{"response":{"docs":[{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1512","title":"Testing: Stanford Achievement Test, comparative data, Little Rock School District","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":["Little Rock School District"],"dc_date":["2000-09/2001-08"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--21st Century","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Education--Standards","Educational statistics","School management and organization","School integration","Students"],"dcterms_title":["Testing: Stanford Achievement Test, comparative data, Little Rock School District"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/1512"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Available for use in research, teaching, and private study. Any other use requires permission from the Butler Center."],"dcterms_medium":["documents (object genre)"],"dcterms_extent":["158 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1315","title":"Proceedings: ''Motion for Consolidation of Positions and Motion for Change in Student Assignments''","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":["2000-08-09"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--21st Century","Little Rock School District","School districts--Arkansas--Pulaski County","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Educational law and legislation","Educational planning","School enrollment","School management and organization","Court records"],"dcterms_title":["Proceedings: ''Motion for Consolidation of Positions and Motion for Change in Student Assignments''"],"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/1315"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Available for use in research, teaching, and private study. Any other use requires permission from the Butler Center."],"dcterms_medium":["legal documents"],"dcterms_extent":["233 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1357","title":"Proceedings: ''Motion for Consolidation of Positions and Motion for Change in Student Assignments''","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":["2000-08-09"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--21st Century","Little Rock School District","School districts--Arkansas--Pulaski County","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Educational law and legislation","Educational planning","School enrollment","School management and organization","Court records"],"dcterms_title":["Proceedings: ''Motion for Consolidation of Positions and Motion for Change in Student Assignments''"],"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/1357"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Available for use in research, teaching, and private study. Any other use requires permission from the Butler Center."],"dcterms_medium":["legal documents"],"dcterms_extent":["27 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1720","title":"Court filings: District Court, second amendment to Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) motion for protective order; District Court, third amendment to Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) motion for protective order; District Court, fourth amendment to Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) motion for protective order; District Court, Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) motion to withdraw portions of motion to modify student assignment plan; District Court, order; District Court, notice of deposition; District Court, order; District Court, notice of filing, Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) project managment tool","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":["United States. District Court (Arkansas: Eastern District)"],"dc_date":["2000-08"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--21st Century","Special districts--Arkansas--Pulaski County","Arkansas. Department of Education","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Educational law and legislation","Educational planning","School management and organization","School enrollment","School employees"],"dcterms_title":["Court filings: District Court, second amendment to Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) motion for protective order; District Court, third amendment to Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) motion for protective order; District Court, fourth amendment to Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) motion for protective order; District Court, Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) motion to withdraw portions of motion to modify student assignment plan; District Court, order; District Court, notice of deposition; District Court, order; District Court, notice of filing, Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) project managment 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/1720"],"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":["32 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"The transcript for this item was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.  RECEiVED IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION AUG 2 2000 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. SECOND AMENDMENT TO PCSSD MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS The PCSSD, for its second amendment to motion for protective order states: 1. The District filed its motion seeking a protective order on July 28, 2000. The District filed its first amendment to motion for protective order on July 31, 2000. 2. Attached as Exhibit A-2 is the latest FOi request, received by the superintendent. As the Court can note, this request seeks copies of all FOIA requests presented to the District over the last three years. 3. On September 30, 1999, Joshua submitted a request to the District via Ms. Mildred Tatum seeking copies of all FOIA requests presented to the District over the last two years. Thus, as the Court can see, the District 193769-v1 continues to receive, in many instances, the same request from Joshua to which it has previously responded within the past twelve months. WHEREFORE, the District prays for the relief it has previously sought and for all proper relief. Respectfully submitted, WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026 JENNINGS LLP 200 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3699 (501) 37i-0808 FAX: (501) 376-9442 - By '- )  PulasJ4 C nty Special f S ct CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE On August_!_, 2000, a copy of the foregoing was served as follows on each of the following : Via Facsimile on: Mr. John W. Walker John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Via U.S. Mail on: Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026 Clark 2000 First Commercial Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 193769-v1 2 Ms. Ann Brown ODM Heritage West Building, Suite 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Richard W. Roachell Roachell and Street First Federal Plaza 401 West Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Timothy Gauger 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 193769-v1 3 JUL-31-00 MON 02:50 PM JOHN W. WAT.KER HALl'li WASHTNGTON \\RK aun~F.TTF: SHAWN CUTT.OS Dr. Gary Smith Superintendent of Schools FAX NO. JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. ATioRNl!:Y AT I.Aw 1723 BnoATJWAY LI'M'T.B RocK, ARKANSAS 72206 T~:r.~:l'HONE (501) 374-3758 FAX (501) 37 4-4187 Via lland Deliveay July 31, 2000 Pulaski County Special School District 925 Dixon Road Little Rock, AR 72206 Dear Dr. Smilh: P. 02 RECEIVED JUL 3 1 ZQGO This request is pursuant to the Arkansas :Freedom of Infonnation Act. Would you please provide the following for review, inspection and copying: CACI l) copies of all FOI A requests presented to the District over the Ja:;t three years; 2) copies of all invoices submitted by lhe District in response for FOJ A copies. r will be available to review your responses on f riday, August 4, 2000. EXHIBIT l IJ-.;,z 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. THIRD AMENDMENT TO PCSSD MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER RECEIVED AUG 2 ZDOD OFFICE OF OfSEGREGATION MmJJTORiUB PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS The PCSSD defendants, for their third amendment to motion for protective order state: 1. Attached as serial Exhibit A-3 are copies of Joshua's latest FOi requests. All are addressed to Dr. Smith, two are dated August 1, 2000, and the third is dated July 31, 2000, although all were received on August 1, 2000. 2. The request dated July 31, 2000, is of particular significance. It contains 43 numbered requests, some of which have multiple subparts. 3. Several of the requests evidence an ulterior motive prompting the request. For instance, the July 31, 2000, letter requests job postings, list of all applicants, name of all applicants interviewed and rating forms for a warehouse supervisor, a custodial supervisor, a head custodian for Homer Adkins - Elementary School, a carpenter helper's position, a painter, a lead custodian for 193848-v1 Bayou Meto, a lead mechanic, a custodian for the administration building, a custodian for Robinson Elementary, a laborer for the Transportation Department, together with secretaries and paraprofessionals. It is respectfully submitted that none of the information demanded could reasonably implicate the issues of the pending requests for Central Office reorganization or the proposed reassignments to new Bates Elementary School, neither could they reasonably implicate implementation issues that might be raised in the future concerning Plan 2000. 4. As the Court can see from the dates furnished in the July 31 correspondence, many of the positions were posted more than one year ago. 5. The filing of the District's motion for protective order seems to have accelerated Joshua's request for records via the Arkansas FOIA. As previously noted, the earlier threat of disruption has now turned into actual disruption itself. 193848-v1 WHEREFORE, the PCSSD defendants renew their request for relief. Respectfully submitted, WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026 JENNINGS LLP 200 We8t Cc1pitol Avenue, Suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3699 (501) 371-0808 FAX: (501) 376-9442 2 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE On August _L, 2000, a copy of the foregoing was served as follows on each of the following : Via Facsimile on: Mr. John W. Walker John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Via U.S. Mail on: Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026 Clark 2000 First Commercial Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Ms. Ann Brown ODM Heritage West Building, Suite 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Richard W. Roachell Roachell and Street First Federal Plaza 401 West Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Timothy Gauger 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 193848-v1 3 AuG-Ji-uU IUt ud:JJ n~ 5013744187 WALKER LAW FIRM JoaN W. WALKER, P.A. ATrORllllY AT LA.w 1723 BIOADWAY Lmu: RooK, Aluv.NBA.8 7:1206 TELEPHO?\\'i (501) :!7,4,$758 FAX (1501) 37Hl87 RECEfVED JOHN W. WALICll RALPH WASHINGTON MARX BUltNE1'I'E SH.t\\WN CHI.WS Or. Gary Smith Superintendent of School, Pulaski County Special School Oisirioi 925 Dixon Road Little Rock, All 72206 Dear Dr. Smith: Via Fac1bnile  4900483 July 31, 2000 I, , .., 1 r,'..10 7.uOJ This request is pursuant to the Ar~u Freedom otlnformation Act. Would you please provide the following for review, Inspection and copying: - a copy of the Irnplen1ematio11 Plan for PCS SD Plan 2000 - job po$ting1, list of all applicants, name of all applicants interviewed and rating forms inclucilng the rating received for each applicant interviewed for these positiona: 1) MIS Operations \u0026 Proaramming - 7/21/2000 2) Assistant Prinoipal - Jacksonville Jr. High. 7-264 2000 3) Secondary A4si1tant Principal - 7-14--2000 Jacksonville Middle Mills High North l1ulaski Oak Grove Jr./High Robinson Jr, Sylvan Hills High 4) 21111 Century Community Leaming Center Program Coordinator 5) Director ofMaimenance Services. 7-12-2000 6) Direwtor ofTrP!'.!pcrtation  7-6-20(1 7) Computer Sttvlee Technician .. tS-6.2000 8) Administrative Assistant - Security \u0026 Safely - 4-7-2000 9) Principal - Baker  6--6-2000 10) Director of Support Staft'Peraonnel - 6-6-2000 11) Guidance Secretary Sylvan Hilla Jr. - 5-22-l0OO 1::2) Pupil Accounting Supc,visor  4262000 13) Director of Purchuirig- 12-1-99 14) Sp~ia.l Education teacher-Jacksonville Jr. - 4-25-2000 1.5) Warehoue Supervisor - 7-14-99 16) Custodial Supervisor - 7-99 ---- --------------- EXHIBIT I /l-s ALlG- Ji-uU tGt ~d:J J rlM CACI 5013744187 WALK~R LAW FIRM 17) Seere~ry for Safety \u0026 Security - 18) Head Cu~todian  Homer Adkins - 2-14-2000 19) Information Services Specialist  20) Carpenter Help position - 2-9-2000; l-11 2000 21) Director of Technology Services - 12-2-99 22) Painter- 11-1199 23) Payroll Specialist - J 1-8-99 24) Secretary Safety\u0026. Security- J 1-1-99 2S) Lead Custodian -Bayou Meto - 2-21-99 26) Lead Me\u003c:banic  l llCi-98 27) Paraprofessional - Harris Elementary 9-23-99 28) Eneri)' :M.anaaer Position - 9-l 99 921 P03 29) Maintenance Custodian for Administrative Bldg. - 8-13-99 30) Secretary - Special Ed - 8-6-99 31) Lead Custodian - Robinson Elementary  7.3 099 32) Administrative Asst. - Trinipo111tion - 8-2-99 33) Director of Transportation 8-4-99 34) 8 HoUJ' Laborer Transportation 7-29-SlSl 35) Jacuonvill Middle - 6-23-99 36) Oak Grove Jr./Sr . 6-23-99 37) As\u0026t. Supt. Business Affairs - 2-3-2000 38) Director of'Legal Afflun - 12-8-99 39) Principal  Lawson Elementary  9-29-99 40) Director of Accountability~ 9-29-99 41) Asst. Principal - Landmark  7-1-99 Baker Lawson 42) Principal- Landmark 7-1-99 43) Elemenury Asst. Principal - Arnold Dr. Batel College Station Oakbrooke Oak Grove I will be available to rm~ your respon~s on Friday, Augwt 4, 2000. AUG- 01-00 TUE 08:53 AM 5013744197 l.RKER L~ FIRM ,JOHN W. WALK.BR ~ WASHINGTON BUl\\NKTTt 8 WNOHILDS Dr. Gary Smith Superintendent of School, JOHN W, WALKER, P.A. ATTORNEY AT LAW 1728 BROADWAY LrmR ROCIC, MXANBAll 7ll206 TEUPHONE (601) S743758 FAX (601) S14-4187 Via Fncsimilt  490-0~83 August 1, 2000 Pulaski County Special School District 92S Di,;:n Road Little Rock, All 72206 Dear Dr. Smith: '322 ?02 RECEIV'.ED I,'u'U.., 1 I understand that you have agreed to provide to us a copy of the Board agenda booka and other supporting for each of your Board's meetings in the future, Would you also ,imultaneously share your BoardGrami, or will you require a Freedom of Infonnation request for each one? Thank you for your cooperation, Sincerely, JWW:js cc: Theresa Wallont AUG-01-00 TUE 08:54 AM FAX NO. ?. GS 50137441 87 Wl=U\u003cER ~F(J FIRM 922 F'03 ~G 01 0~ 0'3:03 JOHN W, WALK!ilR IULPK WA8HlNOTON MARK BURNETTE BKAWN CHILDS Dr. Gary Smith Superintendent of Schools JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. ATTOIINIY AT I..\\W 1728 BROADWAY Lt't'l'UI ROCK, Aluwl.w 72206 TZU:PH0N8 (501) 374-3758 FAX (501) 374-~ 187 Via Facsimile  490-04'3 Auguat l, 2000 J\u003eulasJci County Speci~ School District 925 Dixon Road Little Rock, AR 72206 Dear Dr. Smith: RECEIVED 1.uG 1 2oou Th.is request is punuant to the Arkansas Freedom of Act. Would you please provide for review, inspection and copying the following: J) requisition requests for office equipmen1, furniture, other materials and supplies for yourself and all Senior adrninJatrators (Assistant Superintendent,, Director of Accountability and Legal Affairs, and other Director\u0026) that have beon made for the period of June 1, 1999 to present: 2) all expenses reports (and requisitions) Including car~ car allowances, beeper,, mobile phonc:s, credit cards, etc. incurred by yourself' and Senior administrators for the period of June 1, 1999 to present; 3) bids submitted in response to request number 1 and 2; and 4) minute$ of the Board approving items 1, 2 and 3. Would you please make this information avPilable by Friday, Augoat ~. 2000. CACI 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. FOURTH AMENDMENT TO PCSSD MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER AUG 2 PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS The PCSSD defendants, for their fourth amendment to motion for protective order state: 1. Attached as Exhibit A-4 is Joshua's latest FOi request directed to Ms. Wallent. 2. As nearly as we can interpret this request, it first asks for written instructions provided secretaries as regards responding to Joshua's FOi requests. We understand that if there are no written guidelines for responding to these requests that Joshua wishes to depose each secretary. 3. The PCSSD defendants respectfully submit that taking the depositions of secretaries regarding whether or not there were written FOi response instructions and, if not, what their oral instructions were transcends the 193901-v1 scope of discovery permitted by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and the PCSSO defendants request that no such depositions be permitted. WHEREFORE, the PCSSO defendants pray for the relief previously requested and as supplemented above. 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 060) aunty Special CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE On August _j_, 2000, a copy of the foregoing was served as follows on each of the following: Via Facsimile on: Mr. John W. Walker John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Via U.S. Mail on: Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026 Clark 2000 First Commercial Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 193901-v1 2 Ms. Ann Brown ODM Heritage West Building, Suite 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Richard W. Roachell Roachell and Street First Federal Plaza 401 West Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Timothy Gauger 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 193901-v1 3 AUG-01-00 TUE 01:14 PM FAX NO. P. 04 :;ll0l.l.('l4ltff WHu\u003c.t:t\u003c LHW 1-lt\u003crl HL..b ~l ' \\dlj l 41~b JOHN W, WALKER RALPH WASHINGTON MARK BURNll:T1'E SHAWN CHILDS Ms. Theresa Wallent JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. A'M'ORNZY Ar LAw 1728 BROADWAY UTl'LE ROCK, AR.KANSAS 72206 ' , TEt.EPHONI (~01) 874-8758 FAX (501) 314,4187 Via Facsimile AUS:,'\\ISt 1. 2000 Director of Legat and Community Affairs Pulaski County Special School District 925 Dixon Road Little Rock, AR 72206 Pear Ms. Wallent: RECEIVED AUG 1 ZOOCl This is a follow-up to the FOlA request for written communication from and b~ween Dr, Smith, Dr. Fox, senior administrators and others. This request also includes written correspondence where there has been a written evaluation done of any subordinate employee, In addition, r would like to have any written instructions provided to secretaries regarding requests for written correspondenca and files. If there are no written instructions, I would be interested in taking the depositions of all the secretaries of your Senior stuf\u00264ministrators, l r.walt your response. NIW:js ec: Mi, Sam Jones Ms, Ann Brown --- _ ,., __ Sincerely, EXHIBIT I RECEIVED AUG 4 2000 OffiCEOF IIIGREGATIOff MOITOAING :  . IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. NO. LR-C-82-866 PLAINTIFF PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS PCSSD MOTION TO WITHDRAW PORTIONS OF MOTION TO MODIFY STUDENT ASSIGNMENT PLAN The PCSSD, for its motion states: 1. On June 23, 2000, the PCSSD moved to modify its student assignment plan in respect of Landmark Elementary School and the new Bates Elementary School. Beginning at page 5 of the brief which accompanied the motion, the PCSSD explained that it was also seeking permission to shift the art and music specialty program from Landmark to new Bates for the 2001-2002,, school year. 2. The PCSSD now desires to withdraw that portion of the motion seeking Pf:lrmission to shi~this program for the 2001-2002 school without prejudice to raising the issue again at a later date. 194183-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 ~~:;..__-r.--,--~~~o=)------ ty Special CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE On August ,2,-2000, 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 Heritage West Building, Suite 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Richard W. Roachell Roachell and Street First Federal Plaza 401 West Capitol, Suite 504- Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 194183-v1 2 Mr. Timothy Gauger 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 194183-v1 M I 3 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS AUG 2 3 2000 WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, Plaintiff, * * * vs. * * No. 4:82CV00866 SWW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL., Defendants, MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL., Intervenors, KATHERINE KNIGHf, ET AL., Intervenors. * * * * * * * * * ORDER RECEIVED AUG 2 5 2000 Oiif',Cftlf OE\u0026Bffiflffl: MONITIJRlNW Before the Court is the request of the Magnet Review Committee (\"MRC\") for approval of the interdistrict magnet schools' final budget for the 1999-2000 school year, The MRC communicated the final budget to the Court in a letter dated July 28, 2000 (attached). The letter also contains a proposed budget for the 2000-2001 school year; however, the Court will address the proposed budget in a separate Order. The Court will allow the parties to and including 10 days from the date of entry of this Order to object to the MR.C's final budget for 1999-2000. Should no objections be filed within the time allowed, the Court will enter an Order iroving the budget. IT IS SO ORDERED this ,A3 day of August 2000. ~J,~lt;w CIIlEF JUDG UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT rHIS DOCUMENT ENTERED ON DOCKET SHEET LN GOMPLIANC: Wl.~RULE 58 ANDJO~a) FRCP ! ?N~ ,i: 0V BY - Magnet Review Committee 1920 North Main Street, Suite 1 01  North Little Rock, Arkansas 72114 (501) 758-0156 {Phone}  (501) 758-5366 {Fax}  magnet@magnetschool.com {E-mail} July 28, 2000 The Honorable Susan Webber Wright Judge, U. S. District Court  Eastern District of Arkansas 600 West Capitol Suite 302  Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Judge Wright:  .\"., At its July 14, 2000 special-called meeting, the Magnet Review Committee, by formal    motion and 5-0 vote (the Pulaski County Special School District representative was not present but later voted the District's approval via telephone), approved the interdistrict  magnet schools' actual budget for the six original magnet schools for the 1999-2000 school yec:U\" (Draft 1 ). FINAL 1999-2000 STIPULATED ORIGINAL MAGNET SCHOOLS BUDGET The total amount budgeted, $21,351,086, is based on a per-pupil expenditure of $5,597.00, calculated from an average third-quarter enrollment of3,814.79 . students. This budget reflects an increase of$470.00 per student over the . 1998-99 budget, with the fol;1rth year of the five-year proposed program improve~ ... ment plan included. This final 1999-2000 budget reflects actual figures and takes  into account the variables (teacher retirement and heajth insurance changes\u003e\" that' ' were uncertain when the proposed budget was submitted in June, 1999 .  \u003c: ''.. This :finai budget also reflects costs associated with the additional seats  . . -.. ,.. ,. ,, . i  ', ... which were added during the Little Rock School District's grade configurati~m{:: :  '.' . :,:;. ,,,~y~f f~;C .::0:: 2 : : 0 2:. 0 :~~,eo~i  .  '.5~:}xi~I;::,l}i ,(  . -\u003e: :;,:,;' ,prtammously approved the proposed budget for the six original St1pulat10n magnet , .: '.\u003c;--: . ,:t;,;.1_:~,!.{\\~ ::1i-:;.~'.ir~:; \"  , '\". tj, ... ~,\" J,; .  ' , ,  .  , J\"\"' ''f:   ., ' J , .. :,. t'~ ;r l  -: ... . schoolsforth~2000-200l'schoolyear.  .  , ;,_ -~-;\\\\;,: :.:\"t:f/\\'. '.'t'  ,   :: ' .. .:\\:-1.,':.t\\fp::~.:;~ ;' .. . , PROPOSED 2000-2001 STiPULATED ORIGINAL MAGNET SCHOOLS BUDGET ,.~..... t;  I  -:, -'i/: ., . , ,;, . ,, .~~ The total proposed budget for the 2000-2001 school year is $22,500,211, which. ' - results in a per-pupil expenditure of$5,898.00 and an increase of $30i .OO over/;_ :. ..  .,  the 1999-2000 actual budget. Salary negotiations are in progress, and it should~ :    ' noted that these negotiations may have an impact on the 2000-2001 proposed, : /_  :: budget. It is the intention of the Magnet Review Committee, therefore, to submit :    1,:    .. this budget with the recognition that some flexibility may be necessary. -  \"Pursue the Possibilities of Magnet School Enrollment\"  .. , .,. , ', ,. . , ... , . ':: _;/.;t , .. .al.;,  ( '.\u003e~ .t~//~\u003c:,:~~'  i --~,,.. ,.,...: .;;'Jtt;\\,    I , ~: 'tJtils\u003e\u003e( The Honorable SusanWebher Wright . . . ' . . . -2- \\.l ,  Magne~-Review 0?~ r~~trulfy requ~-~~ tii~' Court's. r.eVIe~ ~n~-~~~~i~y~~f-the 1999-2000 fiilaliz.ed budg~t, as 'Y~ll as tlie proposed 2000-2001 b~dget;-l?othflttach~d :_ herewith.    , '  - :  '~:. .,   -  -- -, ., 'h , .~t?  . ~ ,-._,; ,. ... ' ..' .. ,: . _1.:).' .. : ,i::\\ ...  .. ~~',: .. ;, ... :. ... ~--~~--\\:':,1~':-:./-:'!\u003e  The ~etJ~:~~ew_ Cominitt~ is_f ~IDpi~~-fo ~t~iE)~g.m~.~~l!l~~q~f9.f ie-'. origiilal ~et~schobls. We~ CQnt~uM~;.v.vor~ ~tlie.hg~disti,ict as we:'efj ercise sttjngent oveijig):ii 9f the magnet ~hQ\u003cSJsf oodgt?f ~ ah. effort io \"iichlev ait~.e~ , _\u003e . ., efficient ttiimage~nt and cost: coii~V\u003c?- th~:gr~t~st e:irte,nt po~sibI~~ -C:, / -  ..... . . ' .,_ .... ;..  . . . . . smc~r.eiy, ,  t~: Yiutc1.11t~ Sadie Mitchell, Chairperson ~etRevie:w comttrittee cc:, ' .., .. ,. .: . '- \\~... ,;' ,-, -~ , '!:' ~ --~ .... '. ~  I ':\"' ' 't -~'~:-( .. ~ ::' 'i\\;~_; ':. ;, ?'',. . . .  .  t,,, : :}(::'..:: 1 ,'._._;~,..- _ :__._:,:_~:'-_;_~_,:._:_:::;:_-:__-, :. :,_;,._:_i_.:~,:_:::-~_:,;'.'.~.-.:_._~_:_ ;:;f './. ,,\\, -:\\ - ? : .\\}?r~i-. -;~ -~ ~. ., , . .-~ ', ,.... ,_:: . ~ .-.~ .  f)'.'!t ?,1ff~~tt . . . rt~~\u0026~FM~~~~f-:1~:::::::::::::::::::::::: :::~: ::::n::!~:~:.:.: ::;~~: :::~f::::~::: CERTIFIED 01 Princioal 6.0 $423,711 6.0 $441,017 STAFF 02 Asst. Prin. 10.0 $540,287 10.0 $572,704 SUPPORT STAFF 03 Soecialists 40.2 $1 ,638,478 40.2 $1,736,787 04 Counselors 13.4 $592,038 13.4 $627,561 05 Media Scee. 6.5 $288,210 6.5 $305,502 06 Art-Perf./Prod. 1.0 $35,443 1.0 $37,570 07 Music 0.0 $0 0.0 $0 08 Foreign LanQ. 0.0 $0 0.0 $0 09 Vocational 7.6 $349,156 7.6 $370,106 10 Soecial Education 9.2 $340,504 9.2 $360,934 11 Gifted 5.4 $227,711 5.4 $241,374 12 Classroom 190.8 $7,180,546 188.8 $7,611,379 13 Substitutes 0.0 $196,924 0.0 $206,000 14 Other-KinderQarten 15.0 $621,745 16.0 $659,050 TOTAL CERTIFIED SALARY 305.1 $12,434,753 304.1 $13,169,982 15 Secretaries 20.4 $517,493 21.4 $568,543 16 Nurses 6.0 $223,684 6.0 $237,105 17 Custodians 30.0 $431,533 30.0 $457,425 18 Information Services 1.0 $51,156 1.0 $54,225 19 Paraprofessionals-Other 6.0 $165,698 6.0 $175,640 20 Other-Aides 35.0 $405,160 35.0 $429,470 21 Fringe Benefits(20' ~  $3,599,572 ~  $4,022,814 TOTAL SUPPORT SALARY 98.4 $5,394,297 99.4 $5,945,223 TOTAL (10-20) ~ j $17,829,050 ~  $19,115,205 PURCHASED 22 Utilities ~ j $454,368 ~  $485,060 SERVICES t--23--t-T-ra_v_e_l- -------~-,:-\"\"::' \".\"':'\" .'\":./,.,t--------$-2_9. .,..9 _3_7~, .,,..,\".\"':'\" :,\".',:.,'.\\,..1----$,-4_1_ ,4_50--1 (30) 24 Maintenance Aareements ~  $0 ~ : $0 MATERIALS, SUPPLIES (40) CAPITAL OUTLAY (50) OTHER (60) 25 Other ~  $393,895 ~ i $187,123 TOTAL (30) ~ i $878,200 ~ i $713,633 26 Princioal's Office ~  $419 ~ i $1,750 27 Reaular Classroom ~ i $632,772 ~  $503,452 28 Media ~  $45,163 ~ : $46,900 29 Other ~ : $25,424 ~ : $20,797 TOTAL (40) ~  $703,778 ~ : $572,899 30 Eauioment ~  $369,502 ~ i $452,387 31 Buildino Reoair, etc. 32 Other TOTAL(50) ~ i $369,502 ~ $452,387 33 Dues and Fees ~ : $33,474 ~  $17,500 34 Other TOTAL (60) ~ i $33,474 ~ i $17,500 TOTAL (30-60) ~ j $1,984,954 ~  $1,756,419 TOTAL (10-60) 403.5 $19,814,003 403.5 $20,871,625 TOTAL LINE ITEMS- (SECOND PAGE) ~ : $1,537,083 ~ j $1,628,587 :\u003c\u003e\u003e i)iS.AANOJ'.O.lAt)!H?t : ~  ) t $.~f;)$.'Ul$.$i ~  ) j/ $~ZOOPi~1l: Stipends $21 ,871 $37,400 Other Objects $0 $0 Indirect Costs $1 ,411,708 $1 ,487,687 Vocational $32,000 $32,000 Athletics $33,000 $33,000 Gifted Proorams $504 $500 Plant Services $32,000 $32,000 Readino $500 $500 Science $0 $0 Enolish $1 ,500 $1,500 Special Education $4,000 $4,000 $0 $0 xxxxxx $0 $0 xxxxxx $0 $0 Total Line Items $1 ,537,083 $1,628,587 e.~fJiii111:c6st:::ri::i,:,:::,::iin i:n:::j !lil!M!on:::,: ni:n,::2000.--01::::,u:: 3rd Qtr. ADM or Proi. 3,814.79 3,814.79 Total Costs $21 ,351,086 $22,500,211 P~rJ!ib.1t:(i~t:niun:::n:t ,,i:: ::: :::::n,:i,n:iiJ$.=s-91:: :i::n,::::::i:i::$.i:i;8~t:: fjl~~immw.~m~ffimM~ffl-~illl!l!lil!!l!!illl1l !llllill :::::: :i:::::::::.::~::::::::::: :::'rtE\\i: :::::1::i~::it~:::::1:1 CERTIFIED 01 Principal 1.0 $69,272 1.0 $ 73,428 STAFF 02 Asst. Prin. 1.0 $56,669 1.0 $ 60,069 SUPPORT STAFF PURCHASED SERVICES (30) MATERIALS, SUPPLIES (40) CAPITAL OUTLAY (50) OTHER (60) 03 Specialists 7.0 $293,910 7.0 $ 311 ,544 04 Counselors 2.0 $87,214 2.0 $ 92,446 05 Media Spec. 1.0 $47,376 1.0 $ 50,219 06 Art-Perf./Prod. 1.0 $35,443 1.0 $ 37,570 07 Music $0 $0 08 Foreign Lang. $0 $0 09 Vocational $0 $0 10 Special Education 1.3 $62,744 1.3 $ 66,509 11 Gifted 1.0 $43,999 1.0 $ 46,639 12 Classroom 32.6 $1,165,224 31 .6 $ 1,235, 13 Substitutes $18,609 $ 14 Other-Kindergarten 4.0 $171 ,635 5.0 $ TOTAL CERTIFIED SALARY 51.9 ,052,095 51 .9 $2,176,495 15 Secretaries 2.0 ,286 2.0 $ 36,344 16 Nurses 1.0 $37,591 1.0 $ 39,846 17 Custodians 4.0 $57,275 4.0 $ 60,712 18 Information Services 0.2 ,528 0.2 $ 9,039 19 Paraorofessionals-Other $0 $0 20 Other-Aides 7.0 $93,153 7.0 $ 98,743 21 Fringe Benefits(20 ~ . $603,562 ~ : $648,855 TOTAL SUPPORT SALARY 14.2 $834,396 14.2 $893,538 TOTAL (10-20) ~ ' $2,886,491 ~ : $3,070,033 22 Utilities ~  $57,485 ~ : $61,400 23 Travel ~ : $6,356 ~ : $10,000 24 Maintenance Agreements 25 Other ~  $16,038 ~ i $26,025 TOTAL(30) ~ $79,879 ~  $97,425 26 Principal's Office 27 Regular Classroom ~ . $86,038 ~ : $67,403 28 Media ~ . $6,572 ~ : $7,000 29 Other ~ : $3,490 ~  $5,050 TOTAL (40) ~ . $96,101 ~ i $79,453 30 Equipment ~  $86,476 ~  $108,560 31 Building Repair, etc. 32 Other TOTAL (50) ~  $86,476 ~i $108,560 33 Dues and Fees ~  $6,258 ~ : $2,500 34 Other TOTAL (60) ~ $6,258 ~  $2,500 TOTAL (30-60) ~ $268,714 ~ $287,938 TOTAL (10-60) 66.1 $3,155,205 66.1 $3,357,971 TOTAL LINE ITEMS - (SECOND PAGE) ~ $217,044 ~ i $228,001 U/ i)d~AA'tilP.iT-O.T:A1;i)/HHH fflffii' i))/$:3\\:31ZZ4it nitxibtii i)f:)\";S$$;~72i :w,~,)t~:~~~:?::::::u::::::::::::: :::1:n::A~~~1::u::::: 1:u:p;tjpp~~::::::: J~(i!ii~ij-!HJ::nt::::::u:::::r::::ur 1999-00 2000-01 Stipends $9,891 $10,000 Other Objects $0 $0 Indirect Costs $201,576 $212,425 Vocational $0 $0 Athletics $0 $0 Gifted Programs $151 $151 Plant Services $4,569 $4,569 Reading $71 $71 Science $0 $0 English $214 $214 Special Education $571 $571 xxxxxx xxxxxx Total Line Items $217,044 $228,001 P~f ~~P.i~:9.~fi!1::::::::::::::::::::::::: :::::::d~~~~~:::::::: u:::::~99H~1.::::::::; 3rd Qtr. ADM or Proj. 544.71 544.71 Total Costs $3,372,249 $3,585,972 P~!~~Pi~!.~~t:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ::::::::::::::1:::$.~!1:~j!! :::::::::::::u:~~~~ij1! ~:~1~~~~~l~~~mq~~~RMtr~:r::::::::::::::::::::::::: :::~.:. ::::,:,:,:::~::::::: :!~+~::: ::,:::~~:.:~~,:::::,: CERTIFIED 01 Princioal 1.0 $65,840 1.0 $ 69,790 STAFF 02 Asst. Prin. 1.0 $51,989 1.0 $ 55,108 03 Soecialists 8.0 $314,459 8.0 $ 333,327 04 Counselors 2.0 $72,367 2.0 $ 76,709 05 Media Soec. 1.5 $61,802 1.5 $ 65,510 06 Art-Perf./Prod. $0 $0 07 Music $0 $0 08 Foreign Lang. $0 $0 09 Vocational $0 $0 10 Soecial Education 1.5 $38,627 1.5 $ 40,945 11 Gifted 1.4 $56,496 1.4 $ 59,886 12 Classroom 21 .3 $683,203 21 .3 $ 724,195 13 Substitutes $28,558 $ 30,000 14 Other-Kindergarten 5.0 $185,552 5.0 $ 196,685 TOTAL CERTIFIED SALARY 42.7 $1,558,893 42.7 $1,652,155 SUPPORT 15 Secretaries 3.0 $61,721 3.0 $ 65,424 STAFF 16 Nurses 1.0 $36,340 1.0 $ 38,520 17 Custodians 4.0 $55,669 4.0 $ 59,009 18 Information Services 0.2 8,528 0.2 $ 9,039 19 Paraprofessionals-Other $0 $0 20 Other-Aides 11 .0 $107,386 11.0 $ 113,829 21 Fringe Benefits(20) ~ $479,870 ~  $ 542,901 TOTAL SUPPORT SALARY 19.2 $749,514 19.2 $828,724 TOTAL (10-20) ~ - $2,308,407 ~ : $2,480,879 PURCHASED 22 Utilities ~ - $49,101 ~ ! $52,300 SERVICES 23 Travel ~ $5,151 ~ : $12,000 (30) 24 Maintenance Aareements 25 Other ~ $14,934 ~  $13,055 TOTAL (30) ~ $69,186 ~ ! $77,355 MATERIALS, 26 Princioal's Office SUPPLIES 27 Regular Classroom ~ - $118,231 ~  $56,046 (40) 28 Media ~ - $8,911 ~ : $9,500 29 Other ~ - $3,904 ~ : $3,000 TOTAL (40) ~ : $131,046 ~  $68,546 CAPITAL 30 Eauioment ~ - $49,822 ~ ! $41,802 OUTLAY 31 Buildina Reoair, etc. ~ $0 ~ : $0 (50) 32 Other TOTAL (50) ~ $49,822 ~ ! $41,802 OTHER 33 Dues and Fees ~ $5,154 ~ ; $2,000 (60) 34 Other TOTAL(60) ~ $5,154 ~ ! $2,000 TOTAL (30-60) ~ $255,209 ~ : $189,703 TOTAL (10-60) 61 .9 $2,563,615 61.9 $2,670,582 TOTAL LINE ITEMS - (SECOND PAGE) ~  $205,684 ~' $223,951 Stioends $4,277 $12,000 Other Objects $0 $0 Indirect Costs $195,985 $206,533 Vocational $0 $0 Athletics $0 $0 Gifted Proarams $147 $144 Plant Services $4,442 $4,442 Readino $69 $69 Science $0 $0 English $208 $208 Special Education $555 $555 xxxxxx xxxxxx Total Line Items $205,684 $223,951 J~ei:J~~i)!liC9$~:n::,:::,::::n:::::::n::,:: :::::n::,:$~9.~I):::::::: ::::::::~P~iHHi:. 3rd Qtr. ADM or Proi. 529.60 529.60 Total Costs $2,769,300 $2,894,533 1F.1et:P.~Pft,co~t::,1:u::1:::1::::::n::::,::: :::::::::::::,::::is;~~:: .,:,:::::,:::,:u:$.SA$$:: ~:1,,~~~illlifm~ffimM~ffl~ffi~J~::ilillililllllil:iilil11l l::::::1 ::::::::::::::~::::::::::: :::+r~:l: ::::::::~~:flt~:::::::: CERTIFIED 01 Principal 1.0 $64,456 1.0 $ 68,323 STAFF 02 Asst. Prin. 1.0 $46,301 1.0 $ 49,079 03 Specialists 6.8 $239,142 6.8 $ 253,491 04 Counselors 1.0 $48,372 1.0 $ 51 ,274 05 Media Spec. 1.0 $49,380 1.0 $ 52,343 06 Art-Perf./Prod. $0 $0 07 Music $0 $0 08 Foreign Lang. $0 $0 09 Vocational $0 $0 10 Special Education 2.0 $78,541 2.0 $ 83,253 11 Gifted 1.0 $36,021 1.0 $ 38,182 12 Classroom 13.5 $501,102 13.5 $ 531,168 13 Substitutes $13,155 $ 14,000 14 Other-Kindergarten 3.0 $126,118 3.0 $ 133,685 TOTAL CERTIFIED SALARY 30.3 $1 ,202,588 30.3 $1,274,799 SUPPORT 15 Secretaries 1.4 $29,738 1.4 $ 31,522 STAFF 16 Nurses 1.0 $33,314 1.0 $ 35,313 17 Custodians 3.0 $46,030 3.0 $ 48,792 18 Information Services 0.2 8,528 0.2 $ 9,039 19 Paraprofessionals-Other $0 $0 20 Other-Aides 5.6 $40,981 5.6 $ 43,440 21 Fringe Benefits(20) ~  $338,590 ~ : $392,172 TOTAL SUPPORT SALARY 11.2 $497,181 11 .2 $560,278 TOTAL(10-20) ~ : $1,699,769 ~  $1,835,077 PURCHASED 22 Utilities ~ : $27,159 ~ i $29,660 SERVICES 23 Travel ~ : $4,646 ~ : $5,000 (30) 24 Maintenance Aoreements ~  $0 ~ : $0 MATERIALS, SUPPLIES (40) CAPITAL OUTLAY (50) OTHER (60) 25 Other ~ : $10,739 ~  $13,818 TOTAL (30) ~ : $42,544 ~ : $48,478 26 Principal's Office ~  $0 ~ : $1,000 27 Reoular Classroom ~ : $46,173 ~ : $40,000 28 Media ~ : $2,257 ~ : $3,500 29 Other ~  $2,740 ~ : $334 TOTAL (40) ~ : $51,170 ~ : $44,834 30 Eauipment ~ - $19,503 ~ : $8,497 31 Buildino Repair, etc. 32 Other TOTAL (50) ~ - $19,503 ~  $8,497 33 Dues and Fees ~ $6,977 ~  $1,000 34 Other TOTAL (60) ~ $6,977 ~ ; $1,000 TOTAL (30-60) ~ $120,194 ~ ' $102,809 TOTAL (10-60) 41 .5 $1,819,963 41.5 $1 ,937,886 TOTAL LINE ITEMS - (SECOND PAGE) ~ - $108,028 ~  $113,686  :t=)J~AAND.:tO.'tAk)))) ~  /(:)$.1(927:~92H xmio( )))~~05Mu,2 .. W@rn~:~tit::::n::t:\\:H\\: n::::::HAi::'t~~n:::::n: }1/ P#iDP~~::j:jj\" :~~~l:/:\\:\\J:H\\/t/HH/: 1999-00 2000-01 Stipends $0 $0 Other Obiects $0 $0 Indirect Costs $105,120 $110,777 Vocational $0 $0 ~~~ ~ ~ Gifted Programs $79 $79 Plant Services $2,383 $2,383 Readino $37 $37 Science $0 $0 Enolish $112 $112 Special Education $298 $298 )00()()()( )00()()()( Total Line Items $108,028 $113,686 tPer:~ij11:c;o~t::::::::i:::iti:::::::i:i: 1:::::::1~~9.~a:::::1:1 :::::i::~PQP~~ :ni:::: 3rd Qtr. ADM or Proj. 284.06 284.06 Total Costs $1,927,992 $2,051,572 p~:Fc'uomoo~t:ri:::i:::::i::::::::: 1:::1::::::::i::$.Ekl\u0026.1: ::i:::::i:i:u~iz:i ~~~1~il1if~\u0026l~ffll~ITT~ffi~~illlllilllillillll:i:ililii ::::w:: l:::::::l:l:W~~:::::l:l:l: ::~~w:: rn:::::~~:.t:rn:::::::: CERTIFIED 01 Principal 1.0 $76,612 1.0 $ 81,209 STAFF 02 Asst. Prin. 1.0 $46,301 1.0 $ 49,079 SUPPORT STAFF 03 Specialists 5.0 $221 ,42 "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1190","title":"Little Rock School District (LRSD) Assessment Notebook, Planning, Research, and Evaluation, Little Rock School District","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":["Little Rock School District"],"dc_date":["2000-08"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--21st Century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Educational planning","Educational statistics","Students","Education--Standards"],"dcterms_title":["Little Rock School District (LRSD) Assessment Notebook, Planning, Research, and Evaluation, Little Rock School District"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/1190"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["documents (object genre)"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\nThe transcript for this item was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.\ns\np.~ ~nnln,gr B~~q, :, L,_. ft.n d,.~y ijlU at i On \\A,M9 lL .\\.iAP.O TO: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT INSTRUCTIONAL RESOURCE CENTER 3001 PULASKI STREET LITTLE ROCK, AR 72206 July 26, 2001 Board of Education ?~l-1-6( eflu_J)N'l}. -~ fxw: ~~~/ cru I ~s~ J FROM: . .) ~/\\Dr. Bonnie Lesley, Associate Superintendent for Instruction THROUGH: Dr. Kenneth James, Superintendent of Schools SUBJECT: Proposed Amendments to the Assessment Program The Board of Education approved the current assessment program in August 1999. Attached for the Board's information is a matrix that outlines the tests administered in 2000-01, dates, grade levels, and definitions. In addition to the tests listed on the matrix, we also have others, such as the Language Assessment Scale used to identify limited-English proficient students\ndiagnostic and screening tests used to . identify students for special education\nthe ASVAB at the high school to identify vocational aptitudes\nAdvanced Placement tests for students in grades 10-12\nthe SAT in grades 11-12 who need it for college admission or scholarships\ncredit by examination at the end of the year for credit recovery\nplacement examinations for entry or re-entry of home schooled students\ntests that teachers administer as a part of their instructional program\nand so forth.  