK. ARKANSAS 72201-3493 TELEPHONE 501-376-2011 FAX 501-376-2147 HARRY LIGHT. P.A. SCOTT H. TUCKER. P.A. GUY ALTON WADE. P A. PRICE C GARDNER. P.A. TONIA P. JONES. P.A. DAVID D. WILSON. P A. 237 EAST MILLSAP. SUITE 7 FAYETTEVILLE. ARKANSAS 72703 TELEPHONE 501-695-2011 FAX 501-695-2147 JEFFREY H. MOORE. P.A. DAVID M. GRAF. P.A. CARLA GUNNELS SPAINHOUR. P.A. JOHN C. FENDLEY. JR.. P A. JONANN ELIZABETH CONIGLIO. P.A. R. CHRISTOPHER LAWSON. P.A. GREGORY D. TAYLOR. P.A. TONY L. WILCOX. P.A, FRAN C. HICKMAN. P.A. BETTY J. DEMORY. P.A. LYNDA M. JOHNSON. P.A. JAMES W SMITH. P.A. CLIFFORD W. PLUNKETT. P.A DANIEL L. HERRINGTON. P.A MARVIN L. CHILDERS K. COLEMAN WESTBROOK. JR. ALLISON J. CORNWELL ELLEN M. OWENS JASON B. HENDREN BRUCE B TIDWELL MICHAEL E. KARNEY KELLY MURPHY MCQUEEN JOSEPH P. MCKAY ALEXANDRA A. IFRAH JAY T. TAYLOR MARTIN KASTEN BRYAN W. DUKE JOSEPH G. NICHOLS ROBERT T. SMITH RYAN A. BOWMAN TIMOTHY C. EZELL T. MICHELLE ATOR KAREN S. HALBERT SARAH M. COTTON orCOUKSEL B.S. CLARK WILLIAM L. TERRY WILLIAM L. PATTON. JR. H.T. LARZELERE. P.A. JOHN C. ECHOLS. P.A. AD. MCALLISTER 208 NORTH FIFTH STREET BLYTHEVILLE. ARKANSAS 72315 TELEPHONE 870-762-2698 FAX 870-762-2918 JOHN C. FENDLEY, JR. LITTLE ROCK TEL 501-370-3323 FAX 501-244-5341 fndl*yQfc.ntt Via Hand Delivery Mr. John W. Walker Attorney at Law 1723 South Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 RE: LRSD V. PCSSD Dear Mr. Walker: July 24, 2001 RECEIVED JUL 2 5 2001 OmCEGF DESffiRESAnOHMGWnDfWS Enclosed please LRSDs Witness and Exhibit Lists for the August 1-2,2001, hearing. Please do not hesitate to call if you have any questions. Sincerely, John C. Pendley, Jr. JCF/jm Enclosurescc w/enc.\nMs. Ann Marshall Mr. Richard Roachell Mr. Samuel Jones Ms. Sammye Taylor Mr. Steve Jones Dr. Ken JamesLRSD WITNESS LIST FOR AUGUST 1-2, 2001 1. Dr. Bonnie Lesley 2. Sadie Mitchell 3. Dr. Leslie V. Camine 4. Dr. Linda Watson 5. James Washington 6. Jo Evelyn Elston LRSD would also reserve the right to call any witness listed by Joshua and to call witnesses solely for the purpose of rebuttal. H EB BQ LRSD EXHIBIT LIST FOR AUGUST 1-2,2001 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. Summary of Assessment/Evaluation Activities by LRSD Memorandum from Bonnie Lesley to elementary principals, Oct. 20, 1998, providing information on Smart Start training on standards, assessments, and accountability Copy of handout from ADEs training for educators on Smart Start: Higher Student Achievement through Standards and Performance Assessment, fall 1998 Plan and Process Alignment for Improved Student Achievement, Little Rock School District (Matrix showing relationship of various required plans to District processes), created fall 1998 Invitation to meeting on Systemic Planning Session for Assessment and Program Evaluation, May 18, 1999 Agenda for Assessment and Program Evaluation Work Session, May 18, 1999 Portfolio of Services of Division of Instruction, 1999-2000 Agenda for Division of Instruction, June 17, 1999 meeting\npresentation on the LRSD Assessment Plan Memorandum in July 28, 1999, Learning Links with attached article on Changing the Entitlement Culture -emphasis on results rather than process. 10. LRSD Assessment Plan\nUsing Assessment to Enhance Student Achievement (PowerPoint presentation slides)presented to Board of Education in August 1999 11. Reading List prepared to distribute at the summer 2000 Campus Leadership Institute\nsection on Building and Maintaining Accountability Systems is about assessment and program evaluation 12. Transparencies used in July 19, 2000, Curriculum Day for principals, assistant principals, and brokers. 13. Notebook/handouts for July 19, 2000, Curriculum Dayfocus on quality management, data-driven decisions, and LRSD assessment programs 14. Memorandum in August 23, 2000, Learning Links with attached Primer on Assessment Literacy for distribution to Campus Leadership Teams 15. District Assessments: The Assessment Program for 2000-01 116. Memorandum to the Board of Education for July 26, 2001, agenda on Proposed Amendments to the Assessment Program Memorandum to elementary and junior high principals, Nov. 16, 1998, on schedule for picking up SAT9 testing materials 17. Memorandum to elementary school principals, Dec. 14, 1998, on procedures for upcoming administration of the criterion-referenced tests in reading and mathematics 18. Memorandum to elementary and junior high principals, Jan. 5, 1999, on the testing procedures for grades 4 and 8 ACTAAP Benchmark examinations 19. Memorandum to elementary and junior high principals and counselors, Jan. 26, 1999, on inservice schedule for test coordinators for the ACTAP Benchmarks for grades 4 and 8 20. Memorandum to selected administrators on Data Quality with attached paper written by Dr. Glynn Ligon 21. Memorandum to elementary principals, Aug. 17, 1999, relating to use of released items from Smart Start assessments 22. E-mail to curriculum staff, Aug. 23, 1999, relating to use of released items from Smart Start assessments 23. E-mail to elementary and middle school principals, Sept. 17, 1999, inviting them to an overview session on the new pre- and post-test Achievement Level Tests developed by Northwest Evaluation Association. 24. Memorandum in Sept. 22, 1999, Learning Links to principals identifying training needs to administer the Observation Survey and Developmental Reading Assessment 25. Memorandum to principals and K-2 teachers in March 15, 2000, Learning Links setting up an assessment training review for the Developmental Reading Assessment and Observation Survey 26. E-mail to Bonnie Lesley on Mar. 17, 2000, suggesting a resource on how to assess technology knowledge 27. Memorandum in Apr. 5, 2000, Learning Links to elementary and middle school principals and test coordinators on new information relating to ACTAAP Benchmark examinations in grades 4 and 8 and the field testing in grade 6. 