After many discussions evaluating this program during 2000-01, including feedback from parents, students, principals, teachers, counselors, and curriculum and assessment staff, we have determined the need to revise the program. We request the Board's approval of the following amendments to our program: 1. Eliminate the fall administration of the Achievement Level Tests (AL Ts) in reading, language, mathematics, and science for grades 3-11-except for students new to the District. Rationale: We learn very little valuable information from the fall scores that we do not already know from the spring scores received a few months earlier. Eliminating these tests would save considerable staff time at both the District and school levels-in planning, administering the tests, scanning the answer documents, running reports, distributing reports, interpreting and analyzing the reports, etc. We would save money in licensing fees, scan sheets, delivery costs of materials to and from schools, paper to Board of Education - Memo July 26, 2001 Page Two run the reports for students/parents, schools, and central office, etc. Perhaps most importantly, we would save at least a week of instructional time for virtually all students since schools tend to shut down instruction when any grade level is being tested. By continuing to test in the fall the new students to the District, we would then have diagnostic information for all students, and we would be able to have necessary data for SAIPs (Student Academic Improvement Plans) and to compute a growth score for all students. 2. Eliminate all AL Ts in grades 10-11 at the high school level. Rationale: Using the AL Ts at the high school level in any meaningful way has presented several problems. Perhaps the one that is most important is that high school students have few courses in common at any grade level since many of them repeat courses, take advantage of choices they have (e.g., taking either Algebra II or Statistics to satisfy graduation requirements), and/or intentionally delay some courses (e.g., a science or social studies course) in order to take Career Focus courses or electives in which they have interests. In other words, the grades 10-11 AL Ts are not necessarily aligned with the courses that the students are taking. It is, therefore, difficult to interpret the scores since we are not always clear about which courses the students have actually completed. Another high school issue is that they already take so many other tests, and the AL Ts are so unimportant to them that they lack motivation to do well. Students take both the SA T9 and PLAN in grade 10, and almost all of them take either the end-of-course Algebra I or Geometry test required by the state. In grade 11 by the time they receive their ALT scores, they have already taken all the required state endof- course/level tests, their last SAT9, PLAN, the PSAT, and, perhaps, either the ACT or SAT. The grade 10-11 ALT scores, therefore, are not going to be significantly informative to anyone. 3. Eliminate the mathematics and science AL Ts at grade 9 (leaving only the reading and language AL Ts at this grade level). Rationale: Again, the issue is alignment. Once students start taking Algebra I the mathematics ALT is not helpful. The ALT science test at grade 9 is not well aligned with Active Physics and Physics I Pre-AP at this grade level either since so few students in the nation even take a physics course. We can make the case with the National Science Foundation that our criterion-referenced tests (CRTs) for mathematics and science are better measurements for program evaluation and the diagnosis of individual student needs than the AL Ts. Board of Education - Memo July 26, 2001 Page Three 4. Eliminate the mathematics ALT for students in grades 7-8 who are enrolled in Algebra I or higher-level mathematics. Rationale: The ALT is not a good test for students after they begin Algebra I. 5. Eliminate the criterion-referenced tests in English language arts administered at the end of the second and third quarters, grades 3-8. (The CRTs used at the end of mathematics modules in grades 3-8 and the end-of-unit tests used in grades 3-8 in science will continue since they are an important part of the evaluation plan submitted to the National Science Foundation.) Rationale: Staff at both the District and school levels have recommended that the energy and money spent on the current CRTs in language arts would be better used in providing quality professional development for teachers in how to write their own assessments and how to use rubrics (scoring guides) in assessing student performance. The data gathered from language arts CRTs have not been helpful at the . District or school levels in assessing program effectiveness since the instruction in this area is highly individualized. The content (what students read, as opposed to skills emphasized) and sequence of lessons also varies from classroom to classroom. The value of the assessment results is at the teacher level\nthe assessment instrument, therefore, will likely be of higher value if designed by the teachers, particularly if they have been trained. Other issues in the language arts is the cost in time of scoring openended responses and the related delay in getting results back to the schools. 6. Begin the grade 9 Civics/United States History assessment in spring 2002. Rationale: The SA T9 battery includes a social studies assessment in grades 5, 7, and 10, but these tests are not necessarily aligned with the Arkansas curriculum frameworks for social studies, nor the District's grade-level and course benchmarks. The social studies staff recommend that we add this assessment so that we measure students' understanding of key concepts in United States government, civics, and history. This test can also prepare students to take the up-coming State end-of-course test in United States History, as well as provide the school and the District with diagnostic information in this subject area and evaluation data for the program. Our initial plans were to begin this assessment in spring 2001 . We made a decision to delay it due to the illness of the Director of Social Studies and due to a need to align our item bank with other important social studies assessments, such as the assessment used by the National Assessment of Educational Progress. BAL/adg Attachments I I I I i l District Assessments: The Assessment Program for 2000-01 Grade TEST K I 1 2 LRSD Observallo11 Survey Sepl. \u0026amp; Sepl. \u0026amp; Sep!. \u0026amp; bohoviorAI obss,vstion of lllmcr skms April April  April LRSD Achi0ver11enl Level Tes! (ALT) Rssdt,rg, LsnguafJ Arts, Alef/o, \u0026amp; Scislfco I LRSD 1st O\\lerler CRT, October 1 LRSD 2nd Quarter CRT, Januarv LRSD Jrd Quarter CRT, March End or Module - Malh End of Uni! - Science End or Level Social Sludle~ Tesl April 3  4 5 I 6 7 8 Sepl \u0026amp; Aorll Seo! \u0026amp; Aorll Seol \u0026amp; Aoril Seol.\u0026amp; Aoril Sep! \u0026amp; April Seol \u0026amp; Aorll Reading \u0026amp; Reading \u0026amp; Reading \u0026amp; Language Language Language Language Language Langtia_ge Ms Arts Aris Aris Aris Aris Reading \u0026amp; Reading \u0026amp; Reading \u0026amp; Language Language Language Language Language Language Aris Aris.: Arts Aris Aris .Aris As Modules are As Modules are tis Modu'.es are As Modules As Modules /Is Modules compleled compleled corppl11led are compleled are compleled are compleled As Units are As Unlls aro \" AsUnll'iare NJ Unll:s are As Unlls an, completed compleled COOlpluled compleled co111pleled 9 Seo! \u0026amp; Aorll Algebra 1 \u0026amp; 2, Geomelry, Trigmiomelrv Algeb1 a 1 \u0026amp; 2, Geometry, T rlgonornelrv May 10 Sep! \u0026amp; April Sep! \u0026amp; April Algebra 1 \u0026amp; 2, I Algebra 1 \u0026amp; 2, Geon1elry, Geomelry, Trlgonomelrv Trigonometry Algebra 1 \u0026amp; 2, Algebra t \u0026amp; 2, Geomelry, Geomelry, Triaonomelrv Trigonometry 12 Algebra 1 \u0026amp; 2, Geornelry, Trigonometry Algeb1a l \u0026amp; 2,1 Geometry, . , Trlaonomelr-v  \\~~l .. 'll:.11%\nate?~Elr.J... ~ IUllttr. ~--~- .Uti(WJ.\n.~FH~.ni'\":m\"'~JI ~'.J!li.:r~~~,:t:_~..,l ~ .- f:~ .S!f:. ~nn1jfr7-$. =~Jl.l:!: . ... ,,f!ii::,11' i.:S::::l:::a:::le::..:B=-e=n:::c::l.::.1m:.:a=:r:::k::..:: ::M.::,iO::.:r..:\u0026amp;:...:L::::::ra=cr_....:..._ _- l------l---~1-------1-------+---'A-'\\o\"-r'-ll-'._+-~---1--.c....A,p:'- ri'-l -+-----1----,-A\n-p_ri_l -1--~--- , :2(1 - ....~\n~r' . End or Course Algebra_ I May May Mav Mav Mav May End or Course Geomeltv Mav May Mav May Mav End or Course Lileracv Mav '-~,.... lf(i'~\"\"Ji.llj:r~f:\n(\u0026gt;\n...., .~'.'\"''~ 'i111i-'. ~a1i1):\\1'J,.\":P.1~'l\n.:\"ilj._, ,,_ ' l-t-\\: ' , - ' .' $A T-9: Nomr Rfsrencsd ToI Seplember Seplember Seplember PLAN Oct \u0026amp; Nov EXPLORE Oct - FelJ. PSAT NAEP lrandomlv selecled schools 1 February February Ocl (plaGIIGB} .October February 7118/00 Revised DRAFT 1. t I I - Glossary of Terms LRSD Observation Survey is an assessment instrument developed by Marie Clay to assess K-2 students in letter identification, word identification, concepts about print (CAPS)\nwriting vocabulary, and dictation. The Developmental Reading Assessment is also used-as part of this assessment. LRSD Achievement Level Tests (AL Ts) are tests consisting of multiple levels. 111e ALT measures student progress in mastering the skills of Mathematics, Reading, Language, and Science. The District administers the ALT to students in grades 2-11. LllSD Crileria referenced test are administered in math, science, social studies and language arts to measure student progress in mastering the district's curriculum. End-of -Course Algebra )/Geometry are *criterion-Teferenced state assessments administered to eligible students** at the end of course to measure application of core knowledge and skills in the content areas. End-of-Comse Literacy is a criterion-referenced state assessment administered to eleventh grade studenls to measure application of core knowledge and skills in the content area. State Benchmark E:ums are criterion-referenced assessments designed to measure how well students are learning the state's academic standards in Mathematics and Literacy (reading and writing). The Primary, Intennediate, and Middle Level Benc~ark Exams are administered to students in grade~ 4, 6, and 8, respectively. Stanford Achievement Test Ninth Edition (SAT 9) is a norm-referenced assessment designed to test broad concepts in specific subject areas. Nomi-referenced tests are initially administered lo a national sample of students in order to develop testing \"norms\" or normative results thal will be used in comparing local stndenl performance. As such, norm-referenced testing fostrument9 provide important information on how students in Arkansas perform when compared to nnlional sample group results. The state mandates norm-referenced testing of students in grades 5, 7, and JO. PLAN academic tests are designed to measure student attainment of the knowledge and skills acquired through the early years of high school, specifically among tenth giade students in the fall term. There are four PLAN academic tests: English, Mathematics, Reading and Science Reasoning. PLAN is the second part of the ACT assessment program. EXPLORE serves as the first step in an integrated series of American College Test (ACn assessment programs designed to enhance eighth grade students'  preparation for careers, vocational training, or higher education. EXPLORE is made up primarily of four academic achievement tests: English, Mathematics, Reading, and Science Reasoning. Preliminary Scholastic Aptitude Test (PSAT) assesses knowledge and skills developed through years of study in a wide range of courses as well as through experiences outside the class1oom. The PSAT measures critical reading skills, verbal reasoning, math problem-solving skills, and writing skills. Juniors take the test to prepare for college admission tests. Test results provide valuable feedback about academic skills and can be used to identify students for honors classes. This is the qualifying test for the National Merit Program. National Assessment of Educnlional Progress (NAEP) is the only nationally representative and continuing assessment of what st11dents in the United Stales know and can do in various academic subjects. NAEP is authorized by Congress and directed by the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES). The NAEP assessments are administered to rep1esentative samples of students at the national and state levels in grades 4, 8, and 12. *Criterion rcrerenced examinulions are based on the A1kansas Cu1Ticulum Framewo1ks and designed to measure student accomplishment of the conlent standai ds therein. ** All students who llave completed the course of study.   District Assessments: The Assessment Program for 2000-01 Grade K 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 LRSD Observation Survey Sept. \u0026amp; Sept. \u0026amp; Sept. \u0026amp; behavioral obse,vstion of literacy skiffs April April April LRSD Achievement Level Test (ALT) Reading, Language Arls, Math, \u0026amp; Science April Sept \u0026amp; April Sept \u0026amp; April Sept \u0026amp; April Sept \u0026amp; April Sept \u0026amp; April Sept \u0026amp; April LRSD 1st Quarter CRT. October Reading \u0026amp; Reading \u0026amp; Reading \u0026amp; Language Language Language Language Language Language LRSD 2nd Quarter CRT, January Arts Arts Arts Arts Arts Arts Reading \u0026amp; Reading \u0026amp; Reading \u0026amp; Language Language Language Language Language Language LRSD 3rd Quarter CRT, March Arts Arts Arts Arts Arts Arts As Modules are As Modules are As Modules are As Modules As Modules As Modules End of Module - Math compleled compleled completed are completed are completed are completed As Units are As Units are As Units are As Units are As Units are End of Unit - Science completed completed completed completed completed End of Level Social Studies Test State Benchmark: Math \u0026amp; Literacy April April April End of Course Algebra I May May End of Course Geometry May End of Course Literacy SAT-9: Norm Referenced Test September September PLAN EXPLORE Oct - Feb PSAT NAEP (randomly selected schools) February February 7/18/00 Revised DRAFT 9 Sept \u0026amp; April Algebra 1 \u0026amp; 2, Geometry, Trigonometry Algebra 1 \u0026amp; 2, Geometry, Trigonometry May May 10 Sept \u0026amp;April Algebra 1 \u0026amp; 2, Geometry, Trigonometry Algebra 1 \u0026amp; 2, Geometry, Trigonometrv May May September Oct \u0026amp; Nov 11 Sept \u0026amp;April Algebra 1 \u0026amp; 2, Geometry, Trigonometrv Algebra 1 \u0026amp; 2, Geometry, Trigonometry May May Oct (practice) .. October 12 Algebra 1 \u0026amp; 2, Geometry, Trigonometry Algebra 1 \u0026amp; 2, Geometry, Trigonometry - -:-, ~ ,- ...  :1-'' \u0026gt; May May February    SAS Co EN-S ING, ASSESSMENT,~ PROGRAM Arkansas Department of Education Ray Simon, Director June 1999 Revised June 2000    INTRODUCTION The Arkansas Comprehensive Testing, Assessment and Accountability Program (ACTAAP), a comprehensive system encompassing high academic standards, professional development, student assessment, and accountability for schools and students, has the following purposes:  To improve student learning and classroom instruction\n To provide public accountability by establishing expected achievement levels and reporting on student achievement\n To provide program evaluation data\nand  To assist policymakers in decision-making. Based on principles of rigor, clarity, and fairness, ACTAAP makes student achievement of the academic standards the shared priority of all public schools, school districts, education service cooperatives, and the Arkansas Department of Education (ADE). It will result in improved teaching and learning. It will identify successful schools and programs and encourage replication of those successes. It will encourage individual schools and school districts to reflect on their practices, take corrective actions, and receive support from state agencies. Finally, it will fulfill the requirements of various Arkansas statutes, including Act 999 of 1999, which mandates \"that all students in the public schools of this state demonstrate grade-level academic proficiency through the application of knowledge and skills in the core academic subjects consistent with state curriculum frameworks, performance standards, and assessments.\"    ACADEMIC STANDARDS The first component, a set of clear, challenging academic standards, defines what students should know and be able to do in the basic academic core. Arkansas' academic standards are delineated in ten state curriculum framework documents. Written by Arkansas classroom teachers, the curriculum frameworks are revised on a State Board of Education adopted schedule to ensure that state learning expectations will prepare students to succeed in increasingly more demanding post secondary education and in an ever more competitive job market. As part of Smart Start and Smart Step, and as a support and supplement to the curriculum frameworks, K-8 Benchmark documents in Language Arts and Mathematics have been created. These documents are examples of how a school district might implement the curriculum frameworks by grade level. The K-8 Curriculum Model documents also contain suggested instructional strategies, classroom assessments, and a K-3 grade-level skills checklist. Other supportive curriculum documents built around the academic standards are under development. 2    PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT The second component, professional development, is a coordinated set of planned, research-based best practice, learning activities for teachers and administrators which are standards-based and continuous. It shall be tied with school improvement planning and with licensure renewal requirements. Thirty approved professional development hours annually will be required for each certified employee in the school district. Beginning in January 2002, thirty approved professional development hours annually over a five-year period shall be required to renew a teacher or administrator license. To be eligible, professional development activities must produce teaching and administrative knowledge and skills designed to improve students' academic performance. Such activities may include approved conferences, workshops, institutes, individual learning, mentoring, peer coaching, study groups, National Board for Professional Teaching Standards Certification, distance learning, internships, and college/university coursework. Approved professional development activities shall relate to the twelve areas adopted by the State Board of Education: content (Grades K-12)\ninstructional strategies\nassessment\nadvocacy/leadership\nsystemic change process\nstandards, frameworks, and curriculum alignment\nsupervision\nmentoring/coaching\ninstructional technology\nprinciples of learning/developmental stages\ncognitive research\nand building a collaborative learning community. All approved professional development activities, whether individual or school wide, shall be based on the improvement of student achievement on statemandated criterion-referenced examinations and other related indicators as defined by ACTAAP . 3    STUDENT ASSESSMENT The third component is a student assessment program, which includes both criterionreferenced and norm-referenced tests in the academic core. Criterion-referenced tests are customized around the academic standards in the Arkansas Curriculum Frameworks and are developed by committees of Arkansas teachers. These criterion-referenced tests are administered to establish the level of student achievement of the state academic standards and to compare the level of student achievement with the expected performance levels set by the State Board of Education. 1 orm-referenced tests provide information to compare the performance of Arkansas students against the performance of a sample of students from across the country (norming/standardization group). Because norm-referenced tests are not built exclusively around Arkansas' academic standards and because their purpose is to group students based on their performance relative to the norming group, they can best be used for assisting in broad program evaluation and in individual student diagnosis. Norm-referenced test data will not be a primary statemandated indicator within the accountability component, but will be reported annually on the School Performance Report. State-Mandated Assessments The results of all assessments should be used during the school improvement planning process to help the school focus on the Arkansas academic standards and the need to increase proficient student performance around those standards. State-mandated assessments shall be as follows: Assessments Grade Level Month Administered Criterion-Referenced Primary Benchmark Grade 4 April Intermediate Benchmark Grade 6 April Middle Level Benchmark Grade 8 April End-of-Course - Algebra I When Completed January/May End-of-Course - Geometry When Completed January/May End-of-Course - Literacv Grade 11 Januarv/Aoril Norm-Referenced Grades 5 7 and 1 O Seotember The Primary, Intermediate, and Middle Level Benchmark Exams, as well as the End-ofCourse Exams, will be given late in the school year to allow maximum instructional time for covering the academic standards. Special provisions will be made for an alternate administration in January for those secondary students on a block scheduling system. The Literacy End-of-Course Exam will be given to students in Grade 11 to allow time for additional remediation, at the school's option, before graduation. These exams are tailored to Arkansas' curriculum standards, and their performance levels are absolute and held constant over time. The results of the End-of-Course Exams shall become a part of each student's transcript or permanent record. 4    An academic improvement plan means a plan which details supplemental and/or intervention and .~remedial instruction in deficient academic areas. One shall be developed for each student not performing at the proficient level in every portion of the criterion-referenced examinations. The norm-referenced tests will be given in early fall of the school year in order to provide teachers with immediate and initial performance assessment data on students currently enrolled or newly enrolled in classes and content areas. The performance of Arkansas students taking the norm-referenced tests in the fall will be compared to the performance of a norming group who took the same tests during the same period in the fall, thus ensuring the reliability, validity and fairness of comparison. Score reports will be returned early in the school year for classroom teachers to use the testing information to address the individual student learning needs, and to modify the instructional program, teaching strategies, and/or classroom assessments as needed. Instruction then can focus fully on the Arkansas academic standards throughout the year and on increasing proficient student performance around those standards. Schools may request a waiver from the fall to a spring testing date. Such waivers will only be granted after a written plan is presented to the ADE and the school agrees to the guidelines as established. The timing of such requests must also fall within the deadlines as established by the testing company. As another part of the student assessment program for Grades K-4, schools shall select performance assessments or screening/diagnostic tools to assess primary grade students. Any student in Grades K-4 failing to perform at the proficient level in reading and writing literacy or mathematics shall be evaluated as early as possible within each of the Grades K-4 academic years. Those students shall be evaluated by personnel with expertise in reading and writing literacy or mathematics who shall develop and implement an academic improvement plan, using ADE sanctioned early intervention strategies for Grades K-1 students and remediation strategies for Grades 2-4 students. These strategies should assist the students in achieving the expected standard. Schools serving Grades 5-12 shall establish a plan to assess whether children are performing at the proficient level in order to help assure eventual success on every portion of the Intermediate, Middle Level, and End-of-Course Benchmark Exams. For accountability purposes, no points will be assigned for the results of these performance assessments or screening/diagnostic tools. Act 855 of 1999 mandates that students in Grades K-3 not performing at grade level during the regular school year shall participate in an ADE approved remediation program or a summer school remediation program to be eligible for promotion to the next grade. Those schools electing not to offer a summer school program shall offer an ADE approved remediation program during the regular school year to students in Grades K-3 not performing at grade level. 5    Optional Assessments There are other assessments which are optional for student and school participation. These include the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), college entrance examinations (e.g., ACT and SAT), Advanced Placement testing, PLAN, EXPLORE, and others. Some of these may be included as indicators on the School Performance Report or in the annual school report to the public. ote: Although AEP is optional for individual school districts, state participation is mandated by Act 999 of 1999 . 6    ACCOUNTABILITY FOR SCHOOLS AND STUDENTS '\",,I,. .  Accountability is a comprehensive, focused process designed to improve student learning. It is a shared responsibility of the state, school, district, public officials, educators, parents, and students. The ACTAAP accountability model focuses on each individual school and is constructed around a three-tiered system that includes statewide indicators, individual school improvement indicators, and a locally-generated school accountability narrative. Once appropriate time has elapsed to evaluate trends and improvement expectations in a sufficient number of indicators and a statistically-defensible point assignment system can be developed, points for each of the statewide and individual school improvement indicators will be given. This point system will form the basis for rewards and sanctions. These three tiers allow for meaningful and appropriate state and local involvement to implement accountability within clearly articulated parameters. ACTAAP encourages proactive corrections by individual schools and their local districts through the development and application of strategies using the school improvement process as a planning instrument. Performance Levels The primary goal of the accountability system is to assure that all students achieve grade-level performance. In this system, grade-level performance is defined as performing at the proficient or advanced level on state-mandated criterion-referenced tests. Four performance levels have been established for these exams: advanced, proficient, basic and below basic. The only tests for which scaled scores defining these levels have been set are the Primary Benchmark and Middle Level Benchmark Exams. Similar scales will be established by the State Board of Education as additional tests are completed and data become available. Definitions of Performance Levels Advanced students demonstrate superior performance well beyond proficient grade-level performance. They can apply Arkansas' established reading, writing, and mathematics skills to solve complex problems and complete demanding tasks on their own. They can make insightful connections between abstract and concrete ideas and provide wellsupported explanations and arguments. Proficient students demonstrate solid academic performance for the grade tested and are well-prepared for the next level of schooling. They can use Arkansas' established reading, writing, and mathematics skills and knowledge to solve problems and complete tasks on their own. Students can tie ideas together and explain the ways their ideas are connected. 7    Basic students demonstrate a need for some additional assistance, commitment, or study to reach the proficient level. They show substantial skills in reading, writing, and mathematics\nhowever, they only partially demonstrate the abilities to apply these skills. Below Basic students fail to show sufficient mastering of skills in reading, writing, and mathematics to attain the basic level. Performance Levels for the Primary and Middle Level Benchmark Examinations Performance Scaled Score Ranges for Scaled Score Ranges for Level Performance Levels for Performance Levels for Literacy Mathematics Primary Middle Level Primary Middle Level Advanced 250 and above 250 and above 250 and above 250 and above Proficient 200-249 200-249 200-249 200-249 Basic 155-199 149-199 179-199 164-199 Below Basic 154 and below 148 and below 178 and below 163 and below c Performance is subject to adjustment on a periodic basis due to .statistical scaling and variability in the test.) 8    Public Reporting Each public school in Arkansas will have a School Performance Report that will be created through the combined efforts of the local school, school district, and the ADE. The School Performance Report will provide parents and the public with data upon which to evaluate their schools and provide benchmarks for measuring school improvement. Although results from the school's performance on the three-tiered system will be the primary focus of the School Performance Report, other indicators may be included as determined by law or State Board of Education rules and regulations. Although the same standards of student performance will be expected from all students, assessment data will be analyzed and reported separately for three student classifications: special education, limited English proficient, and high mobility. The purposes for tracking performance of these student groups are to focus on narrowing any achievement gap between them and their peers and to ensure that the progress of all student populations is annually and systematically monitored. For purposes of this reporting, the following definitions apply: Disaggregated Reporting General population students are those participating in the mandatory criterionreferenced and norm-referenced assessments that are not classified as special education, limited English proficient, or highly mobile. Combined population students include all those participating in the mandatory criterion-referenced and norm-referenced assessments regardless of classification . Special education students are those determined to be eligible for special education services under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) and who have an individualized education program (IEP). The student's IEP must stipulate that the student may participate in the mandatory criterionreferenced and norm-referenced assessments either with or without accommodations. Beginning July 1, 2000, those unable to participate with or without accommodations will be assessed through the Alternate Assessment program. Beginning with the kindergarten class of 2000-2001, the scores of all students classified as special education students participating in the mandatory criterion-referenced and norm-referenced assessments with or without accommodations shall be aggregated ( combined) with those of the general population students according to the following calendar: 2004 - 05 Primary Benchmark 2005 - 06 Fifth Grade orm-Referenced 2006 - 07 Intermediate Benchmark 2007 - 08 Seventh Grade Norm-Referenced 2008 - 09 Middle Level Benchmark 2008 - 09 End of Course (where applicable) 2010- 11 Tenth Grade Norm-Referenced 2011 - 12 End of Course Literacy 9    Limited,. English proficient students are those having a language background other than English and whose proficiency in English is such that the probability of  academic success in an English-only classroom is below that of native English language students. The district's Language Assessment Committee must have determined that the students may participate in the mandatory criterion-referenced and norm-referenced assessments either with or without accommodations. Beginning July 1, 2000, those unable to participate with or without accommodations will be assessed through the Alternate Assessment program. High mobility students are those who, at the time of spring testing, were not enrolled in the current school district on October 1 of the current school year or who, at the time of fall testing, were not enrolled in the current school district on October I of the previous school year. Beginning with the 1999-2000 mandatory assessments, results will be reported separately for the following categories of students: General Population Special Education Students Limited English Proficient Students High Mobility Students Combined Population Beginning with the 2000-01 mandatory assessments, the number of students not tested through either the mandatory criterion-referenced and norm-referenced assessments or Alternate Assessment program will be reported by school. Schools should make every effort to assure that all students are tested. Annual School Report to the Public: Each year, each school will prepare a report to the parents and community. This report will include a narrative description (such as prepared under Tier III indicators) that will highlight the school's improvement plan and indicate progress made in implementing the performance indicators within that plan. Arkansas School Information Site (AS-IS): The ADE plans to make school accountability data available statewide through the Department's World Wide Web - as-is.org. This Web site will display school data based on student performance and other selected indicators. Annual ADE Report to the Legislature: The ADE shall report to the members of the House and Senate Interim Committees on Education on the progress of ACTAAP. The report shall be due on September!, 1999 and annually thereafter. 10    School Improvement Planning As part of the state's accreditation process, each school is required to engage in the development and implementation of a school improvement plan based on priorities indicated by student assessment and other pertinent data. This plan is designed to ensure that all students demonstrate proficiency on all portions of the state-mandated criterionreferenced exams. The initial step in the planning model is a structured process that leads to disaggregation of student achievement and other student data. The study of this data helps schools identify areas within the curriculum where student performance does not meet expectation. Schools prioritize the needs areas, then develop performance-based benchmarks that can be tracked during the implementation phase of the plan. Schools then identify intervention and remediation strategies that, if effectively implemented, will move students toward meeting the established benchmarks. Finally, schools develop an action plan that assigns tasks, identifies resources (including the source of funds), and projects evaluation strategies that will signal movement toward meeting the performance standards. The process requires that the intervention and remediation be research-based and linked to proven practices. Rewards Rewards will be based on a system structured to recognize schools that demonstrate and maintain high performance over time and to recognize schools that demonstrate growth on both the state-mandated and school-selected indicators. Rewards also can be used to highlight individual schools so that their practices can be adapted in other schools and districts across the state. Each year the ADE will recognize individual schools that demonstrate exceptional performance in two categories: Performance Awards - Absolute levels of student achievement and other indicators. Growth Trend and Improvement A wards - Recognized growth trends and improvement in student achievement and other indicators. All award categories, which could include cash payments to individual schools, will be phased in over time and will be implemented as the indicator performance levels are established through the standard setting process. The focus of any cash awards must be to enhance the capability of the school to better serve its students. Awarded funds shall be used to expand programs, provide additional materials and supplies, support technology, provide bonuses to staff, or make possible other enhancements that serve the needs of the school or children. 11    Sanctions Sanctions are applied for the purpose of improving teaching and learning, not for punishing schools or the people in them. Intervention from the state is not meant to be a permanent solution to unacceptable student achievement, but a way to help local schools improve student performance. It is expected that individual schools and districts will monitor their own progress and take corrective steps to improve student achievement prior to intervention from the state. To avoid sanctions, each school is expected to achieve annually a minimum percentage of its total possible points given for the accountability indicators described within the threetiered system. Failure to do so will result in the following designations:  High Priority Status - first year.  Alert Status - second year.  Low Performing Status - third year.  Academic Distress Phase I Status - fourth year. To be considered for removal from any sanctioned designation leading up to, but not including, Academic Distress Phase I, a school must attain the minimum percentage of its total possible points for two consecutive years. Once classified as Academic Distress Phase I, a school must comply with rules and regulations to be promulgated by the ADE in order to be removed from this category. Failure to do so will result in the school's designation as Academic Distress Phase II and/or Academic Distress Phase III . The ADE reserves the right, for any school in any of the designations above, to mandate a specified intensive intervention plan which could include, but not be lin1ited to, specific one-year goals in curriculum, instruction, assessment, and professional development. This plan could also include a mandated summer school program for students perfoffiling below grade level. Current rules and regulations governing schools in Academic Distress will remain in effect until the ACTAAP system described here is fully operational. 12    Accountabilitv Indicators Definitions of the non-academic (learning environment) indicators are provided later in this document. Tier I Indicators, all state-mandated, are based on performance goals and apply to every school in the state, where appropriate, by grade level configuration. They are as follows: Indicator Goal (Definition) Grade Level(s) Performance 100% of a school's students shall perform at or 41 \", 61 \", and 81 \" on State- above the \"proficient\" level in reading and writing Mandated literacy. Criterion- Referenced 100% of a school's students shall perform at or Tests above the \"proficient\" level in mathematics. Performance 100% of a school's secondary students shall on State- perform at or above the \"proficient\" level in Mandated Algebra I. Criterion- Secondary Referenced 100% of a school's secondary students shall Tests perform at or above the \"proficient\" level in Geometry. 100% of a school's secondary students shall perform at or above the \"proficient\" level in Literacy. School Drop At least 99% of secondary students will remain in 7'\" through 121 \" Out school to complete the 12th grade. Average Average daily attendance rate will be at least 95%. Kindergarten Daily through 12th Attendance Classes 100% ofa school's classes will be taught by an Kindergarten Taught by an appropriately licensed teacher. through 12th Appropriate! y Licensed Teacher Professional 100% of a school's certified staff will complete at Kindergarten Development least 30 hours of approved professional through 12th development annually. School Schools will be free of drugs, weapons, and Kindergarten Safety violent acts. through 12th Note: For purposes of assigning points for criterion-referenced tests under the Tier I accountability component, only the performance of general population students shall be measured. 13    Tier II Indicators are based on trend and improvement goals on state-mandated criterion-referenced tests and on school-selected indicators. Any \"Other School Selected .. Indicators\" must have prior approval of the ADE. Trend goals will be established for different cohorts of students using cross-sectional data from the same indicator (e.g. Primary Benchmark Exam). Statistical techniques will be developed, by averaging multiple years of data, to minimize the inherent volatility associated with the natural variation in performance of these different groups. This means that if a school is continuing to improve, the trend will be a consistent indicator that fewer students are below proficient, with the effect of \"off-year\" or \"good-year\" performance minimized. Improvement goals will be established for the same cohort of students using a longitudinal database. As students progress from grade to grade, data will be maintained and constantly updated. Tier II - State-Mandated Indicators Indicator Goal (Definition) Grade Level(s) Performance on The percent of students performing at or above 4th , 6t\\ and 8th State-Mandated the \"proficient\" level in reading and writing Criterion- literacy on the criterion-referenced tests will Referenced meet or exceed the trend and improvement Tests goals each year. -- - -- ---- -- - -- ---- -- --- -- --- - -- The percent of students performing at or above the \"proficient\" level in mathematics on the criterion-referenced tests will meet or exceed the trend and improvement goals each year. Performance on The percent of secondary students performing Secondary State-Mandated at or above the \"proficient\" level in Algebra I Criterion- will meet or exceed the trend goal each year. Referenced Tests The percent of secondary students performing at or above the \"proficient\" level in Geometry will meet or exceed the trend goal each year. The percent of secondary students performing at or above the \"proficient\" level in Literacy will meet or exceed the trend goal each year. Note: For purposes of assigning points for state-mandated criterion-referenced tests under the Tier II accountability component, the performance of each of the student categories - general population, special education students, limited English proficient students, and high mobility students - shall be measured. 14    Tier II - School-Selected Indicators (Schools select any 5) Indicator Goal Grade Level(s) School Drop Secondary schools will improve the percentage Secondary Out of students who stay in school to complete the 12th grade. Average Daily Schools will improve their average daily All Levels Attendance attendance rate. Classes Taught Schools will improve the percent of classes All Levels byan taught by an appropriately licensed teacher. Appropriately Licensed Teacher Professional Schools will increase the percent of certified All Levels Development staff who complete 60 or more hours of approved professional development annually. School Safety Schools will be free of drugs, weapons, and All Levels violent acts. Other School Schools will select trend or improvement goals All Levels Selected directed to student achievement in specific Indicators sub-populations or sub-test areas. These must have prior approval of ADE. Trend and Improvement Goals on State-Mandated Criterion-Referenced Tests On average, each school's trend goal for annual rate of reduction in the number of students below proficient will be determined by dividing the total percent of students below the proficient level by 10. To help establish improvement goals, each cohort of students will be monitored, beginning with the 1999 Primary Benchmark Exam, and a longitudinal database developed. As students progress from grade to grade, data will be maintained and constantly updated. This information will allow for the assessment of performance changes relative to initial performance and will assist in the development of expected improvement models. Test analysis and methodical planning to reach these goals will be facilitated and guided by the state school evaluation process. Trend and Improvement Goals on School-Sclcctcd Indicators The school, with approval of the ADE, selects five additional indicators to complete Tier II. These additional indicators can be selected from among school drop out, average daily attendance, teacher licensure, school safety, or professional development as defined in Tier I\nOR, a school may identify trend or improvement goals directed to student achievement in specific sub-populations or sub-test areas related to the criterion- 15    referenced or norm-referenced tests. Guidelines will be developed for use in selecting minimum numbers of students for sub-population study in order to preclude identification of individual students. In order to protect the integrity of the accountability system, the ADE must also approve the trend and improvement goals selected by the school. If a school elects to include results of its norm-referenced tests within its Tier II indicators, points will be assigned even though no points are given for these exams in Tier I. Note: The Professional Development indicator is set at a minimum level of 60 hours in order to encourage schools to offer more than the state-required minimum of 30 hours. Thus, schools will be rewarded for encouraging additional professional development opportunities for its teachers and administrators. Once selected, Tier II indicators will remain until they have been substantially attained or alternate indicators approved by the ADE. The following are examples of indicators based on sub-populations:  The gap between the scale score in mathematics on the Primary Benchmark Exam for African-American students and white students will be decreased by 10% each year.  Title I eligible students will improve 5 percentile points in reading comprehension each year on the fifth grade norm-referenced test. Voluntary Reporting of Off-Grade Data The ADE strongly encourages, and will provide assistance toward, voluntary implementation by local schools of an expansion of the process of measuring improvement goals by utilizing data for a longitudinal study of students' performance on off-grade tests. Participating schools may include results from off-grade testing as Tier II indicators, if so desired. Tier III Indicators Tier III is a narrative developed by the staff of each school. This annual narrative of approximately 500 words generally describes data sources ( e.g., criterion-referenced tests, norm-referenced tests, etc.) used to address state and local performance indicators. The narrative also describes progress that the school has made in formulating the plan and in successfully implementing the trend and performance indicators within the school improvement process. This narrative, which shall be sent to the ADE during the spring of each year, will be incorporated in the School Performance Report that will be disseminated to the public. No points will be assigned for the narrative. 16    Sample School Narrative For the last three years, scores on the Primary Benchmark Exam's reading test have exceeded the district's average. Each child from kindergarten through fifth grade receives an hour and a half of developmental reading instruction per day. Emphasis is also placed on the implementation of activities as outlined in the School Improvement Plan. Independent reading of books by primary and intermediate grade level students has been a priority - a goal was set for each student. This year 85% of the fourth grade students met or exceeded their goal compared to 70% last year. Students are being taught writing skills using many different approaches including computer word processing. The writing and scoring process is designed to help students improve writing scores on the Benchmark Exams. The computer-student ratio is 1:4. Children have access to the Internet and the school has a homepage on the Web. In mathematics over the past five years, fifth grade students scored below the district goal of 50% above the national average on the SAT-9. This year, a staff focus group supported by a Title I supplemental grant, recommended a teacher accountability math pacing chart. It included chapter test scores, a consistent five-day math homework policy, in-service for staff and parents, a student test awareness program, homework room and a Math Intervention Assistance program. All recommendations were implemented with the approval of the school council. In May, an in-service continued to provide staff with training on computer software and accessing the Internet for mathematical teaching materials and techniques. Parent involvement (via parent-teacher conferences) increased by 40% this year. Parents participated in developing instructional materials for use at home to reinforce skills, learning instructional uses of the computer, donated time to serve as individual tutors for students during the school day and assisted with holiday events for the students. Definitions of Non-Academic (Learning Environment) Indicators School Dropout means the percentage of students who leave school for any of the following reasons as defined in the Statewide Information System (SIS) database: incarcerated, failing grades, suspended or expelled, lack of interest, conflict with school, economic hardship, pregnancy/marriage, peer conflict, Jack of attendance, alcohol/drugs, other. A code will be used for GED participation but will not count as a dropout for ACT AAP purposes. A student will be considered a dropout for the previous year if he/she has a Dropout/Withdrawal date between October 1 of the previous school year and October 1 of the current school year and has not re-entered. The percentage completing will be calculated by dividing the number not dropping out by the previous year's October 1 enrollment. Average Daily Attendance means the total number of days attended by students divided by the number of days actually taught by the school. The number includes those students who attend school outside of the resident district on a tuition agreement between the two respective districts. 17    Appropriately Licensed Teacher means that a teacher has the appropriate license and/or approval to teach., the respective class. The teacher is teaching a class that would not .cause the school to have a citation in the accreditation process. For the purpose of this calculation, the teacher would fill one of the job assignments as defined in the SIS database. (These are instructional positions, not administrative or supervisory job classifications.) The percentage of classes taught by an appropriately licensed teacher will be determined by dividing the number of classes taught by appropriately licensed teachers by the total number of classes taught. Professional Development is as defined in the component definition earlier. School Safety means a percentage safety index determined by dividing the number of violent incidences involving students by the current year three-quarter average daily membership of the school and subtracting from 100%. A safety infraction committed by a student includes any of the following as defined in the SIS database: drugs, alcohol, student assault, staff assault, knife, handgun, rifle, shotgun, explosive, club, and gang. Schools reporting user-defined infractions should request confirmation from the ADE as to their inclusion in this indicator. Each reported incident will be factored into the calculation\ntherefore, there is no difference between one student being reported four times and four students being reported once . 18    Calendar for Data Collection and Point Assignment Svstem -~ .,\n-~ _..,.~ Since the determination of rewards and sanctions will be based on points assigned to the Tier I and Tier II indicators, it is extremely important that such a system be fair and statistically and legally defensible. It is also necessary to allow appropriate tin1e for sufficient data to be gathered that will permit an accurate measurement of trends and improvement expectations in a sufficient number of indicators. Once the assignment of points is initiated, the ADE, through a contract with the University of Arkansas' Office of Research, Measurement and Evaluation (ORME), will be responsible for all calculations and rankings. The local school should not need additional personnel or resources to respond to the requirements of ACTAAP. The following calendar outlines the Baseline Year, or the first year in which official data for each Tier I indicator will be collected. 1998- 99 1999 - 00 2000- 01 2001 - 02 Primary Benchmark Middle Level Benchmark School Dropout Average Daily Attendance Classes Taught by an Appropriately Licensed Teacher Professional Development School Safety None Intermediate Benchmark End-of-Course Algebra I End-of-Course Geometry End-of-Course Literacy The Baseline Year for trend goals with each Tier II indicator will be two years following that indicator's introduction in Tier I. The Baseline Year for improvement goals will vary, depending on when the same cohort of students reaches the next appropriate, measurable indicator. Even though baseline data accumulation was begun with the 1998-99 year, actual points for rewards and sanctions will not be assigned until 2001-02, and then only for those indicators for which sufficient data has been gathered. The complete accountability point system will become fully operational, with all indicators, in 2003-04. Note: In order to meet federal mandates, a temporary system will be developed to identify those schools designated for school improvement. Beginning in 2000-2001 and continuing until the ACTAAP accountability system is fully operational, a school will be designated in school improvement under the following condition: Seventy-five percent or more of the students perform below proficient on either the literacy (reading and writing) or the mathematics section of the Benchmark Exam for the designated grade or grades represented by the school. 19 Observation Survey    DRA Kindergarten Results by Middle School Feeder Pattern Percent Readiness--LRSD Average: 72% Basel 51 King .64 Bale 59 Brady Gibbs 89 Chicot 56 Badgett 22 Bal Chicot 56 Mitch 91 Brady 77 Dodd 87 Willia 89 Dodd 87 F.Park 68 Frank Clover 56 Right 92 Fair P. 56 McDer 95 Booker 81 Mabelv 61 Jeff 90 Geye~ 85 Wakef 47 Steph 41 F.Park 68 Romie 67 Carver 81 Meado 77 King 64 Mead6 77 Watson 56 -Wash 81 Frank 64 Terry 92 Otter 90 PH 83 Stepb 41 Woodr 69 Fulb 95 W.Hills 15 Rocke 76 Wakef 47 McDer 95 Wilson 67 Wash 81 W.Hilis 75 Steph 41 Woodr 69 Wilson 67 DRA Grade 1 Results by Middle School Feeder Pattern Percent Readiness-LRSD Average: 54 % CMS DMMS FHMS HMS Mann MMS PHMS SMS Basel 30 King 57 Bale 67 Brady 35 Gibbs 66 Chicot 27 Badgett 06 Bale 67 Chicot 27 Mitch 25 Brady 35 Dodd 58 Willia 84 Dodd 58 F.Park 70 Frank 58 Clover 28 Right 36 Fair P. 63 McDer 80 Booker 69 Mabelv 51 Jeff 69 Geyer 47 Wakef 22 Steph 24 F.Park 70 Romine 60 Carver 76 Meado 70 King 57 Meado 70 Watson 25 Wash 36 Frank 58 Terry 47 ' Otter 68 PH 50 Steph 24 Woodr 84 Fulb 61 W.Hills 81 Rocke 76 Wakef 22 ~ McDer 80 Wilson 83 Wash 36 W.Hills 81 - - Steph 24 Woodr 84 Wilson 83  CMS DMMS Basel 47 King 81 - Chicot 39 Mitch 49 Clover 58 Right 95 Wakef 40 Steph 31 ., Watson 54 Wash 63 Woodr 78 ,-  DRA Grade 2 Results by Middle School Feeder Pattern Percent Readiness-LRSD Average: 68% FHMS HMS Mann MMS Bale 72 Brady  71 Gibbs 81 Chicot 39 Brady 71 Dodd 52 Willia 90 Dodd 52 Fair P. 63 Mci\u0026gt;er 67 . Booker 80 M\nabelv 43 F.Park 90 Romine 69 . Carver 82 Meado 58 Frank 81 Terry 81 Ofter 87 Fulb 79 W.Hills 90 McDer 67 Wilson 60 - Steph 31  PHMS SMS Badgett 12 Bale 72 F.Park 90 Frank( \u0026lt; 81 Jeff 71 Geyer 73 King 81 Meado 58 PH 45 St~ph '. 3'1 Rocke 71 Wakef. -40 Wash 63 W.llills 90 Woodr 78 Wilson 60  6/15/00 Districtwide Grade Race Gender Fall Assessment Female Mean 3.06 N 246 White Male Mean 2.53 N 227 Total Mean 2.81 N 473 Female Mean 1.16 N 593 Black Male Mean 0.89 N 613 Total Mean 1.02 N 1206 Female Mean 1.90 N 68 other Male Mean 2.00 N 52 Total Mean 1.94 N 120 Female Mean 1.73 N 907 Total Male Mean 1.37 N 892 Total Mean 1.55 N 1799  Little Rock School District SY1999-2000 Observation Survey K, 1, and 2 Fall to Spring Change - Districtwide by Grade Developmental Reading Assessment Kindergarten First Grade *Spring Amount of Fall **Spring Amount of Assessment Chanae Assessment Assessment Chanae 8,20 +5.14 7.52 26.36 +18.84 245 240 246 6.35 +3.82 6.35 24.48 +18.13 227 222 225 7.31 6.96 25.46 +18.50 472 +4.51 462 471 3.76 +2.60 4.81 18.30 +13.48 605 613 634 2.61 +1.72 3.65 14.43 +10.79 625 573 584 3.18 +2.16 4.25 16.44 +12.20 1230 1186 1218 5.93 +4.03 5.94 16.67 +10.73 70 49 57 5.77 +3.77 6.12 22.78 +16.66 52 50 51 5.86 +3.92 6.03 19.56 +13.53 122 99 108 5.11 +3.38 5.59 20.31 +14.72 920 902 937 3.73 +2.36 4.50 17.56 +13.05 904 845 860 4.43 +2.88 5.07 18.99 +13.93 1824 1747 1797  Second Grade Fall ***Spring Amount of Assessment Assessment ,, Chanae 25.79 36.77 +10.98 231 226 24.57 36.29 +11.72 231 233 25.18 36.53 I +11.35 462 459 19.68 29.48 +9.80 601 605 16.05 26.44 +10.39 604 604 17.86 27.96 +10.10 1205 1209 19.59 29.49 +9.89 37 45 22.38 29.68 +7.30 55 62 21 .26 29.60 +8.34 92 107 21 .30 31.36 +10.06 869 876 18.66 29.22 +10.56 890 899 19.96 30.27 ,, +10.31 1759 1775 * An average level of 2 or more is considered proficient in kindergarten  An average level of 16 or more is considered proficient In first grade. Sagments of the population not testing at a proficient level are highlighted in bold. \"** An average level of 24 or more is considered proficient in second grade. OS2000-Camlna K_/hn,_2  6119100 Districtwide Grade Race Gender Fall Assessment Female Mean 3.06 N 246 White Male Mean 2.53 N 227 Total Mean 2.81 N 473 Female Mean 1.16 N 593 Black Male Mean 0.89 N 613 Total Mean 1.02 N 1206 Female Mean 1.90 N 68 Other Male Mean 2.00 N 52 Total Mean 1.94 N 120 Female Mean 1.73 N 907 Total Male Mean 1.37 N 892 Total Mean 1.55 N 1799  Little Rock School District SY1999-2000 Observation Survey K, 1, and 2 Fall to Spring Change - By School by Grade Developmental Reading Assessment Kindergarten First Grade *Spring Amount of Fall **Spring Amount of Assessment Chancie Assessment Assessment Chancie 8.20 +5.14 7.52 26.36 +18.84 245 240 246 6.35 +3.82 6.35 24.48 +18.13 227 222 225 7.31 +4.51 6.96 25.46 +18.50 472 462 471 3.76 +2.60 4.81 18.30 +13.48 605 613 634 2.61 +1.72 3.65 14.43 +10.79 625 573 584 3.18 +2.16 4.25 16.45 +12.20 1230 1186 1218 5.93 +4.03 5.94 16.67 +10.73 70 49 57 5.77 +3.77 6.12 22.78 +16.66 52 50 51 5.86 +3.92 6.03 19.56 +13.53 122 99 108 5.11 +3.38 5.59 20.31 +14.72 920 902 937 3.73 +2.36 4.50 17.56 +13.05 904 845 860 4.43 +2.88 5.07 19.00 +13.93 1824 1747 1797  Second Grade Fall ***Spring A,nount of Assessment Assessment Chancie 25.79 36.77 +10.98 231 226 24.57 36.29 +11.72 231 233 25.18 36.53 +11.35 462 459 19.68 29.48 +9.80 601 605 16.05 26.44 +10.39 604 604 17.86 27.96 +10.10 1205 1209 19.59 29.49 +9.89 37 45 22.38 29.68 +7.30 55 62 21.26 29.60 +8.34 92 107 21.30 31.36 +10.06 869 876 18.66 29.22 +10.56 890 899 19.96 30.27 +10.31 1759 1775  An average level of 2 or more is considered proficient in kindergarten.  An average level of 16 or more is considered proficient in first grade . Segments of the population not testing at a proficient level are high!!ghted in bold. ... An average level of 24 or more is considered proficient in second grade. Ella by school 2oootables  6/19100 Badgett Grade Race Gender Fall Assessment Female Mean 3.00 N 3 White Male Mean N Total Mean 3.00 N 3 Female Mean 0.38 N 16 Black Male Mean 0.43 N 14 Total Mean 0.40 N 30 Female Mean N Other Male Mean N Total Mean N Female Mean 0.79 N 19 Total Male Mean 0.43 N 14 Total Mean 0.64 N 33  Little Rock School District SY1999-2000 Observation Survey K, 1, and 2 Fall to Spring Change - By School by Grade Developmental Reading Assessment Kindergarten First Grade *Spring Amount of Fall **Spring Amount of Assessment Chanae Assessment Assessment Chanae 3.33 +0.33 2.00 3 1 3.33 +0.33 2.00 3 1 1.13 +0.75 1.56 6.93 +5.38 16 18 15 0.92 +0.49 1.00 5.22 +4.22 12 9 9 1.04 +0.64 1.37 6.29 +4.92 28 27 24 ' I :, 1.47 +0.68 1.58 6.93 +5.35 19 19 15 0.92 +0.49 1.00 5.22 +4.22 12 9 9 1.26 +0.62 1.39 6.29 +4.90 31 28 24  Second Grade , Fall ***Spring Amount of Assessment Assessment Chanae 8.00 40.00 +32.00 1 1 1.00 1.00 0 1 1 , 4.50 20.50 +16.00 2 2 1.44 3.00 +1.56 9 8 1.95 10.55 +8.60 19 20 1.79 8.39 +6.61 28 28 2.10 7.11 +5.01 10 9 1.90 10.10 +8.20 20 21 1.97 9.20 +7.23 30 30  An average level of 2 or more is considered proficient in kindergarten. Segments of /he population no/ testing at a proficient level are highlighted in bold.   An average level of 16 or more is considered proficient in first grade. ,  An average level of 24 or more is considered proficient in second grade. Ella by school ZOOOlables  6/19/00 Bale Grade Race Gender Fall Assessment Female Mean 0.50 N 2 White Male Mean 0.00 N 2 Total Mean 0.25 N 4 Female Mean 2.19 N 21 Black Male Mean 0.13 N 15 Total Mean 1.33 N 36 Female Mean 0.80 N 5 Other Male Mean 0.00 N 1 Total Mean 0.67 N 6 Female Mean 1.82 N 28 Total Male Mean 0.11 N 18 Total Mean 1.15 N 46  Little Rock School District SY1999-2000 Observation Survey K, 1, and 2 Fall to Spring Change - By School by Grade Developmental Reading Assessment Kindergarten First Grade *Spring Amount of Fall **Spring Amount of Assessment Chanae Assessment Assessment Chanae 3.50 +3.00 8.40 25.57 +17.17 2 5 7 1.00 +1.00 4.00 14.00 +10.00 2 2 2 2.25 +2.00 7.14 23.00 +15.86 4 7 9 5.77 +3.58 9.13 22.53 +13.40 22 15 15 0.60 +0.47 9.25 21.33 +12.08 15 12 12 3.68 +2.34 9.19 22.00 +12.81 37 27 27 4.20 +3.40 1.50 8.00 +6.50 5 2 2 2.00 +2.00 6.75 20.00 +13.25 1 4 5 3.83 5.00 16.57 I +3.17 +11.57 6 6 7 5.34 +3.52 8.27 22.21 +13.94 29 22 24 0.72 +0.61 8.11 20.21 +12.10 18 18 19 3.57 +2.42 8.20 21.33 +13.13 47 40 43 \"'  Second Grade ~ Fall ***Spring Amount of Assessment Assessment Chanae 18.50 33.50 +15.00 4 4 20.00 44.00 +24.00 2 2 19.00 37.00 +18.00 6 6 15.69 25.53 +9.84 16 17 14.93 28.00 +13.07 15 17 15.32 26.76 +11.44 31 34 C .... 16.25 27.05 +10.80 20 21 ~ 15.53 29.68 +14.15 17 19 15.92 28.30 +12.38 37 40  An average level of 2 or more Is considered proficient in kindergarten.  An average level of 16 or more is considered proficient in first grade. Segments of the population not testing at a proficient level are highlighted in bold. ,  An average level of 24 or more is considered proficient in second grade. Elfa by school 2000tables   5119100 Little Rock School District Baseline Grade Race Gender Fall Assessment Female Mean 1.00 N 2 White Male Mean 0.50 N 2 Total Mean 0.75 N 4 Female Mean 0.37 N 19 Black Male Mean 0.13 N 16 Total Mean 0.26 N 35 Female Mean N Other Male Mean N Total Mean N Female Mean 0.43 N 21 Total Male Mean 0.17 N 18 Total Mean 0.31 N 39 SY1999-2000 Observation Survey K, 1, and 2 Fall to Spring Change - By School by Grade Developmental Reading Assessment Kindergarten First Grade *Spring Amount of Fall **Spring Amount of Assessment Chanc:ie Assessment Assessment Chanc:ie 3.00 +2.00 2 3.00 +2.50 3.00 27.00 +24.00 2 4 2 3.00 +2.25 3.00 27.00 +24.00 4 4 2 1.89 +1.53 4.90 18.33 +13.43 19 20 18 1.43 +1 .30 2.91 9.10 +6.18 14 23 21 1.70 +1.44 3.84 13.36 +9.52 33 43 39 4.00 .. 1 4.00 ' 1 2.00 +1.57 4.90 18.33 +13.43 21 ' 20 18 1.63 +1.46 2.96 10.65 +7.69 16 28 23 1.84 +1.53 3.77 14.02 +10.25 37 48 41  Second Grade ~ Fall ***Spring ~rnount of Assessment Assessment Chanae 20.67 31.33 +10,67 3 3 16.00 20.00 +4.00 2 2 18.80 26.80 +8.00 5 5 16.83 24.69 +7.86 12 13 15.77 23.00 +7.23 13 13 16.28 23.85 +7.57 25 26 38.00 44.00 +6.00 1 1 38.00 44.00 +6.00 1 1 18.88 27.00 +8.13 16 17 15.80 22.60 +6.80 15 15 17.39 24.94 +7.55 31 32  An average level of 2 or more is considered proficient in kindergarten. Segments of the population not testing at a proficient level are high!:ghted in bold.  An average level of 16 or more is considered proficient in first grade.  An average level of 24 or more is considered proficient in second grade. Ha by school 2000tables  6/19/00 Booker Grade Gender Fall Race Assessment Female Mean 2.12 N 17 White Male Mean 1.42 N 12 Total Mean 1.83 N 29 Female Mean 1.58 N 19 Black Male Mean 1.76 N 21 Total Mean 1.68 N 40 Female Mean 4.00 N 3 Other Male Mean 0.00 N 2 Total Mean 2.40 N 5 Female Mean 2.00 N 39 Total Male Mean 1.54 N 35 Total Mean 1.78 N 74  Little Rock School District SY1999-2000 Observation Survey K, 1, and 2 Fall to Spring Change - By School by Grade Developmental Reading Assessment Kindergarten First Grade *Spring Amount of Fall **Spring Amount of Assessment Chanae Assessment Assessment Charn:1e 6.06 +3.94 6.61 24.83 +18.22 17 23 23 2.83 +1.42 4.92 23.25 +18.33 12 12 12 4.72 ' +2.90 6.03 24.29 +18.26 29 35 35 3.95 +2.37 3.71 19.05 +15.33 19 21 21 4.10 +2.33 2.43 16.38 +13.95 21 23 21 4.03 +2.35 3.05 17.71 +14.67 40 44 42 11.67 +7.67 2.75 21.00 +18.25 3 4 4 1.00 +1.00 2 7.40 +5.00 2.75 21.00 +18.25 5 4 4 5.46 +3.46 502 21.98 +16.96 39 - 48 48 3.49 +1.94 3.29 18.88 +15.59 35 35 33 4.53 +2.74 4.29 20.72 +16.43 74 83 81  Second Grade\n. Fall ***Spring A)'nount of Assessment Assessment Change 29.33 37.42 +8.08 24 24 25.12 31.88 +6.76 17 16 27.59 35.20 +7.61 41 40 22.36 32.64 +10.28 25 25 16.78 27.67 +10.89 18 18 20.02 30.56 +10.53 43 43 24.00 30.00 +6.00 2 2 44.00 44.00 0 1 1 30.67 34.67 +4.00 3 3 25.71 34.78 +9.08 51 51 21.47 30.06 +8.58 36 35 23.95 32.86 +8.91 87 86  An average level of 2 or more is considered proficient in kindergarten.  An average level of 16 or more is considered proficient in first grade. Segments of the population not testing at a proficient level are hig~'.ighted in bold.  An average level of 24 or more is considered proficient in second grade. Ella by school 2000tables  6/19/00 Brady Grade Race Gender Fall Assessment Female Mean 1.00 N 5 White Male Mean 0.67 N 3 Total Mean 0.88 N 8 Female Mean 0.89 N 9 Black Male Mean 0.53 N 17 Total Mean 0.65 N 26 Female Mean 0.67 N 3 Other Male Mean N Total Mean 0.67 N 3 Female Mean 0.88 N 17 Total Male Mean 0.55 N 20 Total Mean 0.70 N 37  Little Rock School District SY1999-2000 Observation Survey K, 1, and 2 Fall to Spring Change - By School by Grade Developmental Reading Assessment Kindergarten First Grade *Spring Amount of Fall **Spring Amount of Assessment ChanC1e Assessment Assessment - Chanae 5.40 +4.40 8.00 14.29 +6.29 5 7 7 4.00 +3.33 8.00 20.00 +12.00 2 3 3 5.00 +4.13 8.00 16.00 +8.00 7 10 10 3.86 +2.97 5.47 12.44 +6.97 7 17 16 3.50 +2.97 5.24 13.00 +7.76 16 21 19 3.61 +2.95 5.34 12.74 +7.40 23 38 35 2.50 +1.83 5.50 13.50 +8.00 2 4 4 6.00 14.33 +8.33 3 3 2.50 +1.83 5.71 13.86 +8.14 2 7 7 4.21 +3.33 6.11 13.07 +6.97 14 28 27 3.56 +3.01 5.63 14.00 +8.37 18 27 25 3.84 +3.14 5.87 13.52 +7.65 32 55 52  Second Grade .,. Fall *\"**Spring Amount of Assessment Assessment ChanC1e 18.00 29.33 +11.33 3 3 18.00 30.00 +12.00 1 1 18.00 29.50 +11.50 4 4 19.13 29.29 +10.16 16 14 17.74 26.00 +8.26 23 21 18.31 27.31 +9.01 39 35 16.00 28.00 +12.00 1 1 16.00 28.00 +12.00 1 1 18.95 29.29 +10.35 19 17 17.68 26.26 +8.58 25 23 18.23 27.55 +9.32 44 40  An average level of 2 or more is considered proficient in kindergarten.  An average level of 16 or more is considered proficient in first grade. Segments of the population not testing al a proficient level are high(ighled in bold.  An average level of 24 or more is considered proficient in second grade. Ella by school 2000tables  6119100 Carver Grade Race Gender Fall Assessment Female Mean 8.38 N 13 White Male Mean 8.00 N 18 Total Mean 8.16 N 31 Female Mean 4.05 N 19 Black Male Mean 1.50 N 20 Total Mean 2.74 N 39 Female Mean 2.00 N 1 Other Male Mean 9.25 N 4 Total Mean 7.80 N 5 Female Mean 5.70 N 33 Total Male Mean 5.02 N 42 Total Mean 5.32 N 75  Little Rock School District SY1999-2000 Observation Survey K, 1, and 2 Fall to Spring Change - By School by Grade Developmental Reading Assessment Kindergarten First Grade *Spring Amount of Fall **Spring Amount of Assessment ChanQe Assessment Assessment ChanQe 11.46 +3.08 8.57 28.00 +19.43 13 7 7 11.83 +3.83 6.35 26.10 +19.75 18 20 20 11.68 +3.52 6.93 26.59 +19.67 31 27 27 5.95 +1.89 4.87 20.87 +16.00 19 15 15 3.20 +1.70 2.79 16.95 +14.16 20 19 19 4.54 +1.79 3.71 18.68 +14.97 39 34 34 4.00 +2.00 8.00 30.00 +22.00 1 1 1 12.50 +3.25 4.67 31.33 +26.67 4 3 3 10.80 +3.00 5.50 31.00 +25.50 5 4 4 8.06 ' +2.36 6.13 23.43 +17.30 33 23 23 7.79 +2.76 4.62 22.33 +17.71 42 -- 42 42 7.91 +2.59 5.15 22.72 +17.57 75 65 65  Second Grade ' Fall ***Spring A(Tlount of Assessment Assessment Chanae 24.83 40.50 +15.67 12 12 26.10 38.63 +12.53 20 19 25.63 39.35 +13.73 32 31 19.29 31 .85 +12.57 28 27 17.44 31.00 +13.56 18 18 18.57 31.51 +12.95 46 45 16.00 32.00 +16.00 2 2 25.50 36.00 +10.50 4 4 22.33 34.67 +12,33 6 6 20.71 34.39 +13.68 42 41 22.33 35.02 +12.69 42 41 21.52 34.71 +13.18 84 82  An average level of 2 or more is considered proficient in kindergarten.  An average level of 16 or more is considered proficient in first grade. Segments of the population not testing at a proficient level are highlighted in bold. ,  An average level of 24 or more is considered proficient in second grade. Ella by school 2000tables   6119100 Little Rock School District Chicot Grade Race Gender Fall Assessment Female Mean 0.00 N 4 White Male Mean 4.29 N 7 Total Mean 2.73 N 11 Female Mean 0.64 N 25 Black Male Mean 0.41 N 22 Total Mean 0.53 N 47 Female Mean 0.57 N 7 Other Male Mean 0.00 N 7 Total Mean 0.29 N 14 Female Mean 0.56 N 36 Total Male Mean 1.08 N 36 Total Mean 0.82 N 72 SY1999-2000 Observation Survey K, 1, and 2 Fall to Spring Change - By School by Grade Developmental Reading Assessment Kindergarten First Grade *Spring Amount of Fall **Spring Amount of Assessment Change Assessment Assessment Change 1.75 +1.75 1.75 16.75 +15.00 4 4 4 4.29 0 1.00 10.17 +9.17 7 5 6 3.36 +0.64 1.33 12.80 +11.47 11 9 10 2.35 +1.71 1.88 14.52 +12.65 26 24 23 1.39 +0.98 1.75 7.91 +6.16 23 20 22 1.90 +1.37 1.82 11 .29 +9.47 49 44 45 1.57 +1.00 2.00 13.11 +11.11 7 3 9 0.86 +0.86 1.00 2.60 +1.60 7 4 5 1.21 +0.93 1.43 9.36 +7.93 14 7 14 2.14 +1.58 1.87 14.42 +12.55 37 31 36 1.84 +0.75 1.52 7.52 +6.00 37 29 33 1.99 +1.17 1.70 11.12 +9.42 74 60 69  Second Grade ,. Fall ***Spring A,nount of Assessment Assessment Chanae 19.00 37.00 +18.00 2 2 17.00 31.00 +14.00 2 2 18.00 34.00 +16.00 4 4 16.05 26.35 +10.30 21 20 11.57 25.26 +13.70 23 19 13.70 25.82 +12.12 44 39 6.40 5 16.00 17.33 +1.33 2 9 16.00 13.43 -2.57 2 14 16.30 23.44 +7.14 23 27 12.30 23.27 +10.97 27 30 14.14 23.35 +9.21 50 57  An average level of 2 or more Is considered proficient m kindergarten. Segments of the population not testing at a proficient level are highlighted in bold.  An average level of 16 or more is considered proficient in first grade . ... An average level of 24 or more is considered proficient m second grade. EJfa by school 2000tables  6119/00 Cloverdale Grade Race Gender Fall Assessment Female Mean 1.00 N 1 White Male Mean 0.00 N 2 Total Mean 0.33 N 3 Female Mean 0.52 N 23 Black Male Mean 0.17 N 23 Total Mean 0.35 N 46 Female Mean 0.00 N 1 Other Male Mean 0.00 N 2 Mean 0.00 Total N 3 Female Mean 0.52 N 25 Total Male Mean 0.15 N 27 Total Mean 0.33 N 52  Little Rock School District SY1999-2000 Observation Survey K, 1, and 2 Fall to Spring Change - By School by Grade Developmental Reading Assessment Kindergarten First Grade *Spring Amount of Fall **Spring Amount of Assessment Chanae Assessment Assessment Chanae 4.00 +3.00 1 6.00 +6.00 4.00 8.00 +4.00 2 1 1 5.33 +5.00 4.00 8.00 +4.00 3 1 1 2.05 +1.53 7.00 13.68 +6.68 21 29 28 1.48 +1.30 4.83 10.10 +5.27 23 29 30 1.75 +1.40 5.91 11.83 +5.91 44 58 58 2.00 +2.00 3.00 6.00 +3.00 1 1 1 1.00 +1.00 6.50 20.25 +13.75 2 4 4 1.33 5.80 17.40 . +1.33 +11.60 3 5 5 2.13 +1.61 6.87 13.41 +6.55 23 30 29 1.78 +1.63 5.00 11.20 +6.20 27 34 35 1.94 +1.61 5.88 12.20 +6.33 50 64 64  Second Grade ' ' Fall ***Spring Amount of Assessment Assessment Chanae 29.00 20.00 -9.00 2 1 3.00 4.00 +1.00 1 1 20.33 12.00 -8.33 3 2 27.52 31 .30 +3.79 27 23 26.75 25.68 -1.07 24 19 27.16 28.76 +1.61 51 42 - 44.00 44.00 0 1 1 44.00 44.00 0 1 1 27.62 30.83 +3.21 29 24 26.50 25.52 -0.98 26 21 27.09 28.36 +1.26 55 45  An average level of 2 or more is considered proficient in kindergarten. \" An average level of 16 or more is considered proficient in first grade. Segments of the population not testing at a proficient level are high(ghted in bold.  An average level of 24 or more is considered proficient in second grade. Ella by school 2000tab/es   5119100 Little Rock School District Dodd Grade Race Gender Fall Assessment Female Mean 0.64 N 11 White Male Mean 0.50 N 8 Total Mean 0.58 N 19 Female Mean 1.00 N 9 Black Male Mean 0.25 N 8 Total Mean 0.65 N 17 Female Mean N Other Male Mean N Total Mean N Female Mean 0.80 N 20 Total Male Mean 0.38 N 16 Total Mean 0.61 N 36 SY1999-2000 Observation Survey K, 1, and 2 Fall to Spring Change - By School by Grade Developmental Reading Assessment Kindergarten First Grade *Spring Amount of Fall **Spring Amount of Assessment Change Assessment Assessment Change 6.80 +6.16 1.33 16.67 +15.33 10 3 3 4.89 +4.39 11.00 23.00 +12.00 9 4 4 5.89 +5.32 6.86 20.29 +13.43 19 7 7 10.67 +9.67 2.14 19.29 +17.14 9 7 7 2.75 +2.50 3.00 19.43 +16.43 8 7 7 6.94 +6.29 2.57 19.36 +16.79 17 14 14 18.00 30.00 +12.00 1 1 18.00 30.00 +12.00 1 1 8.63 +7.83 3.36 19.55 +16.18 19 11 11 3.88 +3.51 5.91 20.73 +14.82 17 11 11 6.39 +5.78 4.64 20.14 +15.50 36 22 22  Second Grade Fall ***Spring AfllOUnt of Assessment Assessment ChanQe 10.00 25.20 +15.20 5 5 10.00 25.20 +15.20 5 5 25.00 16.25 -8.75 6 8 15.25 28.50 +13.25 4 4 21 .10 20.33 -0.77 10 12 14.00 1 14.00 1 25.00 16.25 -8.75 6 8 12.50 26.67 +14.17 10 .9 17.19 21 .76 +4.58 . 16 17 An average level of 2 or more 1s considered proficient m kindergarten. Segments of the population not testing at a proficient level are high(ighted in bold. \" An average level of 16 or more is considered proficient in first grade . ... An average level of 24 or more is considered proficient in second grade. Etta by school 2000tables   6119/00 Little Rock School District Fair Park Grade Gender Fall Race Assessment Female Mean 2.12 N 17 White Male Mean 1.42 N 12 Total Mean 1.83 N 29 Female Mean 1.58 N 19 Black Male Mean 1.76 N 21 Total Mean 1.68 N 40 Female Mean 4.00 N 3 Other Male Mean 0.00 N 2 Total Mean 2.40 N 5 Female Mean 2.00 N 39 Total Male Mean 1.54 N 35 Total Mean 1.78 N 74 SY1999-2000 Observation Survey K, 1, and 2 Fall to Spring Change - By School by Grade Developmental Reading Assessment Kindergarten First Grade *Spring Amount of Fall **Spring Amount of Assessment Change Assessment Assessment Change 6.06 +3.94 6.61 24.83 +18.22 17 23 23 2.83 +1.42 4.92 23.25 +18.33 12 12 12 4.72 +2.90 6.03 24.29 +18.26 29 35 35 3.95 +2.37 3.71 19.05 +15.33 19 21 21 4.10 +2.33 2.43 16.38 +13.95 21 23 21 4.03 +2.35 3.05 17.71 +14.67 40 44 42 11.67 +7.67 2.75 21.00 +18.25 3 4 4 1.00 +1.00 2 7.40 +5.00 2.75 21.00 +18.25 5 4 4 5.46 +3.46 5.02 21.98 +16.96 39 48 48 3.49 +1.94 3.29 18.88 +15.59 35 35 33 4.53 +2.74 4.29 20.72 +16.43 74 83 81  Second Grade ,. Fall ***Spring Ajnount of Assessment Assessment Change 29.33 37.42 +8.08 24 24 25.12 31.88 +6.76 17 16 27.59 35.20 +7.61 41 40 22.36 32.64 +10.28 25 25 16.78 27.67 +10.89 18 18 20.02 30.56 +10.53 43 43 24.00 30.00 +6.00 2 2 44.00 44.00 0 1 1 30.67 34.67 +4.00 3 3 25.71 34.78 +9.08 51 51 21.47 30.06 +8.58 36 35 23.95 32.86 +8.91 87 86  An average level of 2 or more is considered proficient in kindergarten. Segments of the population not testing at a proficient level are high~ighted in bold . .. An average level of 16 or more is considered proficient in first grade . ... An average level of 24 or more is considered proficient in second grade. Ella by school 2000tables   6119100 Little Rock School District Forest Park Grade Race Gender Fall Assessment Female Mean 4.55 N 11 White Male Mean 3.08 N 12 Total Mean 3.78 N 23 Female Mean 1.89 N 9 Black Male Mean 0.00 N 13 Total Mean 0.77 N 22 Female Mean N Other Male Mean N Total Mean N Female Mean 3.35 N 20 Total Male Mean 1.48 N 25 Total Mean 2.31 N 45 SY1999-2000 Observation Survey K, 1, and 2 Fall to Spring Change - By School by Grade Developmental Reading Assessment Kindergarten First Grade *Spring Amount of Fall **Spring Amount of Assessment Cham:ie Assessment Assessment ChanQe 8.82 +4.27 8.75 27.70 +18.95 11 20 20 7.25 +4.17 13.80 31.13 +17.33 12 15 15 8.00 +4.22 10.91 29.17 +18.26 23 35 35 3.22 +1.33 6.00 21.60 +15.60 9 5 5 0.50 +0.50 4.20 15.60 +11.40 12 10 10 1.67 +0.89 4.80 17.60 +12.80 21 15 15 6.30 +2.95 8.20 26.48 +18.28 20 25 25 3.88 +2.40 9.96 24.92 +14.96 24 25 25 4.98 +2.67 9.08 25.70 +16.62 44 50 50  Second Grade , Fall ***Spring ~mount of Assessment Assessment ChanQe 18.55 39.09 +20.55 11 11 18.29 36.29 +18.00 14 14 18.40 37.52 +19.12 25 25 18.40 34.80 +16.40 5 5 11.83 25.33 +13.50 12 12 13.76 28.12 +14.35 17 17 20.00 42.00 +22.00 2 2 20.00 42.00 +22.00 2 2 18.67 38.22 +19.56 18 18 15.31 31.23 +15.92 26 26 16.68 34.09 +17.41 44 44  An average level of 2 or more is considered proficient in kindergarten. Segments of the population not testing at a proficient level are highlighted in bold.  An average level of 16 or more is considered proficient in first grade.  