28. Document entitled Description of the Assessment System prepared in April 2000 in response to a request from the National Science Foundationrelating to the assessment of mathematics and science 229. Document entitled Procedures for Providing Data Analysis/Interpretation to Decision Makers prepared in April 2000 in response to a request from the National Science Foundationrelating to the assessment of mathematics and science 30. Document entitled Orientation to the Analysis and Interpretation of Test Results prepared in April 2000 in response to a request from the National Science Foundationrelating to the assessment of mathematics and science. 31. E-mail to Kathy Lease, May 23, 2000, providing feedback to proposed survey of middle school students and teachers. 32. E-mail to principals, Aug. 25, 2000, providing information on upcoming administration of the Achievement Level Tests in September. 33. E-mail to Bonnie Lesley, Aug. 31, 2000, providing information on new middle school report card 34. E-mail to Bonnie Lesley, Aug. 31, 2000, providing copy of new middle school report card report 35. Memorandum from Linda Austin to Marian Lacey providing Middle School Report Card Update 36. E-mail to middle school principals, Jan. 3, 2000, setting up training for teachers on how to administer the State Benchmark examinations 37. Memorandum to Division of Instruction, Feb. 1, 2000, setting agenda for Feb. 2 meeting, includes information on the District Assessment Plan 38. E-mail to elementary principals, Feb. 1, 2000, providing information on the use of calculators on Benchmark examinations 39. E-mail to principals, Feb. 3, 2000, providing copy of assessment schedule/matrix to distribute to teachers 40. Document prepared in fall 1999 by PRE on Achievement Level Tests: Assessments that Make a Difference 41. Memorandum to all principals and test coordinators, Mar. 17, 2000, establishing training sessions for the administration of the Benchmark and end-of-course examinations 42, Memorandum in Apr. 5, 2000, Learning Links to high school principals and test coordinators providing new information from ADE on the end-of-course literacy examination 343. E-mail to Kathy Lease and Les Carnine, Apr. 7, 2000, providing rationale for adding science assessments to the Achievement Level Tests 44. Memorandum in Aug. 30, 2000, Learning Links to elementary principals and K-2 teachers including pre-testing instructions for the Observation Survey and Developmental Reading Assessment 45. Memorandum in Aug. 30, 2000, Learning Links to all principals and test coordinators establishing inservice schedule for administration of the SAT9 and ALTs 46. Memorandum in Sept. 8, 2000, Learning Links to elementary principals relating to K- 2 assessment and the importance of the language arts instructional block 47. Memorandum in Sept. 27, 2000, Learning Links to elementary and middle school principals relating to the administration of the end-of-module tests in mathematics and the end-of-unit tests in science 48. Memorandum in Sept. 26, 2000, Learning Links to elementary principals relating to instructions to complete the Observation Survey and Developmental Reading Assessment 49. Memorandum to principals, Oct. 13, 2000, requesting feedback through a survey for consideration by the Assessment Focus Group\ncopy of survey attached 50. Memorandum to principals, Feb. 13, 2001, with information on the administration of the climate surveys for parents, teachers, students, and administrators 51. E-mail, Feb. 26, 2001, relating to administration of surveys for the Extended Year Education school evaluation 52. E-mail to curriculum directors, Feb. 27, 2001, relating to discussion of the potential purchase of an electronic curriculum/assessment management system 53. E-mail to principals and selected others on Mar. 1, 2001, relating to an information session on ALT online testing 54. E-mail to principals. Mar. 1, 2001, providing spring testing schedule for elementary, middle, and high schools 55. E-mail to Les Carnine, Mar. 8, 2001, providing outline of PRE responsibilities for Dr. James, incoming superintendent 56. Memorandum to elementary principals. Mar. 14, 2001, providing information on end- of-module mathematics criterion-referenced tests 457. E-mail between various staff. Mar. 14-15, 2001, relating to analysis of results of mathematics and science criterion-referenced tests 58. Document entitled Mathematics, Reading, and Language Achievement Tests\nAdministration Guide prepared by PRE for use in training sessions for the ALTs, 2000-01 59. Memorandum to elementary principals and teachers in Feb. 3, 1999, Learning Links. attaching the results for the second quarter reading and mathematics CRTs 60. Memorandum to Les Camine, June 1, 1999, providing status report on the development of the Quality Index and reporting on recommendations of Dr. Steve Ross relating to the assessment program 61. E-mail to Cabinet, Sept. 28, 1999, providing preview of grade 8 Benchmark examination results 62. E-mail to middle school principals, Oct. 8, 1999, relating to dissemination of Benchmark results 63. E-mail between Lucy Neal and Kathy Lease, Oct. 28-Nov. 2, 1999, relating to need for SAT9 scores to evaluate Title VI 64. Memorandum to Judy Milam, Nov. 4, 1999, requesting report on quarterly SFA assessments 65. Memorandum to Kathy Lease, Nov. 4, 1999, requesting report on DRA results for fall 66. E-mail to Kathy Lease, Dec. 3, 1999, advising her of Dr. Camines request for results of climate surveys 67. E-mail to Bonnie Lesley, Apr. 3, 2000, with report on Advanced Placement scores 68. Memorandum to principals in Apr. 5, 2000, Learning Links providing information on packets being sent to schools on ALT results 69. E-mail to John Ruflfins and Kathy Lease, Apr. 12, 2000, requesting course enrollment data for NSF report 70. Memorandum to principals and teachers in Apr. 26, 2000, Learning Links with comparisons of second quarter CRT results for 1998-99 and 1999-2000 71. E-mail to Diane Barksdale, Apr. 19, 2000, providing feedback on ALT scores 72. Memorandum to all principals in May 10, 2000, Learning Links providing information about a data interpretation workshop to be conducted by