An average level of 24 or more is considered proficient in second grade. Ella by school 2000fables  6119/00 Franklin Grade Race Gender Fall Assessment Female Mean 0.00 N 2 White Male Mean 1.00 N 1 Total Mean 0.33 N 3 Female Mean 0.43 N 23 Black Male Mean 0.15 N 41 Total Mean 0.25 N 64 Female Mean 1.50 N 2 Other Male Mean N Total Mean 1.50 N 2 Female Mean 0.48 N 27 Total Male Mean 0.17 N 42 Total Mean 0.29 N 69  Little Rock School District SY1999-2000 Observation Survey K, 1, and 2 Fall to Spring Change - By School by Grade Developmental Reading Assessment Kindergarten First Grade *Spring Amount of Fall spring Amount of Assessment Chanae Assessment Assessment Chanae 2.00 +2.00 14.00 44.00 +30.00 2 1 1 3.00 +2.00 1 2.33 +2.00 14.00 44.00 +30.00 3 1 1 2.65 +2.22 6.23 24.38 +18.14 23 30 32 2.05 +1.90 5.96 18.82 +12.86 41 26 28 2.27 +2.02 6.11 21.78 +15.68 64 56 60 3.50 +2.00 3.00 26.00 +23.00 2 1 1 3.50 +2.00 3.00 26.00 +23.00 2 1 1 2.67 +2.19 6.38 25.00 +18.63 27 32 34 2.07 +1 .90 5.96 18.82 +12.86 42 26 28 2.30 +2.01 6.19 22.21 +16.02 69 58 62  Second Grade . Fall ... Spring Amount of Assessment Assessment Change 19.15 35.35 +16.21 34 34 12.93 32.73 +19.80 30 30 16.23 34.13 +17.89 64 64 19.15 35.35 +16.21 34 34 12.93 32.73 +19.80 30 30 16.23 34.13 +17.89 64 64  An average level of 2 or more is considered proficient in kindergarten.  An average level of 16 or more is considered proficient in first grade. Segments of the population not testing at a proficient level are high~ighted in bold.  An average level of 24 or more is considered proficient in second grade. Ella by school 2000tables   5119100 Little Rock School District Fulbright Grade Race Gender Fall Assessment Female Mean 5.33 N 12 White Male Mean 2.70 N 23 Total Mean 3.60 N 35 Female Mean 2.25 N 4 Black Male Mean 5.31 N 13 Total Mean 4.59 N 17 Female Mean N Other Male Mean 3.00 N 1 Total Mean 3.00 N 1 Female Mean 4.56 N 16 Total Male Mean 3.62 N 37 Total Mean 3.91 N 53 SY1999-2000 Observation Survey K, 1, and 2 Fall to Spring Change - By School by Grade Developmental Reading Assessment Kindergarten First Grade *Spring Amount of Fall **Spring Amount of Assessment Chanae Assessment Assessment Chanae 18.67 +13.33 9.86 25.43 +15.57 12 14 14 6.91 +4.21 2.12 25.27 +23.15 22 17 15 11 .06 +7.46 5.61 25.34 +19.73 34 31 29 5.40 +3.15 2.27 15.40 +13.13 5 11 10 7.62 ' +2.31 3.18 17.64 +14.45 13 11 11 7.00 +2.41 2.73 16.57 +13.84 18 22 21 12.00 +9.00 5.00 38.00 +33.00 1 1 1 12.00 +9.00 5.00 38.00 +33.00 1 1 1 14.76 +10.20 6.52 21.25 +14.73 17 25 24 7.31 +3.68 2.62 22.63 +20.01 36 29 27 9.70 +5.79 4.43 21.98 +17.55 53 54 51  Second Grade ' Fall ***Spring Amount of ,\u0026lt; Assessment Assessment Change 34.93 40.40 +5.47 15 15 36.00 43.33 +7.33 12 12 35.41 41.70 +6.30 27 27 25.91 33.60 +7.69 11 10 34.00 36.83 +2.83 11 12 29.95 35.36 +5.41 22 22 44.00 44.00 0 2 2 44.00 44.00 0 1 1 44.00 44.00 0 3 3 32.04 38.15 +6.11 28 27 35.42 40.24 +4.82 24 25 33.60 39.15 +5.56 52 52  An average level of 2 or more is considered proficient in kindergarten. Segments of the population not testing at a proficient level are highlighted in bold. - An average level of 16 or more is considered proficient in first grade.  An average level of 24 or more is considered proficient in second grade. Bia by school 2000ta\"'8s  6119/00 Garland Grade Race Gender Fall Assessment Female Mean N White Male Mean N Total Mean N Female Mean 0.69 N 16 Black Male Mean 2.29 N 28 Total Mean 1.70 N 44 Female Mean N Other Male Mean 1.00 N 1 Total Mean 1.00 N 1 Female Mean 0.69 N 16 Total Male Mean 2.24 N 29 Total Mean 1.69 N 45  Little Rock School District SY1999-2000 Observation Survey K, 1, and 2 Fall to Spring Change - By School by Grade Developmental Reading Assessment Kindergarten First Grade *Spring Amount of Fall **Spring Amount of Assessment Chanae Assessment Assessment Chanae ~ 1.47 +0.78 2.53 11.47 +8.94 17 17 17 1.41 -0.87 2.27 9.92 +7.64 29 11 12 1.43 -0.27 2.43 10.83 +8.40. 46 28 29 3.00 12.00 +9.00 1 1 0.00 -1.00 2.33 10.00 +7.67 1 3 3 0.00 .. 2.50 10.50 1 -1.00 4 4 +8.00 1.47 +0.78 2.56 11.50 +8.94 17 18 18 1.37 -0.87 2.29 9.93 +7.65 30 14 15 1.40 -0.28 2.44 10.79 +8.35 47 32 33  Second Grade . Fall ***Spring .Amount of Assessment Assessment ChanQe 2.00 1 2.00 1 13.18 17.64 +4.45 22 22 12.70 20.37 +7.67 20 19 12.95 18.90 +5.95 42 41 ,, 13.18 17.64 +4.45 22 22 12.70 19.45 +6.75 20 20 12.95 18.50 +5.55 42 42  An average level of 2 or more is considered proficient in kindergarten.  An average level of 16 or more is considered proficient in first grade. Segments of the population not testing at a proficient level are highlighted in bold. ,  An average level of 24 or more is considered proficient in second grade. Ella by school zoootables   6/19100 Little Rock School District Geyer Springs Grade Race Gender Fall Assessment Female Mean 3.00 N 1 White Male Mean 5.00 N 2 Total Mean 4.33 N 3 Female Mean 0.90 N 20 Black Male Mean 0.80 N 20 Total Mean 0.85 N 40 Female Mean 0.00 N 1 Other Male Mean 0.00 N 1 Total Mean 0.00 N 2 Female Mean 0.95 N 22 Total Male Mean 1.13 N 23 Total Mean 1.04 N 45 SY1999-2000 Observation Survey K, 1, and 2 Fall to Spring Change - By School by Grade Developmental Reading Assessment Kindergarten First Grade *Spring Amount of Fall **Spring Amount of Assessment Chanae Assessment Assessment Chanae 6.00 +3.00 5.80 30.40 +24.60 1 5 5 15.00 +10.00 0.75 17.00 -f-16.25 2 4 4 12.00 +7.67 3.56 24.44 +20.89 3 9 9 2.35 +1.45 2.60 20.15 +17.55 20 20 20 2.70 +1.90 2.36 14.08 +11.72 20 14 13 2.53 +1.68 2.50 17.76 +15.26 40 34 33 2.00 +2.00 1 1.00 +1.00 1.25 11.75 +10.50 1 4 4 1.50 +1.50 1.25 11 .75 +10.50 2 4 4 2.50 +1.55 3.24 22.20 +18.96 22 25 25 3.70 +2.57 1.86 14.19 +12.33 23 22 21 3.11 +2.07 2.60 18.54 +15.95 45 47 46  Second Grade , Fall ***Spring Ajnount of Assessment Assessment Chan!'.le 20.00 37.33 +17.33 3 3 19.33 30.67 +11.33 3 3 19.67 34.00 +14.33 6 6 19.17 33.50 +14.33 12 12 14.50 25.80 +11.30 20 20 16.25 28.69 +12.44 32 32 20.00 40.00 +20.00 1 1 20.00 40.00 +20.00 1 1 19.33 34.27 +14.93 15 15 15.33 2T.00 +11.67 24 24 16.87 29.79 +12.92 39 39  An average level of 2 or more is considered proficient in kindergarten. Segments of the population not testing at a proficient level are highlighted in bold.  An average level of 16 or more is considered proficient in first grade.  An average level of 24 or more is considered proficient in second grade. Ella by school 2000lables  6/19100 Gibbs Grade Race Gender Fall Assessment Female Mean 0.00 N 4 White Male Mean 0.00 N 3 Total Mean 0.00 N 7 Female Mean 0.00 N 4 Black Male Mean 0.00 N 6 Total Mean 0.00 N 10 Female Mean 0.00 N 2 Other Male Mean N Total Mean 0.00 N 2 Female Mean 0.00 N 10 Total Male Mean 0.00 N 9 Total Mean 0.00 N 19  Little Rock School District SY1999-2000 Observation Survey K, 1, and 2 Fall to Spring Change - By School by Grade Developmental Reading Assessment Kindergarten First Grade *Spring Amount of Fall **Spring Amount of Assessment Chance Assessment Assessment Chance 6.33 +6.33 11.25 27.57 +16.32 6 4 7 10.00 +10.00 6.89 28.10 +21.21 6 9 10 8.17 +8.17 8.23 27.88 +19.65 12 13 17 5.88 +5.88 3.50 17.56 +14.06 8 6 9 4.58 +4.58 2.75 14.43 +11.68 12 8 14 5.10 +5.10 3.07 15.65 +12.58 20 14 23 8.67 +8.67 4.00 18.00 +14.00 3 1 2 24.00 1 8.67 +8.67 4.00 20.00 +16.00 3 1 3 6.53 +6.53 6.36 21.50 +15.14 17 11 18 6.39 +6.39 4.94 20.28 +15.34 18 17 25 6.46 +6.46 5.50 20.79 +15.29 35 28 43  Second Grade\nFall ***Spring\nynount of Assessment Assessment Chance 22.60 32.89 +10.29 10 9 20.89 37.56 +16.67 9 9 21.79 35.22 +13.43 19 18 13.40 28.40 +15.00 10 10 13.45 25.45 +12.00 11 11 13.43 26.86 +13.43 21 21 18.00 30.00 +12.00 1 1 18.00 30.00 +12.00 1 1 18.00 30.53 +12.53 20 19 16.86 30.86 +14.00 21 21 17.41 30.70 +13.29 41 40  An average level of 2 or more is considered proficient in kindergarten.  An average level of 16 or more is considered proficient in first grade. Segments of the population not testing at a proficient level are high(ghted in bold.  An average level of 24 or more is considered proficient in second grade. Elfa by school 2000tables  6/19/00 Jefferson Grade Race Gender Fall Assessment Female Mean 5.45 N 20 White Male Mean 4.07 N 14 Total Mean 4.88 N 34 Female Mean 2.00 N 12 Black Male Mean 1.88 N 8 Total Mean 1.95 N 20 Female Mean 8.00 N 2 Other Male Mean N Total Mean 8.00 N 2 Female Mean 4.38 N 34 Total Male Mean 3.27 N 22 Total Mean 3.95 N 56  Little Rock School District SY1999-2000 Observation Survey K, 1, and 2 Fall to Spring Change - By School by Grade Developmental Reading Assessment Kindergarten First Grade *Spring Amount of Fall **Spring Amount of Assessment Change Assessment Assessment Chanae 12.70 +7.25 6.82 36.36 +29.55 20 11 11 11.93 +7.86 5.81 28.00 +22.19 14 21 21 12.38 +7.50 6.16 30.88 +24.72 34 32 32 4.92 +2.92 5.62 21.38 +15.77 12 13 13 3.25 +1.38 1.57 11.57 +10.00 8 7 7 4.25 +2.30 4.20 17.95 +13.75 20 20 20 24.00 +16.00 2 24.00 +16.00 2 10.62 +6.24 6.17 28.25 +22.08 34 24 24 8.77 +5.50 4.75 23.89 +19.14 22 28 28 9.89 +5.95 5.40 25.90 +20.50 56 52 52  Second Grade\n.. Fall ***Spring A)nount of Assessment Assessment Chanae 32.67 38.32 +5.65 24 19 30.38 35.90 +5.52 21 20 31.60 37.08 +5.48 45 39 22.57 25.64 +3.07 14 14 22.50 29.64 +7.14 12 11 22.54 27.40 +4.86 26 25 27.00 20.00 -7.00 2 1 27.00 20.00 -7.00 2 1 28.95 32.94 +3.99 38 33 27.49 33.25 +5.76 35 32 28.25 33.09 +4.85 73 65  An average level of 2 or more is considered proficient in kindergarten.  An average level of 16 or more is considered proficient in first grade. Segments of the populalion not testing at a proficienl level are high.li ghted in bold. ,  An average level of 24 or more ,s considered proficient in second grade. Ella by school 2000tables  6119/00 King Grade Race Gender Fall Assessment Female Mean 1.71 N 17 White Male Mean 0.36 N 14 Total Mean 1.10 N 31 Female Mean 0.76 N 25 Black Male Mean 0.55 N 20 Total Mean 0.67 N 45 Female Mean 1.50 N 4 Other Male Mean 0.00 N 3 Total Mean 0.86 N 7 Female Mean 1.17 N 46 Total Male Mean 0.43 N 37 Total Mean 0.84 N 83  Little Rock School District SY1999-2000 Observation Survey K, 1, and 2 Fall to Spring Change - By School by Grade Developmental Reading Assessment Kindergarten First Grade *Spring Amount of Fall -spring Amount of Assessment Chanae Assessment Assessment Chanae 5.71 +4.00 7.24 23.28 +16.04 17 25 25 3.38 +3.03 6.67 25.31 +18.64 13 12 13 4.70 +3.60 7.05 23.97 +16.92 30 37 38 4.19 +3.43 5.00 23.21 +18.21 26 24 24 2.29 +1.74 3.09 13.14 +10.06 21 35 35 3.34 +2.67 3.86 17.24 +13.37 47 59 59 3.67 +2.17 10.67 17.00 +6.33 6 3 4 5.00 +5.00 9.33 42.67 +33.33 3 3 3 4.11 +3.25 10.00 28.00 +18.00 9 6 7 4.65 +3.48 6.40 22.77 +16.37 49 52 53 2.89 +2.46 4.32 17.98 +13.66 37 50 51 3.90 +3.05 5.38 20.42 +15.04 86 102 104  Second Grade ' Fall ***Spring Amount of Assessment Assessment chanae 21.18 40.09 +18.91 22 22 20.50 39.53 +19.03 16 17 20.89 39.85 +18.95 38 39 16.85 33.04 +16.19 26 27 13.46 33.69 +20.23 28 26 15.09 33.36 +18.27 54 53 20.00 49.50 +29.50 1 2 20.00 49.50 +29.50 1 2 18.86 36.73 +17.87 49 51 16.02 36.00 +19.98 44 43 17.52 36.39 +18.88 93 94  An average level of 2 or more Is considered proficient in kindergarten.  An average level of 16 or more is considered proficient in first grade. Segments of the population not testing at a proficient level are high(ghted in bold.  An average level of 24 or more is considered proficient in second grade. Ella by school 2000tables  6/19/00 Mabelvale Elem Grade Race Gender Fall Assessment Female Mean 1.50 N 8 White Male Mean 2.29 N 7 Total Mean 1.87 N 15 Female Mean 0.82 N 17 Black Male Mean 0.50 N 20 Total Mean 0.65 N 37 Female Mean 0.00 N 1 Other Male Mean N Total Mean 0.00 N 1 Female Mean 1.00 N 26 Total Male Mean 0.96 N 27 Total Mean 0.98 N 53  Little Rock School District SY1999-2000 Observation Survey K, 1, and 2 Fall to Spring Change - By School by Grade Developmental Reading Assessment Kindergarten First Grade *Spring Amount of Fall **Spring Amount of Assessment Chanae Assessment Assessment Chanae 6.13 +4.63 3.00 41 .00 +38.00 8 2 2 4.14 +1.86 1.17 16.17 +15.00 7 6 6 5.20 +3.33 1.63 22.38 +20.75 15 8 8 2.47 +1.65 3.45 21 .04 +17.59 17 22 24 2.05 +1.55 1.77 18.65 +16.88 20 22 23 2.24 +1 .59 2.61 19.87 +17.26 37 44 47 3.00 +3.00 1 3.00 +3.00 1 3.62 +2.62 3.42 22.58 +19.16 26 24 26 2.59 +1 .63 1.64 18.14 +16.50 27 28 29 3.09 +2.11 2.46 20.24 +17.77 53 52 55  Second Grade , Fall ***Spring AJ11ount of Assessment Assessment Chanae 11 .14 24.86 +13.71 7 7 11.00 39.00 +28.00 5 7 11 .08 31 .93 +20.85 12 14 8.23 22.15 +13.92 13 13 8.30 19.60 +11 .30 20 20 8.27 20.61 +12.33 33 33 15.00 41 .00 +26.00 2 2 15.00 41 .00 +26.00 2 2 9.77 24.73 +14.95 22 22 8.84 24.63 +15.79 25 27 9.28 24.67 +15.40 47 49  An average level of 2 or more is considered proficient in kindergarten. .. An average level of 16 or more is considered proficient in first grade. Segments of the population not testing at a proficient level are high.l.ig hted in bold.  An average level of 24 or more is considered proficient in second grade. Ella by school 2000tables  6119100 McDermott Grade Race Gender Fall Assessment Female Mean 1.07 N 14 White Male Mean 0.62 N 13 Total Mean 0.85 N 27 Female Mean 0.00 N 9 Black Male Mean 0.00 N 9 Total Mean 0.00 N 18 Female Mean 0.50 N 6 Other Male Mean 1.00 N 4 Total Mean 0.70 N 10 Female Mean 0.62 N 29 Total Male Mean 0.46 N 26 Total Mean 0.55 N 55  Little Rock School District SY1999-2000 Observation Survey K, 1, and 2 Fall to Spring Change - By School by Grade Developmental Reading Assessment Kindergarten First Grade *Spring Amount of Fall **Spring Amount of Assessment Change Assessment Assessment Chance 9.29 +8.21 3.45 21.36 +17.91 14 11 11 4.15 +3.54 8.67 31.78 +23.11 13 9 9 6.81 +5.96 5.80 26.05 +20.25 27 20 20 4.67 +4.67 2.53 23.65 +21.12 9 17 17 2.56 +2.56 2.55 21 .20 +18.65 9 11 10 3.61 +3.61 2.54 22.74 +20.21 18 28 27 5.17 +4.67 4.75 18.75 +14.00 6 4 4 10.50 +9.50 3.00 26.00 +23.00 4 2 2 7.30 ' +6.60 4.17 21.17 +17.00 10 I 6 6 7.00 +6.38 3.13 22.25 +19.13 29 32 32 4.58 +4.12 5.09 26.19 +21 .10 26 22 21 5.85 +5.31 3.93 23.81 +19.89 55 54 53  Second Grade , Fall ***Spring PiiJlount of Assessment Assessment Chance 27.00 37.20 +10.20 10 10 26.00 40.94 +14.94 17 17 26.37 39.56 +13.19 27 27 18.94 30.87 +11.93 32 31 16.06 25.62 +9.56 17 21 17.94 28.75 +10.81 49 52 12.00 30.00 +18.00 2 2 3.33 18.00 +14.67 3 3 6.80 22.80 +16.00 5 5 20.45 32.30 +11.85 44 43 19.59 31.41 +11 .82 37 41 20.06 31.87 +11.81 81 84  An average level of 2 or more is considered proficient in kindergarten.  An average level of 16 or more is considered proficient in first grade. Segments of the population not testing at a proficient level are highl..i ghted in bold .  An average level of 24 or more is considered proficient in second grade. Ella by school ZOOOtables   6119100 Little Rock School District Meadowcliff Grade Race Gender Fall Assessment Female Mean 1.00 N 3 White Male Mean 0.00 N 5 Total Mean 0.38 N 8 Female Mean 2.23 N 13 Black Male Mean 0.11 N 9 Totnl Mean 1.36 N 22 Female Mean N Other Male Mean N Total Mean N Female Mean 2.00 N 16 Total Male Mean 0.07 N 14 Total Mean 1.10 N 30 SY1999-2000 Observation Survey K, 1, and 2 Fall to Spring Change - By School by Grade Developmental Reading Assessment Kindergarten First Grade *Spring Amount of Fall **Spring Amount of Assessment Change Assessment Assessment Chanae 4.00 +3.00 3.50 31.60 +28.10 3 4 5 1.75 +1.75 1.33 14.33 +13.00 4 3 3 2.71 +2.34 2.57 25.13 +22.55 7 7 8 6.57 +4.34 2.31 20.50 +18.19 14 16 16 2.22 +2.11 2.25 16.93 +14.68 9 12 14 4.87 +3.51 2.29 18.83 +16.55 23 28 30 2.00 16.00 +14.00 1 1 2.00 16.00 +14.00 1 1 6.12 +4.12 2.52 22.82 +20.29 17 21 22 2.08 +2.01 2.07 16.47 +14.40 13 15 17 4.37 +3.27 2.33 20.05 +17.72 30 36 39  Second Grade , Fall ***Spring A,nount of Assessment Assessment Chanae 16.67 24.67 +8.00 3 3 15.33 22.00 +6.67 3 3 16.00 23.33 +7.33 6 6 17.54 25.93 +8.39 13 14 13.77 22.33 +8.56 13 15 15.65 24.07 +8.42 26 29 2.00 10.00 +8.00 1 1 2.00 10.00 +8.00 1 1 17.38 25.71 +8.33 16 17 13.35 21.63 +8.28 17 19 15.30 23.56 +8.25 33 36  An average level of 2 or more is considered proficient in kindergarten. Segments of the population not testing at a proficient level are hightghted in bold.  An average level of 16 or more is considered proficient in first grade.  An average level of 24 or more is considered proficient in second grade. Ella by school 2000tabJes  6119/00 Mitchell Grade Race Gender Fall Assessment Female Mean 1.00 N 1 White Male Mean N Total Mean 1.00 N 1 Female Mean 1.37 N 19 Black Male Mean 0.90 N 10 Total Mean 1.21 N 29 Female Mean N Other Male Mean N Total Mean N Female Mean 1.35 N 20 Total Male Mean 0.90 N 10 Total Mean 1.20 N 30  Little Rock School District SY1999-2000 Observation Survey K, 1, and 2 Fall to Spring Change - By School by Grade Developmental Reading Assessment Kindergarten First Grade *Spring Amount of Fall spring Amount of Assessment Cham:1e Assessment Assessment ChanQe 3.00 +2.00 0.00 1.00 +1.00 1 1 1 3.00 +2.00 0.00 1.00 +1.00 1 1 1 3.53 +2.16 3.67 12.36 +8.69 19 15 14 3.00 +2.10 6.71 13.19 +6.48 10 17 16 3.34 +2.14 5.28 12.80 +7.52 29 I 32 30 ' 3.50 +2.15 3.44 11.60 +8.16 20 16 15 3.00 +2.10 6.71 13.19 +6.48 10 17 16 3.33 +2.13 5.12 12.42 +7.30 30 33 31  Second Grade , Fall spring Amount of Assessment Assessment ChanQe 19.60 23.14 +3.54 15 14 19.82 24.82 +5.00 17 17 19.72 24.06 +4.35 32 31 40.00 44.00 +4.00 1 1 22.00 25.00 +3.00 2 2 28.00 31.33 +3.33 3 3 20.88 24.53 +3.66 16 15 20.05 24.84 +4.79 19 19 20.43 24.71 +4.28 35 34  An average level of 2 or more is considered proficient in kindergarten.  An average level of 16 or more is considered proficient in first grade. Segments of the population not testing at a proficient level are high/ighted in bold. 0  An average level of 24 or more is considered proficient in second grade. Elfa by school 2000tables  6119100 Otter Creek Grade Race Gender Fall Assessment Female Mean 1.52 N 21 White Male Mean 2.27 N 11 Total Mean 1.78 N 32 Female Mean 1.53 N 19 Black Male Mean 1.00 N 15 Total Mean 1.29 N 34 Female Mean 1.00 N 1 Other Male Mean 1.25 N 4 Total Mean 1.20 N 5 Female Mean 1.51 N 41 Total Male Mean 1.50 N 30 Total Mean 1.51 N 71  Little Rock School District SY1999-2000 Observation Survey K, 1, and 2 Fall to Spring Change - By School by Grade Developmental Reading Assessment Kindergarten First Grade *Spring Amount of Fall **Spring Amount of Assessment Change Assessment Assessment Change 6.00 +4.48 5.12 28.56 +23.44 21 17 18 5.18 +2.91 4.54 21.50 +16.96 11 13 14 5.72 +3.94 4.87 25.47 +20.60 32 30 32 5.16 +3.63 3.21 17.80 +14.59 19 14 15 3.13 +2.13 1.55 15.18 +13.64 15 11 11 4.26 +2.97 2.48 16.69 +14.21 34 25 26 4.00 +3.00 1 1.75 +0.50 6.50 44.00 +37.50 4 2 2 2.20 +1.00 6.50 44.00 +37.50 5 2 2 5.56 +4.05 4.26 23.67 +19.41 41 31 33 3.70 +2.20 3.42 20.59 +17.17 30 26 27 4.77 +3.27 3.88 22.28 +18.41 71 57 60  Second Grade , Fall ***Spring AJllount of Assessment Assessment Chanae 26.36 31.82 +5.45 11 11 32.00 42.00 +10.00 5 7 28.13 35.78 +7.65 16 18 26.00 35.43 +9.43 6 7 11.88 25.56 +13.68 8 9 17.93 29.88 +11.95 14 16 3.00 28.00 +25.00 1 1 3.00 28.00 +25.00 1 1 26.24 33.22 +6.99 17 18 18.43 32.47 +14.04 14 17 22.71 32.86 +10.15 31 35  An average level of 2 or more ,s considered proficient in kindergarten.  An everage level of 16 or more is considered proficient in first grade . Segments of the population not testing at a proficient level are highlighted in bold. ... An average level of 24 or more is considered proficient in second grade. Ella by schOol 2000tables  6/19/00 Pulaski Hgts Elem Grade Race Gender Fall Assessment Female Mean 5.00 N 12 White Male Mean 3.60 N 5 Total Mean 4.59 N 17 Female Mean 0.67 N 15 Black Male Mean 2.71 N 7 Total Mean 1.32 N 22 Female Mean N Other Male Mean 1.00 N 1 Total Mean 1.00 N 1 Female Mean 2.59 N 27 Total Male Mean 2.92 N 13 Total Mean 2.70 N 40  Little Rock School District SY1999-2000 Observation Survey K, 1, and 2 Fall to Spring Change - By School by Grade Developmental Reading Assessment Kindergarten First Grade *Spring Amount of Fall **Spring Amount of Assessment Cham:ie Assessment Assessment ChanQe 11.75 +6.75 15.13 26.00 +10.88 12 8 8 6.20 +2.60 8.56 19.50 +10.94 5 16 16 10.12 +5.53 10.75 21.67 +10.92 17 24 24 2.29 +1.62 3.00 14.70 +11.70 14 10 10 6.14 +3.43 1.58 9.67 +8.08 7 12 12 3.57 +2.25 2.23 11.95 +9.73 21 22 22 6.00 20.00 +14.00 1 1 3.00 +2.00 1 3.00 +2.00 6.00 20.00 +14.00 1 1 1 6.65 +4.06 8.26 19.74 +11.47 26 19 19 5.92 +3.00 5.57 15.29 +9.71 13 28 28 6.41 +3.71 6.66 17.09 +10.43 39 47 47  Second Grade Fall ***Spring Afnount of Assessment Assessment ChanQe 18.73 27.40 +8.67 11 10 26.86 36.00 +9.14 7 7 21.89 30.94 +9.05 18 17 14.25 24.29 +10.04 8 7 14.00 19.00 +5.00 7 8 14.13 21.47 +7.33 15 15 18.00 40.00 +22.00 1 1 18.00 40.00 +22.00 1 1 16.84 26.12 +9.28 19 17 20.27 27.75 +7.48 15 16 18.35 26.91 +8.56 34 33  An average level of 2 or more is considered proficient in kindergarten. \" An average level of 16 or more is considered proficient in first grade . Segments of the population not testing at a proficient level are highlighted in bold. ' ... An average level of 24 or more is considered proficient in second grade. Ella by school 2000tables   5119100 Little Rock School District Rightsell Grade Gender Fall Race Assessment Female Mean 2.00 N 1 White Male Mean N Total Mean 2.00 N 1 Female Mean 2.62 N 21 Black Male Mean 2.40 N 15 Total Mean 2.53 N 36 Female Mean N Other Male Mean N Mean Total N Female Mean 2.59 N 22 Total Male Mean 2.40 N 15 Total Mean 2.51 N 37 SY1999-2000 Observation Survey K, 1, and 2 Fall to Spring Change - By School by Grade Developmental Reading Assessment Kindergarten First Grade *Spring Amount of Fall **Spring Amount of Assessment ChanQe Assessment Assessment Change 10.00 +8.00 1 10.00 +8.00 1 5.05 +2.43 7.35 14.70 +7.35 21 23 23 4.40 +2.00 5.81 12.93 +7.12 15 16 15 4.78 +2.25 6.72 14.00 +7.28 36 39 38 6.00 2 6.00 2 5.27 +2.68 7.24 14.70 +7.46 22 25 23 4.40 +2.00 5.81 12.93 +7.12 15 16 15 4.92 +2.41 6.68 14.00 +7.32 37 41 38  Second Grade Fall ***Spring Amount of Assessment Assessment Chance 28.96 36.88 +7.92 25 25 32.36 40.83 +8.47 11 12 30.00 38.16 +8.16 36 37 . .. 28.96 36.88 +7.92 25 25 32.36 40.83 +8.47 11 12 30.00 38.16 +8.16 36 37  An average level of 2 or more is considered proficient in kindergarten. Segments of the population not testing at a proficient level are highlighted in bold.  An average level of 16 or more is considered proficient in first grade.  An average /eve/ of 24 or more is considered proficient in second grade. Ella by school 2000tables  6119/00 Rockefeller Grade Race Gender Fall Assessment Female Mean 3.50 N 8 White Male Mean 1.83 N 6 Total Mean 2.79 N 14 Female Mean 1.00 N 23 Black Male Mean 0.40 N 20 Total Mean 0.72 N 43 Female Mean 4.75 N 4 Other Male Mean 3.33 N 3 Total Mean 4.14 N 7 Female Mean 2.00 N 35 Total Male Mean 1.00 N 29 Total Mean 1.55 N 64  Little Rock School District SY1999-2000 Observation Survey K, 1, and 2 Fall to Spring Change - By School by Grade Developmental Reading Assessment Kindergarten First Grade *Spring Amount of Fall **Spring Amount of Assessment Chanae Assessment Assessment Chanae 10.50 +7.00 5.63 26.50 +20.88 8 16 16 3.67 +1.83 4.83 27.14 +22.31 6 6 7 7.57 +4.79 5.41 26.70 +21.29 14 22 23 3.30 +2.30 6.05 20.30 +14.25 23 21 20 1.90 +1.50 3.50 17.29 +13.79 20 14 14 2.65 +1.93 5.03 19.06 +14.03 43 35 34 7.25 +2.50 4.00 18.00 +14.00 4 1 1 8.67 +5.33 3 7.86 +3.71 4.00 18.00 +14.00 7 1 1 5.40 +3.40 5.82 22.92 +17.10 35 38 37 2.97 +1.97 3.90 20.57 +16.67 29 20 21 4.30 +2.75 5.16 22.07 +16.91 64 58 58  Second Grade Fall ***Spring Alnountof Assessment Assessment Chanae 44.00 44.00 0 6 6 26.75 31.75 +5.00 8 8 34.14 37.00 +2.86 14 14 18.55 24.15 +5.60 20 20 18.06 26.56 +8.50 18 18 18.32 25.29 +6.97 38 38 39.00 44.00 +5.00 2 2 39.00 44.00 +5.00 2 2 24.42 28.73 +4.31 26 26 22.04 29.29 +7.25 28 28 23.19 29.02 +5.83 54 54  An average level of 2 or more is considered proficient in kindergarten.  An average level of 16 or more is considered proficient in first grade. Segments of the population not testing at a proficient level are high._ lighted in bold. ,  An average level of 24 or more is considered proficient in second grade. Ella by school ioootabJes   5119100 Little Rock School District Romine Grade Race Gender Fall Assessment Female Mean 0.50 N 2 White Male Mean 0.00 N 4 Total Mean 0.17 N 6 Female Mean 1.00 N 13 Black Male Mean 0.00 N 18 Total Mean 0.42 N 31 Female Mean 0.00 N 4 Other Male Mean 0.00 N 4 Total Mean 0.00 N 8 Female Mean 0.74 N 19 Total Male Mean 0.00 N 26 Total Mean 0.31 N 45 SY1999-2000 Observation Survey K, 1, and 2 Fall to Spring Change - By School by Grade Developmental Reading Assessment Kindergarten First Grade *Spring Amount of Fall **Spring Amount of Assessment Chanae Assessment Assessment Chanae 5.50 +5.00 2 1.40 +1.40 11.25 21.00 +9.75 5 4 4 2.57 +2.40 11.25 21.00 +9.75 7 4 4 3.44 +2.44 11.43 19.74 +8.30 16 23 23 3.09 +3.09 7.36 14.09 +6.73 22 11 11 3.24 +2.82 10.12 17.91 +7.79 38 34 34 1.50 +1.50 5.25 9.50 +4.25 4 4 4 1.75 +1.75 6.67 27.00 +20.33 4 3 2 1.63 +1.63 5.86 15.33 +9.48 8 7 6 3.27 +2.54 10.52 18.22 +7.70 22 27 27 2.65 +2.65 8.11 17.24 +9.12 31 18 17 2.91 +2.59 9.56 17.84 +8.29 53 ' 45 44  Second Grade a Fall ***Spring Amount of Assessment Assessment Chanae 44.00 44.00 0 2 2 37.33 44.00 +6.67 3 2 40.00 44.00 +4.00 5 4 31.20 37.88 +6.68 15 16 23.75 30.78 +7.03 24 23 26.62 33.69 +7.08 39 39 23.71 31.71 +8.00 7 7 27.09 36.00 +8.91 11 10 25.78 34.24 +8.46 18 17 30.08 36.64 +6.56 24 25 25.79 33.03 +7.24 38 35 27.45 34.53 +7.08 62 60  An average level of 2 or more is considered proficient in kindergarten. Segments of the population not testing at a proficient level are highlighted in bold.  An average level of 16 or more is considered proficient in first grade . ... An average level of 24 or more is considered proficient in second grade. Ella by school 2000fables   6119/00 Little Rock School District Terry Grade Race Gender Fall Assessment Female Mean 3.88 N 25 White Male Mean 4.50 N 18 Total Mean 4.14 N 43 Female Mean 2.24 N 17 Black Male Mean 1.39 N 23 Total Mean 1.75 N 40 Female Mean 1.80 N 5 Other Male Mean 6.50 N 4 Total Mean 3.89 N 9 Female Mean 3.06 N 47 Total Male Mean 3.09 N 45 Total Mean 3.08 N 92 SY1999-2000 Observation Survey K, 1, and 2 Fall to Spring Change - By School by Grade Developmental Reading Assessment Kindergarten First Grade *Spring Amount of Fall **Spring Amount of Assessment Cham1e Assessment Assessment Chanqe 7,80 +3.92 5.07 26,86 +21.79 25 14 14 10.67 +6.17 3.92 22.94 +19.01 18 13 16 9.00 +4.86 4.52 24.77 +20.25 43 27 30 6.35 +4.12 3.10 15.30 +12.20 17 20 20 4.91 +3.52 0.95 7.76 +6,81 23 20 21 5.53 +3.78 2.03 11.44 +9.41 40 40 41 5.00 +3.20 0.00 4.00 +4.00 5 1 1 19.00 +12.50 11.33 36,00 +24.67 4 3 3 11.22 +7,33 8.50 28.00 +19.50 9 4 4 6.98 +3.91 3.80 19.60 +15.80 47 35 35 8.47 +5.38 2.89 15.95 +13.06 45 36 40 7.71 +4,63 3.34 17,65 +14.32 92 71 75  Second Grade - Fall ***Spring A,mountof Assessment Assessment Chanqe 20.63 37,64 +17.01 8 11 20.81 30.82 +10.01 16 17 20,75 33,50 +12.75 24 28 24.15 37.20 +13.05 13 20 16.12 28.45 +12.34 17 22 19.60 32,62 +13.02 30 42 15.50 38.40 +22.90 4 5 22.50 29.43 +6,93 4 7 19.00 33,17 +14.17 8 12 21.64 37.50 +15.86 25 36 18.84 29.48 +10.64 37 46 19.97 33.00 +13,03 62 82  An average level of 2 or more is considered proficient in kindergarten. Segments of the population not testing at a proficient level are highlighted in bold.  An average level of 16 or more is considered proficient in first grade.  An average level of 24 or more is considered proficient in second grade. Ella by Schoof 2000tables  6119/00 Wakefield Grade Race Gender Fall Assessment Mean Female N White Mean 0.00 Male N 2 Total Mean 0.00 N 2 Female Mean 0.33 N 21 Black Male Mean 0.09 N 22 Total Mean 0.21 N 43 Female Mean 0.00 N 4 Other Male Mean 0.00 N 3 Total Mean 0.00 N 7 Female Mean 0.28 N 25 Total Male Mean 0.07 N 27 Total Mean 0.17 N 52  Little Rock School District SY1999-2000 Observation Survey K, 1, and 2 Fall to Spring Change - By School by Grade Developmental Reading Assessment Kindergarten First Grade *Spring Amount of Fall **Spring Amount of Assessment Chanae Assessment Assessment Chanae . 0.00 10.00 1 1 +10.00 0.00 . 1.00 2.00 0 +1.00 2 1 1 0.00 0 0.50 6.00 +5.50 2 2 2 1.86 +1 .52 1.59 12.91 +11 .32 21 17 34 0.95 +0.86 1.29 9.74 +8.45 22 17 23 1.40 +1.19 1.44 11.63 +10.19 43 34 57 1.00 +1 .00 0.75 10.83 +10.08 4 4 6 1.00 +1 .00 3 1.00 +1.00 0.75 10.83 +10.08 7 4 6 1.72 +1.44 1.36 12.54 +11 .17 25 22 41 0.89 +0.81 1.28 9.42 +8.14 27 18 24 1.29 +1.12 1.33 11 .38 +10.06 52 40 65  Second Grade , Fall ***Spring Amount of Assessment Assessment Chanae 10.27 20.52 +10.25 22 21 9.95 19.68 +9.73 20 19 10.12 20.13 +10.01 42 40 1.00 7.00 +6.00 2 2 7.00 28.00 +21 .00 4 4 5.00 21 .00 +16.00 6 6 9.50 19.35 +9.85 24 23 9.46 21 .13 +11 .67 24 23 9.48 20.24 +10.76 48 46  An average level of 2 or more is considered proficient in kindergarten.  An average level of 16 or more is considered proficient in first grade . Segments of the population not testing at a proficient level are highlighted in bold. , ... An average level of 24 or more is considered proficient in second grade. Ella by school zoootables  6119/00 Washington Grade Race Gender Fall Assessment Female Mean 3.14 N 7 White Male Mean 1.88 N 8 Total Mean 2.47 N 15 Female Mean 1.11 N 19 Black Male Mean 0.92 N 25 Total Mean 1.00 N 44 Female Mean 2.25 N 4 Other Male Mean 3.00 N 5 Total Mean 2.67 N 9 Female Mean 1.73 N 30 Total Male Mean 1.39 N 38 Total Mean 1.54 N 68  Little Rock School District SY1999-2000 Observation Survey K, 1, and 2 Fall to Spring Change - By School by Grade Developmental Reading Assessment Kindergarten First Grade *Spring Amount of Fall **Spring Amount of Assessment Chanae Assessment Assessment '\" Chanae 11.75 +8.61 6.67 21.33 +14.67 4 3 3 7.38 +5.50 5.33 26.00 +20.67 8 6 6 8.83 +6.37 5.78 24.44 +18.67 12 9 9 5.05 +3.95 5.11 14.89 +9.78 19 18 18 3.64 +2.72 2.21 10.61 +8.40 25 19 18 4.25 +3.25 3.62 12.75 +9.13 44 37 36 8.25 +6.00 8.38 23.75 +15.38 4 8 8 8.00 +5.00 4.14 22.29 +18.14 5 7 7 8.11 +5.44 6.40 23.07 +16.67 9 15 15 6.52 +4.79 6.17 18.00 +11.83 27 29 29 5.00 +3.61 3.22 16.23 +13.01 38 32 31 5.63 +4.09 4.62 17.08 +12.46 65 T 61 60  Second Grade Fall ***Spring Amount of Assessment Assessment Chanae 30.33 40.67 +10.33 6 6 21.17 38.00 +16.83 6 6 25.75 39.33 +13.58 12 12 20.85 28.55 +7.70 20 20 13.70 22.11 +8.41 27 27 16.74 24.85 +8.11 47 47 12.40 21.60 +9.20 5 5 23.11 29.33 +6.22 9 9 19.29 26.57 +7.29 14 14 21 .32 29.77 +8.45 31 31 16.79 25.93 +9.14 42 42 18.71 27.56 +8.85 73 73  An average level of 2 or more is considered proficient in kindergarten.  An average level of 16 or more is considered proficient in first grade . Segments of the population not testing at a proficient level are highlighted in bold. , ... An average level of 24 or more is considered proficient in second grade. Ella by school 2000tables  6119100 Watson Grade Race Gender Fall Assessment Female Mean 0.00 N 1 White Male Mean N Total Mean 0.00 N 1 Female Mean 0.41 N 37 Black Male Mean 1.09 N 35 Total Mean 0.74 N 72 Female Mean N Other Male Mean N Total Mean N Female Mean 0.39 N 38 Total Male Mean 1.09 N 35 Total Mean 0.73 N 73  Little Rock School District SY1999-2000 Observation Survey K, 1, and 2 Fall to Spring Change - By School by Grade Developmental Reading Assessment Kindergarten First Grade *Spring Amount of Fall **Spring Amount of Assessment Chanae Assessment Assessment Chanae 0.00 0 1 5.00 1 0.00 0 5.00 1 1 2.37 +1 .96 5.88 17.03 +11.16 38 24 29 2.29 +1.20 3.20 8.67 +5.47 38 35 36 2.33 +1.59 4.29 12.40 +8.11 76 59 65 2.31 +1.91 5.88 17.03 +11 .16 39 24 29 2.29 +1.20 3.25 8.67 +5.42 38 36 36 2.30 +1 .57 4.30 12.40 +8.10 77 60 65  Second Grade ~ Fall ***Spring Ajnount of Assessment Assessment Chanae 18.50 34.00 +15.50 4 4 18.50 34.00 +15.50 4 4 18.47 27.76 +9.29 32 33 14.12 22.60 +8.48 26 25 16.52 25.53 +9.02 58 58 30.00 40.00 +10.00 1 1 30.00 40.00 +10.00 1 1 18.82 28.12 +9.30 33 34 14.70 24.17 +9.47 30 29 16.86 26.30 +9.44 63 63  An average level of 2 or more is considered proficient in kindergarten.  An average level of 16 or more is considered proficient in first grade. Segments of the population not tesung al a proficient level are highlighted in bold.   An average level of 24 or more is considered proficient in second grade. Bia by school 2000tabJes  6119/00 Western Hills Grade Race Gender Fall Assessment Female Mean 0.50 N 2 White Male Mean 0.40 N 5 Total Mean 0.43 N 7 Female Mean 0.67 N 9 Black Male Mean 0.62 N 13 Total Mean 0.64 N 22 Female Mean 4.00 N 1 Other Male Mean 0.00 N 1 Total Mean 2.00 N 2 Female Mean 0.92 N 12 Total Male Mean 0.53 N 19 Total Mean 0.68 N 31  Little Rock School District SY1999-2000 Observation Survey K, 1, and 2 Fall to Spring Change - By School by Grade Developmental Reading Assessment Kindergarten First Grade *Spring Amount of Fall **Spring Amount of Assessment Chanae Assessment Assessment Chanae 3.00 +2.50 6.50 28.86 +22.36 2 6 7 2.40 +2.00 2.67 16.67 +14.00 5 3 3 2.57 +2.14 5.22 25.20 +19.98 7 9 10 4.11 +3.44 4.29 22.24 +17.94 9 17 17 2.15 +1.54 3.60 20.47 +16.87 13 15 15 2.95 +2.32 3.97 21.41 +17.44 22 32 32 28.00 +24.00 1 3.00 +3.00 14.00 28.00 +14.00 1 1 1 15.50 +13.50 14.00 28.00 +14.00 2 1 1 5.92 +5.00 4.87 24.17 +19.30 12 23 24 2.26 +1.74 4.00 20.26 +16.26 19 19 19 3.68 +3.00 4.48 22.44 +17.97 31 42 43  Second Grade ' Fall ***Spring Amount of Assessment Assessment Chanae 23.00 44.00 +21.00 4 4 20.00 42.50 +22.50 4 4 21.50 43.25 +21.75 8 8 20.55 39.40 +18.85 11 10 18.13 36.25 +18.13 16 16 19.11 37.46 +18.35 27 26 20.00 44.00 +24.00 1 1 20.00 44.00 +24.00 1 1 21.13 40.93 +19.81 16 15 18.50 37.50 +19.00 20 20 19.67 38.97 +19.30 36 35  An average level of 2 or more is considered proficient in kindergarten.  An average level of 16 or more is considered proficient in first grade. Segments of the population not testing at a proficient level are highlighted in bold. ,  An average level of 24 or more is considered proficient in second grade. Efla by school 2000tables  6119100 Williams Grade Race Gender Fall Assessment Female Mean 3.88 N 8 White Male Mean 1.50 N 12 Total Mean 2.45 N 20 Female Mean 1.56 N 18 Black Male Mean 0.50 N 8 Total Mean 1.23 N 26 Female Mean 5.83 N 6 Other Male Mean N Total Mean 5.83 N 6 Female Mean 2.94 N 32 Total Male Mean 1.10 N 20 Total Mean 2.23 N 52  Little Rock School District SY1999-2000 Observation Survey K, 1, and 2 Fall to Spring Change - By School by Grade Developmental Reading Assessment Kindergarten First Grade *Spring Amount of Fall **Spring Amount of Assessment Chanae Assessment Assessment Chanae 8.13 +4.25 14.53 29.88 +15.35 8 17 17 5.00 +3.50 14.30 34.80 +20.50 12 10 10 6.25 +3.80 14.44 31.70 +17.26 20 27 27 5.11 +3.56 7.00 28.83 +21.83 18 12 12 3.00 +2.50 9.65 27.21 +17.56 8 20 19 4.46 +3.23 8.66 27.84 +19.18 26 32 31 11.50 +5.67 44.00 44.00 0 6 1 1 34.00 44.00 +10.00 1 1 11.50 +5.67 39.00 44.00 +5.00 6 2 2 7.06 +4.13 12.50 29.93 +17.43 32 30 30 4.20 +3.10 11.94 30.30 +18.36 20 31 30 5.96 +3.73 12.21 30.12 +17.90 52 61 60  Second Grade , Fall ***Spring Amount of Assessment Assessment Cham1e 28.40 37.33 +8.93 15 15 31.80 40.42 +8.62 20 19 30.34 39.06 +8.72 35 34 27.82 37.41 +9.59 17 17 23.29 36.62 +13.33 14 13 25.77 37.07 +11.29 31 30 28.09 37.38 +9.28 32 32 28.29 38.88 +10.58 34 32 28.20 38.13 +9.93 66 64  An average level of 2 or more is considered proficient in kindergarten.  An average level of 16 or more is considered proficient in first grade. Segments of the population not testing at a proficient level are hig~'.ighted in bold.  An average level of 24 or more is considered proficient in second grade. Ella by school 2000tables  6119100 Wilson Grade Race Gender Fall Assessment Female Mean 0.00 N 2 White Male Mean 1.00 N 2 Total Mean 0.50 N 4 Female Mean 0.75 N 16 Black Male Mean 1.07 N 29 Total Mean 0.96 N 45 Female Mean 0.00 N 1 Other Male Mean 2.00 N 1 Total Mean 1.00 N 2 Female Mean 0.63 N 19 Total Male Mean 1.09 N 32 Total Mean 0.92 N 51  Little Rock School District SY1999-2000 Observation Survey K, 1, and 2 Fall to Spring Change - By School by Grade Developmental Reading Assessment Kindergarten First Grade *Spring Amount of Fall **Spring Amount of Assessment Chanae Assessment Assessment Chanae 1.00 +1.00 2.00 23.33 +21.33 2 3 3 0.00 -1.00 1 0.67 +0.17 2.00 23.33 +21.33 3 3 3 4.35 +3.60 2.21 20.00 +17.79 17 14 14 2.67 +1.60 2.78 23.11 +20.33 30 18 18 3.28 +2.32 2.53 21.75 +19.22 47 32 32 0.00 0 1 3.00 +1.00 1 1.50 .. 2 +0.50 3.80 +3.17 2.18 20.59 +18.41 20 17 17 2.59 I 2.78 23.11 +1.50 +20.33 32 ' 18 18 3.06 ' 2.49 21.89 +2.14 +19.40 52 35 35  Second Grade ., Fall ***Spring A,nount of Assessment Assessment Chanae 25.00 42.00 +17.00 2 2 25.00 42.00 +17.00 2 2 17.13 26.56 +9.42 15 18 15.17 25.21 +10.04 24 24 15.92 25.79 +9.86 39 42 4.00 1 32.00 39.00 +7.00 2 2 32.00 27.33 2 3 -4.67 18.06 26.95 +8.89 17 21 16.46 26.27 +9.81 26 26 17.09 26.57 +9.48 43 47  An average level of 2 or more is considered proficient in kindergarten.  An average level of 16 or more is considered proficient in first grade. Segments of the population not testing at a proficient level are hig~'.ighted in bold.  An average level of 24 or more is considered proficient in second grade. Ella by school 20001ab/es   6119/00 Little Rock School District Woodruff Grade Race Gender Fall Assessment Female Mean 0.00 N 1 White Male Mean 1.00 N 3 Total Mean 0.75 N 4 Female Mean 0.90 N 20 Black Male Mean 1.07 N 15 Total Mean 0.97 N 35 Female Mean N Other Male Mean N Total Mean N Female Mean 0.86 N 21 Total Male Mean 1.06 N 18 Total Mean 0.95 N 39 SY1999-2000 Observation Survey K, 1, and 2 Fall to Spring Change - By School by Grade Developmental Reading Assessment Kindergarten First Grade *Spring Amount of Fall **Spring Amount of Assessment Chanae Assessment Assessment Chanae 1.00 +1.00 19.00 34.00 +15.00 1 4 3 3.00 +2.00 4.00 18.00 +14.00 3 1 1 2.50 +1 .75 16.00 30.00 +14.00 4 5 4 2.05 +1 .15 8.14 22.86 +14.73 20 22 22 2.07 +1 .00 7.10 23.40 +16.30 15 10 10 2.06 +1 .09 7.81 23.03 +15.22 35 32 32 18.00 34.00 +16.00 1 1 18.00 34.00 +16.00 1 1 2.00 +1.14 9.81 24.20 +14.39 21 26 25 2.22 +1 .17 7.75 23.83 +16.08 18 12 12 2. 10 +1 .15 9. 16 24.08 +14.92 39 38 37  Second Grade Fall ***Spring Amount of Assessment Assessment Chanae 29.00 31.50 +2.50 4 4 27.00 36.00 +9.00 4 4 28.00 33.75 +5.75 8 8 28.48 37.10 +8.62 21 20 20.50 27.43 +6.93 14 14 25.29 33.12 +7.83 35 34 3.00 6.00 +3.00 1 1 3.00 6.00 +3.00 1 1 27.58 34.96 +7.38 26 25 21.94 29.33 +7.39 18 18 25.27 32.60 +7.33 44 43  An average level of 2 or more is considered proficient in kindergarten. Segments of the population not testing at a proficient level are highlighted in bold.  An average level of 16 or more is considered proficient in first grade.  An average level of 24 or more is considered proficient in second grade. Ena by school 2000tables SAT-9    BADGETT Black Students White Students Number Tested Grade* Subtest Precentile Percentile 1996- 1991- 1998- 1~~~- 1996- 1991- 1998- 1999- 1997 1998 Diff. 1999 2000 Diff. 1997 1998 Diff. 1999 2000 Diff. 1996-1997 1997-1998 1998-1999 1999-2000 ' 3 Total Reading 14 30 16 17 -13 27 86 59 15 -71 Total Math 9 20 11 16 -4 32 45 13 1 -44 Total Language 15 20 5 18 -2 31 61 30 6 -55 Complete Battery 14 26 12 18 -8 29 64 35 12 -52 5 Total Reading 7 13 6 18 11 7 64 29 -35 41 5 71 21 14 17 14 Total Math 6 13 7 13 7 6 51 40 ,11 40 5 35 23 14 18 15 Total Language 12 14 2 20 11 9 41 53 12 32 3 29 23 16 17 , 13 Complete Battery 10 18 8 21 13 8 47 44 -3 37 6 31 21 20 16  12 BALE Black Students White Students Number Tested Grade* Subtest Percentile Percentile 1~~6- 1~~,- 1~~0- 1~~~- 19~6- 1~~,- ~~o- 1999- 1997 1998 Diff. 1999 2000 Diff. 1997 1998 Diff. 1999 2000 Piff, 1996-1997 1997-1998 1998-1999 1999-2000 3 Total Reading 35 27 -8 28 1 57 16 -41 46 30 Total Math 27 17 -10 20 3 43 29 -14 40 11 Total Language 27 21 -6 26 5 43 23 -20 36 13 Complete Battery 33 24 -9 26 2 53 25 -28 43 18 5 Total Reading 21 29 8 22 19 3 25 47 22 29 76 47 37 35 35 23 Total Math 15 27 12 42 14 28 23 43 20 45 24 21 37 31 35 16 Total Language 23 34 11 31 19 12 39 53 14 30 76 46 37 41 35 24 Complete Battery 27 33 6 32 18 14 41 53 12 39 53 14 37 40 35 21 BASELINE Black Students White Students Number Tested Grade* Subtest Percentile Percentile 1996- 1997- Diff. 1998- 1999- Diff. 1996- 1997- Diff. 1998- 1999- 1997 1998 1999 2000 1997 1998 1999 2000 Diff. 1996-1997 1997-1998 1998-1999 1999-2000 3 Total Reading 18 24 6 26 2 32 45 13 59 14 Total Math 19 15 -4 29 14 28 20 -8 35 15 Total Language 13 20 7 31 11 28 41 13 61 20 Complete Battery 20 22 2 29 7 32 43 11 46 3 5 Total Reading 27 14 -13 22 16 6 95 31 -64 31 35 -4 25 15 16 31 Total Math 20 16 -4 14 13 1 83 16 -67 22 23 -1 25 16 19 31 Total Language 37 18 -19 26 21 5 76 14 -62 28 57 -29 25 18 19 31 Complete Battery 27 16 -11 26 18 8 84 26 -58 34 39 -5 25 18 16 31    BOOKER Black Students White Students Number Tested Grade* Subtest Percentile Percentile 1996- 1997- Diff. 1998- 1999- Diff. 1996- 1997- Diff. 1998- 1999- Diff. 1996-1997 1997-1998 1998-1999 1999-2000 1997 1998 1999 2000 1997 1998 1999 2000 3 Total Reading 26 26 0 35 50 58 8 43 Total Math 23 19 -4 28 41 44 3 44 Total Language 34 24 -10 32 52 57 5 36 Complete Battery 30 27 -3 34 49 57 8 43 5 Total Reading 33 21 -12 39 28 1t 65 60 -5 55 63 -8 91 40 87 78 Total Math 32 17 -15 25 21 4 53 35 -18 33 45 -12 91 26 90 78 Total language 44 31 -13 44 41 3 67 60 -7 55 70 -15 91 45 90 t 77 Complete Battery 38 26 -12 38 32 6 62 53 -9 51 60 -9 91 39 87 \\ 77 BRADY Black Students White Students Number Tested Grade* Subtest Percentile Percentile 1996- 1997- Diff. 1998- 1999- Diff. 1996- 1997- Diff. 1998- 1999- .Diff. 1997-1998 1998-1999 1997 1998 1999 2000 1997 1998 1999 2000 1996-1997 1999-2000 3 Total Reading 27 26 -1 30 60 35 -25 56 Total Math 34 25 -9 20 65 51 -14 47 Total Language 32 28 -4 26 65 41 -24 48 Complete Battery 32 27 -5 30 63 45 -18 55 5 Total Reading 27 20 -7 23 19 -4 76 33 -43 41 42 1 24 25 41 37 Total Math 18 13 -5 17 14 -3 50 24 -26 15 14 -1 24 16 40 39 Total Language 43 19 -24 21 21 0 64 31 -33 41 37 -4 24 24 40 39 Complete Battery 31 20 -11 23 20 -3 63 36 -27 39 28 -11 24 25 40 37 CARVER Black Students White Students Number Tested Grade Subtest Percentile Percentile 1996- 1997- 1998- 1999- 1996- 1\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":"bcas_bcmss0837_358","title":"Critical performance priorities for 2000-2001","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["2000-07-30"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--21st Century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","School improvement programs"],"dcterms_title":["Critical performance priorities for 2000-2001"],"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/358"],"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\nreceiveD From the desk of. . ,  Leslie V. Carnine AUG 1 4 OFFICE Or DESEGREGATION MONITORING Date: July 13. 2000 To: Re: Members of the School Board Critical Performance Priorities 2000-2001 The following information is the first draft of the recommendations for the Critical Performance Priorities for 2000-2001. We have shared this with principals and other staff. The cabinet has discussed this several times over the last six weeks, and we will in all probability have edits over the next couple of weeks. You may also want to refine as you review the draft document. Please review the attachment for specific outline. We mentioned the fact that the cabinet had spent considerable time discussing the work plan for the next school year. We all have a concern that, based on past experience, considerable hours will need to be expended on the compliance document and federal court hearing preparation. As best as we could estimate, it would mean a minimum of 10% to 20 % of the Associates time after the first of the year. The estimate is extra time, not necessarily replacement time, for the normal operationally activities. We definitely think we can be more efficient, but a couple of wild cards cannot be totally predicted. The first is the replacement of Vic Anderson and the effect that will have on the effectiveness of operations. We are now receiving inquiries. What we cannot estimate is how quickly we can be up to speed once a recommendation is made to the Board. The second issue is the state accountability system. We have mentioned to you in the past that several of the district schools will have accountability issues. We have been told that among the 100 lowest performing schools in the state, there are 34 in Pulaski County. Based on previous analysis, we suspect that 26-28 will achieve that infamous distinction here in Little /Critical Performance Priorities 2000-2001 July 2000 Page 2 Rock School District. We have made a concerted effort to improve instruction this past year, and we are doing so. But, it will be my contention that we must double our efforts in that arena. The amount of time diverted to this issue is just now being considered. And finally, I know when things appear to be fairly normal it is a temptation to start new things or add substantial initiatives. I think we must be very guarded on how much we can ask of the staff next year. We are finishing one of the most successful years in the history of this school district and I hope that next year can be equally as brilliant. However, I am convinced that to have a repeat of such a year we must hold back our enthusiasm for adding new things. I say this regardless of how good things may sound...and the inducements they may offer. We need to finish what we started. Revised Desegregation and Education Plan The Revised Desegregation and Education Plan calls for the District to submit an evaluation of the Plan and the Districts compliance in March 2001. Based on past experience, this will consume a number of hours from a host of people. We do have a great start and without an Associate being plagued by sickness or accident we should be in great shape. We will need to pick up the loose ends. II. Technology The preliminary plan is for the consultant to work with the work group to update the master plan. We hope the master plan can be completed fairly quickly and then to assist the schools in rewriting and updating their campus technology plans. We see the District starting slowly and then moving very quickly by mid year to have an outstanding plan and program being implemented. III. Campus Leadership We see academic achievement becoming an increasing issue with the publication of the Campus Report Card. Based on what we previously mentioned about the low performing campuses, we see the plan as in place. Now we must execute! We have made very impressive progress AFTCritical Performance Priorities 2000-2001 July 2000 Page 3 and we should be able to enjoy positive support within the community based on the plan and noted improvements. The strategy for moving the campuses to continuous improvement and maintaining the focus will be a primary mission for the school year. Participatory decision making is the way we must learn to work, but what we cant fall prey to is failure to achieve the academic focus needed to be successful. IV. Instruction We are achieving academic focus that has and will continue to achieve results. We must continue to fine-tune the organization through staff development. We already have on the drawing board enough basic implementation issues to keep the staff busy for several years. Instruction has some loose ends that must dealt with, but everything appears to be in good order for the district to achieve a continuous improvement mind set. We also must become serious about program evaluation...and Im not sure where we will find the time or people power, but we must pull together that aspect of building the program. V. Operations The approximately $150 million bond issue is a big job, regardless of the many other areas which must be considered. We mention the $150 million because when you consider the dedicated millage and the interest, you will be responsible for the expenditure of that amount in capital funds over a five-year period. There are two or three other very important issues for which we must develop plans. First, is to have the state accounting conversion accomplished without too many difficulties. The second is the need to have the district on a three to five year budgeting cycle along with easy to understand reports for your review. And finally, we need to maximize the federal dollars wherever possible. We presently estimate we are significantly short on numbers, which is costing us dollars. Respectfully submitted, Leslie V. Carnine Superintendent of Schools T LII. III. Critical Performance Priorities 2000-2001 Revised Desegregation and Education Plan: A. B. C. D. Prepare and submit compliance documentation to the Federal Court Prepare final revisions of School Board Policies and Administrative Regulations Review school zones in preparation for new western elementary school Review ALC / alternative programs Technology: Update District Technology Plan A. B. C. D. E. Review process and software for data collection (Data Warehouse) Develop District Help Desk and plan for additional network support Refine training component Plan for AS400 \u0026amp; District Software Internet Connectivity Campus Leadership \u0026amp; Accountability A. Coordinate Arkansas and LRSD Accountability B. Develop customer survey instruments C. Refine Quality program and training for acquiring third level status D. Assist in the development of the Carnegie Grant Plan E. Assist in the development of the DeWitt Wallace Leadership training GrantCritical Performance Priorities 2000-2001 Page 2 IV. Instruction A. Continue the development of Core Academic Standards B. Continue the development of targeted grants and review of continuing grants c. Implementation of new parent / community component D. Continuation of ESL development E. Program Evaluation  F. Continuation of Staff Development Initiatives G. Implementation of Assessment program V. Operations A. Dedicated Millage Plan B. Review process for Work Orders C. Develop master plan for Grounds maintenance D. Review Building Security Plansalarms and surveillance E. Develop master plan for energy utilization F. Develop a plan for capital projects review VI. Finance A. 2000 Bond Issue 1. Sales 2. Project Coordination 3. Project Reporting B. ADE Accounting Conversion C. MGT RecommendationsCritical Performance Priorities 2000-2001 Page 3 D. Budgeting and Reporting Procedures E. Revenue enhancement 1. Free and reduced lunch numbers 2. Medicaid reimbursement F. Staff Travel Procedures\nThis project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resoources.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1401","title":"Report: ''Achievement Disparity Between the Races in the North Little Rock 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":["2000-07-12"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--21st Century","School districts--Arkansas--North Little Rock","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Education--Standards","Educational statistics","School integration","School management and organization"],"dcterms_title":["Report: ''Achievement Disparity Between the Races in the North Little Rock 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/1401"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Available for use in research, teaching, and private study. Any other use requires permission from the Butler Center."],"dcterms_medium":["documents (object genre)"],"dcterms_extent":["30 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1724","title":"Court filings concerning PCSSD's motion to approve modification to student assignment plan, ODM report, ''Achievement Disparity between the Races in the North Little Rock School District (NLRSD)'', and the Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) motion for protective order","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":["United States. District Court (Arkansas: Eastern District)"],"dc_date":["2000-07"],"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","Special districts--Arkansas--Pulaski County","Office of Desegregation Monitoring (Little Rock, Ark.)","School districts--Arkansas--North Little Rock","Arkansas. Department of Education","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Education--Standards","Educational law and legislation","Educational planning","School management and organization","School enrollment","School integration"],"dcterms_title":["Court filings concerning PCSSD's motion to approve modification to student assignment plan, ODM report, ''Achievement Disparity between the Races in the North Little Rock School District (NLRSD)'', and the Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) motion for protective order"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/1724"],"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":["23 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"District Court, opposition to Pulaski County Special School District's (PCSSD's) motion to approve modification to student assignment plan; District Court, notice of filing, Office of Desegregation Management report, ''Achievement Disparity between the Races in the North Little Rock School District (NLRSD)''; District Court, Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) motion for protective order; District Court, memorandum in support of Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) motion for protective order; District Court, first supplement to Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) motion for protective order; District Court, notice of filing, Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) project management tool  The transcript for this item was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.  RECEIVED JUL 7 2000 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUL n 6 2000 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS JAMES W McCORMACK.,C LERK By .. WESTERN DIVISION  DEP CCERK LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al. OPPOSITION TO PCSSD'S MOTION TO APPROVE MODIFICATIONTO STUDENT ASSIGNMENT PLAN DEFENDANTS The Joshua Intervenors oppose the PCSSD's Motion to Approve Modification to Student Assignment Plan. The basis for the Joshua Motion is as follows: 1. The proposed Motion to Approve Modification to Student Assignment Plan was not presented to the Joshua Intervenors and the other parties until it was filed with the Court. This is a deviation from the desegregation plan requirement. It is important to note that the Office of Desegregation of the Pulaski County District has had no contact directly or indirectly with counsel regarding this matter and counsel is therefore left in the position of being uninvolved in the evolution of the modification. The Intervenors are also unaware that the district has shared its proposed modification proposal with the educational advisors to the district particularly, Dr. Steven Ross, which brings the Joshua Intervenors to point No. 2. 2. The proposal does not indicate how the modifications will strength the delivery of education to the affected children and how it will contribute to the remediation of preexisting and well-entrenched patterns of educational disparities between majority and minority students. In fact, the proposal is silent on tile educational benefits to the students. 3. The district indicates that it proposes to save money by making the modification to the student assignment plan. The purported business case does not delineate the amount of money ti-mt is involved in its proposal nor the amount of saving which would be effectuated. It suggests that by reduction of busing, it would reduce cost. But there is no demonstration that busing will actually be reduced. The map presented as Exhibit 1 to the motion is very general and does not set forth the geographical areas of any of the schools. Therefore, it is impossible to accurately ascertain the transportation impact upon students which brings us to the next point. 4. The text of the PCSSD brief shows (at 3) that the district proposes to implement option 3 set forth on Exhibit B. The Landmark school would be 75% white and the new Bates 70% black. Prior to the new construction, the three schools (Landmark, Old Bates, and Fuller) ranged from 42- 5 7% black. The district proposes a range of 25-70% black. Thus, new construction would promote segregation. That brings us to the next point. 5. The district argues in page 3 of its brief that these racial imbalances can be improved but its presents no plan for that improvement nor any date nor responsible authority for insuring that these schools will not become racially identifiable. 6. The proposal is patently racial because it proposes to shift white students from the majority African American school to the predominately white Landmark school and it proposes to shift African American students from predominately white Landmark school to the predominantly African American Bates school. The district simply cannot justify this racial assignment by noting that it will shift some programs from Landmark to Bates. Those shifts have not been documented nor discussed with Joshua nor have they been approved by the Court. Furthermore, shifting programs from one school to another cannot meet or satisfy the district's obligation to desegregate  in full. The Joshua Intervenors again observe that there has been no educational program presented to the Court which would insure that the educational advantages available to children in the southeast quadrant of the school district will be equal to those in the north west quadrant. The schot\u003el district has not developed under the new administration any vision regarding improvement of educational opportunity for students in the southeast quadrant any of its schools. 7. The district makes reference to other matters under consideration such as moving schools in the southeast quadrant to the middle school concept. But those proposals have not been developed and are therefore are not being responded to by Joshua at this time. To respond to speculation would be an exercise in futility. WHEREFORE, the Joshualntervenors respectfully oppose the proposal of the school district to substantially change the racial identification of the Landmark and Bates schools. The Joshua Intervenors respectfully request a hearing on the subject, after reasonable opportunity to engage in discovery, and after such hearing, they respectfully request that the proposed modification be rejected. By: Respectfully submitted, JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 (501) 374-3758 CERTIFlCATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a copy of the foreging has been mailed, postage prepaid to the following counsel or record, postage prepaid on this day of July, 2000. Mr. M. Samuel Jones, III Wright, Lindsey \u0026 Jennings 2000 NationsBank Plaza 200 W. Capitol Little Rock, Arkansas 7220 l Mr. Tim Humphries Assistant Attorney General 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arknasas 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell 401 W. Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026 Clark 2000 First Commercial Bldg. 400 W. Capitol Little Rock, Arkansas 7220 I Mr. Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026 Jones 3400 TCBY To,vers 425 W. Capitol Little Rock, Arkansas 7220 I Ms. Ann Brown 201 E. Markham, Ste. 510 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 . Walker Ann S. Brown Federal Monitor ACHIEVEMENT DISPARITY BETWEEN THE RACES F I INTHE !L,E~ NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT EAsr~~N~1~1t'Mc~ A~R~~sAs July 12, 2000 Office of Desegregation Monitoring United States District Court Little Rock, Arkansas Norman W. Marshall Associate Monitor JUL 1 2 2000 ~~{AES W. McCORMACK. CL!::~K Dt:P C.::.~ Polly Ramer Office Manager I  1 1 I  I I I I I I I   I IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. PCSSD MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER The PCSSD defendants, for their motion state: R ,HJl 3 1 2000 OrFICE Gr DESEGREGATION MONITORING PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS 1. Attached as serial Exhibit A are multiple FOIA requests received by the PCSSD and certain of its personnel during the past two weeks. Attached as serial Exhibit B are FOIA requests received from Joshua by the PCSSD generally dating from the Fall of 1999. 2. The PCSSD respectfully submits that Joshua is improperly utilizing the Arkansas FOIA as a substitute for the discovery specified by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 3. Certain of the information sought pursuant to Joshua's FOi requests is irrelevant to the issues scheduled for hearing on August 9, 2000, or to any other issues which could reasonably arise in this litigation. 4. The current requests are often oppressive, burdensome and annoying. 193297-v1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. RECEIVED DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. ~UL 31 2000 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MOfJITORING MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF PCSSD MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER Rule 26(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides in pertinent part that: Upon motion by a party ... accompanied by a certification that the movant has in good faith conferred or attempted to confer with other affected parties in an effort to resolve the dispute without court action, and for good cause shown, the court in which the action is pending ... may make any order which justice requires to protect a party or person from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense, including one or more of the following: (1) that the disclosure or discovery not be had; (2) that the disclosure or discovery may be had only on specified terms and conditions, including a designation of the time or place; (3) that the discovery may be had only by a method of discovery other than that selected by the party seeking discovery; (4) that certain matters not be inquired into, or that the scope of the disclosure or discovery be limited to certain matters; Attached to the PCSSD motion, as serial Exhibit A, are copies of many of the FOi requests that have been served by Joshua since this Court entered its order scheduling 193040-v1 - this matter for hearing on August 9, 2000. Any perusal of the FOi requests makes it apparent that Joshua is seeking to utilize the Arkansas Freedom of Information Act in lieu of the discovery rules specified by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Arkansas Freedom of Information Act is codified beginning at ACA 25-19- 101. 25-19-105 provides in pertinent part that: (a) Except as otherwise specifically provided by this section or by laws specifically enacted to provide otherwise, all public records shall be open to inspection and copying by any citizen of the State of Arkansas during the regular business hours of the custodian of the records. (b) It is the specific intent of this section that the following shall not be deemed to be made open to the public under the provisions of this chapter: (8) Documents which are protected from disclosure by order or rule of court. While the PCSSD is not seeking to protect certain records from disclosure, it is - seeking an order of this Court which harmonizes the provisions of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Arkansas FOIA for purposes of this litigation. While the public policy considerations underpinning the Arkansas FOi are sound and are not challenged by this motion, what is questioned is the propriety of substituting the FOi for traditional discovery. The public's right to know is one matter; however, the attempted conversion of a sunshine law into a truncated and oppressive discovery weapon is quite another. For the reasons that follow, this Court should enter an order consistent with the relief sought herein. 193040-v1 2 Certain of the information sought is irrelevant to the issues scheduled for. hearing on August 9, 2000, or to any other Issues which could reasonably arise in this litigation The August 9 issues The issues scheduled for hearing on August 9, 2000, are the PCSSD proposal to reorganize the assistant superintendentships for personnel and desegregation and a PCSSD proposal to modify some student assignments to the new Bates Elementary School. Although it will be obvious to the Court from examination of the FOi requests that Joshua has plans to bring Plan 2000 compliance issues to the Court's ultimate attention, those are not currently the subject of the August 9 hearing. Indeed, as the Court can see from examining Joshua's letter of July 19, 2000, Joshua has necessarily - elected to invoke the 30-day \"complaint\" procedure specified in Plan 2000. The PCSSD will respond to the complaint letter in the time allocated under Plan 2000. Thereafter, assuming that Joshua remains dissatisfied with the PCSSD response, Joshua will have the option to invoke the dispute resolution process specified with the Department of Justice. If, in fact, this dispute resolution process proves unsuccessful, then, but only then, may Joshua seek to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court. The foregoing is offered to illustrate the fact that even if Joshua is serious about ultimately raising compliance issues before this Court, the interim process will necessarily take some time and it is respectfully submitted that no hearing could be reasonably scheduled for such issues until some time this fall. Accordingly, the PCSSD believes it is reasonable to propose that Joshua's current FOi requests be reasonably limited to the discreet issues currently set for hearing, and that in respect of all other 193040-v1 3 - issues, that Joshua be ordered to utilize the traditional discovery techniques as specified in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The current requests are oppressive, burdensome and annoying Any fair reading of the current FOi requests demonstrate that the requests are not all bottomed upon \"the public's right to know\" as envisioned by the Arkansas FOi. Neither can Joshua point to anything within the Arkansas FOIA which authorizes its use as a litigation tactic calculated to disrupt school district operations, seek information, such as thank you notes, get well cards, and anything \"in writing\" or \"all writings\" whatever they may be. Rather, the breadth and unbridled scope of the requests strongly suggests an ulterior motive; i.e. to keep administrators and staff from their regular jobs and to watch them jump through the hoops created by Joshua's requests. The Federal rules contain reasonable deadlines for discovery compliance which permit documents to be produced in a manner that is not disruptive to normal business and educational activities and responsibilities. The Arkansas FOIA, on the other hand, requires an almost instantaneous response which, when coupled with the volume of materials requested by Joshua, threatens chaos and disruption. The PCSSD suggests that this is an unwarranted perversion of the Arkansas FOi not calculated or contemplated by the Arkansas Legislature. Many of the FOi requests duplicate matters previously furnished to Joshua pursuant to FOi requests and duplicate requests for information routinely furnished to Joshua as part of PCSSD's desegregation philosophy Included as serial Exhibit B are FOi requests dated generally from 1999, to which the PCSSD then responded. At a minimum, the PCSSD should not be 193040-v1 4 put to the trouble of regurgitating again that which it has previously furnished Joshua within the last twelve months. Further, many of the requests implicate reports to the Board and the ODM which have been routinely generated during the last ten years and just as routinely, furnished to Joshua including, for instance, the annual PCSSD affirmative action reports, discipline reports, special education reports and other similar reports well know to the ODM and to this Court. It seems no great request that Joshua be ordered to discipline itself to the extent that it first ascertain whether or not it already has the information requested before blindly seeking it again and again from the PCSSD. Conclusion For the foregoing reasons, the PCSSD requests an order of this Court granting the relief sought herein. 193040-v1 Respectfully submitted, WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026 JENNINGS LLP 200 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3699 (501) 371-0808 FAX: (501) 376-9442 - By \\..- ;T-- ~ . ;-1--n- _,,, ' .._ . ( .______ M. Sa_!J)tlel ones Ill _(760,60) . . Attorneys f Pulaski C~ Special spt,ool Di ict '-_/ 5 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE On July2:\u0026ooo, a copy of the foregoing was served as follows on each of the following: Via Hand Delivery Mr. John W. Walker John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Via U.S. Mail: Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026 Clark 2000 First Commercial Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Ms. Ann Brown ODM Heritage West Building, Suite 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Richard W. Roachell Roachell and Street First Federal Plaza 401 West Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Timothy Gauger 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 193040-v1 6 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. FIRST SUPPLEMENT TO PCSSD MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER The PCSSD, for its first supplement to motion states: RECEIVED AUG 1 2000 i.HH10F OESE~OO-,mJ MmJITORIMG PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS 1. Attached as Exhibit A-1 are FOi requests, received by Dr. Smith, all dated July 28, 2000. These requests were actually received on July 31, 2000. 2. These two requests supplement Exhibit A to the District's motion for protective order filed July 28, 2000. WHEREFORE, the PCSSD defendants renew the relief sought in theirmotion for protective order dated July 28, 2000, and for all proper relief. 193567-v1 Respectfully submitted, WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026 JENNINGS LLP 200 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3699 (501) 371-0808 FAX: (501) 376-9442 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE On July :3(, 2000, a copy of the foregoing was served as follows on each of the following: Via Facsimile on: Mr. John W. Walker John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Via U.S. Mail on: Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026 Clark 2000 First Commercial Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Ms. Ann Brown QOM Heritage West Building, Suite 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Richard W. Roachell Roachell and Street First Federal Plaza 401 West Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 193567-v1 2 Mr. Timothy Gauger 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 193567-v1 3 i I i I I I i  I  ! JUL-31 -00 MON 07:36 AM FAX NO. t' , Uc'./Uli 5013744187 WALKER ~AW FIRM 909 P02 JU.. 28 100 17 : 15 JOHN W, WALXZll RALPH WASHINGTON MAllX BUllN!TTI SHAWN CHILDS Dr. Gary Smith Superintendent of Schools JOHN W. W~R, P.A. ATrOa.-.lY kr LAw 1723 BIOADWAY J.rrrLI R0CK, AilnNSAS 72206 TELEPHONE (i,01) s7,-S7118 FAX (~01) ~14-4187 Via Fac,imile - 490-0483 July 28, 2000 Pulaski County Special Sehool Dinrict 92S Dbcon :Read Little Rocle, AR 72206 Dear Dr. Smith: RECEIVED JUL 3 1 2000 This request is pursuant to the Arkansas Freedom 0lnfotmation Act. Would you please providl;l i!ll writings (lneoming and outaoins) thai ha-ve talcen pl~ between you, Dr. James Fox, ~ -Billy Bowles, Dr. Ruth Herta, Mr. Gary Miller, Mr. Eddie Collin11 Dr. Jerry Welch, Mr. Jim Johnson, Dr. Don Henderson. Ml. Beverly Williams, Ms. Manha Asti, M$. MttciJ Chapman, Mr. David Hendrix, Ms. Theresa Wallent and anyone else with desegregation responsibility since July 1, 1999, It also includes writing, (incoming and outgoins) of any kind whether they arc rcgardinn peraonnel, student assignment, educational initiative\u0026, tranaporta~on. pay, proposals to the Coun. as well a.e any other mauers. ThiJ req1,mt also includH cmalla and ecmputer files. I would abo like to have access to the notet (incoming and outgoing) of yourself and those of Dr. Fox, Mr. Bowlea, Mt. Collins, Mr. Miller, Dr. Herts, Dr. Weloh, Dr. Henderson, Ms. Williams, Ms. Ast~ Ma, Chapman, Mr. Hendrix, Mr. Johnson and Ms. WaJJent, a.s they relate to the proposals that ha.ve been considered for presentation to the Court or to the school board in reference to the school desesreaation plan. I would ippreciato this infonnation not later than Wednesday, August 2, 2000. Would you also please provide the following: (l) list of applicants for the Director of Secondary Education position; (2) a. copy of the Elomentary/Seconduy School Civil Rights . Compliance Report/Individual School keport: I\u003e 102 from the U.S. Department of :Education/Civil Rights; (3) Minutes of the Steering Committee meetings relli.tive to education plans of Dr. Steven Ross; (4) all numbered memorandums ofth.: above referenced lndividua1s from July J, 1999 to present; (5) e-mail addresses ofalt the abov~ referenced individuals; (6) responses from principal\u0026 to Eddie Collini regardina ms letter ofAl-lS\\'st 2, t 999 regarding Disclplittary Management Plan; (7) Annual Disciplinary Summaey for all schools; (8) Incoming and outgoing type-written and hand-written writing\u0026 of all secret.uies of the above ~fcrenccd indrviduGJ1; (9) resportaes from all parties referenced to in your March 13, ZOOO letter relating to plan ZOOO; ( 1 O) copies of rriemo books from all lndlviduaJ.1 referenced to above; ( 11) a I.QPY of the written report of all annual reviews regarding speci\u0026l ed~tion to Martha Asti; (12) copies of revised elementary and secondary student handbooks; and (12) list ofrecipi,nta (race and EXHIBIT I fi-1 ~ - - - ---- -- ---- --  JUL-31-00 MON 07:37 AM FAX NO. 5013?44187 ~LKER LAW FIRM 909 P03 t', U3/U4 Jl..1... 28 '00 17:1~ sender) who were honored durlOi the SAT lncentivc Award program duritli 1999-2000 school year. Caro CACI JUL-31-00 MON 07:37 AM rAX NU. 501374418? W~R LAW FIRM JOHN W, WALKER, P.~. '311 P02 r', U4/ U'i J\\.L 29 '00 17:43 AT'l'ORNIY AT LAW 1,2s BitOADWAY R Ee E 1v ED L1TJ1,! RoCIC, AluwlsAS 72206 TELEPHONE (601) 874-3758 JOHN W, WALKiR JW..PH WABHlNOTON MARK BURNE'l'Tt SHAWN CHILDS FAX (501) 974-4187 JUL 3 1 2000 Via Facsimile - 490-0433 Dr. Gary Smith Superintendent of Schools Pulaski County Special Sr.boo[ District 91.5 Dixon Road Little Rock. AR 72206 Dear Dr. Smith: July 28. 2000 This request is pursuant to the Arkansas Freedom oflnformation Act. Would you please provide for review, inspection and oopyine the following: 1) a copy of the ADI! TAG Monitoring Repon dated February, 2000; 2) a copy otthe 2000-2001 Student Handbook approved by the Board of Education; 3) all writing, (incomina and outsoine) regar~ing pupil personnel (discipline and student assignments and enrollment) including notes, e-mails, computer files, numbered memorandums, ete. between yourself, Dr. Jam.es Fox, Mr. Bi~y Bowles, Dr, Ruth Herts, Mr. Gary Miller, Mr. Eddie Collins, Dr. Jerry Welch, Ms. Beverly Williams, Ms. Martha Ast~ Ms. Marcia Chapman, Mr. David Hendrix, ~. Theresa Wallent, Mr, Doug Lin.gton, Ms. Georgia Norris, Ms. Ann ____ (Bddie Collins Secretary) or any other person in Pupil Personnel with the responsibility of receiving and/or inputtina pupil persoMel data. Please make this information available by Thursday, Auewt 3, 2000. Sincerely, CACI IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT (;OURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DMSION RECEIVED AUG I 2000 LITILE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Off!CEOF DESEGREGATION MONITORING PLAINTIFF v. No. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al. DEFENDANTS NOTICE OF FILING In accordance with the Court's order of December 10, 1993, the Arkansas Department of Education hereby gives notice of the filing of ADE's Project Management Tool for July, 2000. Respectfully Submitted, MARKPRYOR Attorney General Assistant Attom neral 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 682-2007 Attorney for Arkansas Department of Education IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL PLAINTIFFS V. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENORS KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS ADE'S PROJECT MANAGEMENT TOOL In compliance with the Court's Order of December 10, 1993, the Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) submits the following Project Management Tool to the parties and the Court. This document describes the progress the ADE has made since March 15, 1994, in complying with provisions of the Implementation Plan and itemizes the ADE's progress against timelines presented in the Plan. IMPLEMENTATION PHASE ACTIVITY . I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS A. Use the previous year's three quarter average daily membership to calculate MFPA (State Equalization) for the current school year. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of July 31, 2000 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.  