NWEA staff 573. Memorandum to counselors and ALT coordinators in May 10, 2000, Learning Links providing information about a data interpretation workshop to be conducted by NWEA staff 74. Memorandum to professional staff of Division of Instruction in May 10, 2000, Learning Links providing information about a data interpretation workshop to be conducted by NWEA staff 75. E-mail to Dennis Glasgow and Ed Williams, May 15, 2000, requesting a special report on the middle school ALT mathematics scores 76. E-mail to SFA principals. May 23, 2000, relating to training for SFA schools for improved academic achievement 77. E-mail to Virginia Johnson, May 19-23, 2000, relating to data collections for NSF evaluations and results of middle school student survey 78. E-mail to elementary principals, June 1, 2000, relating to results of 1999-2000 Developmental Reading Assessment 79. E-mail to Kathy Lease, June 7, 2000, requesting report on Science ALTs 80. E-mail to Virginia Johnson and Ed Williams, June 7, 2000, relating to data requests from Dr. Gamine 81. E-mail to Kathy Lease, June 7, 2000, requesting results of middle school student survey 82. E-mail to Bonnie Lesley, June 23, 2000, requesting interpretation of DRA results 83. E-mail to Les Gamine, July 7, 2000, providing information on interpretation of DRA results 84. E-mail to Kathy Lease, Ed Williams, and Linda Austin, July 13, 2000, requesting data for Southwest Education Development Lab relating to implementation of the Collaborative Action Team 85. E-mail to Sadie Mitchell and Frances Cawthon Jones, July 14, 2000, relating to DRA interpretations 86. E-mail to Pat Busbea, Patricia Price, and Ed Williams, July 14, 2000, relating to interpretation of DRA results\nattached document defines proficient 87. E-mail to Patricia Price and Pat Busbea, July 17, 2000, requesting correlation of teacher participation in ELLA training and student achievement 688. E-mail to elementary staff, July 21, 2000, attaching copy of presentation slides to the Campus Leadership Institute on DRA results 89. E-mail to Leon Adams, July 28, 2000, providing rationale from Mitchell Academy for the abandonment of Success for All, based on data analysis 90. E-mail to selected SFA principals, Aug. 8, 2000, with report on achievement of SFA schools as compared to others and with suggestions on possible abandonment of SFA based on data analysis 91. E-mail to Bonnie Lesley, Aug. 9, 2000, from Freddie Fields relating to possible modification of SFA and requesting ELLA training, based on data analysis 92. E-mail to Kathy Lease, Sept. 14, 2000, from Linda Austin requesting copy of LRSD Assessment Notebook 93. Memorandum to curriculum division, Oct. 25, 2000, announcing available reports on grades 4 and 8 Benchmark examinations 94. Memorandum to Board of Directors, Oct. 25, 2000, announcing available reports on grades 4 and 8 Benchmarks 95. Memorandum to Cabinet, Oct. 25, 2000, announcing available reports on grades 4 and 8 Benchmarks 96. Memoranda to selected principals, Nov. 3, 2000, congratulating them for achievement on grade 4 Benchmarks 97. E-mail to Kathy Lease, Nov. 6, 2000, requesting several sets of data to include in Compliance Report 98. E-mail to Patricia Price and Dennis Glasgow, Nov. 8, 2000, attaching spreadsheets on Benchmark data by SES status 99. E-mail to Kathy Lease from Tara Adams, Jan. 17, 2001, requesting information on interpretation of the ALT results 100. E-mail to principals and cabinet, Jan. 17, 2001, with attached reports on SAT9 scores, five-year comparison\nSAT9, three-year comparison\nand SAT9 quartile report. 101. E-mail to principals. May 30, 2000, with attached sample letter to parents that can accompany the ALT results 7102. Document entitled Identified Issues from Data/Attendance Focus Group prepared by PRE 103. Group Document entitled Assessment Window prepared with advice from Focus 104. Document entitled Assessment Advisory Committee, 2000-01 with names of advisory committee members 105. Copies of PowerPoint presentation to Board of Education, Nov. 16, 2000: A Quick Look at the 4* Grade Benchmark Exam and a Preview of the SAT-9 106. E-mail to Steve Ross, Nov. 20, 2000, including feedback to a draft plan he had written relating to Ioan forgiveness 107. E-mail to principals and Cabinet, Nov. 29, 2000, with information on how to access test data on the ADE web page 108. Memorandum to IRC Staff, Dec. 1, 2000, relating to available SAT9 and Benchmark reports 109. Memorandum to middle school principals, Dec. 11, 2000, attaching reports on assignments of eighth graders to high schools 110. E-mail to SFA principals and facilitators, Feb. 23, 2001, announcing training on the SFA Student Data Base 111. E-mail to Virginia Johnson, Mar. 14, 2001, relating to analysis of end-of-module test results 112. E-mail to Bonnie Lesley, Apr. 23, 2001, with attached information on the Duke Talent Search 113. E-mail to middle school principals, June 29, 2001, reminding them of information sent to them earlier about how to access test data on the ADE web site 114. E-mail to principals, June 29, 2001, attaching copies of DRA test results 115. Memorandum to Division of Instruction staff and others, Nov. 15, 1999, providing information on new requirements from the state on a personalized education plan, appointing a committee to develop a plan, and stating the committee charge 116. Memorandum to Board of Education, Aug. 24, 2000, requesting approval of the attached administrative regulations (IHBDA-R2) and review of other information 8117. E-mail to Dennis Glasgow, Patricia Price, and Suzi Davis, Sept. 15, 2000, requesting that they develop sample SAIPs for the teachers to use 118. Memorandum in Sept. 20, 2000, Learning Links to all principals from Bonnie Lesley stating a philosophy relating to the SAIPs 119. Memorandum in Sept. 20, 2000, Learning Links to elementary principals from Patricia Price clarifying the use of data in SAIPs and attaching sample SAIPs 120. Memorandum in Sept. 27, 2000, Learning Links to all middle school principals from Suzi