This project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resources. "},{"id":"gsl_borm_borm2000-2001","title":"Minutes, Board of Regents, 2000-2001, July 1, 2000-June 30, 2001","collection_id":"gsl_borm","collection_title":"Board of Regents of the University System of Georgia Meeting Minutes, 1932-2005","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, Georgia, Fulton County, Atlanta, 33.749, -84.38798"],"dcterms_creator":["Board of Regents of the University System of Georgia"],"dc_date":["2000-07-01/2001-06-30"],"dcterms_description":["Meeting minutes and agendas of the Board of Regents of the University System of Georgia. Digitization of this collection is a project of the Georgia Public Library Service, a unit of the Board of Regents of the University System of Georgia, in association with the University System. The project is supported with federal LSTA funds administered by the Institute of Museum and Library Services."],"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Atlanta, Ga. : Board of Regents of the University System of Georgia"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Board of Regents of the University System of Georgia Meeting Minutes, 1932-2005"],"dcterms_subject":["Education, Higher--United States--Administration","Universities and colleges","Schools","University System of Georgia. Board of Regents","Minutes (Records)","Agendas (Series)"],"dcterms_title":["Minutes, Board of Regents, 2000-2001, July 1, 2000-June 30, 2001"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Board of Regents of the University System of Georgia"],"edm_is_shown_by":["https://dlg.galileo.usg.edu/do:gsl_borm_borm2000-2001"],"edm_is_shown_at":["https://dlg.usg.edu/record/gsl_borm_borm2000-2001"],"dcterms_temporal":["2000-07-01/2001-06-30"],"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":["Board of Regents of the University System of Georgia. Board of Regents of the University System of Georgia Meeting Minutes, 1932-2005. Office of Legal Affairs, Board of Regents of the University System of Georgia, Atlanta, Georgia."],"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["minute books"],"dcterms_extent":["869 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"noa_sohpcr_k-0536","title":"Oral history interview with Rebecca Clark, June 21, 2000","collection_id":"noa_sohpcr","collection_title":"Oral Histories of the American South: The Civil Rights Movement","dcterms_contributor":["Gilgor, Bob","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":["Clark, Rebecca, b. 1920?"],"dc_date":["2000-06-21"],"dcterms_description":["Rebecca Clark recalls living and working in segregated North Carolina. She finished her schooling in all-black schools, so the bulk of her experience with white people in a segregated context took place in the work world. There she experienced economic discrimination in a variety of forms, and despite her claims that many black people kept quiet in the face of racial discrimination at the time, she often agitated for, and won, better pay. Along with offering some information about school desegregation, this interview provides a look into the constricted economic lives of black Americans living under Jim Crow.","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","Lincoln High School (Chapel Hill, N.C.)","African Americans--North Carolina--Chapel Hill--Economic conditions","Chapel Hill (N.C.)--Race relations","Blacks--Segregation--North Carolina--Chapel Hill","Chapel Hill (N.C.)--Politics and government","School integration--North Carolina--Chapel Hill"],"dcterms_title":["Oral history interview with Rebecca Clark, June 21, 2000"],"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-0536/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: 03:18:40"],"dlg_subject_personal":["Clark, Rebecca, 1915-2009","Lee, Howard, 1934-"],"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1396","title":"Report: Disciplinary Sanctions in the 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":["2000-06-14"],"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","School districts--Arkansas--Pulaski County","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Educational statistics","School discipline","School integration","School management and organization"],"dcterms_title":["Report: Disciplinary Sanctions in the 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/1396"],"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":["73 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_85","title":"Arkansas Department of Education's (ADE's) Project Management Tool","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118"],"dcterms_creator":["Arkansas. Department of Education"],"dc_date":["2000-06","2000-07","2000-08","2000-09","2000-10","2000-11","2000-12"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Education--Arkansas","Little Rock (Ark.). Office of Desegregation Monitoring","School integration--Arkansas","Arkansas. Department of Education","Project managers--Implements"],"dcterms_title":["Arkansas Department of Education's (ADE's) Project Management Tool"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/85"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["documents (object genre)"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\nLittle Rock School District, plaintiff vs. Pulaski County Special School District, defendant.\nIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION RECEIVED JUL .. 5 2000 Off!CEOF DESEGREGATION MONITORIN8 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 June, 2000. Respectfully Submitted, MARK PRYOR Attorney General Assistant Atto ey neral 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 682-2007 Attorney for Arkansas Department of Education IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL PLAINTIFFS V. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENORS KA THERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS ADE'S PROJECT MANAGEMENT TOOL In compliance with the Court's Order of December 10, 1993, the Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) submits the following Project Management Tool to the parties and the Court. This document describes the progress the ADE has made since March 15, 1994, in complying with provisions of the Implementation Plan and itemizes the ADE's progress against timelines presented in the Plan. IMPLEMENTATION PHASE ACTIVITY I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS A. Use the previous year's three quarter average daily membership to calculate MFPA (State Equalization) for the current school year. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of June 30, 2000 Based on the information available at May 31, 2000, the ADE calculated the Equalization Funding for FY 99/00,..ubject to periQc\n!Lc adjustrn~nts. 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 June 30, 2000 C. Process and distribute State MFPA. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of June 30, 2000 On May 31, 2000, distri6uti.2_ns of State Equalization Funafng for FY 99/00 were as follows: 5,493,936 $25,008,711 i 51,467,422 Tlie allotmen  ding calculafeo for FY 99/00 at MaY. 31, 2000, sunjec ere as follows~ LRSD - $50,043,330 NLRSD - $27,509,~ PCSSD - $56,614,165 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 June 30, 2000 gasea on the inforrnauoi'f~milaJi!~ lfie~AD (\n''calcufatecrarMf.J~.1:1, 2g9q~forlF'(i )9/ff0~ jecngJ:ierioaic aajtlstrnent5! 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 June 30, 2000 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 June 30, 2000 Based on tfie information available tfie7\\DE calculated at May 3-1, 2000 for FY. 99100, 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 June 30, 2000 Distributions for FY 99/00 at May 31, 2000, totaled $8,93T,472. Allotment calculated for FY 99/00 was $9,867,065 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 June 30, 2000 Calculated for FY 99700, 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 June 30, 2000 LRSD - $3 503 345 NLRSD ] PCSSD , 49 LRSD - $3,901,58~ NLRSD - $2,07f, 144 PCSSD - $7,167,474 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 June 30, 2000 In July 1999, the Magnet and M-to-M transportation budgets for FY 99/00 were submitted to the ADE by the Districts. K. The Coordinator of School Transportation notifies General Finance to pay districts for the Districts' proposed budget. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing, annually. 2. Actual as of June 30, 2000 In January 2000, General Finance was notified to pay the second one-third payment for FY 99/00 to the Districts. It should be noted that the Transportation Coordinator is currently performing this function instead of Reginald Wilson as indicated in the Implementation Plan. L. ADE pays districts three equal installments of their proposed budget. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing, annually. 4 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) L. ADE pays districts three equal installments of their proposed budget. (Continued) 2. Actual as of June 30, 2000 In January 2000, General Finance made the second one-third payment to the Districts for their FY 99/00 transportation budget. The budget is now paid out in three equal installments. At May 2000, the following had been paid for FY 99700: LRSD -$2,278,305.3.if NLRSD - $385,333.34 PCSSD - $1,296,914.66 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 June 30, 2000 In August 1997, the ADE transportation coordinator reviewed each district's Magnet and M-to-M transportation costs for FY 96/97. In July 1998, each district was asked to submit an estimated budget for the 98-99 school year. In September 1998, paperwork was generated for the first payment in the 1998- 99 school year for the Magnet and M-to-M transportation program. School districts should receive payment by October 1, 1998 In July 1999, each district submitted an estimated budget for the 99-00 school year. In September 1999, paperwork was generated for the first payment in the 99-00 school year for the Magnet and M-to-M transportation program. N. Purchase buses for the Districts to replace existing Magnet and M-to-M fleets and to provide a larger fleet for the Districts' Magnet and M-to-M Transportation needs. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing, as stated in Exhibit A of the Implementation Plan. 5 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) N. Purchase buses for the Districts to replace existing Magnet and M-to-M fleets and to provide a larger fleet for the Districts' Magnet and M-to-M Transportation needs. (Continued) 2. Actual as of June 30, 2000 In FY 94/95, the State purchased 52 buses at a cost of $1,799,431 which were added to or replaced existing Magnet and M-to-M buses in the Districts. The buses were distributed to the Districts as follows: LRSD - 32\nNLRSD - 6\nand PCSSD -14. The ADE purchased 64 Magnet and M-to-M buses at a cost of $2,334,800 in FY 95/96. The buses were distributed accordingly: LRSD - 45\nNLRSD - 7\nand PCSSD -12. In May 1997, the ADE purchased 16 Magnet and M-to-M buses at a cost of $646,400. In July 1997, the ADE purchased 16 Magnet and M-to-M buses at a cost of $624,879. In July 1998, the ADE purchased 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses at a cost of $695,235. The buses were distributed accordingly: LRSD - 8\nNLRSD - 2\nand PCSSD- 6. Specifications for 16 school buses have been forwarded to state purchasing for bidding in January, 1999 for delivery in July, 1999. The ADE accepted a bid on 16 buses for the Magnet and M/M transportation program. The buses will be 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. 0. Process and distribute compensatory education payments to LRSD as required by page 23 of the Settlement Agreement. 1. Projected Ending Date July 1 and January 1, of each school year through January 1, 1999. 2. Actual as of June 30, 2000 Obligation fulfilled in FY 96/97. 6 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) P. Process and distribute additional payments in lieu of formula to LRSD as required by page 24 of the Settlement Agreement. 1. Projected Ending Date Payment due date and ending July 1, 1995. 2. Actual as of June 30, 2000 Obligation fulfilled in FY 95/96. Q. Process and distribute payments to PCSSD as required by Page 28 of the Settlement Agreement. 1. Projected Ending Date Payment due date and ending July 1, 1994. 2. Actual as of June 30, 2000 Final payment was distributed July 1994. R. Upon loan request by LRSD accompanied by a promissory note, the ADE makes loans to LRSD. 1 . Projected Ending Date Ongoing through July 1, 1999. See Settlement Agreement page 24. 2. Actual as of June 30, 2000 The LRSD received $3,000,000 on September 10, 1998. As of this reporting date, the LRSD has received $20,000,000 in loan proceeds. S. Process and distribute payments in lieu of formula to PCS SD required by page 29 of the Settlement Agreement. 1. Projected Ending Date Payment due date and ending July 1, 1995. 2. Actual as of June 30, 2000 Obligation fulfilled in FY 95/96. 7 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) T. Process and distribute compensatory education payments to NLRSD as required by page 31 of the Settlement Agreement. 1. Projected Ending Date July 1 of each school year through June 30, 1996. 2. Actual as of June 30, 2000 Obligation fulfilled in FY 95/96. U. Process and distribute check to Magnet Review Committee. 1. Projected Ending Date Payment due date and ending July 1, 1995. 2. Actual as of June 30, 2000 Distribution in July 1997 for FY 97/98 was $75,000. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 97/98. Distribution in July 1998 for FY 98/99 was $75,000. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 98/99. Distribution in July 1999 for FY 99/00 was $92,500. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 99/00. V. Process and distribute payments for Office of Desegregation Monitoring. 1. Projected Ending Date Not applicable. 2. Actual as of June 30, 2000 Distribution in July 1997 for FY 97/98 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 97/98. Distribution in July 1998 for FY 98/99 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 98/99. Distribution in July 1999 for FY 99/00 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 99/00. 8 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. 1. Projected Ending Date January 15, 1995 2. Actual as of June 30, 2000 In May 1995, monitors completed the unannounced visits of schools in Pulaski County. The monitoring process involved a qualitative process of document reviews, interviews, and observations. The monitoring focused on progress made since the announced monitoring visits. In June 1995, monitoring data from unannounced visits was included in the July Semiannual Report. Twenty-five per cent of all classrooms were vis ited , and all of the schools in Pulaski County were monitored. All principals were interviewed to determine any additional progress since the announced visits. The July 1995 Monitoring Report was reviewed by the ADE administrative team , the Arkansas State Board of Education, and the Districts and filed with the Court. The report was formatted in accordance with the Allen Letter. In October 1995, a common terminology was developed by principals from the Districts and the Lead Planning and Desegregation staff to facilitate the monitoring process. The announced monitoring visits began on November 14, 1995 and were completed on January 26, 1996. Copies of the preliminary Semiannual Monitoring Report and its executive summary were provided to the ADE administrative team and the State Board of Education in January 1996. A report on the current status of the Cycle 5 schools in the ECOE process and their school improvement plans was filed with the Court on February 1, 1996. The unannounced monitoring visits began in February 1996 and ended on May 10, 1996. In June 1996, all announced and unannounced monitoring visits were completed, and the data was analyzed using descriptive statistics. The Districts provided data on enrollment in compensatory education programs. The Districts and the ADE Desegregation Monitoring staff developed a definition for instructional programs. 9 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of June 30, 2000 (Continued) The Semiannual Monitoring Report was completed and filed with the Court on July 15, 1996 with copies distributed to the parties. Announced monitoring visits of the Cycle 1 schools began on October 28, 1996 and concluded in December 1996. In January 1997, presentations were made to the State Board of Education, the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee, and the parties to review the draft Semiannual Monitoring Report. The monitoring instrument and process were evaluated for their usefulness in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on achievement disparities. In February 1997, the Semiannual Monitoring Report was filed. Unannounced monitoring visits began on February 3, 1997 and concluded in May 1997. In March 1997, letters were sent to the Districts regarding data requirements for the July 1997 Semiannual Monitoring Report and the additional discipline data element that was requested by the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee. Desegregation data collection workshops were conducted in the Districts from March 28, 1997 to April 7, 1997. A meeting was conducted on April 3, 1997 to finalize plans for the July 15, 1997 Semiannual Monitoring Report. Onsite visits were made to Cycle 1 schools who did not submit accurate and timely data on discipline, M-to-M transfers, and policy. The July 15, 1997 Semiannual Monitoring Report and its executive summary were finalized in June 1997. In July 1997, the Semiannual Monitoring Report and its executive summary were filed with the court, and the ADE sponsored a School Improvement Conference. On July 10, 1997, copies of the Semiannual Monitoring Report and its executive summary were made available to the Districts for their review prior to filing it with the Court. In August 1997, procedures and schedules were organized for the monitoring of the Cycle 2 schools in FY 97 /98. 10 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of June 30, 2000 (Continued) A Desegregation Monitoring and School Improvement Workshop for the Districts was held on September 10, 1997 to discuss monitoring expectations, instruments, data collection and school improvement visits. On October 9, 1997, a planning meeting was held with the desegregation monitoring staff to discuss deadlines, responsibilities, and strategic planning issues regarding the Semiannual Monitoring Report. Reminder letters were sent to the Cycle 2 principals outlining the data collection deadlines and availability of technical assistance. In October and November 1997, technical assistance visits were conducted, and announced monitoring visits of the Cycle 2 schools were completed. In December 1997 and January 1998, technical assistance visits were conducted regarding team visits, technical review recommendations, and consensus building. Copies of the infusion document and perceptual surveys were provided to schools in the ECOE process. The February 1998 Semiannual Monitoring Report was submitted for review and approval to the State Board of Education, the Director, the Administrative Team, the Attorney General's Office, and the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee. Unannounced monitoring visits began in February 1998, and technical assistance was provided on the school improvement process, external team visits and finalizing school improvement plans. On February 18, 1998, the representatives of all parties met to discuss possible revisions to the ADE's monitoring plan and monitoring reports. Additional meetings will be scheduled. Unannounced monitoring visits were conducted in March 1998, and technical assistance was provided on the school improvement process and external team visits. In April 1998, unannounced monitoring visits were conducted, and technical assistance was provided on the school improvement process. 11 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of June 30, 2000 (Continued) In May 1998, unannounced monitoring visits were completed, and technical assistance was provided on the school improvement process. On May 18, 1998, the Court granted the ADE relief from its obligation to file the July 1998 Semiannual Monitoring Report to develop proposed modifications to ADE's monitoring and reporting obligations. In June 1998, monitoring information previously submitted by the districts in the Spring of 1998 was reviewed and prepared for historical files and presentation to the Arkansas State Board. Also, in June the following occurred: a) The Extended COE Team Visit Reports were completed, b) the Semiannual Monitoring COE Data Report was completed, c) progress reports were submitted from previous cycles, and d.) staff development on assessment (SAT-9) and curriculum alignment was conducted with three supervisors. In July, the Lead Planner provided the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Committee with ( 1) a review of the court Order relieving ADE of its obligation to file a July Semiannual Monitoring Report, and (2) an update of ADE's progress toward work with the parties and ODM to develop proposed revisions to ADE's monitoring and reporting obligations. The Committee encouraged ODM, the parties and the ADE to continue to work toward revision of the monitoring and reporting process. In August 1998, the ADE Implementation Phase Working group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. The Assistant Attorney General, the Assistant Director for Accountability and the Education Lead Planner updated the group on all relevant desegregation legal issues and proposed revisions to monitoring and reporting activities during the quarter. In September 1998, tentative monitoring dates were established and they will be finalized once proposed revisions to the Desegregation Monitoring Plan are finalized and approved. In September/October 1998, progress was being made on the proposed revisions to the monitoring process by committee representatives of all the Parties in the Pulaski County Settlement Agreement. While the revised monitoring plan is finalized and approved, the ADE monitoring staff will continue to provide technical assistance to schools upon request. In December 1998, requests were received from schools in PCSSD regarding test score analysis and staff Development. Oak Grove is scheduled for January 21, 1999 and Lawson Elementary is also tentatively scheduled in January. 12 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 June 30, 2000 (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 Gfoveana Cawson Elementary in the PCSSD was conducted on May 5, 200 arfcf'May 9, 2000 respectively. 13 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 June 30, 2000 Ongoing. All Court pleadings are monitored monthly. B. Draft and file appropriate pleadings if LRSD petitions the Court for a special election. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of June 30, 2000 To date, no action has been taken by the LRSD. 14 e 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 June 30, 2000 The information for this item is detailed under Section IV.E. of this report. B. Conduct a review within ADE of existing legislation and regulations that appear to impede desegregation. C. 1. Projected Ending Date November, 1994 2. Actual as of June 30, 2000 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 June 30, 2000 The information for this item is detailed under Section IV.E. of this report. D. Submit proposals to the State Board of Education for repeal of those regulations that are confirmed to be impediments to desegregation. 1 . Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of June 30, 2000 The information for this item is detailed under Section IV.E. of this report. 15 e 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 June 30, 2000 A committee within the ADE was formed in May 1995 to review and collect data on existing legislation and regulations identified by the parties as impediments to desegregation. The committee researched the Districts' concerns to determine if any of the rules, regulations, or legislation cited impede desegregation. The legislation cited by the Districts regarding loss funding and worker's compensation were not reviewed because they had already been litigated. In September 1995, the committee reviewed the following statutes, acts, and regulations: Act 113 of 1993\nADE Director's Communication 93-205\nAct 145 of 1989\nADE Director's Memo 91-67\nADE Program Standards Eligibility Criteria for Special Education\nArkansas Codes 6-18-206, 6-20-307, 6-20-319, and 6-17- 1506. In October 1995, the individual reports prepared by committee members in their areas of expertise and the data used to support their conclusions were submitted to the ADE administrative team for their review. A report was prepared and submitted to the State Board of Education in July 1996. The report concluded that none of the items reviewed impeded desegregation. As of February 3, 1997, no laws or regulations have been determined to impede desegregation efforts. Any new education laws enacted during the Arkansas 81 st Legislative Session will be reviewed at the close of the legislative session to ensure that they do not impede desegregation. In April 1997, copies of all laws passed during the 1997 Regular Session of the 81 st General Assembly were requested from the office of the ADE Liaison to the Legislature for distribution to the Districts for their input and review of possible impediments to their desegregation efforts. In August 1997, a meeting to review the statutes passed in the prior legislative session was scheduled for September 9, 1997. On September 9, 1997, a meeting was held to discuss the review of the statutes passed in the prior legislative session and new ADE regulations. The Districts will be contacted in writing for their input regarding any new laws or regulations that they feel may impede desegregation. Additionally, the Districts will be asked to review their regulations to ensure that they do not impede their desegregation efforts. The committee will convene on December 1, 1997 to review their findings and finalize their report to the Administrative Team and the State Board of Education. 16 IV. REPEAL STATUTES AND REGULATIONS THAT IMPEDE DESEGREGATION (Continued) E. Submit proposals to the Legislature for repeal of those laws that appear to be impediments to desegregation. (Continued) 2. Actual as of June 30, 2000 (Continued) In October 1997, the Districts were asked to review new regulations and statutes for impediments to their desegregation efforts, and advise the ADE, in writing, if they feel a regulation or statute may impede their desegregation efforts. In October 1997, the Districts were requested to advise the ADE, in writing, no later than November 1, 1997 of any new law that might impede their desegregation efforts. As of November 12, 1997, no written responses were received from the Districts. The ADE concludes that the Districts do not feel that any new law negatively impacts their desegregation efforts. The committee met on December 1, 1997 to discuss their findings regarding statutes and regulations that may impede the desegregation efforts of the Districts. The committee concluded that there were no laws or regulations that impede the desegregation efforts of the Districts. It was decided that the committee chair would prepare a report of the committee's findings for the Administrative Team and the State Board of Education. The committee to review statutes and regulations that impede desegregation is now reviewing proposed bills and regulations, as well as laws that are being signed in, for the current 1999 legislative session. They will continue to do so until the session is over. The committee to review statutes and regulations that impede desegregation will meet on April 26, 1999 at the ADE. The committee met on April 26, 1999 at the ADE. The purpose of the meeting was to identify rules and regulations that might impede desegregation, and review within the existing legislation any regulations that might result in an impediment to desegregation. This is a standing committee that is ongoing and a report will be submitted to the State Board of Education once the process is completed. The committee met on May 24, 1999 at the ADE. The committee was asked to review within the existing legislation any regulations that might result in an impediment to desegregation. The committee determined that Mr. Ray Lumpkin would contact the Pulaski County districts to request written response to any rules, regulations or laws that might impede desegregation. The committee would also collect information and data to prepare a report for the State Board. This will be a standing committee. This data gathering will be ongoing until the final report is given to the State Board. On July 26, 1999, the committee met at the ADE. The committee did not report any laws or regulations that they currently thought would impede desegregation, and are still waiting for a response from the three districts in Pulaski County. 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 June 30, 2000 (Continued) The committee met on August 30, 1999 at the ADE to review rules and regulations that might impede desegregation. At that time, there were no laws under review that appeared to impede desegregation. In November, the three districts sent letters to the ADE stating that they have reviewed the laws passed by the 82nd legislative session as well as current rules \u0026amp; regulations and district policies to ensure that they have no ill effect on desegregation efforts. There was some concern from PCSSD concerning a charter school proposal in the Maumelle area. 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. 18 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 June 30, 2000 The preamble was contained in the Implementation Plan filed with the Court on March 15, 1994. B. Through execution of the Implementation Plan, the Board of Education will continue to reaffirm its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement and outcomes of programs intended to apply those principles. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of June 30, 2000 Ongoing C. Through execution of the Implementation Plan, the Board of Education will continue to reaffirm its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement by actions taken by ADE in response to monitoring results. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of June 30, 2000 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 19 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project ManagementT ool, 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 June 30, 2000 At each regular monthly meeting of the State Board of Education, the Board is provided copies of the most recent Project Management Tool (PMT) and an executive summary of the PMT for their review and approval. Only activities that are in addition to the Board's monthly review of the PMT are detailed below. In May 1995, the State Board of Education was informed of the total number of schools visited during the monitoring phase and the data collection process. Suggestions were presented to the State Board of Education on how recommendations could be presented in the monitoring reports. In June 1995, an update on the status of the pending Semiannual Monitoring Report was provided to the State Board of Education. In July 1995, the July Semiannual Monitoring Report was reviewed by the State Board of Education. On August 14, 1995, the State Board of Education was informed of the need to increase minority participation in the teacher scholarship program and provided tentative monitoring dates to facilitate reporting requests by the ADE administrative team and the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee. In September 1995, the State Board of Education was advised of a change in the PMT from a table format to a narrative format. The Board was also briefed about a meeting with the Office of Desegregation Monitoring regarding the PMT In October 1995, the State Board of Education was updated on monitoring timelines. The Board was also informed of a meeting with the parties regarding a review of the Semiannual Monitoring Report and the monitoring process, and the progress of the test validation study. In November 1995, a report was made to the State Board of Education regarding the monitoring schedule and a meeting with the parties concerning the development of a common terminology for monitoring purposes. In December 1995, the State Board of Education was updated regarding announced monitoring visits. In January 1996, copies of the draft February Semiannual Monitoring Report and its executive summary were provided to the State Board of Education. 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 June 30, 2000 (Continued) During the months of February 1996 through May 1996, the PMT report was the only item on the agenda regarding the status of the implementation of the Monitoring Plan. In June 1996, the State Board of Education was updated on the status of the bias review study. In July 1996, the Semiannual Monitoring Report was provided to the Court, the parties, ODM, the State Board of Education, and the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee. In August 1996, the State Board of Education and the ADE administrative team were provided with copies of the test validation study prepared by Dr. Paul Williams. During the months of September 1996 through December 1996, the PMT was the only item on the agenda regarding the status of the implementation of the Monitoring Plan. On January 13, 1997, a presentation was made to the State Board of Education regarding the February 1997 Semiannual Monitoring Report, and copies of the report and its executive summary were distributed to all Board members. The Project Management Tool and its executive summary were addressed at the February 10, 1997 State Board of Education meeting regarding the ADE's progress in fulfilling their obligations as set forth in the Implementation Plan. In March 1997, the State Board of Education was notified that historical information in the PMT had been summarized at the direction of the Assistant Attorney General in order to reduce the size and increase the clarity of the report. The Board was updated on the Pulaski County Desegregation Case and reviewed the Memorandum Opinion and Order issued by the Court on February 18, 1997 in response to the Districts' motion for summary judgment on the issue of state funding for teacher retirement matching contributions. During the months of April 1997 through June 1997, the PMT was the only item on the agenda regarding the status of the implementation of the Monitoring Plan. The State Board of Education received copies of the July 15, 1997 Semiannual Monitoring Report and executive summary at the July Board meeting. 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 June 30, 2000 (Continued) The Implementation Phase Working Group held its quarterly meeting on August 4, 1997 to discuss the progress made in attaining the goals set forth in the Implementation Plan and the critical areas for the current quarter. A special report regarding a historical review of the Pulaski County Settlement Agreement and the ADE's role and monitoring obligations were presented to the State Board of Education on September 8, 1997. Additionally, the July 15, 1997 Semiannual Monitoring Report was presented to the Board for their review. In October 1997, a special draft report regarding disparity in achievement was submitted to the State Board Chairman and the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee. In November 1997, the State Board of Education was provided copies of the monthly PMT and its executive summary. The Implementation Phase Working Group held its quarterly meeting on November 3, 1997 to discuss the progress made in attaining the goals set forth in the Implementation Plan and the critical areas for the current quarter. In December 1997, the State Board of Education was provided copies of the monthly PMT and its executive summary. In January 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and discussed ODM's report on the ADE's monitoring activities and instructed the Director to meet with the parties to discuss revisions to the ADE's monitoring plan and monitoring reports. In February 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and discussed the February 1998 Semiannual Monitoring Report. In March 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary and was provided an update regarding proposed revisions to the monitoring process. In April 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary. In May 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary. 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 June 30, 2000 (Continued) In June 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary. The State Board of Education also reviewed how the ADE would report progress in the PMT concerning revisions in ADE's Monitoring Plan. In July 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary. The State Board of Education also received an update on Test Validation, the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Committee Meeting, and revisions in ADE's Monitoring Plan. In August 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary. The Board also received an update on the five discussion points regarding the proposed revisions to the monitoring and reporting process. The Board also reviewed the basic goal of the Minority Recruitment Committee. In September 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed the proposed modifications to the Monitoring plans by reviewing the common core of written response received from the districts. The primary commonalities were (1) Staff Development, (2) Achievement Disparity and (3) Disciplinary Disparity. A meeting of the parties is scheduled to be conducted on Thursday, September 17, 1998. The Board encouraged the Department to identify a deadline for Standardized Test Validation and Test Selection. In October 1998, the Board received the progress report on Proposed Revisions to the Desegregation Monitoring and Reporting Process (see XVIII). The Board also reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary. In November, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board also received an update on the proposed revisions in the Desegregation monitoring Process and the update on Test validation and Test Selection provisions of the Settlement Agreement. The Board was also notified that the Implementation Plan Working Committee held its quarterly meeting to review progress and identify quarterly priorities. In December, the State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board also received an update on the joint motion by the ADE, the LRSD, NLRSD, and the PCSSD, to relieve the Department of its obligation to file a February Semiannual Monitoring Report. The Board was also notified that the Joshua lntervenors filed a motion opposing the joint motion. The Board was informed that the ADE was waiting on a response from Court. 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 June 30, 2000 (Continued) In January, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board also received an update on the joint motion of the ADE, LRSD, PCSSD, and NLRSD for an order relieving the ADE of filing a February 1999 Monitoring Report. The motion was granted subject to the following three conditions: (1) notify the Joshua intervenors of all meetings between the parties to discuss proposed changes, (2) file with the Court on or before February 1, 1999, a report detailing the progress made in developing proposed changes and (3) identify ways in which ADE might assist districts in their efforts to improve academic achievement. In February, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board was informed that the three conditions: (1) notify the Joshua lntervenors of all meetings between the parties to discuss proposed changes, (2) file with the Court on or before February 1, 1999, a report detailing the progress made in developing proposed changes and (3) identify ways in which ADE might assist districts in their efforts to improve academic achievement had been satisfied. The Joshua lntervenors were invited again to attend the meeting of the parties and they attended on January 13, and January 28, 1999. They are also scheduled to attend on February 17, 1998. The report of progress, a collaborative effort from all parties was presented to court on February 1, 1999. The Board was also informed that additional items were received for inclusion in the revised report, after the deadline for the submission of the progress report and the ADE would: ( 1) check them for feasibility, and fiscal impact if any, and (2) include the items in future drafts of the report. In March, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board also received and reviewed the Desegregation Monitoring and Assistance Progress Report submitted to Court on February 1, 1999. On April 12, and May 10, 1999, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board also was notified that once the financial section of the proposed plan was completed, the revised plan would be submitted to the board for approval. On June 14, 1999, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board also was notified that once the financial section of the proposed plan was completed, the revised plan would be submitted to the board for approval. 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 June 30, 2000 (Continued) On July 12, 1999, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board also was notified that once the financial section of the proposed plan was completed, the revised plan would be submitted to the board for approval. On August 9, 1999, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board was also notified that the new Desegregation Monitoring and Assistance Plan would be ready to submit to the Board for their review \u0026amp; approval as soon as plans were finalized. On September 13, 1999, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board was also notified that the new Desegregation Monitoring and Assistance Plan would be ready to submit to the Board for their review \u0026amp; approval as soon as plans were finalized. On October 12, 1999, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board was notified that on September 21 , 1999 that the Office of Education Lead Planning and Desegregation Monitoring meet before the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee and presented them with the draft version of the new Desegregation Monitoring and Assistance Plan. The State Board was notified that the plan would be submitted for Board review and approval when finalized. On November 8, 1999, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of October. On December 13, 1999, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of November. 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. 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 June 30, 2000 (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 Arl\u0026lt;ansas State Boara of Education reviewed and approved tne PMT and its executive summary for the month of May. 26 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 June 30, 2000 During May 1995, team visits to Cycle 4 schools were conducted, and plans were developed for reviewing the Cycle 5 schools. In June 1995, the current Extended COE packet was reviewed, and enhancements to the Extended COE packet were prepared. In July 1995, year end reports were finalized by the Pulaski County field service specialists, and plans were finalized for reviewing the draft improvement plans of the Cycle 5 schools. In August 1995, Phase I - Cycle 5 school improvement plans were reviewed. Plans were developed for meeting with the Districts to discuss plans for Phase II - Cycle 1 schools of Extended COE, and a school improvement conference was conducted in Hot Springs. The technical review visits for the FY 95/96 year and the documentation process were also discussed. In October 1995, two computer programs, the Effective Schools Planner and the Effective Schools Research Assistant, were ordered for review, and the first draft of a monitoring checklist for Extended COE was developed. Through the Extended COE process, the field service representatives provided technical assistance based on the needs identified within the Districts from the data gathered. In November 1995, ADE personnel discussed and planned for the FY 95/96 monitoring, and onsite visits were conducted to prepare schools for the FY 95/96 team visits. Technical review visits continued in the Districts. In December 1995, announced monitoring and technical assistance visits were conducted in the Districts. At December 31, 1995, approximately 59% of the schools in the Districts had been monitored. Technical review visits were conducted during January 1996. In February 1996, announced monitoring visits and midyear monitoring reports were completed, and the field service specialists prepared for the spring NCA/COE peer team visits. 27 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) A. Through the Extended COE process, the needs for technical assistance by District, by School, and by desegregation compensatory education programs will be identified. (Continued) 2. Actual as of June 30, 2000 (Continued) In March 1996, unannounced monitoring visits of Cycle 5 schools commenced, and two-day peer team visits of Cycle 5 schools were conducted. Two-day team visit materials, team lists and reports were prepared. Technical assistance was provided to schools in final preparation for team visits and to schools needing any school improvement information. In April and May 1996, the unannounced monitoring visits were completed. The unannounced monitoring forms were reviewed and included in the July monitoring report. The two-day peer team visits were completed, and annual COE monitoring reports were prepared. In June 1996, all announced and unannounced monitoring visits of the Cycle 5 schools were completed, and the data was analyzed. The Districts identified enrollment in compensatory education programs. The Semiannual Monitoring Report was completed and filed with the Court on July 15, 1996, and copies were distributed to the parties. During August 1996, meetings were held with the Districts to discuss the monitoring requirements. Technical assistance meetings with Cycle 1 schools were planned for 96/97. The Districts were requested to record discipline data in accordance with the Allen Letter. In September 1996, recommendations regarding the ADE monitoring schedule for Cycle 1 schools and content layouts of the semiannual report were submitted to the ADE administrative team for their review. Training materials were developed and schedules outlined for Cycle 1 schools. In October 1996, technical assistance needs were identified and addressed to prepare each school for their team visits. Announced monitoring visits of the Cycle 1 schools began on October 28, 1996. In December 1996, the announced monitoring visits of the Cycle 1 schools were completed, and technical assistance needs were identified from school site visits. In January 1997, the ECOE monitoring section identified technical assistance needs of the Cycle 1 schools, and the data was reviewed when the draft February Semiannual Monitoring Report was presented to the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee, the State Board of Education, and the parties. 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 June 30, 2000 (Continued) In February 1997, field service specialists prepared for the peer team visits of the Cycle 1 schools. NCA accreditation reports were presented to the NCA Committee, and NCA reports were prepared for presentation at the April NCA meeting in Chicago. From March to May 1997, 111 visits were made to schools or central offices to work with principals, ECOE steering committees, and designated district personnel concerning school improvement planning. A workshop was conducted on Learning Styles for Geyer Springs Elementary School. A School Improvement Conference was held in Hot Springs on July 15-17, 1997. The conference included information on the process of continuous school improvement, results of the first five years of COE, connecting the mission with the school improvement plan, and improving academic performance. Technical assistance needs were evaluated for the FY 97 /98 school year in August 1997. From October 1997 to February 1998, technical reviews of the ECOE process were conducted by the field service representatives. Technical assistance was provided to the Districts through meetings with the ECOE steering committees, assistance in analyzing perceptual surveys, and by providing samples of school improvement plans, Gold File catalogs, and web site addresses to schools visited. Additional technical assistance was provided to the Districts through discussions with the ECOE committees and chairs about the process. In November 1997, technical reviews of the ECOE process were conducted by the field service representatives in conjunction with the announced monitoring visits. Workshops on brainstorming and consensus building and asking strategic questions were held in January and February 1998. In March 1998, the field service representatives conducted ECOE team visits and prepared materials for the NCA workshop. Technical assistance was provided in workshops on the ECOE process and team visits. In April 1998, technical assistance was provided on the ECOE process and academically distressed schools. In May 1998, technical assistance was provided on the ECOE process, and team visits were conducted. 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 June 30, 2000 (Continued) In June 1998, the Extended COE Team Visit Reports were completed. A School Improvement Conference was held in Hot Springs on July 13-15, 1998. Major conference topics included information on the process of continuous school improvement, curriculum alignment, \"Smart Start,\" Distance Learning, using data to improve academic performance, educational technology, and multicultural education. All school districts in Arkansas were invited and representatives from Pulaski County attended. In September 1998, requests for technical assistance were received, visitation schedules were established, and assistance teams began visiting the Districts. Assistance was provided by telephone and on-site visits. The ADE provided inservice training on \"Using Data to Sharpen the Focus on Student Achievement\" at Gibbs Magnet Elementary school on October 5, 1998 at their request. The staff was taught how to increase test scores through data disaggregation, analysis, alignment, longitudinal achievement review, and use of individualized test data by student, teacher, class and content area. Information was also provided regarding the \"Smart Start\" and the \"Academic Distress\" initiatives. On October 20, 1998, ECOE technical assistance was provided to Southwest Jr. High School. B. Identify available resources for providing technical assistance for the specific condition, or circumstances of need, considering resources within ADE and the Districts, and also resources available from outside sources and experts. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of June 30, 2000 The information for this item is detailed under Section VI.F. of this report. C. Through the ERIC system, conduct a literature search for research evaluating compensatory education programs. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 30 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) C. D. Through the ERIC system, conduct a literature search for research evaluating compensatory education programs. (Continued) 2. Actual as of June 30, 2000 An updated ERIC Search was conducted on May 15, 1995 to locate research on evaluating compensatory education programs. The ADE received the updated ERIC disc that covered material through March 1995. An ERIC search was conducted in September 30, 1996 to identify current research dealing with the evaluation of compensatory education programs, and the articles were reviewed. An ERIC search was conducted in April 1997 to identify current research on compensatory education programs and sent to the Cycle 1 principals and the field service specialists for their use. An Eric search was conducted in October 1998 on the topic of Compensatory Education and related descriptors. The search included articles with publication dates from 1997 through July 1998. Identify and research technical resources available to ADE and the Districts through programs and organizations such as the Desegregation Assistance Center in San Antonio, Texas. 1. Projected Ending Date Summer 1994 2. Actual as of June 30, 2000 The information for this item is detailed under Section VI.F. of this report. E. Solicit, obtain, and use available resources for technical assistance. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of June 30, 2000 The information for this item is detailed under Section VI.F. of this report. F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 31 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of June 30, 2000 From March 1995 through July 1995, technical assistance and resources were obtained from the following sources: the Southwest Regional Cooperative\nUALR regarding training for monitors\nODM on a project management software\nADHE regarding data review and display\nand Phi Delta Kappa, the Desegregation Assistance Center and the Dawson Cooperative regarding perceptual surveys. Technical assistance was received on the Microsoft Project software in November 1995, and a draft of the PMT report using the new software package was presented to the ADE administrative team for review. In December 1995, a data manager was hired permanently to provide technical assistance with computer software and hardware. In October 1996, the field service specialists conducted workshops in the Districts to address their technical assistance needs and provided assistance for upcoming team visits. In November and December 1996, the field service specialists addressed technical assistance needs of the schools in the Districts as they were identified and continued to provide technical assistance for the upcoming team visits. In January 1997, a draft of the February 1997 Semiannual Monitoring Report was presented to the State Board of Education, the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee, and the parties. The ECOE monitoring section of the report included information that identified technical assistance needs and resources available to the Cycle 1 schools. Technical assistance was provided during the January 29-31, 1997 Title I MidWinter Conference. The conference emphasized creating a learning community by building capacity schools to better serve all children and empowering parents to acquire additional skills and knowledge to better support the education of their children. In February 1997, three ADE employees attended the Southeast Regional Conference on Educating Black Children. Participants received training from national experts who outlined specific steps that promote and improve the education of black children. On March 6-9, 1997, three members of the 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. 32 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of June 30, 2000 (Continued) The field service specialists attended workshops in March on ACT testing and school improvement to identify technical assistance resources available to the Districts and the ADE that will facilitate desegregation efforts. ADE personnel attended the Eighth Annual Conference on Middle Level Education in Arkansas presented by the Arkansas Association of Middle Level Education on April 6-8, 1997. The theme of the conference was Sailing Toward New Horizons. In May 1997, the field service specialists attended the NCA annual conference and an inservice session with Mutiu Fagbayi. An Implementation Oversight Committee member participated in the Consolidated COE Plan inservice training. In June and July 1997, field service staff attended an SAT-9 testing workshop and participated in the three-day School Improvement Conference held in Hot Springs. The conference provided the Districts with information on the COE school improvement process, technical assistance on monitoring and assessing achievement, availability of technology for the classroom teacher, and teaching strategies for successful student achievement. In August 1997, field service personnel attended the ASCD Statewide Conference and the AAEA Administrators Conference. On August 18, 1997, the bi-monthly Team V meeting was held and presentations were made on the Early Literacy Learning in Arkansas (ELLA) program and the Schools of the 21st Century program. In September 1997, technical assistance was provided to the Cycle 2 principals on data collection for onsite and offsite monitoring. ADE personnel attended the Region VI Desegregation Conference in October 1997. Current desegregation and educational equity cases and unitary status issues were the primary focus of the conference. On October 14, 1997, the bi-monthly Team V meeting was held in Paragould to enable members to observe a 21st Century school and a school that incorporates traditional and multi-age classes in its curriculum. In November 1997, the field service representatives attended the Governor's Partnership Workshop to discuss how to tie the committee's activities with the ECOE process. 33 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of June 30, 2000 (Continued) In March 1998, the field service representatives attended a school improvement conference and conducted workshops on team building and ECOE team visits. Staff development seminars on Using Data to Sharpen the Focus on Student Achievement are scheduled for March 23, 1998 and March 27, 1998 for the Districts. In April 1998, the Districts participated in an ADE seminar to aid them in evaluating and improving student achievement. In August 1998, the Field Service Staff attended inservice to provide further assistance to schools, i.e., Title I Summer Planning Session, ADE session on Smart Start, and the School Improvement Workshops. All schools and districts in Pulaski County were invited to attend the \"Smart Start\" Summit November 9, 10, and 11 to learn more about strategies to increase student performance. \"Smart Start\" is a standards-driven educational initiative which emphasizes the articulation of clear standards for student achievement and accurate measures of progress against those standards through assessments, staff development and individual school accountability. The Smart Start Initiative focused on improving reading and mathematics achievement for all students in Grades K-4. Representatives from all three districts attended. On January 21 , 1998, the ADE provided staff development for the staff at Oak Grove Elementary School designed to assist them with their efforts to improve student achievement. Using achievement data from Oak Grove, educators reviewed trends in achievement data, identified areas of greatest need, and reviewed seven steps for improving student performance. On February 24, 1999, the ADE provided staff development for the administrative staff at Clinton Elementary School regarding analysis of achievement data. On February 15, 1999, staff development was rescheduled for Lawson Elementary School. The staff development program was designed to assist them with their efforts to improve student achievement using achievement data from Lawson, educators reviewed the components of the Arkansas Smart Initiative, trends in achievement data, identified areas of greatest need, and reviewed seven steps for improving student performance. Student Achievement Workshops were rescheduled for Southwest Jr. High in the Little Rock School District, and the Oak Grove Elementary School in the Pulaski County School District. 34 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of June 30, 2000 (Continued) On April 30, 1999, a Student Achievement Workshop was conducted for Oak Grove Elementary School in PCSSD. The Student Achievement Workshop for Southwest Jr. High in LRSD has been rescheduled. On June 8, 1999, a workshop was presented to representatives from each of the Arkansas Education Service Cooperatives and representatives from each of the three districts in Pulaski County. The workshop detailed the Arkansas Comprehensive Testing, Assessment and Accountability Program (ACTAAP). On June 18, 1999, a workshop was presented to administrators of the NLRSD. The workshop detailed the Arkansas Comprehensive Testing, Assessment and Accountability Program (ACTAAP). On August 16, 1999, professional development on ways to increase student achievement and the components of the new ACT AAP program was presented during the preschool staff development activities for teaching assistant in the LRSD. On August 20, 1999, professional development on ways to increase student achievement and the components of the new 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 ACT AAP program were presented to the staff at Booker T. Washington Magnet Elementary School. On September 27, 1999, professional development on ways to increase student achievement was presented to the Middle and High School staffs of the NLRSD. The workshop also covered the components of the new ACTAAP program , and ACT 999 of 1999. On October 26, 1999, professional development on ways to increase student achievement was presented to LRSD personnel through a staff development training class. The workshop also covered the components of the new ACT MP 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 ACTAAP program, and ACT 999 of 1999. 35 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of June 30, 2000 (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 ACT MP 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 ACTMP 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.\" 36 VII. TESTVALIDATION A. Using a collaborative approach, the ADE will select and contract with an independent bias review service or expert to evaluate the Stanford 8, or other monitoring instruments used to measure disparities in academic achievement between black students and white students. 1. Projected Ending Date March, 1995 2. Actual as of June 30, 2000 On March 29, 1995, letters were sent to four national experts about conducting a test bias validation of the Stanford Achievement Test, Eighth Edition, Form K (SAT-8). Dr. Paul Williams, Deputy Director of Educational Testing Service (ETS), contacted the ADE in April of 1995 concerning the proposal for validating the SAT-8 test. The ADE requested that Dr. Williams conduct a validity study of test items used in the SAT-8. Dr. Williams submitted a final proposal for his services. The ADE Bias Review Test Committee met Friday, July 7, 1995, and approved Dr. William's contract proposal. The final contract was forwarded to Dr. Williams for his signature. The contract was signed in August 1995, thereby, completing this goal. B. By April 1994, establish a bias review committee to oversee the bias review process, and invite representatives of the Districts and parties to meet with the bias review committee. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of June 30, 2000 Complete. ADE established a Bias Review Committee in April 1994. In accordance with the Implementation Plan, representatives from the Districts and the parties were invited to attend and participate in this and all meetings of the Bias Review Committee. C. Upon completion of test validation procedures by the bias review service or expert, the ADE will adopt and use a validated test as a monitoring instrument. 1. Projected Ending Date March 1995 and ongoing 37 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 June 30, 2000 Dr. Paul Williams met with the staff of the Psychological Corporation to review their methods and procedures. In August 1995, he met with the staff at Georgia State University to review the statistical methods that would be used in the analysis. Dr. Williams reported difficulty with the bias-review study in receiving the names of the bias panel and the complete SAT-8 data set from the Psychological Corporation. Dr. Williams submitted an invoice totaling $8,961 for Task I activities of the SAT-8 validity study for partial fulfillment of the test validation study. On December 6, 1995, a contract extension for Dr. Williams was reviewed by the Legislative Council. In January 1996, he indicated that he was in the final stages of the test validation, and the ADE was presented a draft report in March 1996. In May 1996, Dr. Williams stated that the wrong data sets were sent to him by the Psychological Corporation resulting in Task 3 having to be redone. A new draft of the final report was received by the ADE in July 1996. In August 1996, copies of the test validation report were provided to the State Board of Education and the ADE administrative team for their review. On September 10, 1996, the LRSD notified the ADE that they had reviewed the test validation report and would like to meet with the ADE to discuss the report. The ADE Director indicated that he would schedule a meeting with the LRSD to discuss the report. In October 1996, historical files and data were provided to the ADE Director, the ADE Assistant Director for Technical Services, and the ADE Assistant Director for Planning and Curriculum for their review in preparation for a meeting with the LRSD regarding the validity study. Test validation procedures by the expert have been completed. A recommendation was drafted proposing the use of the SA T-8 by the ADE as the validated test for monitoring. The ADE is presently working to arrange a meeting with the Administration of the LRSD to discuss the test validation study. Effective September 22, 1997, the State Board of Education hired a new Director of the General Education Division, which should allow the ADE to move forward in this matter. 38 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 June 30, 2000 (Continued) In October 1997, the GED Director was updated on the history of the test validation process to provide the Director with background information in preparation for a meeting with the LRSD. In February 1998, ADE staff met with senior staff members to discuss the test validation and appropriate test scores for consideration by the LRSD. The ADE Director met with the Superintendent of the LRSD to discuss test validation issues. In June 1998, the ADE Director directed the Assistant Director for Accountability to recommend staff to discuss how the ADE would measure LRSD's progress toward meeting the loan forgiveness thresholds of the Settlement Agreement. Plans were made to meet with the staff Tuesday, June 30, 1998. The Test Validation Committee met on June 30, 1998, and discussed the following: 1. The appropriateness of the use of scaled scores on the SA T-8 test as the metric for assessing LRSD compliance with the loan forgiveness provisions of the Settlement Agreement\nand 2. The need for an independent analysis of LRSD students' test scores to determine compliance or noncompliance with loan forgiveness standard, and who would bear the cost of such an independent analysis. The Test Validation Committee met on September 10, 1998, to review recent correspondence from LRSD and to further discuss issues related to the loan forgiveness provisions of the Settlement Agreement. A follow-up administrative meeting was held on October 13, 1998, to discuss issues related to the test validation process. Participants included Tim Gauger, Assistant Attorney General, Dr. Charity Smith, Lead Planner for Desegregation, and Frank Anthony, Assistant Director for Accountability. A meeting was scheduled with Dr. Les Carnine, LRSD Superintendent and Mr. Ray Simon, ADE Director, regarding Test Validation and loan forgiveness provisions of the Settlement Agreement on May 12, 1999. 39 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 June 30, 2000 (Continued) On June 14, 1999, the State Board of Education was briefed on the status of LRSD's refusal to make principal and interest payments into escrow as required by the loan provisions of the Settlement Agreement and related documents. The Board requested that a draft motion to enforce the Settlement Agreement be prepared and submitted to the Board for review and discussion at the Board's next regularly scheduled meeting. On July 12, 1999, the State Board of Education authorized the filing of a motion to compel LRSD to make interest and principal payments into escrow pursuant to the loan provisions of the Settlement Agreement. 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. 40 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 June 30, 2000 The information for this item is detailed under Section VIII.D. of this report. B. Develop in-service training programs to address in-service training needs of desegregating districts. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of June 30, 2000 The information for this item is detailed under Section VIII.D. of this report. C. Implement in-service training programs to address in-service training needs of desegregating districts. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of June 30, 2000 The information for this item is detailed under Section VIII.D. of this report. D. Evaluate in-service training programs developed and executed to address in-service training needs of desegregating districts. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of June 30, 2000 In April 1995, the Tri-District Staff Development Committee were provided an overview of the Scott Alternative Learning Center's operation and met with students and staff. In May 1995, the Districts were in the process of self-assessment and planning for fall staff development. 41 VIII. IN-SERVICE TRAINING (Continued) D. Evaluate in-service training programs developed and executed to address in-service training needs of desegregating districts. (Continued) 2. Actual as of June 30, 2000 (Continued) The Districts worked on staff development to be incorporated into their fall 95/96 preschool calendars. The uniqueness of each district's needs and their schools was considered in the planning by utilizing the results of needs assessment instruments. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met on September 13, 1995 to plan for an ADE administered Classroom Management grant. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met on September 19, 1995 to finalize the Classroom Management grant proposal. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met on October 24, 1995 to discuss program and staff development evaluation models that might be available to the Districts. On November 15, 1995, the ADE met with an ODM representative to discuss the progress the ADE had made in attaining the objectives outlined in the Implementation Plan with regard to inservice training. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met on November 21 , 1995 to discuss upcoming training events and various NLR programs that focus on non-academic needs. A new program consisting of placing a graduate student of social work, a field supervisor, and a OHS worker in the district at no cost to the district was discussed. Additionally, NLR provided an overview of their program for credit deficient students. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met on December 19, 1995 to discuss information dealing with ways to broaden the perspective of multicultural education. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met on January 17, 1996 to discuss proposed changes in the standards regarding media centers and NLRSD's staff development strategic planning committee. The committee reviewed a video on diversity produced by the Arkansas Elementary Principals Association. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met on February 21, 1996 to discuss the implications of budget cuts on staff development programs and PCSSD's request for unitary status for their staff development program. They also discussed the need for computer literacy, technology training, and acquisition of hardware and software by the Districts. 42 VIII. IN-SERVICE TRAINING (Continued) D. Evaluate in-service training programs developed and executed to address in-service training needs of desegregating districts. (Continued) 2. Actual as of June 30, 2000 (Continued) The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met on March 27, 1996 to discuss available resources concerning sexual harassment. ADE regulations in relation to staff members attending professional association conferences as well as the district staff development and potential sites for training seminars were also discussed. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met on April 30, 1996 to discuss the reconfiguring of Jacksonville Junior High, PCSSD professional development schedules, and APSCN on-line time lines. A tour of the Washington Magnet school was also conducted. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee received a demonstration of UALR's Baum Decision Support Center's capabilities regarding consensus and planning on May 29, 1996. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee did not meet during September, October, and November 1996 because of scheduling conflicts and the extended medical leave of the ADE liaison. On December 18, 1996, the Tri-District Staff Development Committee met to discuss the linkage between the Implementation Plan, staff development, and student achievement. On January 21, 1997, the Tri-District Staff Development Committee met and discussed sharing middle school strategies and the Districts' training catalogs. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met on February 25, 1997 to discuss their current staff development programs and an overview of the relationship of their current programs with their desegregation plans. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met on March 26, 1997 to observe the Great Expectations Program. The principal and mentor teachers provided information on the components and philosophy of the program , and students demonstrated selected components. The PCSSD may adopt the program for selected schools in their district. The committee was provided with an update of pertinent information on resources available to the Districts. The committee decided that the ADE liaison to the committee would gather documentation of completed staff development directly from the Districts, instead of the Districts providing this information at the committee meetings. 43 VIII. IN-SERVICE TRAINING (Continued) D. Evaluate in-service training programs developed and executed to address in-service training needs of desegregating districts. (Continued) 2. Actual as of June 30, 2000 (Continued) New information on teacher licensure and rules and regulations was shared with the Tri-District Staff Development Committee at their April 1997 meeting. A report was presented to the committee on information from the Arkansas Council for Social Studies about an October 1997 meeting on integrated curriculum. The Districts will provide principal retreats this summer as a part of their staff development. The PCSSD will sponsor a renowned speaker on strategies to serve at risk youth in August 1997 in which the committee is invited to attend. The LRSD shared survey results from a pilot administration to four teachers in each district. The survey found the sample to be strong in content but lacking in context and process. Plans to address these needs will be developed. In another survey to certified and non-certified LRSD staff, stress management was the major concern. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met on May 14, 1997 to participate in a teleconference with the five 1996 awardees of the National Awards Program for Model for Professional Development. The PCSSD shared their summer and fall staff development catalog with the members. The committee will reconvene in the fall of the 97/98 school year. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee is scheduled to meet on September 30, 1997 to discuss collaborative actions for FY 97/98. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met on September 30, 1997 to discuss their staff development for the 1997 /1998 school year. The PCSSD had a pre-school in-service for the faculty, and the LRSD conducted a Principals Academy with an expert on the math and science initiative which lasted several days. The NLRSD is providing staff development by satellite. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met on October 28, 1997. The LRSD and NLRSD shared some of their staff development course offerings with the committee, and the PCSSD discussed ways of optimizing opportunities for staff development with specific emphasis on the junior high school conflict resolution training. In November 1997, the Lead Planner provided technical assistance to Central High School staff regarding data disaggregation, test score analysis and ways to improve student achievement. 44 VIII. IN-SERVICE TRAINING (Continued) D. Evaluate in-service training programs developed and executed to address in-service training needs of desegregating districts. (Continued) 2. Actual as of June 30, 2000 (Continued) The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met on November 25, 1997 to discuss the Standards for Staff Development. The LRSD will begin providing technology training to their employees in January by utilizing business teachers. Additionally, they discussed a collaborative venture of the Districts involving a workshop from Chicago on a program called \"Great Expectations.