Davis providing information on SAIPs and attaching sample SAIPs 121. Memorandum in Sept. 27, 2000, Learning Links to all middle school principals from Suzi Davis on how to use the SAtP form for parent conferencing 122. Memorandum in Sept. 27, 2000, Learning Links to middle school principals on how to use the SAIP form for middle school mathematics, how to use the ALT data to interpret need, and including a sample SAIP 123. E-mail to Bonnie Lesley, Sept. 21, 2000, from Lillie Carter expressing appreciation for the copy of the SALP philosophy and the sample SAIPs 124. E-mail to Bonnie Lesley, Sept. 27, 2000, from Eleanor Cox expressing appreciation for the SAIP philosophy and for the sample SAIPs 125. E-mail to middle school principals, Sept. 29, 2000, from Suzi Davis providing more assistance with SAIPs 126. Memorandum to Pat Price, Pat Busbea, and Ed Williams, Apr. 3, 2001, with attached document from Connecticut on interpretation of the DRA and use of that data with SAIPs 127. Memorandum to Division of Instruction, Dec. 3, 1998, with agenda for Dec. 9 meeting\nincludes reports on District-Level Curriculum Maps 128. Memorandum to Mona Briggs, July 16, 1999, with copy of a training notebook on curriculum mapping and with charge to put together a training program on curriculum mapping 129. Memorandum to Division of Instruction, Aug. 30, 1999, with agenda for Sept. 1 meeting\nincludes discussion led by Mona Briggs and Eddie McCoy on Curriculum Mapping Project 130. Memorandum in Nov. 9, 1999, Learning Links providing information on curriculum mapping with attached article 9131. Memorandum in Nov. 17, 1999, Learning Links to selected principals establishing training schedule for curriculum mapping training 132. Memorandum in Dec. 1, 1999, Learning Links to selected principals establishing training schedule for curriculum mapping 133. Memorandum in Jan. 12, 2000, Learning Links to selected principals establishing training schedule for curriculum mapping 134. E-mail to Mona Briggs, Eddie McCoy, and Kathy Lease, Jan. 18, 2000, requesting that they develop a plan for April inservice on curriculum mapping 135. Memorandum in Jan. 19, 2000, Learning Links to selected principals establishing training schedule for curriculum mapping 136. Memorandum in Feb. 16, 2000, Learning Links to selected principals establishing training schedule for curriculum mapping 137. E-mail, Feb. 15-17, 2000, relating to training for curriculum mapping trainers 138. Memorandum in Apr. 5, 2000, Learning Links to Brokers and IRC Specialists establishing training schedule on cuniculum mapping 139. E-mail to Mona Briggs and Marion Woods, Apr. 14, 2000, relating to additional curriculum mapping training 140. E-mail, Apr. 26~May 2, 2000, relating to plans for curriculum mapping 141. E-mail to Bonnie Lesley, June 6, 2000, with information on curriculum mapping 142. E-mail to Bonnie Lesley, June 6, 2000, relating to results of curriculum mapping training 143. Memorandum to designated principals from Mona Briggs, Aug. 23, 1999, providing information on standards for accreditation from ADE 144. Memorandum to elementary staff, Jan. 20, 1999, relating to an ADE evaluation of Early Literacy Learning in Arkansas (ELLA) 145. Memorandum to Kathy Lease and Ed Williams, June 29, 1999, on program evaluation with attached articles on qualitative research and an example of a research report from Austin ISD by Glynn Ligon 146. Memorandum to Division of Instruction, Feb. 1, 2000, with agenda relating to program implementation 10147. E-mail to Virginia Johnson and Debbie Milam, Feb. 4, 2000, suggesting a model for the evaluation of ViPS programs 148. Memorandum in March 15, 2000, Learning Link relating to progress made by schools implementing the ALT assessment program 149. Document from Kathy Leasecalendar of meetings with Dr. Steve Ross since March 15, 2000\nattached planning document on program evaluation 150. E-mail to Bonnie Lesley, Mar. 24, 2000, providing information about a meeting with Dr. Steve Ross to discuss the middle school evaluation 151. E-mail to Kathy Lease, May 23, 2000, providing feedback on proposed middle school student survey 152. E-mail to Bonnie Lesley, Marian Lacey, and Sadie Mitchell, June 12, 2000, from Les Camine requesting information about the middle school evaluation 153. E-mail from Steve Ross to Kathy Lease, June 27, 2000, with attached design notes for Title I/Elementary Literacy Program Evaluation 154. E-mail from Kathy Lease to her staff, Aug. 6, 2000, requesting them to place the memorandum and program evaluations on the Board agenda 155. E-mail from Kathy Lease to Les Camine, Aug. 10, 2000, providing copies of drafts of the ESL and middle school evaluations, then his questions and her answers. 156. Memorandum to Board of Education, Aug. 24, 2000, from Kathy Lease presenting the program evaluations: Title 1/Elementary Literacy, LRCPMSA (mathematics and science), English as a Second Language, and Middle School Transition and Program Implementation. Attached is her PowerPoint presentation\nProgram Evaluation. 157. E-mail from Steve Ross to Les Camine, Sept. 7, 2000, giving his feedback to the program evaluation reports. 158. E-mail from Debbie Milam to Cabinet members, Sept. 20, 2000, requesting permission to conduct interviews of parents on the subject of parental involvement. 159. E-mail from Kathy Lease to staff, Oct. 11, 2000, advising them of an upcoming meeting with Dr. Steve Ross related to program evaluation 160. E-mail from Virginia Johnson to Bonnie Lesley and Vanessa Cleaver, Oct. 20, 2000, relating to our required participation in an evaluation study conducted by the National Science Foundation 11161. Memorandum to Gene Jones, ODM, from Kathy Lease, Oct. 27, 2000, inviting him to an intensive work session with Dr. Steve Ross on program evaluation 162. Document prepared by PRE in November 2000 that lists Additional Programs and Strategies Requesting Evaluation 163. E-mail to Cabinet members from Kathy Lease, Nov. 28, 2000, attaching Dr. Steve Ross planned presentation to the Board of Education on Using Evaluation for Program Improvement: Lessons Learned 164. E-mail from Bonnie Lesley to Virginia Johnson, Jan. 2, 2001, setting up a meeting to finalize CPMSA program evaluation plan 165. E-mail from Virginia Johnson to Bonnie Lesley, Jan. 3, 2001, attaching her tentative plan 166. E-mail from Kathy Lease to Les Carnine and Junious Babbs, Jan. 5, 2001, providing information relating to outsourcing program evaluations to Dr. John Nunnery 167. E-mail from/to Virginia Johnson, Jan. 5-20, 2000, relating to submission of Core Data Elements to the National Science Foundation 168. E-mail from/to Virginia Johnson, Apr. 14-16, 2000, relating to CPMSA program evaluation issues 169. E-mail from Kathy Lease to Les Carnine, Jan. 22, 2001, attaching a draft of the work from Dr. John Nunnery 170. Memorandum (one of several) from Kathy Lease, Jan. 24, 2001, inviting participants to the first meeting of the Research Committee 171. Memorandum from Kathy Lease to John Walker, Jan. 24, 2001, inviting him to participate in first meeting of Research Committee 172. Agenda for Feb. 5, 2001, meeting of the Research Committee and sign-in sheet 173. E-mail from Bonnie Lesley to Eddie McCoy, Ed Williams, and Karen Broadnax, Feb. 16, 2001, to set up a meeting to discuss ESL program evaluation 174. Memorandum from Kathy Lease to Research Committee setting up Feb. 26, 2001, meeting 175. Agenda for Feb. 26, 2001, Research Committee meeting and sign-in sheet 12176. 2001 Invoice from Dr. John Nunnery to LRSD for services rendered, February-March 177. E-mail from Bonnie Lesley to CPMSA staff, Feb. 21, 2001, setting up a meeting to discuss the CPMSA program evaluation 178. E-mail from Virginia Johnson to Bonnie Lesley, March 14, 2001, providing updates 179. E-mail to middle school staff from Bonnie Lesley, Mar, 15, 2001, summarizing a meeting to plan for a Middle School Team Leaders Institute, including recognition of need to train team leaders on assessment and using data 180. E-mail from Bonnie Lesley to CPMSA staff. Mar. 19, 2001, setting up follow-up meeting to discuss CPMSA program evaluation 181. Memorandum to Carnegie Management Team, March 20, 2001, from Bonnie Lesley with information about counseling program and need for a program evaluation 182. Memorandum from Kathy Lease to Research Committee, Apr. 16, 2001, setting up next meeting on summer school evaluation and program evaluation for the National Science Foundation grant 183. Sign-in sheet for Apr. 23, 2001, meeting of the Research Committee 184. E-mail from Bonnie Lesley to Dennis Glasgow, Suzi Davis, and Laura Beth Arnold, April 17, 2001, to discuss program evaluation for Element 5 of the Safe Schools/ Healthy Students project 185. E-mail from Virginia Johnson to Bonnie Lesley, Apr. 18, 2001, relating to next steps in providing information about SAT9 item analyses for teachers 186. E-mail from Mona Briggs to Bonnie Lesley, Apr. 25,2001, relating to survey needs for national evaluation of Safe Schools/ Healthy Students project 187. E-mail from Dennis Glasgow to elementary and middle school staff, Apr. 26, 2001, summarizing a large scale study that links classroom practices to student achievement in mathematics 188. E-mail among team working on CPMSA program evaluation, Apr. 18-May 2, 2001, relating to model for program evaluation and data analysis 189. E-mail from Kathy Lease to Research Committee, May 2, 2001, with attached latest version of the Guidelines for Program Evaluations 190. Agenda for May 7, 2001, meeting of the Research Committee and sign-in sheet 13191. E-mail from Don Crary to Bonnie Lesley, May 24, 2001, announcing that a program evaluator had been hired by New Futures to conduct the program evaluation for Safe Schools/ Healthy Students 192. E-mail from Kathy Lease to Research Committee with attached memorandum relating to ne?d meeting on June 11, 2001 193. Agenda for June 11, 2001, meeting of the Research Committee and sign-in sheet 194. E-mail from Junious Babbs to Bonnie Lesley, June 12, 2001, relating to information on program evaluation 195. E-mail from Kathy Lease to Compliance Team, June 14, 2001, with an outline of a plan for the completion of the Middle School Evaluation 196. E-mail from Kathy Lease to Research Committee, June 14, 2001, attaching a copy of final draft of Dr. Nunnerys evaluation of the mathematics/science programs 197. E-mail from Dennis Glasgow to Ed Williams, July 3, 2001, requesting additional ALT reports 198. E-mail from Vanessa Cleaver to others working on CPMSA program evaluation, July 10, 2001, requesting help in publishing a three-year progress report on the CPMSA 199. PreK-3 Literacy Plan (with needs assessment, see pp. 12-26), June 1999 200. Memorandum to Board of Education from Bonnie Lesley, June 24, 1999, requesting their review of the proposed PreK-3 Literacy Program Plan 201. Report on Level of ELLA training for K-2 teachers, May 10, 2000 202. Definition of Proficient for the Developmental Reading Assessment, K-2, May 2000 203. Report on Spring 2000 Developmental Reading Assessment, Percent At or Above Readiness 204. Correlation StudyAmount of Training Hours and Student Achievement on the Developmental Reading Assessment, Spring 2000 205. Correlation StudyMultiple Comparisons of Effect of Four Approaches to Literacy Development, Spring 2000 206. Executive Summary, Title I/Elementary Literacy Program Evaluation, July 2000 14207. Title I/Elementary Literacy Program Evaluation, August 2000 208. 2000 Updated Draft of Title I/PreK-3 Literacy Plan Program Evaluation, December 209. 2001 Progress Report on Elementary Literacy Plan to Board of Education, January 210. Update on Implementation of the PreK-3 Literacy Program Plan, June 2001, presented to Board of Education 211. Copies of slide presentation to Board of Education on PreK-3 Literacy Program, June 2001 212. E-mail to principals and Division of Instruction from Bonnie Lesley, June 29, 2001, attaching copies of the formal Update on Implementation of the PreK-3 Literacy Program Plan to the Board of Education, plus the Highlights documents, and a copy of the presentation slides. 