\" The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met on December 16, 1997 to discuss technology plans, strategies for obtaining information currently being provided to the education cooperatives, scheduling of Arkansas history, and the development of a comprehensive list of locations available for staff development. Members agreed to bring information on available locations to the January meeting and have set a tentative completion date for the project of May 1998. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met on January 27, 1998 to share information for developing a comprehensive list of locations available for staff development. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met on February 24, 1998 to work on the development of the list of locations available for staff development. The committee also discussed the meeting on student achievement sponsored by the ADE for the Districts, principals' staff development in the Districts and emphasis on improving achievement as reflected on the SAT-9. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met on March 19, 1998 to discuss the math and science grant received by the LRSD, the Districts' inservice calendars for August, TESA and Student-Team Learning trainers, and team building for staff. The ADE Deputy Director is scheduled to discuss ways the committee can strengthen their relationship with the regional cooperatives at their May meeting. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met on April 27, 1998 to discuss their proposal for involvement with the regional cooperatives. The ADE Deputy Director is scheduled to discuss committee's concerns regarding their relationship with the regional cooperatives at their next meeting. 45 VIII. IN-SERVICE TRAINING (Continued) D. Evaluate in-service training programs developed and executed to address in-service training needs of desegregating districts. (Continued) 2. Actual as of June 30, 2000 (Continued) The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met Thursday, May 21, 1998, in the Instructional Resources Center at Little Rock School District. Dr. Woodrow Cummins, ADE Deputy Director, joined the group to discuss ways to develop a closer connection with the Education Service Cooperatives. He also discussed other issues concerning Tri-District Staff Development. Tentative plans were made to meet with the Teacher Center Coordinators at their next regular meeting. The next Central Office meeting will be at 9:00 a.m., Thursday, September 29, 1998, in the PCSSD. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee will attend the Educational Cooperative Teacher Center Coordinators' meeting September 1, 1998, in the ADE auditorium. The next regular meeting of the committee is tentatively set for 9:00 a.m., Thursday, September 29, 1998, in the PCSSD Central Office. The Tri-County Staff Development Committee met Monday, August 24, 1998, at PCSSD central office with four members present: Marion Woods, LRSD\nDoug Ask and Mary McClendon, PCSSD\nand Betty Gale Davis, ADE. Topics of discussion included the September 1 meeting scheduled with the regional cooperatives' teacher center coordinators\nthe staff development task force on which Marion Woods is serving\nthe property tax issue\nand various mathematics and reading programs being used in the districts. The committee met Tuesday, September 1, 1998, with the Teacher Center Coordinators, at which time Dr. Woody Cummins presented. Six Tri-District Staff Development Committee members were present: Marion Woods, LRSD\nDoug Ask and Mary McClendon, PCSSD\nDana Chadwick and Estelle Crawford, NLRSD\nBetty Gale Davis, ADE. The next committee meeting will be 9:00 a.m., Thursday, September 24, 1998, at the Little Rock District Instructional Resources Center. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met Thursday, September 24, 1998, at the Instructional Resources Center, Little Rock, with five present: Marion Woods and Dr. Bonnie Lesley, LRSD\nDoug Ask, PCSSD\nDana Chadwick, NLRSD\nand Dr. Betty Gale Davis, ADE. Topics of discussion included the meeting with the regional cooperatives' teacher center coordinators\nthe staff development task force on which Marion Woods is serving and the NSCI training\ntraining provided by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)\ntraining provided by Casio\nand the proposal of a Principals Academy. 46 VIII. IN-SERVICE TRAINING (Continued) D. Evaluate in-service training programs developed and executed to address in-service training needs of desegregating districts. (Continued) 2. Actual as of June 30, 2000 (Continued) Doug Ask will serve as representative to the October 6, 1998 meeting of the Teacher Center Coordinators. He will submit to Donna Harris, president of the group, a request for one other member of the Tri-County Committee (Dana Chadwick) to attend the meeting. Representatives for future meetings (second Tuesday of each month) will be: Marion Woods, November\nMary McClendon, December\nDana Chadwick, January. The next committee meeting will be 9:00 a.m., Tuesday, October 13, 1998, at the North Little Rock School District Central Office. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met on Tuesday, October 13, 1998, in the NLRSD Administration Building. Doug Ask represented the committee at the Teacher Center Coordinators' meeting in Fayetteville, October 6. He shared with the Tri-District Committee information regarding the upcoming NSCI/Smart Start Training. James Smith spoke with the group about Amendment 4. Members of the Tri-District Staff Development Committee also met with the Teacher Center Coordinators, Wednesday, October 28. Doug Ask, Marion Woods, and Esther Crawford were trained as facilitators, October 29, for the initial Smart Start Summit to be held November 9-12, 1998. Marion Woods will represent the committee at the next regular Teacher Center Coordinators' meeting, Tuesday, November 3, 10:00 a.m. at the ADE. The next Tri-District Committee meeting will be at 9:00 a.m., November 10, in the PCSSD Administration Building. Members of the Tri-District Staff Development Committee met several times with the Teacher Center Coordinators in preparation for the Smart Start Summit. During the Smart Start Summit, they served as facilitators. The meeting planned for November 10 was postponed due to the conflict with the Summit. Doug Ask, Marion Woods, and Esther Crawford met with the Teacher Center Coordinators on Tuesday, December 1, 1998, for the regular monthly meeting. Principal topics discussed were the Smart Start Initiative and Principals' Institute. The next meeting of the Teacher Center Coordinators is scheduled for January 6, 1999, 9:00 a.m., in the ADE Auditorium. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee will meet at 9:00 a.m., Tuesday, December 8, 1998, at the Little Rock School District Instructional Resources Center. 47 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 June 30, 2000 (Continued) Doug Ask, PCSSD\nMarion Woods, LRSD\nand Esther Crawford, NLRSD, met with the Teacher Center Coordinators on Tuesday, December 1, 1998, for the regular monthly meeting. Principal topics discussed were the Smart Start Initiative and Principals' Institute. The Teacher Center Coordinators held their monthly meeting on January 6, 1999, 9:00 a.m., in the ADE Auditorium, with Doug Ask, Marion Woods, and Esther Crawford in attendance. At the January meeting, the primary focus was on the Smart Start Initiative. Dates for the future committee meetings have been tentatively scheduled to coincide with meetings with the Teacher Center Coordinators. Due to the Tri-District Committee's involvement with the Smart Start Initiative, no formal meeting of the committee was held in January. Members of the TriDistrict Staff Development Committee met with Teacher Center Coordinators, January 6 and 25, 1999, preparing for and facilitating Smart Start activities. Dates for future meetings have been tentatively scheduled to coincide with meetings of Teacher Center Coordinators. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met Wednesday, February 17, 1999, at the Best Western lnntowne with four members in attendance. Most of the discussion centered on Smart Start and Character Centered Teaching. A March meeting date was not determined. Members of the Tri-District Staff Development Committee met with the Teacher Center Coordinators at their regular monthly meeting, April 6, 1999, at the ADE. Much of the meeting centered on the Smart Start Initiative and the Getting Smarter Summer Conference to be held in Hot Springs, July 28- 31, 1999. The next meeting of the Tri-District Staff Development Committee will be May 11, 1999, at the Northeast Arkansas Educational Cooperative, Walnut Ridge. Members of the Tri-District Staff Development Committee met with the Teacher Center Coordinators at their regular monthly meeting, Tuesday, May 11, 1999, at the Northeast Arkansas Educational Cooperative, Walnut Ridge, with Mary McClendon, PCSSD, Marion Woods, LRSD, Esther Crawford, NLRSD, and Janinne Riggs, ADE, attending. Much of the meeting centered on the Smart Start Initiative. The next meeting was scheduled as a retreat, June 7-9, 1999, at Hot Springs. Members of the Tri-District Staff Development Committee met with the Teacher Center Coordinators for their annual retreat, June 7-9, 1999, at Hot Springs. The next regular meeting will be in September, the date and place to be announced later. Summer activities will include the Getting Smarter Conference. 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 June 30, 2000 (Continued) Members of the Tri-District Staff Development Committee met during the Getting Smarter Conference, July 28-31, 1999, at Hot Springs. In collaboration with the Teacher Center Coordinators, those participating in the conference as facilitators were: Doug Ask, PCSSD\nEsther Crawford, NLRSD\nand Marion Woods, LRSD. The next regular meeting will be in September, the date and place to be announced later. Target, Teach, and Test for Student Success, a workshop aimed at improving interpretation of test data and applying that knowledge toward more effective lesson planning, was adapted for presentation in conjunction with the Multicultural Institute. Members of the Standards Assurance Unit (Dee Cox, Betty Gale Davis, Bob Maddox, and Lonzo Gatlin) presented an all-day workshop (Target, Teach, and Test for Student Success) for Pulaski County Special School District in connection with the Multicultural Institute, July 27, 1999. Members of the Tri-District Staff Development Committee met Tuesday, September 7, 1999, at the ADE, with five members in attendance: Doug Ask and Mary McClendon, PCSSD\nEsther Crawford, NLRSD\nMaron Woods, LRSD\nand Betty Gale Davis, ADE. Discussion included Smart Start activities and performance assessment. Following the meeting, the committee met with the Teacher Center Coordinators at their regular monthly meeting. The next meeting will be Tuesday, October 5, 1999, at the ADE. Members of the Tri-District Staff Development Committee met Tuesday, October 5, 1999 at the ADE. Discussion included middle level training (LRSD), inservice for administrators in retreat (PCSSD), and Smart Start activities. Following the meeting, the committee met with the Teacher Center Coordinators at their regular monthly meeting. The next meeting will be November 2, 1999 at the ADE. Members of the Tri-District Staff Development Committee met Tuesday, November 2, 1999 at the ADE. Following the meeting, the committee met with the Teacher Center Coordinators at their regular monthly meeting. The next meeting will be December 7, at the ADE. The December meeting was canceled due to conflicts in scheduling. The TriDistrict Staff Development Committee will hold its next meeting January 3, 2000 at the ADE. The Committee continues to work in cooperation with the Teacher Center Coordinators in the Smart Start Initiative. 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 June 30, 2000 (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. :rne Tri-District Staff CJevelopment Committ Coordinators at tneir annual summer confe 2000. Among the discussi , r -==== al lopment Council, the P =---- ft] 'an ma  step. 50 IX. RECRUITMENT OF MINORITY TEACHERS A. Facilitate communication between the Districts and Arkansas colleges and universities with teacher education programs. 1. Projected Ending Dates (See dates on individual key activities) 2. Actual as of June 30, 2000 A staff member of the ADE's certification department attended all of the college career days in FY 94/95 in Arkansas and one out-of-state. In FY 95/96, ADE certification staff members attended career and job fairs at the following colleges and universities: Philander Smith College\nUAM\nHSU\nATU\nUCA\nASU\nUA-Pine Bluff\nUA-Fayetteville\nHarding University\nSAU\nand Jackson State. ADE certification staff met with representatives from the Districts to ensure they were aware that ADE personnel were available to provide assistance in recruitment and certification of minority teacher candidates. A job fair was conducted at the University of Arkansas at Pine Bluff on December 4, 1996. The Districts were advised of the ADE's availability for providing assistance in recruitment and certification. In February 1997, ADE certification staff members attended teacher job fairs at Henderson State University, Arkansas Tech University, and University of Central Arkansas to facilitate communication between the Districts and Arkansas colleges and universities with teacher education programs. ADE certification staff members attended teacher job fairs at Harding University, UA-Fayetteville, UA-Pine Bluff, and ASU in April 1997 to facilitate communication between the Districts and Arkansas colleges and universities with teacher education programs. From April 16, 1997 through May 6, 1997, ADE certification staff members attended teacher job fairs at Philander Smith College and SAU to facilitate communication between the Districts and Arkansas colleges and universities with teacher education programs. Additionally, ADE staff attended an out-ofstate teacher job fair at Jackson State University at Jackson, Mississippi. Recruitment activities were suspended for the summer, but they will resume in the later part of September for FY 97 /98. On September 25, 1997, the ADE's Professional Licensure Supervisor attended a career day job fair at Philander Smith College to provide support to the Districts in recruiting teachers. 51 IX. RECRUITMENT OF MINORITY TEACHERS (Continued) A. Facilitate communication between the Districts and Arkansas colleges and universities with teacher education programs. (Continued) 2. Actual as of June 30, 2000 (Continued) On November 6, 1997, the Professional Licensure Supervisor attended a career day job fair at the University of the Ozarks in order to facilitate the Districts' recruitment efforts. Recruitment activities will resume in February 1998. Representatives of the ADE's Professional Licensure Unit attended job fairs at Arkansas Technical University, UCA, ASU and the University of Memphis from February 26, 1998 through March 12, 1998. A representative from the ADE's Professional Licensure Unit attended job fairs at UA-Fayetteville and Harding University on March 30, 1998 and April 2, 1998, respectively. Representatives from the ADE's Professional Licensure Unit attended job fairs at Philander Smith College, SAU and North East Louisiana in April 1998. The staff members of Professional Licensure have scheduled college and university job fairs as they become aware of them . They have scheduled ATU, UCA, ASU, Harding, and UA-Fayetteville. The Professional Licensure staff assisted NLRSD in getting the spring minority graduate list from all college and university teacher education programs. The Licensure unit scheduled staff to attend job fairs coming up this spring. Representatives for the Professional Licensure Unit attended job fairs at ATU, UCA, and ASU from February 25, 1999 through March 9, 1999. Representatives for the Professional Licensure Unit attended job fairs at Harding, UA-Fayetteville, and UAM from March 25, 1999 through April 7, 1999. Representatives for the Professional Licensure Unit attended job fairs at Philander Smith, April 13, 1999 and Grambling University, April 15, 1999. The Professional Licensure Unit has scheduled a representative to attend college job fairs at the following locations: Harding, February 22\nUCA, February 25\nPhilander Smith, March 1\nASU, March 7. B. Beginning in 1994, by May and November of each year, Districts will supply to the ADE information about shortages of teachers by grade and subject area. 1. Projected Ending Dates Ongoing, as stated. 52 IX. RECRUITMENT OF MINORITY TEACHERS (Continued) 8. Beginning in 1994, by May and November of each year, Districts will supply to the ADE information about shortages of teachers by grade and subject area. (Continued) 2. Actual as of June 30, 2000 Letters were sent in May, August, and December 1995 to the Districts requesting information regarding teaching positions available by grade and subject areas. In May and November 1996, the Human Resources offices of the Districts were requested to provide information regarding teaching positions available by grade and subject area. The ADE sent follow-up letters requesting information from the Districts regarding teacher shortages in February 1997. The NLRSD and the PCS SD indicated that they expect teacher shortages in the areas of Special Education, Mathematics, the Sciences, Foreign Language, English as a Second Language and Gifted and Talented Education. On May 20, 1997, information was requested from the Districts regarding teacher shortages. Follow-up letters were sent in July 1997. On November 5, 1998, letters were sent to the three schools in Pulaski County requesting a list of foreseeable teacher shortages. In May 1999, requests were made to the Pulaski County Schools for a list of teacher openings and grade levels. In June 1999, the Professional Licensure Unit received a list of teacher shortage areas and openings for Pulaski County Schools. In December 1999, the ADE Professional Licensure Unit requested a list of shortage teaching positions for each of the Pulaski County Schools. In May 2000, the ADE Professional Licensure Unit requested a list of shortage teaching positions for each of the Pulaski County Schools. C. Beginning in 1994, by May and December of each year, request information from colleges and universities about the numbers and types of minority-teacher graduates. 1. Projected Ending Dates Ongoing, as stated. 53 IX. RECRUITMENT OF MINORITY TEACHERS (Continued) C. Beginning in 1994, by May and December of each year, request information from colleges and universities about the numbers and types of minority-teacher graduates. (Continued) 2. Actual as of June 30, 2000 (Continued) In May and December 1995, letters were sent to all Deans and Certifying Officers of Institutions of Higher Education in Arkansas requesting information on minority teacher graduates. Letters were sent to all Deans and Certifying Officers of Institutions of Higher Education in Arkansas in May and November 1996 requesting information on minority teacher graduates. In May and December 1997, letters were sent to all Arkansas colleges and universities with teacher education programs requesting minority teacher graduate information. On May 14, 1998, letters were sent to all Arkansas colleges and universities with teacher education programs requesting minority teacher graduate information. On August 1, 1998, the ADE Office of Professional Licensure sent advance notice to all Deans/Certifying Officials regarding the change in format for complete minority teacher candidate information. On November 5, 1998, letters were sent to Deans and Certifying Officials requesting a list of their fall minority teacher education graduates which will be sent to the three Pulaski County Schools. In May 1999, requests were made to all colleges and universities for their spring minority graduates for 1999. In June 1999, the ADE Office of Professional Licensure received minority graduate reports from colleges and universities. In December 1999, the ADE Office of Professional Licensure requested a list of all fall graduates from all colleges and universities. In May 2000, the ADE Office of Professional Licensure requested a list of all fall graduates from all colleges and universities. D. Within 30 days of receiving data from colleges and universities provide the Districts data on teacher openings to the colleges and universities on minority graduates to the Districts. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 54 IX. RECRUITMENT OF MINORITY TEACHERS (Continued) D. Within 30 days of receiving data from colleges and universities provide the Districts data on teacher openings to the colleges and universities on minority graduates to the Districts. (Continued) 2. Actual as of June 30, 2000 (Continued) In June 1995 and January 1996, ADE sent the information received from Arkansas colleges and universities on minority teacher education graduates to the Districts. In July 1996 and January 1997, ADE sent the information received from Deans and Certifying Officers on minority teacher education graduates to the Districts. On February 3, 1997, a list of minority teacher graduates from the University of Arkansas at Fayetteville was forwarded to the Districts as an addendum to the list of graduates compiled on January 16, 1997. The ADE provided the Districts with the Minority Teacher Graduate Report compiled from the minority teacher graduate information received from Arkansas colleges and universities in July 1997 and January 1998. The 1998 Fall Minority Teacher Graduate Report from colleges and universities have been forwarded to the three Pulaski County School District. Information from the three Pulaski County School Districts regarding vacant teaching positions are being forwarded to the colleges and universities. In July 1999, the minority graduate reports from the colleges and universities were mailed to all Pulaski County Schools. Job openings for Pulaski County Schools were mailed to all colleges and universities. On January 23, 2000, a list of minority teacher graduates was mailed to all the Pulaski County school districts. E. Each November, ADE will request information from the Districts on the effectiveness of ADE's minority recruitment assistance, including an assessment of the minority teacher candidates' database. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 55 IX. RECRUITMENT OF MINORITY TEACHERS (Continued) E. Each November, ADE will request information from the Districts on the effectiveness of ADE's minority recruitment assistance, including an assessment of the minority teacher candidates' database. 2. Actual as of June 30, 2000 On November 30, 1994, letters were sent to the Districts requesting feedback on the effectiveness of the ADE's minority recruitment assistance. Follow-up letters were sent on March 17, 1995 since no responses had been received. Additional follow-up letters were sent to the Districts in August 1995 because the ADE had received no responses from the Districts. A planning and evaluation meeting was scheduled on January 11, 1996 with representatives from the Districts. The Districts did not attend the meeting. In February 1997, letters were sent to the Districts requesting feedback on the effectiveness of ADE's minority recruitment assistance. The NLRSD and the PCSSD submitted favorable evaluations concerning the effectiveness of the ADE's recruitment assistance efforts. The ADE did not received any information from the LRSD regarding this matter. In December 1999, The ADE requested a letter from each of the three Pulaski County schools documenting the effectiveness of help given the districts. In February 2000, The NLRSD and the PCSSD submitted reports concerning the effectiveness of the ADE's recruitment assistance efforts. 56 X. FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE TO MINORITY TEACHER CANDIDATES A. Assist ADHE in identifying, analyzing, addressing and eliminating racial disparities in the allocation of scholarships. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of June 30, 2000 The information for this item is detailed under Section X.D. of this report. B. Representatives of the ADE and the ADHE will work together, review ADHE's available data to identify racial disparities in allocation of scholarships. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of June 30, 2000 The information for this item is detailed under Section X.D. of this report. C. Using its knowledge about public schools, teacher education and certification, and through a collaborative effort with the Districts, ADE will analyze racial disparities in ADHE scholarship allocations. ADE will report its findings, conclusions, and recommendations about racial disparities in allocating scholarships to ADHE. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of June 30, 2000 The information for this item is detailed under Section X.D. of this report. D. Working with the ADHE, the ADE will use its relationships in the public education institutional settings to assist implementation of measures designed to reduce racial disparities in allocation of scholarships. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of June 30, 2000 In April 1995, ADE met with representatives of ADHE concerning identification and analysis of possible disparities in scholarship allocations. 57 X. FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE TO MINORITY TEACHER CANDIDATES (Continued) D. Working with the ADHE, the ADE will use its relationships in the public education institutional settings to assist implementation of measures designed to reduce racial disparities in allocation of scholarships. (Continued) 2. Actual as of June 30, 2000 (Continued) In June 1995, a collaborative effort was made between the ADE and ADHE to enhance the rate at which minorities were applying for the 1995 teacher scholarships with special emphasis on the areas of science, math, and fore ign language through a direct mail program. In July 1995, representatives from the ADE and the Districts met to review the scholarship applications. The Implementation Committee on Financial Assistance to Minority Teacher Candidates discussed ways to increase minority awareness of the scholarships available for minority teacher applicants. The committee agreed to meet quarterly to identify, analyze, and address eliminating racial disparities in scholarships. The committee met in December 1995 to discuss the distribution of scholarships for the 95/96 school year. The committee meets on a continuous basis to review scholarship distributions and discuss ways of improving the pool of applicants for minority teacher scholarships as detailed further in Section X.E. of this report. E. Monitor the allocation of scholarships to minority students by the ADHE\nevaluate the impacts of new approaches and new legislation on an ongoing basis. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of June 30, 2000 During the May 1995 Legislative session, Acts 188, 189 and 259 regarding scholarships were passed. A meeting to monitor and analyze the distribution of scholarships for the 95/96 school year was held on December 15, 1995. The committee met on June 7, 1996 to review the scholarship applications for minority teacher candidates for the 96/97 school year. Representatives from the ADHE stated that the ADHE expected to have the resources to fund: 56 scholarships under the Emergency Secondary Education Loan Program\n100 scholarships under the Minority Teacher Scholars Program\nand 13 scholarships under the Minority Masters Fellows Program. The committee also discussed ways of increasing the scholarship applicant pools, and a recommendation was made to make scholarships available to part-time students. 58 X. FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE TO MINORITY TEACHER CANDIDATES (Continued) E. Monitor the allocation of scholarships to minority students by the ADHE\nevaluate the impacts of new approaches and new legislation on an ongoing basis. (Continued) 2. Actual as of June 30, 2000 (Continued) In September 1996, a proposal was submitted to the Assistant to the Director for Legislative Services recommending the Legislature offer minority teacher scholarships to part-time students. The committee met on October 23, 1996 to review the scholarships awarded for the 96/97 school year. The following scholarships were funded: 60 scholarships totaling $144,266 for the Emergency Secondary Education Loan Program\n20 scholarships totaling $107,500 for the Minority Masters Fellows Program\n109 scholarships totaling $505,093 for the Minority Teacher Scholars Program\nand 258 students in the Freshman/Sophomore Minority Grant Program received scholarships totaling $374,000. In March 1997, information on minority teacher scholarships and how to apply was provided to the Districts and Arkansas colleges and universities. The Districts were informed of ADHE's scholarship promotional efforts and legislative updates. The next meeting of the committee will be in September 1997. On April 8, 1997, notifications were sent to all Arkansas colleges and universities on the Minority Teacher Scholars Program reminding them that the deadline for receiving applications was June 1, 1997. This information was also provided to the Districts. The Minority Teacher Scholarship Committee will meet on October 9, 1997 to discuss the scholarships awarded for FY 97/98. The Minority Teacher Scholarship Recruitment Committee met on October 9, 1997 to discuss the scholarships awarded for FY 97/98. The ADHE Assistant Coordinator for Student Financial Aid provided a comprehensive presentation on scholarships awarded for the 97/98 school year. There were 235 scholarships awarded in the Freshman/Sophomore Minority Scholarship program totaling $344,988. The Emergency Secondary Education Loan program awarded 52 scholarships for a total of $119,370. There were 83 scholarships for $403,520 awarded in the Minority Teachers Scholars program. The Minority Masters Fellows program awarded 20 scholarships for a total of $73,750. The ADHE representative indicated that during the 1997 regular legislative session legislation was passed to allow hispanics and asians to participate in the minority scholarship programs. It was stated that the average GPA for minority teacher scholarship recipients had increased to 3.13, and that the dollars awarded in the Minority Masters Fellows program were down from last year because most of the recipients were part-time students. 59 X. FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE TO MINORITY TEACHER CANDIDATES (Continued) E. Monitor the allocation of scholarships to minority students by the ADHE\nevaluate the impacts of new approaches and new legislation on an ongoing basis. (Continued) 2. Actual as of June 30, 2000 (Continued) The committee discussed numerous avenues that might be utilized to inform minority applicants of scholarships available. Communication with the faculty of Arkansas colleges and universities regarding the availability of scholarships was discussed as a way of informing teaching students of possible resources available to them. The next quarterly meeting of the Minority Teacher Scholarship Recruitment Committee will be February 19, 1998. The quarterly meeting of the Minority Teacher Scholarship Recruitment Committee scheduled for February was canceled since only the NLRSD and an ADE representative were present at the scheduled meeting place. The meeting has not been rescheduled at this time. The Minority Teacher Scholarship meeting was rescheduled for March 26, 1998. The Minority Teacher Scholarship Recruitment Committee met on March 26, 1998. The committee was updated on the requirements and application packets were distributed for the Emergency Secondary Education Loan Program (ESELP), Minority Teacher Scholars Program (MTSP), and Minority Masters Fellows Program (MMFP). The deadline for applications was April 1, 1998 for the ESE LP and June 1, 1998 for the MTSP and MMFP. The scholarships will be awarded in July 1998. A committee member requested that ADHE send scholarship applications to the schools as well as the district offices to ensure that their teachers and students were apprised of the scholarships available. It was suggested that the colleges submit prospective graduate information for use by the Districts no later than April since the Districts begin the interview process of Spring graduates in May. The ADE Implementation Plan currently requires that the ADE request information on minority teacher graduates in May, and then it is distributed to the Districts in June or July. A representative from the ADE Teacher Licensure Unit was present at the meeting and stated that the ADE would try to accommodate the Districts with this request, but she cautioned that colleges and universities are reluctant to provide tentative graduate information. The next committee meeting is scheduled for July 30, 1998 at the NLRSD offices. 60 X. FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE TO MINORITY TEACHER CANDIDATES (Continued) E. Monitor the allocation of scholarships to minority students by the ADHE\nevaluate the impacts of new approaches and new legislation on an ongoing basis. (Continued) 2. Actual as of June 30, 2000 (Continued) The Minority Teacher Scholarship Meeting was held July 30, 1998. Donna Elliot, ADE Program Support Manager was appointed to the Committee. She indicated that advance notification would be mailed to all University Deans/Certifying Officials regarding the change in format for more thorough minority teacher candidate information. A complete report will be forwarded and reported in the September PMT. Disparities in minority scholarship distributions were not evidenced in the draft report. Lillian Williams, Arkansas Department of Higher Education, submitted the following report on Minority Teacher Scholarships Distribution: 1998-99 PROGRAM STATISTICS PROGRAM NAME APPROPRIATION AWARDED #STUDENTS Freshman/Sophomore 250,000 250,000 Estimated 300+ ESEL 81 ,717 121,250 50 * Minority Teacher 450,000 445,000 89 ** Scholars Minority Masters Fellows 80,000 80,000 30 * Please note that only 81 ,717 was appropriated for the ESEL Scholarship, however, additional repayment funds were used to award an additional 39,533 totaling 121,250. ** 11 Students are pending passing the PPST. The report on Minority Teacher Scholarships Distribution was presented October 8, 1998, by the Education Lead Planner during the Break the Mold Workshop: Teacher Recruitment and Retention, sponsored by the Winthrop Rockefeller Foundation. The group was informed about the following: 1. Projected Teacher shortages in Mathematics, Special Education, and Foreign Language 2. Collaborative efforts of the ADE and the ADHE to recruit teachers by funding more than 450 scholarships for applicants interested in teaching annually 3. Reasons new teachers give for leaving the profession 4. The ratio of minority teachers to minority students. 61 X. FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE TO MINORITY TEACHER CANDIDATES (Continued) E. Monitor the allocation of scholarships to minority students by the ADHE\nevaluate the impacts of new approaches and new legislation on an ongoing basis. (Continued) 2. Actual as of June 30, 2000 (Continued) The Minority Teacher Scholarship Committee met on November 2, 1998 in the Pulaski County District Conference Room. The committee received (1) an update on the distribution of scholarships, (2) reviewed the scholarship information booklets, (3) approved the quarterly report of progress. The committee also identified, as a legislative issue, the need to allow part-time students access to scholarships. The next quarterly meeting is scheduled for February 2, 1999. A recommendation was received by the Committee on Financial Assistance to Minority Teacher Candidates regarding the Emergency Secondary Education Loan. The Committee recommended that the Arkansas State Legislature increase the minority teacher candidate pool by offering the Emergency Secondary Education Loan to part-time students. The Committee noted that a number of persons currently serving our education system as substitute teachers would take advantage of the assistance offered, if they could receive assistance for part-time student status. Many prospective minority teacher candidates, and candidates seeking advanced degrees are unable to serve our students and go to school on a full-time basis. The next quarterly meeting is scheduled for February 2, 1999. The next quarterly meeting was rescheduled for February 21, 1999, to accommodate all participants. The quarterly meeting of the Minority Teacher Scholarship Committee was held on February 21, 1999, in the Little Rock School District. Representatives from all three districts in Pulaski County, the ADHE and the ADE attended the meeting. A scholarship report update and scholarship applications and deadlines for the 1999 school year were provided. Information regarding the national focus on teacher shortages and recruitment were distributed. The committee discussed the status of the following bills related to teacher recruitment: SB31 , \" an act to make emergency secondary education loans available to students enrolled as a major in a program of study leading to teacher certification for foreign languages and special education.\" HB1466 \"state supported colleges and universities must report to Department of Education the name, address, and major of each minority student completing college requirements for licensure as school teacher.\" SB237 \"to make technical amendments to various sections of the Arkansas Code Annotated relative to public education.\" 62 X. FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE TO MINORITY TEACHER CANDIDATES (Continued) E. Monitor the allocation of scholarships to minority students by the ADHE\nevaluat\nThis project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resoources.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\u003cdcterms_creator\u003eArkansas. Department of Education\u003c/dcterms_creator\u003e\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n "}],"pages":{"current_page":385,"next_page":386,"prev_page":384,"total_pages":6766,"limit_value":12,"offset_value":4608,"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}}]}}