213. E-mail to elementary principals and other staff from Bonnie Lesley, June 29, 2001, attaching tables of DRA results by middle school feeder pattern. 214. Evaluation of Success for All Programs, Little Rock School District, Year 1: 1997-98 by Steve Ross, Mary McNelis, Tracey Lewis, and Steve Loomis, University ofMemphis 215. Evaluation of Success for All Program, Little Rock School District, Year 2: 1998-99 by Weipling Want and Steven Ross, University of Memphis, July 1999 216. Memorandum to elementary principals from Bonnie Lesley in Sept. 1, 1999, Learning Links, assigning supervision of the Success for All program in the Division of Instruction for greater effectiveness 217. Memorandum to Kathy Lease from Bonnie Lesley, Mar. 31, 1999, attaching a copy of a contract for the evaluation of the Success for All program 218. Memorandum from Bonnie Lesley to selected SFA staff, Oct. 8, 1999, setting up training on Success for All 219. Memorandum from Bonnie Lesley to SFA principals, Nov. 11, 1999, providing to them copies of their contracts with the University of Memphis for SFA services 220. Memorandum from Bonnie Lesley to SFA principals, Nov. 15, 1999, providing them a study on SFA effectiveness\nattached article, Success for All: A Summary of Evaluations, by Jeanne Weiler, ERIC. 15221. E-mail from Bonnie Lesley to selected SFA principals, Aug. 8, 2000, suggesting that data analysis indicates SFA not being effective in their schools\nattached tables. 222. Report on Success for All Inservice activities, 1999-2000 School Year 223. Reports from eight-week assessments in Success for All schools, 1999-2000. 224. Success for All Implementation Report for December 1, 1999 (site visit reports from the University of Memphis that are done twice annually) 225. Success for All Implementation Reports for Spring 2001 (site visit reports from the University of Memphis that are done twice annually) 226. Executive Summary, English as a Second Language Program Evaluation, July 2000 227. English as a Second Language Program Evaluation (submitted to Office of Civil Rights), October 2000Proposal to National Science Foundation, Aug. 1, 1998, to fund Collaborative Partnerships in Mathematics and Science Achievement (see pp. 2-4 for needs assessment). 228. Management Plan for Year One, 1998-99, CPMSA (based on proposal for funding to the National Science Foundation. 229. 1999-2000 Strategic Plan, CPMSA (based on data analysis and decisions about next steps) 230. September 2000February 2002 Strategic Plan, CPMSA (based on data analysis and decisions about next steps) 231. September 1, 2000August 31, 2003 Strategic Plan, CPMSA (based on data analysis and decisions about next steps) 232. Revised Three-Year Strategic Plan, April 11, 2001, CPMSA (based on data analysis and decisions about next steps) 233. Annual Progress Report, 1998-99, submitted to the National Science Foundation. 234. Letter from National Science Foundation to Dr. Les Carnine, May 20, 1999, with follow-up report to Site Visit of April 27-29, 1999. 235. Document prepared for December 3, 1999, Site Visit: Relationship of CPMSA Goals and LRSD Quality Indicators 236. Agenda for NSF Site Visit, December 3, 1999 16237. Letter from National Science Foundation to Dr. Les Camine, January 24, 2000, with follow-up report to Site Visit of December 1-3, 1999. 238. Annual Progress Report, 1999-2000, submitted to the National Science Foundation. 239. Copy of slide presentation to the National Science Foundation Site Visit team. December 1-3, 1999. 240. Letter from National Science Foundation to Dr. Les Camine, January 16, 2001, with follow-up report to Site Visit of December 6-8, 2000. 241. Copy of slide presentation to Board of Education relating to CPMSA progress. January 2001. 242. Copy of slide presentation to the National Science Foundation Midpoint Review (reverse site visit) in Washington, DC, February 5, 2001. 243. Letter from National Science Foundation to Dr. Les Camine, March 15, 2001, with follow-up report on Midpoint Review presentation in Washington, DC (reverse site visit) of February 5, 2001. 244. Systemic Initiatives Core Data Elements, 1998-99: Results for Little Rock, report submitted to the National Science Foundation relating to implementation of new mathematics/science programs 245. Systemic Initiatives Core Data Elements, 1999-2000: Results for Little Rock, report submitted to the National Science Foundation relating to implementation of new mathematics/science programs 246. Program EvaluationSigns of Success: Trends in Mathematics and Science Student Performance, 1997-98 and 1999-2000, report submitted by CPMSA Program Evaluator to project staff. 247. Program EvaluationBenchmark ExaminationOpen Response Mathematics Items: Student Outcomes of a Targeted Initiative with 4* Grade Students, 1998-99. 248. Program EvaluationACTAAP Benchmark Examination Mathematics Results, Grades 4 and 8, 1997-98 to 2000-01. 249. Program EvaluationDistrict Criterion Referenced Tests (CRTs), Higher-Level Mathematics and Science, 3^^ Quarter, 2000-01 250. Program EvaluationStanford Achievement Test, 9* Edition, Mathematics Results, 1997-98 to 2000-01. 17251. Program EvaluationStanford Achievement Test, 9* Edition, Science Reasoning Results, 1997-98 to 2000-01. 252. Program EvaluationAdvanced Placement Test: Mathematics Results, 1997-98 to 2000-01. 253. Program EvaluationAdvanced Placement Test\nScience Results, 1997-98 to 2000-01. 254. Program EvaluationAmerican College Test Results for 8* Grade EXPLORE, 1997-98 to 2000-01. 255. Program EvaluationAmerican College Test Results for 10* Grade PLAN, 1997-98 to 2000-01. 256. Program EvaluationAmerican College Test Results for 12* Grade ACT Test, 1997-98 to 2000-01. 257. Program EvaluationCompre\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":368,"next_page":369,"prev_page":367,"total_pages":6766,"limit_value":12,"offset_value":4404,"total_count":81191,"first_page?":false,"last_page?":false},"facets":[{"name":"educator_resource_mediums_sms","items":[{"value":"lesson plans","hits":319},{"value":"teaching guides","hits":53},{"value":"timelines (chronologies)","hits":43},{"value":"online exhibitions","hits":38},{"value":"bibliographies","hits":15},{"value":"study guides","hits":11},{"value":"annotated bibliographies","hits":9},{"value":"learning modules","hits":6},{"value":"worksheets","hits":6},{"value":"slide shows","hits":4},{"value":"quizzes","hits":1}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":16,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"type_facet","items":[{"value":"Text","hits":40200},{"value":"StillImage","hits":35114},{"value":"MovingImage","hits":4552},{"value":"Sound","hits":3248},{"value":"Collection","hits":41},{"value":"InteractiveResource","hits":25}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":16,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"creator_facet","items":[{"value":"Peppler, Jim","hits":4965},{"value":"Phay, John E.","hits":4712},{"value":"University of Mississippi. Bureau of Educational Research","hits":4707},{"value":"Baldowski, Clifford H., 1917-1999","hits":2599},{"value":"Mississippi State Sovereignty Commission","hits":2255},{"value":"Thurmond, Strom, 1902-2003","hits":2077},{"value":"WSB-TV (Television station : Atlanta, Ga.)","hits":1475},{"value":"Newman, I. DeQuincey (Isaiah DeQuincey), 1911-1985","hits":1003},{"value":"The State Media Company (Columbia, S.C.)","hits":926},{"value":"Atlanta Journal-Constitution","hits":844},{"value":"Herrera, John J.","hits":778}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"subject_facet","items":[{"value":"African Americans--Civil rights","hits":9441},{"value":"Civil rights","hits":8347},{"value":"African Americans","hits":5895},{"value":"Mississippi--Race relations","hits":5750},{"value":"Race relations","hits":5607},{"value":"Education, Secondary","hits":5083},{"value":"Education, Elementary","hits":4729},{"value":"Segregation in education--Mississippi","hits":4727},{"value":"Education--Pictorial works","hits":4707},{"value":"Civil rights demonstrations","hits":4436},{"value":"Civil rights workers","hits":3530}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"subject_personal_facet","items":[{"value":"Smith, Lillian (Lillian Eugenia), 1897-1966--Correspondence","hits":1888},{"value":"King, Martin Luther, Jr., 1929-1968","hits":1809},{"value":"Meredith, James, 1933-","hits":1709},{"value":"Herrera, John J.","hits":1312},{"value":"Baker, Augusta, 1911-1998","hits":1282},{"value":"Parks, Rosa, 1913-2005","hits":1071},{"value":"Jordan, Barbara, 1936-1996","hits":858},{"value":"Young, Andrew, 1932-","hits":814},{"value":"Smith, Lillian (Lillian Eugenia), 1897-1966","hits":719},{"value":"Mizell, M. Hayes","hits":674},{"value":"Silver, James W. (James Wesley), 1907-1988","hits":626}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"name_authoritative_sms","items":[{"value":"Smith, Lillian (Lillian Eugenia), 1897-1966","hits":2598},{"value":"King, Martin Luther, Jr., 1929-1968","hits":1909},{"value":"Meredith, James, 1933-","hits":1704},{"value":"Herrera, John J.","hits":1331},{"value":"Parks, Rosa, 1913-2005","hits":1070},{"value":"Jordan, Barbara, 1936-1996","hits":856},{"value":"Young, Andrew, 1932-","hits":806},{"value":"Silver, James W. (James Wesley), 1907-1988","hits":625},{"value":"Connor, Eugene, 1897-1973","hits":605},{"value":"Snelling, Paula","hits":580},{"value":"Williams, Hosea, 1926-2000","hits":431}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"event_title_sms","items":[{"value":"Martin Luther King, Jr.'s Nobel Prize","hits":1763},{"value":"Ole Miss Integration","hits":1670},{"value":"Housing Act of 1961","hits":965},{"value":"Little Rock Central High School Integration","hits":704},{"value":"Memphis Sanitation Workers Strike","hits":366},{"value":"Selma-Montgomery March","hits":337},{"value":"Freedom Summer","hits":306},{"value":"Freedom Rides","hits":214},{"value":"Poor People's Campaign","hits":180},{"value":"University of Georgia Integration","hits":173},{"value":"University of Alabama Integration","hits":140}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"location_facet","items":[{"value":"United States, 39.76, -98.5","hits":17820},{"value":"United States, Georgia, Fulton County, Atlanta, 33.749, -84.38798","hits":5428},{"value":"United States, Alabama, Montgomery County, Montgomery, 32.36681, -86.29997","hits":5151},{"value":"United States, Georgia, 32.75042, -83.50018","hits":4862},{"value":"United States, South Carolina, 34.00043, -81.00009","hits":4610},{"value":"United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","hits":4177},{"value":"United States, Alabama, 32.75041, -86.75026","hits":3943},{"value":"United States, Mississippi, 32.75041, -89.75036","hits":2910},{"value":"United States, Tennessee, Shelby County, Memphis, 35.14953, -90.04898","hits":2579},{"value":"United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","hits":2430},{"value":"United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959","hits":2387}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"us_states_facet","items":[{"value":"Georgia","hits":12843},{"value":"Alabama","hits":11307},{"value":"Mississippi","hits":10219},{"value":"South Carolina","hits":8503},{"value":"Arkansas","hits":4583},{"value":"Texas","hits":4399},{"value":"Tennessee","hits":3770},{"value":"Florida","hits":2601},{"value":"Ohio","hits":2391},{"value":"North Carolina","hits":1893},{"value":"New York","hits":1667}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"year_facet","items":[{"value":"1966","hits":10514},{"value":"1963","hits":10193},{"value":"1965","hits":10119},{"value":"1956","hits":9832},{"value":"1955","hits":9611},{"value":"1964","hits":9268},{"value":"1968","hits":9243},{"value":"1962","hits":9152},{"value":"1967","hits":8771},{"value":"1957","hits":8460},{"value":"1958","hits":8242},{"value":"1961","hits":8241},{"value":"1959","hits":8046},{"value":"1960","hits":7940},{"value":"1954","hits":7239},{"value":"1969","hits":7235},{"value":"1950","hits":7117},{"value":"1953","hits":6968},{"value":"1970","hits":6743},{"value":"1971","hits":6337},{"value":"1977","hits":6280},{"value":"1952","hits":6161},{"value":"1972","hits":6144},{"value":"1951","hits":6045},{"value":"1975","hits":5806},{"value":"1976","hits":5771},{"value":"1974","hits":5729},{"value":"1973","hits":5591},{"value":"1979","hits":5329},{"value":"1978","hits":5318},{"value":"1980","hits":5279},{"value":"1995","hits":4829},{"value":"1981","hits":4724},{"value":"1994","hits":4654},{"value":"1948","hits":4596},{"value":"1949","hits":4571},{"value":"1996","hits":4486},{"value":"1982","hits":4330},{"value":"1947","hits":4316},{"value":"1985","hits":4226},{"value":"1998","hits":4225},{"value":"1997","hits":4202},{"value":"1983","hits":4174},{"value":"1984","hits":4065},{"value":"1946","hits":4046},{"value":"1999","hits":4018},{"value":"1945","hits":4017},{"value":"1990","hits":3937},{"value":"1986","hits":3919},{"value":"1943","hits":3899},{"value":"1944","hits":3895},{"value":"1942","hits":3867},{"value":"2000","hits":3808},{"value":"2001","hits":3790},{"value":"1940","hits":3764},{"value":"1941","hits":3757},{"value":"1987","hits":3657},{"value":"2002","hits":3538},{"value":"1991","hits":3507},{"value":"1936","hits":3506},{"value":"1939","hits":3500},{"value":"1938","hits":3465},{"value":"1937","hits":3449},{"value":"1992","hits":3444},{"value":"1993","hits":3422},{"value":"2003","hits":3403},{"value":"1930","hits":3377},{"value":"1989","hits":3355},{"value":"1935","hits":3306},{"value":"1933","hits":3270},{"value":"1934","hits":3270},{"value":"1988","hits":3269},{"value":"1932","hits":3254},{"value":"1931","hits":3239},{"value":"2005","hits":3057},{"value":"2004","hits":2909},{"value":"1929","hits":2789},{"value":"2006","hits":2774},{"value":"1928","hits":2271},{"value":"1921","hits":2123},{"value":"1925","hits":2039},{"value":"1927","hits":2025},{"value":"1924","hits":2011},{"value":"1926","hits":2009},{"value":"1920","hits":1975},{"value":"1923","hits":1954},{"value":"1922","hits":1928},{"value":"2016","hits":1925},{"value":"2007","hits":1629},{"value":"2008","hits":1578},{"value":"2011","hits":1575},{"value":"2019","hits":1537},{"value":"1919","hits":1532},{"value":"2009","hits":1532},{"value":"1918","hits":1530},{"value":"2015","hits":1527},{"value":"2013","hits":1518},{"value":"2010","hits":1515},{"value":"2014","hits":1481},{"value":"2012","hits":1467}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":100,"offset":0,"prefix":null},"min":"0193","max":"2035","count":500952,"missing":56},{"name":"medium_facet","items":[{"value":"photographs","hits":10708},{"value":"correspondence","hits":9437},{"value":"black-and-white photographs","hits":7678},{"value":"negatives (photographs)","hits":7513},{"value":"documents (object genre)","hits":4462},{"value":"letters (correspondence)","hits":3623},{"value":"oral histories (literary works)","hits":3607},{"value":"black-and-white negatives","hits":2740},{"value":"editorial cartoons","hits":2620},{"value":"newspapers","hits":1955},{"value":"manuscripts (documents)","hits":1692}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"rights_facet","items":[{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/","hits":41178},{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/","hits":17554},{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/UND/1.0/","hits":8828},{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/CNE/1.0/","hits":6864},{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/NoC-US/1.0/","hits":2186},{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-NC/1.0/","hits":1778},{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/NoC-CR/1.0/","hits":1115},{"value":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/","hits":197},{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/NKC/1.0/","hits":60},{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-RUU/1.0/","hits":51},{"value":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/","hits":27}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"collection_titles_sms","items":[{"value":"Jim Peppler Southern Courier Photograph Collection","hits":4956},{"value":"John E. Phay Collection ","hits":4706},{"value":"John J. Herrera Papers","hits":3288},{"value":"Baldy Editorial Cartoons, 1946-1982, 1997: Clifford H. Baldowski Editorial Cartoons at the Richard B. Russell Library.","hits":2607},{"value":"Sovereignty Commission Online","hits":2335},{"value":"Strom Thurmond Collection, Mss 100","hits":2068},{"value":"Alabama Media Group Collection","hits":2067},{"value":"Black Trailblazers, Leaders, Activists, and Intellectuals in Cleveland","hits":2033},{"value":"Rosa Parks Papers","hits":1948},{"value":"Isaiah DeQuincey Newman, (1911-1985), Papers, 1929-2003","hits":1904},{"value":"Lillian Eugenia Smith Papers (circa 1920-1980)","hits":1887}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"provenance_facet","items":[{"value":"John Davis Williams Library. Department of Archives and Special Collections","hits":8885},{"value":"Alabama. Department of Archives and History","hits":8146},{"value":"Atlanta University Center Robert W. Woodruff Library","hits":4102},{"value":"South Caroliniana Library","hits":4024},{"value":"University of North Texas. Libraries","hits":3854},{"value":"Hargrett Library","hits":3292},{"value":"University of South Carolina. Libraries","hits":3212},{"value":"Richard B. Russell Library for Political Research and Studies","hits":2874},{"value":"Mississippi. Department of Archives and History","hits":2825},{"value":"Butler Center for Arkansas Studies","hits":2633},{"value":"Rhodes College","hits":2264}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"class_name","items":[{"value":"Item","hits":80736},{"value":"Collection","hits":455}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":100,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"educator_resource_b","items":[{"value":"false","hits":80994},{"value":"true","hits":197}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":100,"offset":0,"prefix":null}}]}}